THere being a Conference in London, appointed be­tween some of those Christians, usually called the Se­paration, and Mr. Burton, a Pastor of an Independant Church, concerning some differences between them, and divers Separatists coming to his house in Fryday-street, for that purpose, upon the 17. day of the 4. moneth, 1645. being the 5. day of the week, after Church-exercise, and onely three of them having occasion to speak, viz. Mr. Brown, Mr. Duppa, and Mr. Chidley; and the said Mr. Brown, immediatly after the Conference, writing the sum of what he and the said Mr. Burton spake, which to this time he hath kept secret, and it might be he would have done still, were it not that by the intreaty of certain friends, and to give them and others some satisfaction, concerning the high places of England, lately debated again between the said Mr. Chidley and Mr. John Goodwin, he hath now divulged the same to publick view: together with that other Conference of late, which was occasioned by a Member of our Congregation, whose wife was a Member of Mr. Goodwins Church, and desired to be satisfyed, whether her Husband or she was in the truest Church-state.

The first Question was, whether Mr. Burton and his Church were in the order of the Gospel, that the Separation might [Page 2] know certainly how to esteem them, intitle them, and have fel­lowship with them; and whether they were so indeed, as they professed to be in word, and Mr. Burton answering affirma­tively: it was in the next place demanded, how then did his practise and theirs so much differ, both their professions and Covenants seeming to be alike, and therefore desiring to have his practice compared with his Covenant or profession, or any of them, with theirs of the Separation, which he absolutely re­fused, saying, he and his Church were a free and Independant body or Corporation, and therefore not bound to make ac­count to any other Church or people in the world, although never so famous, and one of his elders added, that the very (a­valiers or Malignants themselves, gave them the Title of Sepa­ratists.

But it being objected to Mr. Burton, that he was bound both by precept and example of the immediat Apostles, to give a reason of his faith, stop the mouthes of gain-sayers, yea and approve himself to those that are without, far more to those that are within, even to be indeed as he professeth himself and the rather, in that he is a teacher and guide to others; as the first Church of the Gentiles at Antiochia, thought it rather an honour then any disparagement, to aske resolution of some doubts at the Church of the Jewes, who were before them in the faith and order of the Gospel at Jerusalem, though some of the Apostles were present at both; and the rather, we hope you wil do, said Mr. Brown, because we come to you in love, e­steeming more of you then hundreds of your breeding, (I mean at the Universities) in regard both of your sufferings and wri­tings, far beyond what they have either acted or suffered, espe­cially for that publick Sermon, you made in the Pillary-Pulpit at Westminster, three houres long, even resisting unto blood a­gainst the evill of the times, unto which I was a witnesse, and is a motive of my coming to you at this time. He answered that his profession and practise were agreeable, and that he and his people entered, according to the rules prescribed in the Gospel, and so walked for ought he knew, as many can bear witness, and we also may, if we wil come and hear him.

[Page 3] To the which or the like words, one of his Elders added that John Baptist sent two of his Disciples to ask our Saviour, whether he was the Messias, or if they should look for ano­ther, and our Saviour not answering them directly, bids them tell their Master what they heard and saw, yea, and reckoneth up divers excellent particulars, which he onely expressed with­out either inference or application; so his meaning (to our ap­prehension) was, that if we were not pleased with what they professed or practised, concerning the worship of God, we might rather come and see, and heare and observe, their works of conversion, and manner of conversation, then to reason the matter; but we desiring first to conferre some few times, to see if we could possibly agree in the truth, perceiving their un­willingness, by some harsh speeches and carriages, did appre­hend it would be to small purpose.

Upon the hearing of these or words to that purpose, Mr. Burton said, that he had renounced his Ministry and Or­ders which he had of the Church of England, and that he wit­nessed by his suffering, against the Ministry, constitution, wor­ship, Government, and high-places of that national Church, and that there was no holiness in those places.

And upon his justifying himself and his people in all things, by our Saviours practise and his Apostles, it was demanded by Mr. Brown; what meaneth then the blearing of those sheep, and the lowing of them Oxen daily in our eares if you do, and o­bey all things so well (as both Saul & the Angell of Laodicea, & many others spake of themselves) what meaneth then (I say) both your preaching, and all your Members hearing in those Parish-Assemblies; is it not a halting between two opinions, and that ye shew your selves, neither to be hot nor could in so doing?

He answered that our Saviour and his Apostles, resorted to the Synagogues of the Jewes, and why might not they go as wel to the Parish-Assemblies?

