Sect. 1.

THough God be the undoubted Lord and King of the World, having im­perial and supreme Dominion over all Nations and Territories whatsoever, yet inregard he is a Spirit, and of a nature too high and holy, to be conversant in an ordi­nary and familiar way, with such stupid, im­pure creatures, as the sons of men are, he is pleased, (reserving a due Prerogative, and constant Providence to himself) to commit the outward Government of it to persons fitly qualified, and lawfully called thereunto. For the better management whereof, he hath fra­med many just and wholesome Laws, set down in his Word, which he hath delivered into their hands, strictly charging and command­ing them to order all their administrations and proceedings, in a way answerable to the same. Though he set them on high, and give them [Page 2] preheminence and authority, over their bre­thren, yet he lets them know they have their Commission from him, are his servants, and must be accountable to him; and upon this ground wills them to keep close to the rule he hath given them to walk by, and to lay out themselves with all integrity and diligence for him. And it is the property of all such a­mongst those whom he thus deputes and en­trusts, to do it. Considering what obligations of obedience and faithfulness they lye under, they employ themselves, their parts, autho­rity, interests, and all for him, endeavouring by all means to please him, and be serviceable to him. And in order hereunto they take care that his appointments be observed, that offen­sive things be removed, that what is out of or­der be redressed, and that Religion be set up in its greatest purity and vigour throughout their Dominions. An illustrious example hereof we have in this place in King Hezekiah, who no sooner comes to the Throne, but he falls upon the work of Reformation, with all zeal and diligence. He does not only purge his Royal Palace, most lamentably defiled with his Fathers impurities, but he also cleanses the Nation, which was in like manner over-spread therewith, abolishes strange wor­ship, destroys the Instruments and Monu­ments of Idolatry, and roots out whatever he finds contrary to the Law.

Having by this brief Prologue, lead you to the words, I shall, before I come to the point [Page 3]I intend to insist on, say somewhat by way of Explication.

1. He removed the high Places. The word [...] is used in Scripture to denote two sorts of high places, civil and religious. By the former, we are to understand such places as being higher than ordinary,Deut. 33.29. Isa. 58.14. Hab. 3.19. and above the common level, had strong and stately build­ings erected on them, both for defence and delight By the latter, we are to understand certain Mountains and Hills that the Isra­elites used to perform solemn Devotions and Services upon. That you may the better con­ceive of this, you are to note, that the ancient Patriachs, when neither Temple, Tabernacle, nor Synagogue was built, did by direction from God himself betake themselves to such places as these, to celebrate their Sacrifices, Prayers, Thanksgivings, Meditations, and such like religious duties upon. Some places they must needs have for these uses, and they rather made choice of these than other, both because they were nearer to Heaven (to which every good man labours to get as nigh as he can) and were also freer from those molestations and distractions, that places which are lower, and of common resort, are lyable to. An instance of this, we have in Abram, Gen. 12.8. who in obedience to Gods command having left Ʋr of the Chal­dees, the place of his Nativity, and being come to the Plain of Moreh, in the Land of Canaan, he removes from thence into a Moun­tain on the East of Bethel, and builds there an [Page 4] Altar to the Lord, and calls upon his Name. The like we find done by him and others, in o­ther places. Gen. 22.2, 9.31.54. This course God was pleased to allow his people for a season, till he had made choice of one peculiar place where he would cause his Name to dwell. And this is alledged as something towards excusing the peoples sa­crificing in the high places in the beginning of Solomons reign,1 Kings 3.2. that till then there was no house built to the Name of the Lord. But though it excus'd in part, yet not in whole, and that for this cause, that as soon as the Ta­bernacle was built, God expresly forbad it: What man soever (saith he) there be of the house of Israel,Lev. 17.3, 4. that killeth an Oxe, or Lamb, or Goat, in the camp; or that killeth it out of the camp, and bringeth it not to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation — Blood shall be imputed to him. Here he instructs the peo­ple concerning sacrifice, which he limits two wayes.

1. In respect of the Person that was to kill and offer it, who was to be a Priest only. He speaks not here of killing beasts for com­mon food, for that others might do, as their necessities required: But for sacrifice, and that he will have none to do but the Priests. And this was a very prudent limitation, not only for the preserving of order, but likewise for the preventing of Idolatry; for if every man amongst that people who were so prone to that sin, might have had liberty at pleasure to have killed beasts, and offered them, they [Page 5]would have turn'd almost every place into a Temple, every stone into an Altar, and every beast into a Sacrifice. For the prevention whereof, God makes this Ordinance, that whosoever, or whensoever any of the house of Israel was minded to offer a Sacrifice to him, he should bring it to the Priest, and by him tender it to him.

2. In respect of the place, where it was to be kill'd and offer'd, and that was before the door of the Tabernacle. He would have the people not only take care that they usurp'd not the Priests Office, but like­wise that they brought their Sacrifices to the Tabernacle, which was the place he appointed them to have recourse to,Ps. 110.4. Heb. 9.11. Deut. 12.13. and ordain'd to be a special type of his Son, who is both our Priest and Tabernacle. Answerable to this is that we find in another place; take heed (saith he) to thy self that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou s [...]est, but in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy Tribes. It's true, he did after this, allow them in some special cases to kill & offer in other pla­ces, 1 Sam. 11.15. 2 Sam. 24.18. 1 Kings 18.23. and they adventur'd upon it. Samuel did it in Gilgal, David on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, Elijah upon Carmel, and that without any reproof or blame, nay with eminent approbation and acceptance. But this I say was only in some special extra­ordinary cases, wherein they were both di­rected, and moved by the Spirit of God him­self (who may when, and as oft as he pleases, [Page 6]dispence with his own Law) and so was no rule for ordinary practice. However the Is­raelites either misunderstanding the Law (which yet being so express and clear, one would think they should scarcely have done) or else out of a superstitious imitation of their Ancestors, did not only after the building of the Tabernacle, but the Temple likewise, upon every trivial occasion, betake themselves to high places, 1 Kings 11.7. Apud Ethnicos quoque Zenonis Philoso­phi & Stoico­rum. &c. Hospin. de Orig. Temp. c. 1. p. 1. Mundus univer­sus est templum Solis. A­lexand. ab Alex­andro, l. 2. c. 22. fol. 92. offer Sacrifice and worship in them. Solomon himself, who was the very man that built the Temple, and dedicated it to the peculiar use for which it was design'd, was guilty hereof; and so were many Kings both of Israel and Judah, to the high provoke­ing of God, and the drawing down of his just indignation and wrath upon them.

And if we consult the Antient Heathens, we shall find that they took the same course: they did not stand to build Temples as latter ages have done, but betaking themselves to the open Mountains, they there celebrated their devotions to their respective Deityes. Nay, they did not only not build Temples, but thought it unlawful to do it; the reason whereof was probably this, That worshiping the Sun, which they look'd upon as their chief God, they thought no Temple would compre­hend it: nay, they were so far from thinking they could build an Edifice suitable to it, that they accounted the whole world little enough to be a Temple for it. Hence that saying; the universal world is the Temple of the Sun. And [Page 7]though in after-times they fell to the use of Temples, yet they still had them upon high places, from whence their Gods and Goddesses took their Names, as Jupiter Capitolinus, Mercurius Cyllenius, Venus Erycina, and the like. Whether the Heathens betook them­selves to these high places in imitation of the Jews, or the Jews in compliance with them, I shall not here inquire; certain it is that they both us'd them; and as certain that Hezekiah out of the zeal he bore to God, did so far as his Dominions extended remove them: which yet we are not to understand, as if he removed the Mouutains or Hills themselves, but that he demolished such buildings and works, as were made upon them, for the carrying on of their Sacrifices, Oblations, and other Services there performed. The word [...],See Buxt. in voc. Menoch. de Rep. Heb. l. 2. c. 7. as di­vers shew, do's not only signifie high or lofty places, taken strictly, but also the Temples, Chappels, Altars, that were erected on them. Hence we find that some versions of good au­thoritie, render it by words of such particular signification. The Syriack renders it altaria; the Arabick, aras. In as much then, as it is said that Hezekiah removed the high places, the meaning is, that he demolished the Tem­ples, Chappels, Altars, with such other works as were made on them, whereby he rendered them for the future unfit for that ill use which was made of them.

2. He brake the Images. The word [...] which our Translation renders Image, Pag­nine, [Page 8]Montanus, Tremellius, Junius turn Sta­tuas. Now Statues among the Israelites, were (as well as the high places) of two sorts, Ci­vil and Religious. The former were only pil­lars or heaps of stone, erected for preserving the civil and necessary remembrance of persons or things. Of this nature was that which Ja­cob set up over the Sepulchre of Rachel; and likewise that which he set up in remembrance of the Covenant he entred into with La­ban: Gen. 35.20.31.45. And these were both lawful and com­merdable. The latter were artificial repre­sentations of God and Idols carved in wood, or cut in stone, or cast in some metal, such as Brass, Silver, Gold, and after set up in high places. Temples, and elsewhere, for religious use. Of this sort were the Images which the Souldiers of Jehu found in the house of Baal; 2 Kings 10.26. for such was the superstition of the Israclites, that though God had told them he was a Spirit, 1 Kings 8.27. Deut. 4.15.19. infinite and incomprehensible, and that he had not at such times as he most solemnly spake to them, taken upon him any visible form; and though he had charged them, and that in ex­press terms, over and over again, that they should not make any Image of him, or any other thing, and for this reason, lest they should thereby be led to the worship of the Creature: Exod. 32.1. yet they would not be satisfied, but being a sensual people, would have such Gods as they might see. Instead of contenting themselves with that one God who had done such great things for them, they must have [Page 9]many, and not only so, but they must have visible representations of them; they must have their Statues and Images which they set up in their high places and worshipped. Now these were utterly uniawful, and therefore Hezekiah lighting on them, takes them and breaks them in pieces.