But saith Mr. Brown, you must neither compare the Jewish Church with the English; nor yet the Synagogues of the one, with the high places of the other; but rather the high places [Page 4] of England, with those in Judah, in that they have both an un­lawful dedication and foundation; so it appeareth by your practise, whatsoever by your words you profess, that you are still in Babel, absolving the wicked (sparing as it were the fatt) by your presence, and condemning the just in Sion, (whom ye esteem to be lean) by your absence, though ye know obedi­ence to be better then sacrifice.

He and another of his Elders answered, that neither did he preach, nor they hear in every common Parish-Church, but such as they chused above others, neither did they hear in those high-places, as men were in discharge of their Ministerial fun­ction, but onely in the exercise of their gifts, and not so much for edification, as that they might get some matter of accu­sation against them by hearing them, and thereof make some profitable use, when they saw a convenient occasion.

Then it was demanded, how he and other Independents could justifie their unequal yoking, with those in the Parish-Assem­blies, whom they judge to be onely of the world, and not of the Church, as themselves profess to be; and though they par­take in the word & prayer with them, in the publick high places, yet they are not so thankful, as to admit those of the Assemblies to partake with them at their privat administring the seales, as if that privat separation at that time, or in that place, would al­ter the national Church constitution of them and all the root together in one.

Whereas, they should have no spiritual fellowship at all, with the unfruitful works of darkness, but ra­ther reprove them, and witness against them, as both Iddo the Prophet did at Bethel, and as the Jewes were commanded of God, not to go to Bethaven, Beersheba, Bethel, nor Gilgal, yea and we find it recorded, as a But or Exception, even against some of the Kings of Judah, for not abolishing those high pla­ces; whereby not onely evil it self, but all the appearances and occasions of evil might be removed; so that whatsoever place hath an Idolatrous institution or dedication, cannot by any meanes be purged, but in altering the form thereof, by utter demolition, and scarce applying the same to a civil use, or to be a common habitation.

[Page 5] To which was answered, that those places might still be well used by Gods people, though they have been abused by Hea­thens and Papists.

Whereupon occasion was taken by Mr. Brown, (seeing them so unwilling to confess the truth) to clear those two points, both of a Church-state; and place of meeting, expecting a sa­tisfactory answer of them, at least for the hearers sake.

He affirmed, that in regard the Temple of Jerusalem, was built according to Gods own direction, and therefore a holy work, alwayes capable to be purged, and reduced to the first principle of integrity, if ever it should be abused by Idolatry; as it was polluted, purged, and reduced divers times, according as the Magistrates and people following their example, were disposed to good or evil, as upon divine record, in the books of the Kings and Chronicles doth appear.

So the Churches constituted by the immediat Apostles, ac­cording to Christs institution, consisting all of faithful people, according to visibility, (referring secret things to God) and therefore, all proceeding from a true and holy original, when­soever they should be corrupted either by sinful matter, or corrupt practises, as in Corinth by that incestuous person, or in Galatia by that false Doctrine, they were still purgeable, and were indeed purged. for otherwise a little leaven, would have sowred the whole lump.

And according both to the Temple and Churches purifying, Adam the first man, being created holy and unblameable, if he should fall, (as he did indeed) to sin and Apostacie, he was (by meanes of his original holiness by creation) restored by the se­cond Adam Christ, to his former integrity.

But neither material Temples, built by the man of sin and child of pardition, nor by the Heathens, and dedicated to Ido­latry, and intitled by the name of Saints departed, although o­therwise used to the worship of God, as the Jewes did sacrifice still in the high-places of Judah, after King Manasses conver­sion and reformation, 2 Chron. 33. 17. nor yet assemblies ga­thered or constituted by humane invention, contrary to the patern of the Churches mentioned in the Gospel, can be redu­ced [Page 6] to any purity or integrity, because they never had any, but must needes still continue in Apostasie and Idolatry, (as they were made thereof at the first, until there be a visitation or dis­solution) as we have woful experience, even yet in these dayes: which were pretended to be dayes of reformation, and might be yet so indeed, if it should please God to honour those whom he hath set in Authority, with so excellent, worthy, and glori­ous a work, beyond all other works; as he did that worthy young King Josiah.

To those grounds thus, or to this effect layed, Mr. Burton and his congregation, in stead of answering, op­posing, applying, or any wise clearing themselves, (in a harsh and angry manner) propounded three questions to the Sepa­ratists.

First, who built the Synagogues of the Jewes? To which he an­swered, In that the Scripture is silent, who built the Synagogues (except only a Centurion, who loved the Iewish Nation built one) it doth not become any man to demand the question; nei­ther is it necessary to edification or salvatiō; but we neither read nor hear of any dedication of them to Idolatry, which the Scottish Covenant abjureth, as wel as they do the Romish Hie­rarchy, worldly monarchy, blasphemous liturgy, canonizing of Saints, and baptizing of bells; And it sufficeth us, that the Synagogues were lawful meeting places, for the more frequent and convenient practice of the Jewish Religion, except what was appropriated to the Temple, at certain times of the year, or else neither our Saviour nor his Apostles would have coun­tenanced those places with their presence; nor King David in the Psalmes complained of the desolation thereof.

His second Question was, Might no meeting-houses be built, to the Churches of the Saints now under the Gospel? To which the Separatists answered, that there both have been, and still are many lawful meeting-places, built by lawful Au­thority for the Churches of the Saints under the Gospel, for keeping them both from the injury of weather, and for their more quiet and peaceable practicing of the Ordinances, being sheltered and hidden, both from the open and secret enemies of [Page 7] God and his truth, besides the dwelling, houses of Members and wel-willers, and wherein also are Churches, both habiting and conversing, and all without either dedication, consecration, or any kind of superstition.

And his third question was, Whether were those which we call high-places, and he still comparing to the Synagogues, conse­crated before, in, or after they were built? The Separatists an­swered, that Mr. Burton himself knew better, who built and de­dicated those shops of Antichrist (wherein he hath lived all his dayes) then the Separatists, who were meer strangers to such things, and unto which, both he and his Congregation do still bring all their Tithes, Sacrifices, Gifts, and Oblations; but for the hearers sake, the Separatists said, (according as they un­derstood) that the full dedication of the house, (whatsoever be of the ground) must be at the accomplishing: but in regard both of intention, earnest, and beginning of action, are com­pleated at the first stone laying, as the Bishops usually laid the first stone, and made the blessed (or rather cursed) begin­ning, and so they and the workmen proceeding and ending e­qually, the one with the other, by Masses, mattens, letanies, or such like abominations, whereby the Popish Clergy (stil strength­ned with civil Authority) do practice their devotions in all their consecrations.

And in end, after Mr. Burton did withdraw to refresh him­self, he being in exercise with his congregation before this ap­pointed disputation, amongst some other speeches had with the Elders and other Members of his Church in his absence, they alleadged, that if we should look so narrowly and precise­ly, to Antichristian or Heathenish dedication of places, why do we offer any service or sacrifice to God at all, either in England, Scotland, France or Ireland; for they were all four dedicated to Saints departed, such as St. George, St. Andrew, St. Denis, and St. Patrick?

It was answered, that those Nations and all others, were created and built by the great CREATOR, builder, and maker of all things, and ordained for his people to live in, yea even the wicked as well as the godly, all having equal right by the bene­fit [Page 8] of Creation, even the tares as wel as the wheat in the field of the world, until the Havest of the great day; but he never ordained any Idolatrous places which are built and dedicated by man, (or by that man of sin, and child of perdition) to be worshipped in, but hath destinated such works, yea and (work­ers also (except repentance intervene,) to destruction, and ac­counteth all kind of Sacrifices, upon whatsoever pretence there offered, to be like King Jeroboams practise at Dan and Bethel, (who made Israel to sin) even abominations of de­solation.

[Page 10] Upon the 22. of August, 1648. the meeting was appointed to be, unto which divers persons came, at which Mr. Chidley would have insisted upon the matter and forme, &c.

And first upon the matter, but Mr. Goodwin would not debate that, nor other things there desired to be handled, but said, he would go a readier way to work, and make an end of the busi­nesse without that; for saith he, suppose it be granted, that all our matter be so corrupt, as you presuppose it is, yet it is law­full for your Members to communicate with ours; for saith he, it is lawfull for a man to communicate with one whom he doubts whether he be a Believer or not, but this was denied by Mr. Chidley, from two considerations.

First, That whatsoever is doubtfull is not to be practised, though it be a thing indifferent, because it is not of faith, and there­fore a sin, because whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Secondly, much more is he to forbeare that which is con­trary to the word of God, as to communicate with one of whom we have not good testimony of his life and conversation, and that the work of grace is wrought upon him, that he is effectu­ally called, and separated from Idolatry, and cleaveth unto the Way of Christ in purity. Now said he, we know you not, yee are strangers to us.

We are not come to accuse, but to hear your manifestation for our satisfaction, that yee are fit matter for the Church of Christ, and we hope we shall not break Communion for every circumstance of difference amongst us, if it do not make against the abosolute being of a Saint.

Then Mr. Goodwin said, I grant that a man is not to practise a thing if he be doubtfull of it, but howsoever, he that is doubt­full is to give good reason of his doubt.