3. He cut down the Groves. Our translation following the septuagint and vulgar Latin, turn it in the piural form, Groves; but the wo [...] [...] is singular, and therefore Ing [...]ine, Montanus, and others, do render it by a word of that number. Though Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 31.1. as appears from what is elsewhere mentioned, cut down many Groves, yet there seems to have been one, that had some peculiar eminen­cy in it above the rest, which the Holy Ghost here speaks with reference to. Though there were many Images in the house of Baal, 2 Kings 10.26.27. yet there was one that did in an eminent manner bear his name above the rest; and so I con­ceive it was in this case: though there were many Groves that fell under Hezekiahs religi­ous severity, yet there was one that the Holy Ghost had his eye upon above the rest, which he intends in this place. Now for the origi­nal of Groves, the antient Patriarchs, before God had limited his Church to any particular place of worship, seem to have been the first users of them. When they were minded to draw near to him,Gen. 18.4, 8.21.33. and wait on him in the more solemn discharge of duties, they betook themselves to Groves. Thus Abram divers times. The advantages they received from [Page 10]these Groves were various; they secured them from the injuries of the weather, furnished them with wood for Sacrifice, (in the choice whereof,Gen. 22.3, 6. they were more than ordinarily cu­rious, as seems to be held forth in Abrams carrying wood with him three dayes when he went to Moriah to offer Isaac) and also rendred their devotions more private and re­verent. In imitation of the Patriarchs, its likely the Heathens made use of them, in the service of their Idols. The Cananites had of them in such abundance, that almost where­soever you find mention of their Idols, you find mention also of their Groves. From them the Israelites took them, and notwithstand­ing all that God had said to them to destroy them, and bring their Sacrifices to the Ta­bernacle, yet they frequented them, nay e­ven doted on them. They termed the Pro­phets of the high places, 1 Kings 18.19. Prophets of the Groves: And further to express their respect to them they made Images of them, which they removed from place to place, and upon all occasions viewed with great delight. A­mongst other things that aggravated the fol­ly, and wickedness of Manasses, this is one, that he set a graven Image of the Grove which he made,2 Kings 21.7. in the house of the Lord. And this makes plain that otherwise dark passage con­cerning Josiah, that he brought out the grove, from the house of the Lord. Gen. 33.19. Job. 42.11. As the Holy Ghost stiles the pieces of Money that Jacob gave to the Children of Hamor, and Jobs relations [Page 11]gave to him, with the form of a Lamb impres­sed on them [...] Lambs, and the Medals that Demetrius made, with the form of Dia­na's Temple impressed on them,Acts 19.24. [...] Silver Temples or Shrines; so he here stiles that which was but an Image of the Grove, the Grove it self. And not thinking it sufficient to have the Images of them, they yeelded wor­ship to them. They did not only serve the I­dols that were in the Groves, but also [...] the Groves themselves. Nay,Judg. 3.7. how they were besotted with them, and what veneration they had them in, we may learn from the word [...] it self, derived of [...] signifying blessedness; intimating that they counted them blessed things, sought blessedness in them, and look'd upon themselves in a sort blessed, in the injoyment of them. But all their zeal to them, would not work He­zekiah to a liking of them; no, he was so far from that, that following the direction of the Law of Moses; he cuts them down, Deut. 12.2. and le­vels them with the ground.

4. He brake in pieces the brazen Serpent: VVhat this brazen Serpent was, upon what account it was made, and what use it was of, you may learn from the History of Gods pro­ceedings with the Israelites in the VVilderness.Num. 21.4. As they journeyed from Mount Hor by the red Sea, to compass the Land of Edom, be­ing distressed with the way, they fell to a re­viling, not only of Moses, but God himself, demanding (as they us'd to do in their fro­ward [Page 12]murmuring fits) wherefore he brought them up out of Egypt to die in the Wilderness. Herewith God being provoked and displeased, sends Serpents amongst them,1 Cor. 10 9. which so bit and stung them, that many of them died. He sures their punishment to their sin. Their sin was of an high and grievous nature, and their punishment was answerable; for they were not ordinary Serpents, they had to deal with; but such as were of an unusual heat and fierce­ness, whose sting did so inflame and burn them, as if fire it self had been got within them; for which cause the Holy Ghost calls them [...] fiery or burning Ser­pents. Now being in this distress, they go to Moses confess their fault, & intreat his prayers for the removal of this sad judgement, which he no sooner puts up to God in their behalf, but he appoints him to make a fiery Serpent, that is, one like to burning fire, and set it upon a Pole before all Israel, promising that whoso­ever was bitten and look'd up thereunto, should be healed. Moses forthwith obeys his com­mand, makes a Serpent, sets it upon a Pole, and such as were stung, looking up, received the benefit promised.

It then being of so much use and advantage to them, there was good reason they should both respect and preserve it, which they not only did, daring their continuance in the Wilderness, but likewise after their settlement in the Land of Canaan, even down to the days of Hezekiah. But herein they miss'd it, that [Page 13]not contenting themselves with shewing what respect was due to it, as an instrument and and monument of their miraculous cure, they fell to burn incense to it, and worship it as if it had been a Deity; which evil Hezekiah ta­king notice of, labours to redress it, and in order thereunto takes it, and breaks it in pie­ces. Though he knew it was originally of Divine appointment,See Rai­nolds de Rom. Eccl. Idol. l. 1. c. 2. Sect. 2. p. 69. 72. was made by Moses that eminent servant of God, was an instru­ment of many miraculous cures, and a Me­morial of Gods great goodness shewed therein, and had continued so for a long season; though he knew it might have been of great use to mind them of their former distress, and Gods great goodness shewed therein, and stir them up to love, thank, praise, and serve him; Nay though he knew it might have been a great means of winning others to their religion, was a type of Christ; yet when he saw they Ido­liz'd it, he took it, and brake it in pieces. He deals not with it as Moses dealt with Aa­rons Rod, lay it in the Tabernacle (for there­in,M. Caw drey and Palmer Sabb. Re­div. part. 1. p. 51. notwithstanding the common opinion, some judicious men think he put it, and not in the Ark) but takes it, and breaks it in pieces, and calls it Nehushtan. The Syriack and Arabick render the verb by our Transla­tion turned, called, in the plural form, as if, not Moses but the Israelites, had called it Nehushtan; but the Hebrew [...] as evi­dently in the singular; and therefore Pagnine, Montanus, and the stream of good Interpre­ters [Page 14]render it by a word of that number.See A Lapid. in Num. 21 Estins in 2 Reg. 18 4. Rai­nolds de Idol. Rom Eccl. l. 1. c. 6. Sect. 5. p. 244. Rivet. vol. 3. Cath. Orth. p. 169. Now this Nebushtan is a diminutive from [...] signifying aenulum, or a little piece of brass; so that Hezekiah in giving it this Name did as much, as if he had said to the Jews, what a foolish people are yee? do you think such a despicable thing as this, hath any Divinity in it? do yee think this is a God? do yee think this is fit to have incense burnt to it? Though God who can work glorious effects by the weakest and unlikeliest instruments, was pleased for a time to accomplish wonderful cures by it, yet you must not think it was a­ble to do any such thing it self. It was no more able of it self to do it, than Moses staff was able of it self to fetch Water out of the Rock. It was no more able of it self to afford relief to such as were stung, than the very Pole was whereon it stood. Alas you are quite mistaken in your apprehensions of it: it is no such thing as you judge it is; it is but a piece of ordinary Metal, it is nothing but a little piece of brass.

And thus I have not only lead you to the words, but with what brevity I could conve­niently, explained them to you. They con­tain a summary account of Hezekiahs proceed­ings in purging his Kingdom, and restoring true religion which had suffered so much in the days of his Father. Now what he is here said to have done, being both approved and commended by God, and so having the force of a precept, I shall raise from the words this point.

That it is the will and pleasure of God, Doct. that such things as have been abused and polluted in superstitious and idolatrous services, should be a­bolished and laid aside. VVhen Hezekiah came to the Kingdom, and cast his eyes upon the high places, images, groves, brazen serpent, with other things of that nature, and saw that they were abused and polluted in being made instruments of sinful practices, he presently falls upon them, and destroys them. He stands not making excuses, and pleading that they were things in themselves innocent and lawful; that though they were abused, it was not the fault of the things themselves, but of the persons the abused them; that they had been devised [...]d used in antient times, and that by good and holy men; or that if they were a­bused, care must be taken to separate the abuse from the use: I say he stands not reasoning thus, as many, who wanting his spirit, do in the behalf of things of the like, nay of a more despicable Nature; but judging the abo­lishing of them the most proper and effectual way to secure the glory of God, and prevent the evil likely to be committed by them, he removes them, cuts them down, breaks them in pieces, and thereby rids his Kingdom of them: which will appear more remarkable if you consider;

1.2 Kings 16.3. VVhat kind of person his Father Ahaz was; he was a superstitious, idolatrous, im­pious man, who declining the religious steps of his Father Jotham, forsook the Lord, [Page 16]walked in the way of the Kings of Israel, made his Son to pass through the fire, sacrific'd and burn'd incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree. So far was he from inheriting his Fathers vertues, that he prostituted himself to all manner of wicked­ness, in the practice whereof, he grew in time to such a degree of wilfulness and obsti­nacy, that punishment it self would not take him off it, but made him worse; so that the more he was punished, the more he transgres­sed. Hereof the Holy Ghost taking notice, was so highly displeased with him, that he hath stigmatiz'd him with a mark of perpetual infa­my, and hang'd him up, as it [...]e in chains, that so all who read the Scriptures may trem­ble before Divine Justice, and carefully avoid the sins he was guilty of;2 Chron. 28.22. This (saith he) is that King Ahaz. Hereby you see what kind of a person Hezekiahs Father was; he was a man of prodigious wickedness, a meer vassal and slave to his lusts, idols, nay to the Devil himself. And how hard a thing is it for a Son to be good that hath been brought up in the family of such a Father? The pravity and cor­ruption we derive from our Parents is so strong and prevalent, that we readily close with such instructions and examples as are bad, but vigorously decline those which are good; ard therefore for a good Father to have a bad Son, is not much to be thought at; but for a bad Father to have a good Son, is no less than a wonder. What a wonder then have we [Page 17]here before us?Ʋt hic omnes Reges Judae impietate supera­vit, sic ille pieta­te excel­luit. in loc. Joh. 3.8. For there was not any King of Judah that had a worse Father than Heze­kiah had of Ahaz, nor any Father that had a better Son than Ahaz had of Hezekiah. As the one (saith Pareus) exceeded all the Kings of Judah in impiety, so the other exceeded them in piety. What therefore he did, is not to be ascribed to Nature, which in him, must needs be suppos'd to lye under the greatest disadvantages, but to the spirit of God, who like the wind blows where he lists, and works where and how he pleases.