Then the Gentleman that doubted, was called upon to give his Reasons, why he could not communicate with his wife, who told them that the Lord had shewed him the evill of the Church of England, and that he was joyned to a separated Congregation, and thought that he should not be fit matter for the Church to communicate with, if he should hold Com­munion with the Members of Mr. Goodwins Church, because Mr. Goodwins Peoples practice was to preach and heare in the [Page 11] Parrish-Churches of England, and to Worship in the Idolls Temples, and to Baptize the Children of unbelievers, and such like.

Then after some further discourse, they shewed themselves to be willing to debate the businesse concerning the high places; whereupon the question was stated.

Whether it were lawfull to worship in the Idolls Temples? The sum of the Conference briefly followeth. Mr. John Goodwin. The Apostle to Timo­thy, (Tim. 2. 8.) saith, I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. And thereupon Mr. Goodwin argued, that Gods word had made no restriction, and therefore that we are not to restraine it, and that therefore this word: (every where) in this place is to be taken for all man­ner of places without exception.

To which Mr. Chidley answered, that God himself had made restrictions, shewing that we are not to worship him in Idolls Temples, for he hath commanded them to be quite pull'd down, Numb. 33. 52. and that command is not taken away, but re­maineth in full force to this day; This word every in this place is to be restrained, as in other places, where its said, Children o­bey your Parents in all things, Col. 3. 20. Servants obey your Ma­sters in all things; and every Creature of God is good, and all things are lawfull: In all which we are to know, how farre such words are restrained, and how farre not; it extendeth, and is to be re­strained to lawfull things, and so this place where he saith, pray every where, that is, in every place which is not prohibited by Gods Law, but its prohibited by Gods Law for the Saints to worship in Idols Temples, for he hath commanded, they should be quite pluckt down, saying ye shall quite pluck down all their high places, Numb. 33. 52. because they are polluted with diabolicall un­cleannesse, now this Command was never abrogated, as I said before: But Mr. Goodwin said there is no Guilt of sin upon the high places, neither is there any sin imputed to them, but its a sin to hold restriction of places for Gods worship

To which Mr. Chidley answered, That God accounts them diabolically uncleane, and calleth them by the name of sin it selfe. as he calleth the high places of Aven, the sin of Israel, Hosea 10. 8. And if it be a sin to hold restriction of places for the worship of [Page 12] God, then it is a sin to uphold that restriction, by worshipping God in those places that are so restrained.

Its you that uphold distinction of places said Mr. Goodwin, not we who meet in them; we hold all places alike.

Mr. Chidley answered again, we uphold not the distinction of places, but its you by your worshipping, and pleading for those places that are restrained by men.

Saith Mr. Goodwin, even now you would maintain distinction of places, and now you say, you uphold no distinction of places. Mr. Chidley said, its true in a sense, we uphold them not at all; but when they have set up Idolls Temples, we do hold that those places are made diabolicall by them, because wicked men have dedicated them to their Idols: no more doth God himself in the first place make such distinctions of places as they make, but when once they have put a diabolicall uncleannesse upon the same, God declares then that they are uncleane, and calleth them sin, and commandeth them to be pulled down, and so we distin­guish not in the first place, but they make the places to be di­stinct diabolically by their dedication of those places to Idols, and so the distinction is theirs, not ours. God himself made all things good at the first, and made no Devill, but made Angels, and they made themselves Devills, so he made all things good, and made no Temple of Idolls, or Temple of Devills, so concerning men he pro­fesseth, that he desireth not the death of a sixner, and why will ye die O House of Israel? to shew them that their damnation is of themselves, and yet elsewhere he sheweth in respect of the evill of punishment, there is no evill in the City but he doth it; but they bring it upon themselves in the first place. Therefore when they have made Idols, or Idols Temples, God owneth them not, but in his just judgement punisheth them, and commands them to be demolished; and we would have them to be destroyed, accor­ding to Gods Commands, and the example of King Josiah, 2. Chron. 34. and other holymen of God, and therefore we are farre from up­holding them: yet hold them the Temples of Devills, till they are pulled down. Its impossible said Mr. Goodwin, to prove that all the Temples in the Land are dedicated to Idolls; but what if they were, is it unlawfull to worship in them therefore?

2. These Steeple-houses here, were not dedicated to Devills, [Page 13] but some to Christ, others of them are dedicated to God, himself, even to the Trinity, and most of them are dedicated to Saints, &c.

3. Christ came into the World to take away the distinction between places and places, and to make all places alike; and to deny this, tendeth to deny that Christ Jesus is come into the world, and to establish Jewishme.

4. When he came into the world, he dissolved the uncleannes which God had made and put upon the Creatures, how much more then the uncleannesse which men had put on those places of theirs built of stone.

5. By the same grounds we may refuse to worship God in any part of the land: suppose this whole Kingdom be dedicated to St. George, as France to St. Dennis, & all the houses dedicated all over the Kingdom, as once its said to be wholly dedicated to St. George; must we not worship God in the Kingdom, because of that.

6. In John the 4. its clear that Jesus Christ speaking to the woman of Samaria, sheweth that all places are now alike, and as there is no place unto which the worship of God is bound, so there is no place, though an Idolls Temple, but that men may lawfully worship and serve God in; for when the woman questioned, saying v. 20. Our Fathers worshipped in this Moun­tain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21. Jesus said unto the woman, believe me the houre com­eth, when ye shall neither in this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem Worship the Father. As if he should say, the houre is coming, that all places shall be left free for to worship in, both this mountain, and all others, not one place above another, but all alike, no place more holy, no place more unholy, though in the Mountain of Samaria, where was an Idolls Temple, and so takes away the distinction of places, which was under the Law. And the reason why the Idolls Temples were prohibited under the Law, was because God had branded them then.

7. Upon the same ground that we must not worship in these pla­ces, because dedicated by Idolaters, it is not lawful for men to worship in their houses, because Idolatry hath been committed theer.

Unto all which Mr. Chidley made answer as followeth.

1. It is not impossible to prove these Temples in the Land which the Idolators frequent to be dedicated to Idolls. And the [Page 14] way to try them is as a Thief or Murderer is tryed when he is arraigned before the Judge, if he confesse it with his own mouth, he is out of his own mouth condemned; even so, if the founders of these places, have confessed out of their own mouthes, that they have dedicated them to such uses, as the Records of the Realm testifie, the said places are condemned, and ought to be executed, but for these things, I referre unto the records of the Realme, and unto those plain and manifest proofes openly known formerly.

2. Whereas its alledged that they were not dedicated unto Devills, I say Temples dedicated to Idolls, are dedicated to Devils, and so the Apostle Paul speaketh of the Idolls Sacrifices, when he saith to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 10. 20. That the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to Devills, and not to God, and I would not that they should have fellowship with Devills; The Scripture calleth Idolls by the name of Devills, so the two calves which Jeroboam set up at Dan and Bethel were called Devills, for in setting up and worshipping Idolls, men set up and worship Devills: therefore the Temples of Idolls are the Temples of Devills, (and not the Temples of God) no more are these.

And whereas it is said some are dedicated to Christ, what is their Christ? their Christ is not he that standeth at the right hand of God, but it is a peece of bread, which they fall down and worship, calling it their God, and eat it when they have done, O ridiculous horrible impiety, worse then Jeroboams! and they do not say, its a figure of the body of Christ, and the wine a figure of the blood of Christ, but (say they) it is really the Body and Blood of Christ, and to this Christ do they dedicate their Temples which they call Christs Chruch.

And so their Trinity is not the eternall God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but their Trinity which they worship is the picture (painted upon a wall) of an old man (sitting) in (that which they picture) for heaven, and there is the Picture of what they call the Son: and the Holy Ghost, they have also (painted out) in the likenesse of a Dove; this is their Trinity which they fall down and worship, and dedicate their Temples unto And admit that most of them were dedicated to Saints and Angels, it is to be considered, whether it be not Idolatry to dedicate any Places [Page 15] to Saints or Angels; but what are your Saints or Angels which they dedicate their Temples unto new Images which they make of them, that are no more like unto them, then my Pictur is like Mr. Goodwins, and they fall down before these Images, say­ing, St. Peter save me, St. Paul save me, &c. These their im­pieties far exceed the Abominations of the Heathens, and so are their Idols Temples abominable places, and ought not to be wor­shipped in, of the Saints. Besides divers Temples in England are builded and dedicated to the Heathen Gods, as well as these are to the Christian or rather Antichristian Gods.

Then Mr. Goodwin began to commend what he had read of the Papists works, concerning the nature and essence of God, say­ing, We should not belie the Devill.

Mr. Chidley answered, do you think that Jeroboam and Jesus was not acquainted with such things? but the Papists impiety far exceedeth his, he made Calves in imitation of those at Jeru­salem. These make a breaden God, and eat it when they have done, besides their other Abominations, by which they provoke the Lord to anger.

Therefore friends, Mr. Chidley applying his Speech to the People pre­sent. I desire as you tender the salvation of your soules, to labour to know that iniquity is in a mystery, and to discover the same; and also learn to know the mystery of godliness, and how it differs from the mystery of iniquity, though in some sort the mystery of iniquity resembleth it, which maketh it the harder to be discerned, which causeth so many soules to be blind­ed to their condemnation; for God is not their God, but these are, these are their Gods, let them pretend what ever they will, they worship these Images.