2. What order the Court and Kingdom were in when his Father died. His Father reigned sixteen years, during which time, he prose­cuted his sinful courses with great zeal and diligence, omitting nothing whereby he might corrupt his people, and alienate them from the ways of God. And what influence this had upon them, its easie to imagine. Which way soever the great Cedars fall, they tear the litttle shrubs with them. Such as the King is, such is the Kingdom. If Rehoboam forsake the Law of the Lord, all Israel do's so too.2 Chron: 12.1. If Alexander carry his head on the one side, his Souldiers do the like. Ahaz therefore reign­ing sixteen years, and being so wicked as he was, we may well suppose the Court and Kingdom were in a sad condition, when He­zekiah came to the Crown.

3. What condition the ten Tribes that were so near to the Jews, both in respect of al­liance and habitation, were then in. Idolatry [Page 18]was not only permitted amongst them,1 Kings 12.32. but e­stablished by a royal ordinance, bearing date from the days of Jeroboam down to this very time,See Helv. Theat. Hist. p. 44.54. Labbe de script. Eccl. p. 460.462. which, according to the judgement of Chronologers, was betwixt two and three hun­dred years. And this we may well think would be matter of no good consequence to the Jews, who were so exceeding prone to it of themselves; but would make them willinger to close with it when it came among them, and lother to part with it, after they had yeilded to it.

4. What age Hezekiah was, when he set upon this great and eminent work: he was then but twenty five years old; and at that age, dayly observation tells us, men, especi­ally they that are of such high birth and edu­cation, as Princes and Nobles be, are com­monly addicted to those youthful exercises, re­creations and delights, that further progress in years, uses to wean them from. Then Na­ture is strong and heady, and hard to be kept within its banks. How pious and upright was Job? Job. 13.26. Psal. 25.7. How holy and faithful was David? yet in their Youth they did not govern and carry themselves as they should, but brake forth into such extravagancies, as lay heavy upon them in after years. That Hezekiah then should undertake, and carry on this great work, when he was at such an age, adds much to the glory and lustre of it.

5. What time of his reign it was that he undertook it; it was the first year thereof, the [Page 19] first month of the year,2 Chron. 29.3.17. nay the very first day of the Month. He sacrificed not only the prime of his days, but of his reign to the ser­vice of God. When a man would have thought he should rather have found him in his Palace, congratulating himself in his Kingly dignity, feasting with his Nobles, and en­tertaining the cheerful acclamations of his joy­ful people, we have him in the Temple purg­ing out his Fathers superstition and idolatry: which holy speed renders his undertaking highly commendable. To have set upon such a work only the first month of his reign, had been praise-worthy, but to do it the very day of his Coronation, is praise-worthy indeed.

6. It was a work that none, in many mate­rial and weighty respects had ingag'd in before him. Asa, Jehosaphat, 1 Kings 15.14.22.43. 2 Kings 10.27. and others did some­what towards the abolishing of Images and I­dols, but for the high places, the groves, and the brazen Serpent, they stirr'd them not. As for such things as were both of bad origi­nal and bad use, those they removed; but as for such as were of good original, and bad use, as those I now nam'd, they medled not with them.

You see then Hezekiah had many and great impediments to this holy undertaking. His Father (whom in regard of his natural descent from him, he could not choose but reverence) had followed strange Gods all his days; the Kingdom had generally complyed with him; the ten Tribes their near Neighbours and Bre­thren, [Page 20]had not only given themselves to Ido­latry, but had continued in it so long that they could plead prescription: Hezekiah himself was a young man, in the prime and flow­er of his youth, and so likelier to be carried away after pleasures, than to mind matters of religion; and which is none of the least, the work he was to undertake, was such in divers respects, as none of his Ancestors, how wise or good soever, had ingaged in. Notwith­standing all this, being acted by a spirit of Heroick and Princely zeal, he sets upon it, and prosecutes it with blessed vigor and success. Thus much I thought good to suggest ere I went any farther, to shew the difficulties and discouragements that attended this work, and how eminently Hezekiahs zeal brake forth in the undertaking and management of it.

Sect. 2.

IN the prosecution of the point I shall make use of this Method. I shall shew, 1. That it is indeed, the will of God that abused things should be abolished. 2. What those things are, that upon their being abused, must be abolished. 3. To whom this work do's be­long, whether to the civil Magistrate, or every particular Christian. 4. After what manner it must be carried on. 5. When it must be done. 6. I shall lay down some Cautions, or restrictions. 7. Answer Objections. And [Page 21]8. Proceed to the uses; all which I shall en­deavour the dispatch of with due conciseness and brevity. And,

First, That it is the will of God that things abused in corrupt and false worship should be laid aside, appears from various grounds.

2. From the many express precepts and commands, he hath delivered to us in Scrip­ture, whereby he hath obliged us to udner­take the work, and imploy our selves as often as there is occasion in the management of it. We are not to look upon it as a thing at our own choice, that we may either do, or not do; no, it's a thing of another nature, and so in the issue we shall find it. There is scarcely any duty he requires of us in his whole Word, that he calls for more plainly and frequently, or urges with greater importunity and earnest­ness, than he does this.Exod. 34.13. Numb. 33.52. Deut. 7.5 12.2. Gen. 35.2. Isa. 30.22. Hos. 2.16. Ye shall (saith he) destroy their Altars, break their Images, and cut down their Groves. And, yee shall destroy all their Pictures, and all their molten Images, and quite pluck down all their high places. And, yee shall destroy their Altars, and break down their Images, and cut down their Groves, and burn their graven Images with fire. In these and such like places, he hath commanded us to do it, and he will have us look upon his command as a sufficient warrant to set upon the work. When men deliver their commands to us, we must take them under examination ere we obey them; but we must not deal so with his, but must as soon as ever we have re­ceiv'd [Page 22]them, set upon the observance of them. This he requires from us, and we both may and ought to do it. If he command Abram to kill Isaac, Gen. 22.2. Josh. 6.27. Hos. 1.2. Joshuah to destroy the Cananites, Hosea to lye with Gomer, they must do it. He is the supreme Lord, who hath the dispo­sal of all persons and things in his own hands, and therefore he expects we should close with his command as sufficient to authorize and justifie our undertakings in the most harsh and doubtful case whatsoever. Were there any superiour power, then we might stick at his appointments; but since he is the great and soveraign Lord, we must without any contra­diction, or haesitancy, comply with them, other­wise, we lay our selves under the guilt of no less than inexcusable disobedience.

2. From the comfortable promises he hath made to incourage us to it. Such is the indis­position of our natures to holy services, that where the naked sense of duty will not move to action, the hope of reward will; and there­fore in complyance with our weakness, he does not only lay precepts before us, but like­wise promises, wherein he ingages, that if we will do our duty, and be faithful, he will do great things for us.Numb. 33.52, 53. See Trem. & Jun. in loc. And as he deals thus with us in other cases, so particularly in this we have now before us. Having commanded the Is­raclites that they should drive out all the Inha­bitants of the land from before them, destroy their Pictures, overthrow their molten Images, and pluck down their high places, he adds by [Page 23]way of promise, Yee shall dispossess the Inhabi­tants of the land, and dwell therein. And the Prophet Isaiah speaking to the Church in after times, saith,Isa. 30.22, &c. Yee shall defile the covering of thy graven Images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten Images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth, thou shalt say unto it, get thee hence. Then he shall give the rain of thy seed that thou shalt sow the ground with­all, and bread of the increase of the earth, and it shall be fat and plenteous: in that day shall thy Cattel feed in large pastures, &c. Here we have an accumulation of promises, the sub­stance whereof is this, that if we will hearken to what he hath required in his law, and in observance thereof, will cordially and vigo­rously appear against the monuments of Idola­try, and throw them away from us with scorn and contempt, as a true hearted zealous people ought to do, then he will open the fountains of his goodness, and let out streams thereof upon us. Then he will bless us with plenty of provision both for man and beast, give us victo­ry over our enemies, and fill our hearts with joy. As far as the light of the Sun exceeds that of the Moon, or as far as the light of the Sun would exceed it self, were it seven times brighter, so far will he cause our future joy to exceed our former. And he does not only promise temporal benefits to it, but pardon of sin, justification, with the benefits flowing therefrom.Isa. 27.9. By this (saith he) shall the ini­quity of Jacob be purged, and this is all the fruit [Page 24]to take away his sin: when he maketh all the stones of the Altar as chalk stones that are beaten in sunder, &c. q. d. When my people shall heartily and unfeignedly repent, and evi­dence as much by their vigorous ingaging and appearing against Idolatry with the monuments and incitements thereof, then will I purge a­way their iniquity, and take away their sin. Thus does he out of the earnest desire he hath, we should set upon the work, allure and intice us to it.