3. Where its said that Christ came into the world to take a­way the distinction of places and places, and to make all places a­like, and that to deny this, tendeth to deny that Jesus Christ is come into the World, and to establish Jewishme.

I answer, That Christ came not into the world to take away the diabolicall uncleanness of Idols Temples: no more then of Idols themselves: to affirm that he did, tendeth not onely to deny Christ, but also to acknowledge Antichrist, and to establish Ido­latry. But he hath said, Little Children, keep your selves from Idolls.

[Page 16] 4. Whereas it is said, that when he came he dissolved the un­cleanness which God had made, and put upon the Creatures; how much more then the uncleanness which men had put upon those places, but of lime and stone? Mr. Chidley answered, that it fol­loweth not: That because Christ did take away the ceremonial uncleanness which was put upon the Creatures by God, that there­fore he took away the diabolicall uncleanness which was put up­on the Creatures by men, unless to demolish, and abolish them. As at his coming its said, the Idols he will utterly abolish; Its a maxim in divinity, amongst the Separation, that Christ dyed not for Temples made of lime and stone, but for his Church, which con­sisteth of living stones, he died not then for Idols Temples, no more then for Idols: and though I am verily perswaded, that nothing is unclean of it self, so it was in the time of the Law, but institution caused the difference, and it is considerable, that in the time of the Law the Badgers The Ori­ginall hath it Tachas Skins, whether there be a defect in the common Translation, its questiona­ble, and it seemeth som­what doubt­full. But that Idols Temples are hated by God is out of doubt. Skinnes were made use of to co­ver the Lord Sanctuary, but when did the Lord ever take that which belonged to any Idol, or Idols Temple, to cover his San­ctuary? never; it argueth therefore, that there is a great deal of difference between those Creatures, that were ceremonially un­clean, and those diabolically unclean, and Christ might well take away the uncleannes of the one, but not of the other; we are bid­den in the Gospel, to keep our selves from Idols, and from the pol­lutions of Idols: Therefore Jesus Christ hath not cleansed them, though he hath made the ceremonial things common.

5. Whereas it was said, by the same ground, as we refuse to worship God in these dedicated places; we may refuse to Worship God in any place of the Land.

Mr. Chidley answered, that it followeth not; for though some be Idols Temples, yet all the house are not.

I know said he, that as the Heathen Nations had their great Gods besides their petty Gods, so these Nations besides there petty abominable Idols, they have for every Nation a God; as St. George for England, St. Patricke for Ireland, St. Denis for France, St. David for wales; and to that God St. George are Temples dedi­cated, which are called Saint Georges Churches: these are there­fore Idoles Temples, and ought not to be worshipped in, it can­not be proved so of all the houses in the Land; but if any man wil [Page 17] prove his house to be an Idols Temple when the Parl. sets forth an edict that all the Idols Temples in the Land shall be thrown down, those shall be demolished as well as the other. As King Hen: the 8th. did demolish divers of the Monasteries.

King Henry 8th. did somwhat like to Jehu. Jehu though he destroyed the House of Baal, yet the Idols Temples of Jereboam he destroyed not: so King Henry the 8th. destroyed divers of the great high places, but the lesser high places he did not demolish; though they were all one in respect of pollution; save that which hath most deceit in it, is most to be hated.

And as for the Land it selfe, if it be possible to Dedicate the whole earth to St. George, then its possible to dedicate the whole world to an Idoll: but it is not in their power to dedicate it no more then to dedicate the Sun and Moon and Starrs &c. Now the Sun and Moone and Starrs have been worshipped as Gods, yet were not to be demolished; because they were not their only propriety, all men have their propriety in them; and therefore though God commanded the Idols Temples, built upon Moun­taines and Hills to be demolished, yet he did not require the Mountaines and Hills to be pulled down, they were of Gods making, as the earth: the Idols Temples were of mens framing and erecting, And in this distinction about propriety the Parlia­ment bears more out in their declaration, where they reason con­cerning the Propriety of the King & of the people. Moreover Lands are the Propriety of Posterity even of the after-Generations which cannot properly be given to Idols as Temples that are of their making, no more then the Sun and Moone, which were worshipped, and are common to all; for God causeth the Sun to shine upon the evill and upon the good, and upon the just and unjust. And concerning houses, The Lord did command in Israel, that the high places should be pull'd down, when he allowed the dwel­ling houses to stand, except some house, upon whose roofes they burned incense to other Gods.

6. Concerning Christs speeches to the woman of Samaria, no­thing can be gathered thence for Idols Temples, true it is that it sheweth that a time should come, when the people should not be limitted to this place or to that, and this makes against those who limit men to places, and also against those that uphold such limitted places, by worshipping in them. But that Christ allow­eth [Page 18] men to worship in Idols Temples, and declareth them to be no more polluted, then any other place (which you affirm) can­not be gathered, neither by the express words of Christ, nor ne­cessary consequence; for the matter in question between Christ and the woman was, which was the place of worship, not about the places of worship, but the place of worship, whether it was at that Mountain, or at Jerusalem. Our Fathers (saith he) wor­shipped in this Mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place of worship. He doth not say [a] place, but [the] place, where­by it appeareth that her question was about [the] place, where men ought to worship; whether it was at that Mountain, or at Jerusalem, for then God bound his publick worship to one place.

Now Jesus said unto her, Woman, believe me the houre cometh when ye shall neither in this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem wor­ship the Father. Now Christ by this speech doth not allow them to worship in Idols Temples though in a sence, all places are free to do it, all places of Gods Creation; but places of mens limitation, erection, and dedication to Idols, ought to be pulled down; and this by way of application, may appeare in the 22. and 23. ver­ses of the same Chapter, where Christ dealeth plainly with her saying, Ye worship ye know not what, we know what we worship, for salvation is of Jewes: but the houre cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him: As if he should say, think not that though the time be, that the true worshippers shall not be limitted to worship in a place, that therefore this is any justificati­on of you Samaritans who worship in Idols Temples, and wor­ship Idols. Ye worship you know not what: we know (saith he) what we worship, and alleageth this reason, for salvation is of the Jewes; intimating, that salvation was not of the Samaritans, who wor­shipped Idols, and in Idols Temples; so that if they would have salvation, they must turn from such vanities: Therefore he would have them to worship the Father in spirit and truth. Now the spirit and truth are distinct, though all one in purity. The spirit is the spirit of God, and the truth is the word of God, as it is written, Thy word is truth, now the word of truth doth speak a­gainst Idols Temples, and therefore, we are not to worship God in Idols Temples, but in spirit and truth: The spirit of God is a pure [Page 19] spirit, but Idols and Idols Temples, are unclean and diabolicall, and contrary to the nature of the spirit, the Father seeketh such to worship him, that worship him in spirit and truth: and therefore if you would be found of him, worship not in Idols Temples, but in spirit and truth. And by all this Scripture, here is not the least colour for; but rather against Idols Temples. Christ never shed his blood to uphold and purge Idols Temples, from their diabolicall uncleannesse, which uncleanness proceeded not from any institution of God, but from the Devill.

And whereas it is said, that the reason why Idols Temples were prohibited under the Law, was because God had branded them then.

Mr. Chidley answered, That they made them Idols Temples, God branded them, and to this day, that brand is not taken off them, but remaineth still upon them: The blood of Christ hath not cleansed them, the brand is still upon them, as well as upon the Idols themselves to this day: Therefore as the Saints are to keep themselves from Idols, so are they to keep themselves from worshipping in Idols Temples, because the brand is upon them.

Neither do we say that a place is an Idols Temple, because Ido­latry is committed there, as if a Papist should crosse himself, and fall down and worship in his Idolatrous manner, in this or in an­other mans house, this doth not make it an Idols Temple; but if he build and dedicate, and consecrate a place of his own proper goods, to an Idole: this is now an Idolatrous place, and God in the time of the Law commanded Israel to pluck down all the I­dolatrous high places, but not all the houses, therefore the hou­ses may stand, when the high places are quite pluckt down.

Then Mr. Goodwin returned to his former sence, of that place in the 4. of John, but it was denied that Jesus Christ, doth in the least allow or countenance the woman of Samaria, or any Sa­maritan or any Idolater else, or any man whatever, to worship in Idols Temples. Then Mr. Goodwin to back it, returned to the first Scripture in 1 Tim. 2. 10. concerning the word (every where) but it was told him, that that was restrained by God himself, and that by every where is meant, all places of Gods Creation, but not of Mans limitation and dedication to an Idol, and therefore not the Temple of Samaria, as he alleaged, from John 4. which [Page 20] saith, The houre cometh; when ye shall neither at this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father.

Then said Mr. Goodwin, it is very clear from Iohn 4. Christs speech to the woman of Samaria, that he came to loose the bands wherewith men were bound, to come to worship at the Temple of Jerusalem, and in saying, neither at this Mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, he doth not justifie the worship in the one place more then the other.

And if by spirit you meane the directions of the spirit, its true; and by the spirit may be meant the spirit of a man, as Paul saith, whom I serve in my spirit.