3. From the terrible threatnings he hath pronounced against us to terrifie and affright us to it. Sometimes when a promise will not move, a threatning will, and therefore he uses both. He told the Israelites (and us in them) that if they would not drive out the Cananites, Numb. 33.55, 56. destroy their Pictures, break their Images, and pull down their high places, they should be pricks in their eyes, and thorns in their sides, and should vex them in the land wherein they should dwell; nay, that he would do unto them what he thought to have done to their Enemies, that is, root them out, destroy them, and make an end of them. He deals plainly with them: he sets before them life and death, telling them that if they would obey, and do as he required, they should live and be a flourishing and happy people; but if otherwise, that they should dye, and perish, and come to ruin.

4. From the solemn and lasting commen­dations he hath bestow'd upon such, as have [Page 25]done it. Such is the contentment he takes in it,Exo. 32.20. 2 Kings 23.4. Serpens aeneus laudatis­simo ex­emplo, ab Ezechia sublatus suit. Ti­ [...]en. Syn­tag. p. 256. Rev. 2.14. that when any of his Servants do perform it, he records the fact, and praises them for it. Moses, Hezekiah, Josiah, with other of the Hebrew VVorthies, did eminently here­ [...]n, and he hath set it down in the sacred story, where it is dayly read to their renown and [...]raise; so that whiles the names of Jerob [...]am, Ahab, Ahaz, and such like idolatrous Prin­tes stink in the nostrils of all good men, their's [...]re as a fragrant ointment poured forth.

5. From the sharp reprehensions he hath ut­tered to such as either through sloathfulness, ti­merousness, or the like, have omitted to do it. Amongst other things that Christ blames the Pastor of the Church of Pergamus for, this is one, that he tolerated such as were for the [...]ating of things sacrificed to Idols. Though he [...]iv'd in a bad place, even where Satan had his [...]eat; and in a bad time, Gillesp. Aarons rod. p. 280. Milton of Civil Power in Eccl. Causes, p. 53. even whe [...] Antipas [...]he Martyr was slain, yet that excused not the neglect of his duty. He should have ex­ercis'd himself in the conscionable discharge of that, and have left the issue to him, who hath taken upon him the protection, as well as the direction of his Church. VVhether he failed in the neglect of discipline or admonition only, I leave to others, whose business it is, to deter­mine. This is certain, he did not appear a­gainst abused things, and those who were for them, as a faithful Minister ought to have done, and for this he is blamed. Let our dan­gers and discouragements be what they will, [Page 26]we must do our duty, knowing that he who sets us on work, both can, and will bear us out.

6. From the great rewards he hath bestow­ed upon such as have done it. Not looking upon his approbation or commendation as suffi­cient,2 Kings 10.30.13.1, 9.14.16, 29.15.12, 13. he hath bestowed high and eminent re­wards upon such as have been active herein: witness Jehu; though he were but a bad man, yet because he obeyed him in this business, he promised him the Throne of Israel to the 4th. generation. And what he promised, he after­wards performed; for upon his death reign'd Jehoahaz his Son, then Joash his Grand-son, after, Jeroboam his great Grandson, and after him Zechariah the fourth from him, upon whose decease the Scepter departed from his family (and passed into the hands of Shallum the son of Jabesh) and so the promise made unto him being fulfilled, the Holy Ghost cries out, This was the word of the Lord, which he spake unto [...]ehu, saying, Thy Sons shall sit on the Throne of Israel to the fourth generation; and so it came to pass: whereby we see God is so far pleased with the destroying of Idolaters and Idolatry, that he rewards it even in wicked men, though not with eternal, yet with temporal blessings, and those of the highest sort.

7. From the severe punishments he hath in­flicted upon such as have neglected to do it. Let men be never so d [...]ar to him, yet if they either refuse or neglect to do it when they [Page 27]have power and opportunity, he is displeas'd with them, and punishes them. Though Solo­mon was a man greatly respected by him, as his name Jedidiah imports,2. Sam. 12.25. yet in regard he exercised not that severity against Idols he should; but in complyance with his strange VVives built high places to them, he was so incens'd against him, that he interrupts his peaceable and flourishing reign, stirs up Ha­dad, Rezon, and other adversaries against him;2 Kings 11.4. &c. nay rends the Kingdom it self from him.

8. From the concurrent judgements of the most holy, learned, orthodox VVriters the Church of God hath had since the Apostles times. Though the best of men not secur'd a­gainst it by divine inspiration and direction, are (as all ages witness) fallible, and subject to mistake, yet it is a considerable inducement to us to believe that what is held forth is the truth, when it is witnessed, and that upon probable and fair grounds, by the unanimous testimony of such eminent persons. And thus it is in the present case; the ablest and choic­est men the Church hath afforded, have given their express and full suffrage in behalf of the point in hand. August. Calvin. Martyr, Wol­phius, See Lin­coln. A­bridg. p. 24. Lavater, Sadeel, Fulk, Rainolds, Per­kins, do all teach, that such things as have been abused in superstitious and idolatrous ser­vices, ought to be abolished and laid aside; and for confirmation thereof urge the very Text, I am now upon, which they judg'd to hold forth so much. These great names Dr. Mor­ton [Page 28]found in the Abridgement he had to deal with, but choose what was the matter, thought it not convenient to return any an­swer. Dr. Burgess his second, Rejoynd. ch. 4 sect. 6. p. 453. saith, it would have been unreasonable then to have done it. But why so? was not this instance of Heze­kiah alledged seasonably enough in the A­bridgement? and was it not seasonable to give the judgements of such learned men upon it? and was it not as seasonable for the Defendant, if he could, to make some answer? But in case the Defendant thought it unseasonable, how as the Rejoyner, did not undertake it, e­specially seeing the Replyer charges the Defen­dant with the neglect of it?Ames. Fresh Suit. part 2. p. 400. Some concern'd in the business, expected it from him; but in vain. Now this would shrewdly tempt an in­different person to think there was more in these testimonies than either the Defendant or Rejoyner could well tell how to answer. To these I might by way of supply add divers o­thers, but shall at present offer you only two or three, Haec au­tem non sic dico ut patroci­ner Papi­sticis su­perstitio­nibus, &c De Trad. p. 696. and give you their own words. Musculus having shew'd what ttraditions are to be kept, and what not, adds, I speak not these things so as to patronize Popish Traditions, Rites, and Worships, God forbid: and I call them Popish Traditions, which either of their own Nature, or by abuse: are serviceable to Popish impiety, superstition and blindness. And a little after speaking of the Israelites abusing the brazen Serpent to idolatry, shews how Hezekiah abolish'd it. And Farell writing to [Page 29] Calvin about a Popish fellow whose name was Carolus, saith,Cumque Sanctus Rex He­zekias, &c. Ep. Calv. 49. Regula est illa a diaphora, non ne­cessaria, &c. vol. 1: Expl. Decal. p. 1346. Princes may learn from Heze­kiahs abolishiug the brazen Serpent, what they are to do with those rites which idle men have set up, and added significations to, according to their own pleasure. Nay Rivet to mention no more, saith, it is a rule, that things indiffe­rent not being necessary, when they are polluted with gross idolatry are to be abolished. VVhat authority then, these men are of, it is wholly ours in this business. They are clear and per­emptory, that such things as are not of neces­sary use, and be, or have been made servicea­ble to corrupt ends and purposes, are not only to be detested, but abolished.

9. From the Doctrine of our own Church, which hath openly declared that such things as have been abused are to be laid aside,Def. part. 1. ch. 20. Serm. in Phil. 2.20. p. 316. Def. of Perk. part 1. p. 165. Appeal, l. 1. c. 2. sect. 25. Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 65. as being thereby rendred unfit for further use. Bishop Jewell in the common defence which he wrote in her behalf, speaking to the Papists of cer­tain of their ceremonies, saith, These ceremo­nies ye have so abused, that unless we will great­ly offend, we cannot any longer retain them. To the same purpose speaks Bishop Andrews: whatsoever (saith he) is taken up at the in­junction of man, when it is drawn to supersti­tion, cometh under the compass of the brazen Serpent, and is to be abolished. Hereunto I might add what is delivered by Abbot, Morton, Hooker, to the same purpose; but waving such private, though very conside­rable testimonies, I shall offer you one or two [Page 30]of a more publick and authentick nature. The Church of England in one of her Homilies, Against the peril of Idola­try Serm. 2. dis­courses at large both from Scripture and An­tiquity, against the Monuments and occasi­ons of idolatry; and amongst other passages, she alledges that of Epiphanius Bishop of Sala­mine in Cyprus, who entring into a Church, and finding an Image on the door, took it and tore it in pieces, willing the Keepers of the Church to give it to a poor man, who was late­ly dead, and wind him in it. This she do's not only alledge, but approve of, telling us, that what Epiphanius did, he did it in imitation of good King Hezekiah, who brake the brazen Serpent to pieces, and burn'd it to ashes. And as if this were not sufficient, she do's in the discourse prefix'd to the present Liturgy, ren­der this as the weightiest cause of abolishing certain of the ceremonies that they have been so far abused, partly by the superstitious blind­ness of the rude and unlearned, and partly by the unsatiable avarice of such as sought more their own lucre than the glory of God. Now if abuse either already committed, or likely to be committed, be a sufficient reason, as she here contends, it is, wherefore Images and cer­tain ceremonies should be abolished, it must needs be a sufficient reason wherefore other things of the like nature, in case they either have, or are in danger to fall under it, should also be abolished.

10. From the determinations of our own Kings and Parliaments, who among the stand­ing [Page 31] Laws of the Nation have made provision that the reliques of Idolatry should be de­stroyed. Amongst other Injunctions of Qu. Eliz. this was one,Injunct. 23. that all monuments of Ido­latry and superstition should be so utterly ex­tinguished and destroyed, that there should remain no memory of them either in our Churches or houses. with which the succeeding Laws so far complyed, that the Stat. 3 Jac c. 5. impowers Justices of Peace, Mayors, Bailiffs, and chief Officers of Cities and Towns corpo­rate, to search the Houses and Lodgings of Popish Recusants, for Popish Books and Re­liques, and if they find any such Books and Re­liques, or any Altars, Pixes, Beads, or Pi­ctures, to deface and burn them. This Law hath in part been put in execution, and if it had been wholly, as it hath been in part, the worship of God had been preserved more pure, and the Protestant interest had been more safe, than now it is; but as Rome was not built, so neither was it to be destroyed in a day; and therefore we are not without hope, that not­withstanding present delays, God in time will perswade and excite our Governours, to go on in the work so happily begun, and cleanse his house from defilement.

11. From the Concessions of the Papists themselves, who, as all know, are the great­est retainers and users of abused things of any people in the world, having in a manner made it their business to gather up almost whatever either Heathens, Jews, Turks, or others have [Page 32]defiled.Si non­nulli ex praedeces­sorib. no­stris fece­runt ali­qua quae illo tem­pore po­tuerunt esse sine culpa, & postea vertun­tur in er­rorem & supersti­tionem, &c. Grat. dist 63. Cap. Quia sancta. The Canon Law, notwithstanding all the chaff that is in it, tells us from Pope Stephan, That if our Predecessors have done some things which at that time might be with­out fault, and afterwards are turn'd to error and superstition, we are taught by Hezekias his breaking the brazen Serpent, that posterity are to destroy them without delay, and with great authority. VVhich passage holds forth these two things, containing the substance of what I am pleading for: First, that things lawfully instituted being abused to error and superstition, are to be destroyed: and then, that Hezekiahs breaking in pieces the brazen Serpent do's oblige us thereunto. VVhence we see, that rather than God will suffer his truth to want testimony, he will extort it from the mouths of his adversaries themselves, and make them bear witness to it. Rather than Israel shall not be blessed he'll make Ba­laam to do it; Rather than the death of Christ shall not be sufficiently foreshew'd, he'll make Caiaphas to do it; and rather than abused things shall want accusers to appear against them and implead them, he'll make Anti­christ the very Patron thereof, to do it. Now if this Doctrine of the Canon Law were put in execution, what work would it make in the Papacy? what alteration would it make in Churches, Chappels, and other places? Ti­ber it self would scarcely be a sufficient Kidron to receive all the Altars, Images, Crosses, and other trash that would then fall into the hands of Justice.

12. From that kind of reasoning which we term a Minori ad Majus; it is his pleasure that such things should be abolished as have been abused in miscarriages and proceedings of a lower nature, than such high matters as su­perstition and idolatry can reasonably be thought to be. Thus his servants both in for­mer and latter times, have understood him; and therefore when they have observ'd some­things to be abused, though they were not stain'd with such high matters as superstition and idolatry, yet they took themselves bound to lay them aside, and accordingly did it; as I shall shew in several instances.

1. The Christian Church leaning too much on her own wisdom, hath instituted and set up several Officers and orders of persons not appointed by the Word; but after a time see­ing the gross and insufferable abuses that at­tended them, she thought fit to appear against them, and abolish them. Socrates tells,Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 19. that the Bishops, from the time the Novatians sepa­ted from the Church, and refus'd to commu­nicate with those who under the persecution of Decius, had faln from the faith, thought fit to appoint certain Priests to take the confes­sions of such as had so faln: which after they had done, it happened that a certain Noble­woman coming to a penitentiary Priest, and confessing her post-baptismal sins, amongst o­ther things which she acknowledged her self guilty of, she told him that a certain Deacon of the Church, had been too familiar with her. [Page 34]Upon notice hereof, great stir was made; the business was discuss'd to and fro, and the Dea­con thrown out of the Church. But this was not all, Eudaemon taking notice of the dis­grace that hereby befel the Clergy, and for preventing of the like for the future, advised Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople to lay the penitentiary Priest aside, which was accor­dingly done. [...]. p. 692. This my Author tells me he had from Eudaemons own mouth. Now if the penitentiary Priest were laid aside, for the fault committed by the Deacon, what would have become of him, had he been found guilty in his own person? And if one fault be suffici­ent, for the throwing of a person, nay an office of long standing in the Church, aside, what are many?Controv. part. 1. contra Duraeum l. 5. p. 134. Furthermore, Dr. Whitaker dispu­ting with Duraeus of religions orders, minds him how the selected Cardinals wrote to Paul 3d. acquainting him that the abuse of them was so great, that they thought all conventual or­ders were to be laid aside. Nay the Jesuites themselves, notwithstanding all their plausi­ble insinuations, have by several Nations, like a company of Vipers been thrown out from a­mongst them.Further Discove­ry &c. Ep. ed. p. 2. The Jansenist solliciting the States of Holland to rid their hands of them, tells them, that the Republique of Venice look­ing on them as a publick contagion, banished them their territories, in these imperious terms; Be gone, carry away nothing with you, and never return. And he also instances in England, France, nay the States themselves, as [Page 35]having in times past exercised no less rigor to­wards them. And the truth is, so many and great are the mischiefs which they work in the world, that its a wonder that all Princes and States, instead of protecting and shewing them favour, do not proceed against them as the known enemies of common peace and honesty. Were it needful I might multiply instances of this nature, but these I have here set down may serve to intimate, what opinion great and wise men, of different callings and perswasions have had of such kind of Officers and orders of persons, and what course they have taken with them. They judg'd it most convenient both for the vindicating of Justice, and the pre­venting of miscarriages for the future; to re­move and lay them by.

2. The Primitive Christians did for a sea­son to the Eucharist add their Love feasts, the end whereof was spiritual rejoycing, with the preservation and increase of charity and friend­ship; but in time they fell sadly to pervert and abuse them, turning them into occasions of very great disorders, which Paul observing amongst the Corinthians, blames them for it, and charges them to lay them aside.2 Cor. 11 21, 22. In eating (saith he) every one taketh before other his own Supper, and one is hungry, and another is drun­ken; what have ye not houses to eat and drink in? The Jews (and the Heathens likewise) had a double kind of feasting; the one was wholly, and altogether of a civil nature, ha­ving no relation to their Sacrifices, and was [Page 36]called [...] from the liberal drinking used at it.Ester. 5.6. Isa. 29.1. Dout. 16.14. Quasi char. ta­tis Chri­stianae Symbola & vin­cula, in loc. See. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. p. 97. Ed. Mo­rell. &c. Tertul. Apol. p. 69. Ed. Pamel. The other was in a sort religious, inas­much as it immediately succeeded their Sacri­fices, whence it was called [...]n which signifies both sacrifice and feast. Now the Corinthians in complyance herewith, still when they had eaten the Euc harist, celebrated certain feasts, which they called [...], charities, or loves, for that they were (as Pareus shews) as it were the testimonies and bonds thereof. The manner of the Christians of those times was to meet every first day of the week; and when they were come together, they be­gun their service with Prayers for the Church, the Emperors, and others; which being end­ed, they rose up, and kissed each other. Then he who was Lector read to them some part of the Prophets and Apostles; and he having done, the Praepofitus, or President made a Ser­mon, wherein he exhorted them to faith, pie­ty, and vertue. When the Sermon was over, they went to prayer again, and so proceeded to the Eucharist, and then to the collection, part whereof, by the Presidents appointment, was distributed among the indigent, and the rest laid out in provision for the love-feast; at which, rich and poor sate familiarly together, refreshing themselves, not only with the so­ber use of the creatures, but likewise with re­ligious conferences and sacred hymns. Thus they managed things for a space in divers pla­ces, and particularly at Corinth. And had they stuck here, they had not laid themselves [Page 37]under such censure and reproof as they met with from the Apostle; Agapas qnamvis d [...]u & quidem laudabi­liter an­ctoribus ipsis A­postolis in Ecclesiis usurpa­t as, &c. Apud Trem. & Jun. Bibl. in loc. but not contenting themselves herewith, they brake forth into several disorders, such as preposterousness, con­tempt of the poor, divisions, schisms, intem­perance and the like, which he being inform­ed of, labors to take them off those feasts, and bring them back to the first institution of the Supper, willing them, since they could make no better use of them, to forbear them.

The substance of what I have said concern­ing this matter, you may take in the words of Beza. The love-feasts (saith he) were by the authority of the Apostles themselves, long and laudably used in the Churches, but because of their abuse, the Apostle (Paul) judg'd they ought to be laid aside. We see then, that though these love feasts were so antient, of Apostolical institution, and might (had they been rightly observ'd) have contributed much towards the advancement of piety and charity; yet when the Apostle saw them so abused, he takes them away.See Mou­lins Nov. of Pop. l. 1. c. 15. Sect. 30. p. 53. Gillesp. against the Ce­rem. p. 108, 271. And if he dealt thus with them, what would he (do you think) have done with our Christmas, Easter, and Whitson­tide solemnities, wherein men drown them­selves in all manner of riotousness and licenti­ousness, as if they were then at absolute li-l berty, and not under any law, save what ei­ther the emptiness of their purses, or weak­ness of their appetites do give them? Do you think such plea's as Mountagu, Selden, Fisher, use in the behalf of them, would have pre­vail'd [Page 38]with him to have spar'd them? I sup­pose not.