To which Mr. Chidley answered. That Christ came to loose the bands which tyed men to the Temple of Jerusalem, is true; but it followeth not therefore, that he hath left us free to worship in Idols Temples: he justified the worship in his own Temple; but not in Idols Temples; neither doth the saying of Christ import any such thing; Christ saith afterwards to the woman, ye worship ye know not what, as if he should say, do not think that I do in the least justifie your practises, or your abominable Idols, or Idols Temples, because I have said, neither at this Mountain, nor at Je­rusalem shall ye worship the Father; but I would have you know, that ye Samaritans worship ye know not what, we [Jewes] know what we worship, for salvation is not of you Samaritans, but of the Jewes, and Christ sheweth that the Father must be worshipped in spirit and truth: now there is not the least word of truth to ju­stifie worshipping in the Idols Temples.

And concerning the Allegations, that by the spirit is to be un­derstood the directions thereof, and is meant of a Mans spirit, and the truth therein, as Paul said, God whom I serve in my spirit.

Mr. Chidley answered, I grant that we are to serve God by the directions of his spirit, and that is by his holy word, which di­recteth us not to worship in Idols Temples, but sheweth that they are sin, and to be quite pulled down: And though Paul saith, he served God in his spirit, it may be taken, that he served God who was in his spirit, for God is said to dwell in the Saints by his spirit, and the Saints are exhorted to pray in the Holy Ghost which is the spirit of God, who directeth us by his word of truth, to which we are left for direction, which doth not allow any to worship him in Idols Temples, and therefore this place in John [Page 21] 4. 22. 23. by application maketh against them. That Scripture saith Mr. Goodwin, doth not include by truth the circumstance of place.

But it doth (said Mr. Chidley) for the word is truth, which wit­nesseth against the Idols Temples, and layeth that brand upon them, which the blood of Christ taketh not off.

And whereas it is called a Circumstance, it is more, its a mate­rial substance; seeing Gods Commands are so directly against I­dols Temples, I cannot believe (said Mr. Goodwin) that stones are capable of pollution, there's no place holy now; and therefore there is no place unholy or polluted, but as all Creatures are cleane, so are all places.

Mr. Chidley replyed, why may not stones be capable of pollution, as well as a peece of bread? which bread and wine consecrated by an Idolatrous Priest, is the Table of Devils; and the Cup, the Cup of De­vils: as contrariwise the bread and wine given in the Lords Supper, is the Table and Cup of the Lord. And I desire you Sir, to take what hath been spoken into consideration, & before you depart, Mr. Good­win was a­bout to de­part now. take along with you this distinction which I once proposed to divers honest men, Mr. Burroughs; Mr. Burton, M. Sal [...]marsh, M. Knowles, and Dr. Holmes, and divers others; for in pleading about the high places, they all unanimously concurr'd, that now in the time of the Gospel, there is nothing holy nor unholy; and this they said was Go­spel-liberty, & that to affirm contrary to this, was a taking away of the liberty of the Gospel. And they were so enamoured with this point, that they repeated it divers times, which when I heard, I stood up and said, whereas it hath bin concluded, that there is nothing ho­ly nor unholy, and that to affirm there is, is to takeaway the li­berty of the Gospel; I say, that now in the time of the Gospel, some things are holy, even the bread of the Lord, and the Cup of the Lord, other things are unholy, even the table & cup of Devils; & other things are meerly common; & this Divinity I learned of the Apostle Paul, who was not inferiour to the chiefest Apostles, who when he speak­eth to the Corinthians, calleth the bread and wine in the Lords Supper, the Table and Cup of the Lord, which none were to eat and drink but holy persons. That meat and drink which was in the I­dols Temples, he calleth it the Table and Cup of Devills, and there is that which is meerely naturall and common, which words of [Page 22] mine they took into consideration, and I think Mr. Burroughs had more sight in it, then any of them all; and so likewise, I desire you, to take these things into consideration. And whereas it is objected, that because there is no place holy now, that there­fore there is no place unholy. Sir, it will not follow, that because there is no material place, which is the Temple of the Lord, as the Temple of Jerusalem in former time, that therefore there is no Idols Temple, or Temple of Devills; for then by that account, because there is no flesh of Beasts now to be offered, according to the saying, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, there­fore the flesh in the Idols Temple is not uncleane; but the Apostle calleth it The Table of Devills, as really as he calleth the holy bread and wine, the Table and Cup of the Lord: Therefore as Sa­crifices of Beasts, are not now holy, yet the meat sacrificed to Idols, is the Table of Devills; so though there is no Temple holy now, yet the Temples dedicated to Idols, are the Temples of Idols, the Temples of Devills.

I do believe Sir, that there is nothing unclean of itself, nor holy of it self, but institution whether divine or diabolicall, maketh the same otherwise then it was before, though it is in a manner com­mon, as David said of the shew-bread, and so it hath been under the Law, and so it is under the Gospel.