2. The Christians of former times had a friendly kind of salutation, wherein in token of love, peace, familiarity, and brotherly re­spect, they kissed each other.Rom. 16.16. 1 Pet. 5.14. This the Apo­stles often make mention of, calling it one while, an holy kiss, another while a kiss of charity. And it being not only an innocent, but in some respects, a convenient custom of long standing amongst che Jews, from whom they deriv'd it: they did not only allow the faithful to use it, but exhorted them to it. What more frequent in the close of Pauls E­pistles, than,Rom. 16.16. 2 Cor. 13.12. 1 Thes. 5.26. salute one another with an holy kiss? which yet we must not understand, as if that serious, pious, holy, mortified man intended them the liberty of any salutations that were light or vain, or any way unbecoming the strictness and honor of the Christian Religion (it were no less than impious absurdity to en­tertain such a thought) but that in the same way whereby they were wont to express their civil respects, he would have them to shew their Christian respect to each other. And for the utter removal of all matter of suspicion and jealousie in the case, we must know, that it was not his mind that the men and women should in the sacred as­semblies, where this custome did in an espe­cial manner take place,Gen. 29.13.33.4.45.15. promiscuously embrace and kiss each other, but that the Men (as was usual among the Jews) should do it by [Page 39]themselves, and the Women by themselves; for the Men and Women (as Baronius well observes) did not sit as they do amongst us,Ad. ann. 45. Sect. 26. in a mixed way, but apart. It is not to be imagined that he who wrote so much about abstaining from appearance of evil, shun­ning occasions of sin, avoiding of scandal, and laboured so much to maintain the honor of the Gospel, should allow, much less exhort them to express their respect in the assemblies, in the former, promiscuous way, but in the lat­ter, which as it was common, so it was less lyable to exception and offence. I speak this, the rather, to obviate the Atheistical, profane vanity of some, who that they may the bet­ter disgrace religion, and bring it into con­tempt, use to make themselves merry with such kind of passages.

Well, this custome having this foundation, Ed. Pa­ris. grae­col. a Jac. Goar p. 134, &c. Ad. ann. 45. Sect. 26. Com. in Rom. 16. De An­tiq. Bapt, rit. l. 1. c. 36. hath spread far, and continued long. In the Greek Church it remains to this day, as seve­ral passages in their Euchologium shew. And in the West it remain'd so long till it became highly abused, which the Pastors of the Church taking notice of, did for the prevent­ing of scandal, and other evils likely to pro­ceed from it, prudently disswade from the further use of it, upon which it was omitted and laid aside, not without the approbation of Baronius, A Lapide, Vicecomes, though men as tenacious of abused customes, as most, that their Church hath afforded.

3. It was an use among the Christians here­tofore, in the honor of deceased Saints, who had born eminent witness to the truth, to ce­lebrate nocturnal vigils, or night watches. Their manner was, the night before such a fe­stival, to meet together in the Church, and there to imploy themselves in holy communi­on, and pious devotions; more especially in praises and thanksgivings unto God, who by the faithfulness and constancy of his deceased servants, Eo quod saepe sub obtentu orationis scelera, latenter commit­tant. Can. 35. Propter haec & multa a­lia incon­venientia quae fie­bant hu­jusmodi vigiliae sunt in­terdictae. Ration. l. 6. c. 7 n. 8. had given them that happy occasion of coming before him. This was a plausible observation, but after it had been practis'd a season, it became attended with such unhap­py abuses and inconveniencies, that it lost the reverence belonging to it, and so was declared against, and laid aside. The Fathers of the Council of Eliberis in Spain, made a perempto­ry Decree against it, especially as to Women, and their watching in the Churchyard; for that under pretence of Prayer, they secretly com­mitted wickednesses. Durand gives us a more particular and full account, both of their abuse and abrogation. He tells us, that after a time, instead of celebrating them with holy re­joycings, thanksgivings, and praises, they en­tertained players and singers, passing away the time in filthy songs, dances, banquets, drinkings, nay fornications; and for these (saith he) and many other inconveniencies which attended them, they were interdicted. Nay and Bellar­mine, though he shew from Basil, Jerom. and other writers, that these Night-watches were [Page 41]antiently used, yet he saith, that inasmuch as they became occasions of great abuses, Caeterum quoniam paulatim occasione noctur­narum vigilia­rum, a­busus quidem irrepere caeperant, &c. t. 2. de Eccl. Triump. l. 3. c. 17. Exod. 21.14. the Church was pleased to intermit them. There are yet in some Churches, some footsteps of them, but neither the observation nor credit of them is comparable to what it was.

4. The general and continued use of Sanctu­aries or places of refuge for unwilling Offend­ers, is well known. The judicial law provided that if any man flew his brother fortuitously, or without intention, flying to the Altar, he should there remain secure from the revenge of the pursuer. Thus it was while the Israe­lites were in their journey in the VVilderness, and lay in one intire body round about the Tabernacle; but when they came into the land of Canaan, where they were to live at a greater distance, God out of his care and goodness, lest the Altar should be too far from the place where the fact was committed, and so the Offender be taken, ere he could reach it, did ordain [...],Josh. 20.6. certain Cities of refuge, whither the offender fleeing, and con­tinuing till the death of the high Priest (which typified the death of Jesus Christ our great high Priest, that was to put his poor exil'd ones in the fruition of a free and safe conditi­on) he was to be discharged and return home. And answerably hereunto the Heathens had their Temples, Courts, walls, statues, and such like priviledg'd places, to which the offender fleeing, he remain'd safe. Of this sort was the Temple of Mercy at Athens, with several [Page 42]other places whereof our Polyd. Virgil will give you a particular account.De In­vent. l. 3. c. 12. p. 265. And when the Emperors embraced the Christian religion, and became Patrons thereof, they setled this pri­viledge upon Christian Temples. And I think no body denies but that such places of prote­ction and defence to unwilful offenders are both lawful and convenient. But the Papists not contenting themselves with the bounds prescribed by Christian Princes and States in former times,Si liber fugit ad Ecclesi­am quan­tumcun­que gra­via ma­leficia perpetra­verit, &c Decret. de Im­munit. Eccl. in l. Imm. l. 1. tit. 49. c. in­ter alias. Sunt ho­die in or­be nostro Christia­no, &c. p. 266. have made their several Church­es, Chappels, nay their impure Monasteries such places, and that not only to the unwil­ling offenders, but to Traytors, Murderers, Whoremongers; where contrary to all reason and justice they keep them from being brought to due tryal and punishment. Hear what the Decree saith; If the Offender fly to the Church, how great soever his miscarriages have been, he is not violently to be taken thence, neither ought he at any time upon pretence of the fault com­mitted to be sentenced to death,, or any other corporal punishment: Which how the fore­mentioned Pol. Virgil resented, you may ga­ther from what follows. There are (saith he) in our Christian orb, especially amongst the English, Sanctuaries every where, which do not only stand open, to such as fear snares, but to all manner of Offenders whatsoever, till it come to such as are guilty of Treason; which shews, as it manifestly appears, that we receiv'd not the institution from Moses, who appointed a Sanctuary only for such as had unwillingly slain [Page 43]a man, but from Romulus, which certainly is the cause that many take such liberty in wicked­nesses. What must our Temples every where be Sanctuaries to such as these? how contrary is this to the institution of Moses, &c. And that which he thus seriously bewailes and declaims against, divers Christian Princes and States being affected with, have wholly abolished all Sanctuaries for offenders whatsoever, and laid them aside, choosing rather to run the hazard of some lesser inconveniencies in the want of them, than such great ones, in the use of them,

And thus I have made good what I affirm­ed, viz. that the Church hath not only thought-fit to lay aside such things as have been abused in Idolatry, but likewise such as have been abus'd in proceedings of a lower nature; which I have insisted on, for this end, to shew that if such things are to be laid aside, then those that have been abus'd the former way, and so have receiv'd defilement of a deep­er and worse die, are much more. Idolatry do's not only argue a neglect of God, but sets up a rival or competitor with him, nay prefers another before him; and therefore though all sins are offensive and provoking, yet that is is so in an especial manner: whence it follows, that of all those things which have been abused those are most offensive which have been abus'd in Idolatry, and therefore of all others ought to be laid aside. And so much may serve for proof of the point; I now proceed to what fol­lows.

Sect. 3.

Secondly, I shall shew what things they are that God upon their being abused to Idolatry would have laid aside. And here I desire you to take notice that I use not the term [things] in a strict sense as it stands opposed to persons, Names, Times, as sometimes it is taken, but in a large one, as comprehending both them, and the other particulars following.

1. He would have such persons, as forsak­ing true religion and his prescribed worship, do give up themselves to dunghill Idols, and the service belonging to them, and therein do abuse and defile themselves to be removed and laid aside. Though he be a very gratious God, and take no pleasure in casting off and undoing his creatures, yet such is his purity, and holiness, that when he sees them go and prostitute themselves to base and filthy Idols that are worth nothing but scorn and hatred, he is so displeased with them, that he will not endure them. Such in times past was his zeal to his own worship, that if a man did but in some circumstances depart from the rule, it was no less than death.Lev. 17.3, 4. What man (saith he) soever there be of the house of Israel that killeth an Oxe, Lamb, or Goat, and bringeth it not to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation, that man shall be cut off from among his people; that is, either by the hand of God, in case he [Page 45]did it secretly, or by the hand of the Judge, if it were open. And in observance hereof,Josh. 2.12. when the children of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasses, built an Altar up­on the borders of Jordan, upon a civil account to signifie that though they lived dividedly from their brethren, yet they were Israelites as well as they, of the posterity of Jacob, in covenant with God, of the number of his pe­culiar pbople, interested in his favour, pro­mises, and ordinances; and the other tribes thought they had done it upon a religious ac­count, with an intention to offer Sacrifice thereon, contrary to what God had appoint­ed, they were so affected with it, that they presently gathered themselves together to go forth to warr with them: and if they had not satisfied them that they did it meerly upon a civil account, they would no doubt have put them to the Sword. So great was their hatred of false worship, that they were resolv'd ra­ther to hazard, nay lose their lives than en­dure it.

And if God be thus impatient of one cir­cumstance in his worship which he hath not required, what may we then think he is of gross and open Idolatry, and such as are guilty thereof? As for such he every where breaths forth death against them. So great is his seve­rity against Idols, that he peremptorily de­crees, that whosoever he is that pleads for them, offers to them, or performs them any service, shall not only be look'd on as unfit [Page 46]to approach him,Levit. 20 2. Deut. 13.5. but also lose his life. There were two sorts of Idolaters that in the dayes of the Old Testament he required the Magistrates, whom he intrusted with the exe­cution of the Law, to look after, and destroy; the impenitent Canaanites, and the apostate Israelites. Concerning the former, he tells them in plain terms,Numb. 32.15. that they must utterly de­stroy them: which yet is not to be taken abso­lutely, and strictly, but with this condition, if they persisted in their idolatry, enmity, and opposition against his truth and people;Josh. 2.14.6.23.9.15. 2 Sam. 22.1. other­wise they might spare them, as appears not only by the league made with Rahab, and the sparing of her, but also by the league made with the Gibeonites, and his punishing the breach thereof by Saul, in the dayes of David. And then for the latter, the case is no less plain: He determines peremptorily, that he that sacrifices unto any, Exod. 22.20. Deut. 17.2. save unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed. And he requires of the Magistrates, that if there were any one amongst them that went and served other Gods, they should upon the testimony of two or three witnesses, stone him to death. And in answer hereunto we find that religious Magistrates and such as had authority, when they met with any that were guilty hereof, did for the punishment of them, and the terror and caution of others, put them to death. Thus Moses, when he came down from the Mount, and saw the Israelites dancing before the Golden Calf, he causes the Levites forth­with [Page 47]to fall upon such as were the capital Of­fenders, and slay them. And afterwards when he saw how they joyned to Baal Peor, Numb. 25.4, 5. he in obedience to the command of God to that pur­pose, calls to his Judges, and makes them take such as were principal in the action, and hang them before the Sun. So Elijah, when in that famous contest upon Mount Carmel with four hundred and fifty Prophets of Baal, 1 Kings 18.40. and four hundred Prophers of the Grove, he had in a miraculous way before King Ahab and all the people evinced them to be Impostors and Deceivers, he takes them down to the Brook Kidron,, and there slays them every man.2 Kings 10.25. And Jehu having got a company of Baals Priests together, serves them after the same manner; he put them all to the Sword, not suffering one of them to escape.2 Kings 23.5, 20. But Josiah willing to give Idolatry its deaths wound, and bury it in everlasting oblivion, do's not only fall upon the Priests of Baal, and of the high places of Judah, but likewise goes to Dan and Bethel, and there destroys all before him. And whereas notwithstanding his Godly zeal and diligence, some escaped, and sculking up and down, secretly acted their wonted Idola­try, the Lord declares by one of his Prophets, who prophecyed after this reformation, that he would have them destroyed as well as the other. I will (saith he) cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, Zeph. 1.4. and the names of the Che­marims with the Priests. By this remnant of Baal, he means such as had escaped the zea­lous [Page 48]severity of the forementioned reformers; but what these Chemarims were, is not so ea­sie to determine. The word [...] coming of [...] which in its primary notion, signifying Incaluit, Calefecit, adustus fuit, the generality of Orthodox interpreters, do by a Metalepsis render it atrati, which denotes such as go in black or mourning; so that these Chemarims seem to have been a special sort of Priests per­taining to Baal, who that they might the better gain to themselves the reputation of se­riousness, mortifiedness, holiness, went in a black or mourning garb. It's likely they were his domestick Chaplains, who pertain'd to that which the Scripture do's by way of emi­nency call his house, 2 Kings 10.26. Those who would see other in­stances may read Zeppe­ras de Leg. Mo­saic. l. 4. c. 3. p. 244. and there perform'd the offices and services belonging to him. Now these, by how much they were the nearer to Baal, and of greater account, by so much God takes the more notice of them, and declares more particularly against them.

And thus I have given you some instances of the severity God hath appointed religious Ma­gistrates to exercise towards Idolaters. For the due applying and improving whereof, we are to distinguish, 1. Betwixt such as are within their dominions, and such as are not. For the latter I may say as the Apostle in a­nother case: What have they to do to judge them that are without? 1 Cor. 5.12. 2. Betwixt such as have been drawn to Idolatry through igno­rance, evil education, fraud: and such as have deliberately and of their own accord, betaken [Page 49]themselves to it. 3. Betwixt such as have had no due means applyed to them for their reco­very; and such as after the use of all due means remain obstinate in their errour. 4. Be­twixt such as commit Idolatry secretly; and those that do it openly. 5. Betwixt such as are content with being guilty of Idolatry them­selves; and such as not thinking it sufficient to commit it themselves, sollicite others to it. 6. Betwixt those who out of the simplicity of their hearts, are followers in that wicked work; and such as are the ring-leaders. Now for such as lying under the disadvantages of igno­rance, evil education, fraud, or the like, have been drawn to Idolatry,Cham. Ep. ad Cotton. p. 45. Rainold. de Idol. Eccles. Rom. l. 2. c. 1. p. 327. Rivet. vol. 2. in Hos. p. 557. Walaeus loc. Com. p 513. Exod. 32.5. and have had no due means applyed for their recovery, especially if they commit it secretly, and without solliciting others to it, they are to be instructed, and upon their repentance, received. But then for such as deliberately, and of their own accord have closed with it, and after the use of due means, persist in it, and commit it, not only secretly but openly, and labour to draw others to it, they are by the sword of Justice to be cut off.

How far this concerns the Papists, the knowledge of their wayes and practises, will inform us. That they are Idolaters, the sober­est and best of our Protestant Writers do peremptorily determine. To alledge that they worship the true God, will not relieve them; for so did the Israelites when they worshipped the Calf; yet no body questions but they [Page 50]were guilty of Idolatry. Though a people do worship the true God terminatively, and ulti­mately, yet if they worship him under any visible representation and similitude, and not as he hath appointed, they do notwithstanding that commit Idolatry. Now the Papists being evidently guilty hereof, in their use of Images, Transubstantiation, bowing to the Altar, how we are to deal with them, the forementioned distinctions will afford some direction.Zepp. de leg. Mo­saic. l. 4. c. 3. p. 244. This I might have been larger on, but the Author in the margent is so clear and full on it, that I shall only answer an Objection, and so go on to what follows.

Perhaps you'l say, If it were indeed the pleasure of God, that such as corrupted his worship, and committed Idolatry, should be cut off, how as Hezekiah did not destroy the Jews, when as they burnt incense to the bra­zen Serpent? Answ. Though I reserve the answering of Objections till I come towards the close of this Discourse, where I intend the doing of it under a particular head, to which I desire my Reader as oft as there is occasion to have recourse; yet in regard this exception (with some others that follow) is of a more particular consideration, I shall say somewhat to it now: And, 1. Perhaps the number of those who had an hand therein was so great, that he could not, without destroying the body of the people (which in likelihood would have been a task too difficult for him) do it. It's said in the Text, that the children of Israel [Page 51]did burn incense to it; that is, (according to an usual figure, whereby we put the greater part for the whole) the generality of them; of all which to have attempted the punishment the Law required, would have been a business of dangerous consequence. 2. How does it appear that he did not (as Moses did before him) cut off the principal offenders? Though we may argue from Scripture Negatively in matters of faith, yet not in matters of fact. The Holy Ghost hath omitted the relating of many things, which he judg'd unnecessary for us to know, and who can say but it is so in this case? As I cannot say he did destroy them, so neither can he that shall oppose me say he did not. 3. Admit he did not do it, how will it appear he did not sin in it? we see what the Law required, and what others (some of which were divinely inspired) practised; and that must needs be a stronger evidence for the punishing of Idolaters with death, than Hezekiahs omission, whereof we are yet uncertain is for the sparing of them.

Sect. 4.

2. HE would have such Names as have been given to Idols, or to such per­sons or things as have belong'd to them, and thereby have been polluted, to be laid aside. So far is he from allowing us to own other [Page 52] Gods, or comply with them in their sacrile­gious and prophane ordinances, that he will not endure we should so much as retain their Names. As the King is impatient of the Traytors name, who hath attempted the ta­king away of his power and life, so is God im­patient of the names of Idols, in as much as they have attempted the taking away, not only of his power, but also whatever is near and dear to him. How ordinary is it for him in Scripture to forbid us to take their Names into our mouths?Exod. 23.13 Make no mention (saith he) of other Gods. And, make no mention of the name of their Gods. Josh. 23.7. And, I will cut off the names of the Idols out of the land. And in obedience to his will signified in these and such like passages,Zech. 13.2. his faithfull servants have re­solv'd upon the declining of them. I will not (saith David) take their names into my lips. Psal. 16.4. Such was the perfectness of his hatred to them, that he would not so much as name them. And if ever God make us men after his own heart, and bless us with such sincere and holy zeal, as he had, we shall follow his good example. Name them indeed we may, as the sacred Pen-men themselves did afterwards,Vid. Ter­tull. de Idol. c. 20 p. 153. but then we must see that we do it upon some necessary occasion, and with contempt and indignation, not with any honour or respect to them. We may name them in historical relations, in con­fessing our faith, or in such discourses as we may be call'd to make in order to the abju­ring, refuting, and condemning of them; but [Page 53]not so as to justifie, invocate, commend them, or any way promote their reputation or ser­vice. The Apostle speaking of fornication, uncleanness, covetousness,Eph. 5.3. charges the Ephe­sians that they do not so much as name them; that is, by way of approbation or vindication, so as either to spread or uphold them: which also is to be said in the present case; we may in discouse name Idols by way of distinction, not needlesly, or with any shew of liking, so as to defend or plead for them.

And God do's not only forbid us to take the names of Idols into our mouths in the sense expressed, but he charges us, like so many execrable and hateful things, to extirpate and root out the remembrance of them in all pla­ces where it is.Deut. 12.3. You shall (saith he) destroy the names of them out of that place. He will have us to imploy our authority, power, in­terest, and all, for the total abolishing both of them, and all respectful remembrance of them. Nay such is his indignation against them, that he will not only have such names abolished as have originally and solely pertained to them, but such likewise as were originally his, and do in a way of special propriety and suitable­ness belong to him, and yet have been given to them. What name is there in all Scripture more becomming him than Baal? What may better serve to hold forth his absolute domini­on over his people, or conjugal relation to them? It signifies my Lord, or my Husband; what name then more proper or suitable for [Page 54]such a purpose, than it? Yet when it had long been given to Idols, he took up such a dislike of it, that he forbids them to call him any more by it.Hos. 2.16, 17. Selden de diis Syris. Synt. 2. c. 1. p. 195. Thou shalt (saith he) call me no more Baali, for I will take the names of Baalim, out of her mouth. Some very learned men think that the Chaldaeans, and Phaenicians, first gave this Name to the true God, the Ma­ker and Lord of all: afterwards taking the Sun to be the only God of Heaven, they gave it, to it; then, out of the respect they bore to their deceased friends, they gave it to their Images which they set up and worshipped.Rivet. vol. 2. in Hos. 2.8. p. 537. Mede in 1 Tim. 4.1. Others think it takes its rise from Belus the first Assyrian Monarch after Nimrod, who governing his people well, they were so af­fected with it, that upon his death they dei­fied him; and his Son Ninus out of the respect he bore to him, set up his Statue. After him, they called all their deceased Hero's whom they first made, and then esteemed Gods, Baalim. As upon the first Roman Emperors, being called Caesar, those who succeeded had the same title, so upon this great Monarchs being stiled Baal (or Belus, for they are both one) those who were deified after him, were termed so to; whereby it came to pass that so many as were their deified Hero's, so many were their Baals. Hence we read of Baal Berith, Baal Hermon, Baal Peor, and divers others, whereof you find frequent mention in Scrip­ture. The Chaldaeans, out of the high respect they bore to this appellation, prefixed it to [Page 55]their Names, as Baladan, Balthazar, Bel­shazzar; and the Carthaginians, added it to theirs, as Asdrubal, Adherbal, Hannibal. Now whether this name were given first to God, and then to Idols, or first to Idols and then to him, is not so material that we should spend much time about it: certain it is that it was given to both, and as certain, that when God saw it so commonly and grosly abus'd, he do's notwithstanding the properness and fit­ness of it for himself, by an express prohibiti­on, forbid his people to give it him any more.Menoch. de Rep. Heb. l. 4. c. 1. Sir W. Raw­leigh hist. l. 1. c. 10. Sect. 6. p. 194. That this was the very reason wherefore he would have it laid aside, is the judgement of Oecolampadius, Calvin, Danaeus, Zanchy, Tremellius, Junius, Pareus, Rivet, and other learned men. Such is the purity and holiness of God, that he will not have any communion with Idols, no, not so much as in their names, especially when by long and frequent use, they become common to them, but will have both them and their names utterly abolished and laid in silence.

This being so, what shall we think of those who give the names of Idols to their children, to months, dayes, ships, horses, dogs, and or­dinarily discourse of them under the same, without evidencing any detestation or dislike? Nay what shall we think of those who do not only take this liberty in civil matters, but al­so in religious: that declining the names Christ hath given to his Officers, Ordinances, and such things as belong thereunto, use such [Page 56]as have been abused by Idolaters?Non so­lum thu­ra, &c. Gratian. Dec. pt. 1. dist. 37. c. 15. Sect. 7. See Voe­tius disp. select. pt. 3. p. 260, 261, 263, 285, 317 Thes. Salm. pt. 3. Sect. 37. p. 356 Alsted. Encyclop. vol. 1. l. 17. U­ran: pt. 1. c. 13. Sect. 15. p. 406. & part. 3. c. 4. Sect. 3. p. 345. Hosp. Fest. p. 27. Numb. 32 38. Duo illa civita­tum No­mina mutata fuerunt, &c. Tremel. & Jun. in loc. Vid. Bez. vit. Calv. Thus ma­ny call Ministers, Priests; the Supper, a Sa­crifice; and the Table, Altar. What is this but to be guilty of sinful complyance, and need­lesly keep up the remembrance of those things which God would have forgotten? Isidore was of opinion that to use the phrases of Idols, was no other than to Sacrifice to them. We do not only Sacrifice (saith he) to Devils when we burn Incense to them, but likewise when we willingly, without any necessity moving us to it, use their sayings. This is home to the case; but for the further informing and satisfying your selves touching this matter, I leave you to ad­vise with the Authors set down in the Margent.

But you'l say, when a man comes into a place and finds persons and things bearing such names, what must he do? If he speak of them under those names, he sins; if he do's not, either the people do not understand him, or laugh him to scorn: what then must be done? Answ. We must consider whether in the use of such names in the places where we are, there be danger of scandal, yea, or no; that is, whether there be any who are likely there­by either to be drawn to, or confirmed in, their respect to Idols; or whether there be any who are likely to be grieved at the use of such names. If there be not, then we may take the more liberty; if there be, then, 1. where we have authority we must take away such names, and appoint others in their stead. Thus the Children of Reuben dealt with Nebo, [Page 57]and Baalmeon, two Idolatrous Cities which they repaired. And thus they of Geneva dealt with Balthazar, the use of which name, they forbade. 2. Where we have not authority, we must by such arguments, and reasons, as are proper, perswade them who have, to do it. 3. Where we neither have authority to alter, nor can perswade those who have, to do it, we may lawfully use them in historical relations, and by way of distinction. Dagon, Ashtoreth, Milchom, and divers others mentioned in Scripture, were the names of Heathenish I­dols, and yet the sacred Pen-men did in that way, make use of them. Use them we may, but then we must do it so, that we make it to appear we do it not out of choice, Neque puto soli­da ratio­ne pro­babis, &c Dissert. de Cerem. c. 9. Sect. 7. p. 90. See Ri­vet. vol. 2. in Hos. 2.16. p. 558. Voetius select. disp. part. 2. p. 607. or in a way of approbation, but out of necessity, and by way of distinction only, that we may signifie our minds, and make known what we have to im­part.

These being our utmost bounds in this case, how Mr. Ritschel, who thinks, that though we may lawfully lay aside abused phrases, that yet we are not by any law bound to it, wil justifie the Lutherans of Augusta in the vo­luntary and unnecessary retaining of the word Mass, which he thought fit to instance in, in favour of his cause, I leave him to consider.

But to proceed; if God will have, not on­ly the Idols themselves, but their very names abolished, what shall we think of such Au­thors as Erasmus, Politian, Lipsius, with ma­ny more of the same stamp, who upon every [Page 58]occasion invocate and swear by the heathenish deities, mentioning them so frequently, as if they could not speak elegantly, unless they stuff their discourses with their names? What more ordinary than Dii Immortales, Propitia Minerva, Mehercule, and a thousand more such passages unfit to enter into a Chri­stians mouth? what lightness and vanity of this kind Castellio hath shew'd in his Transla­tion, Beza, Praef. in def. tran­slat. suae cont. Ca­stell. Praefat. in Nov. test. Grac. 160. Hist. t. 2. l. 35. p. 271. Psal. 2.12. Ad Chri­stum re­ferre ipsa absurdi­tate ab­surdius est: in Job 31.17. Stephanus, Thuanus, have pritty well told him. That Christians should use heathenish terms in their ordinary discourse is sad, but that they should bring them into the Bible, and make the Holy Ghost speak such lan­guage, is intollerable. Drusius speaking of that passage, Kiss the Sun; and of some that think the Psalmist doe's in the use of it allude to the manner of Idolaters, who testified their reverence and subjection to their Idols by kis­sing their hands, saith, to referr it to Christ is most absurd. He thought it an improbable thing that the Psalmist should expresse the ho­nour due to Christ by a Phrase in use among Idolaters. And there passes a manuscript from hand to hand, said to be written by that learn­ed man Dr. Sanderson, wherein he advises us to observe formam sanorum verborum, and to abstain not only from suspected opinions, but as much as may be also from scandalous and offensive Phrases. Nay some of the Papists themselves do concurr with us herein. Aqui­nas discoursing of unfit words and expressions produces a passage out of an Epistle of Pope [Page 59] Leo to Proterius Bishop of Alexandria, Ʋnde Leo Pa­pa in qua­dam E­pistola, &c. 22. q. 11. a. 2.2. Nun­quam probavi vocem Divus, &c. init. Beatus Sylvester nolens, &c. Ra­tion. l. 7. c. 1. n. 11. p. 426. See the Rhemists Annot. on 2 Cor. 6.14. 1 Tim. 6.4. Rev. 1.10. where­in he tells him that the enemies of the Cross of Christ, do diligently observe all our words and syllables, that so if we give them the least occasion, they may improve it against us. And Bellarmine being grown old and better ad­vis'd, having in the first book and the third chapter of his disputations, de verbo dei used the heathenish term Divus; he do's in his re­cognition of that book, admonish his Reader about it, telling him he never thought fit to give that title to Saints, not only because he found it not used by the antient Latin Fathers, but likewise because the heathens gave it to their gods, and therefore will have him to know that wherever he meets with that term in his writings, it either fell from him impru­dently, or else was put in by the Printer without his order. And Durand shews that Pope Sylvester judging it unfit to speak of the dayes under Jewish terms, such as prima Sab­bati, secunda Sabbati: or under heathenish terms, such as dies Solis, dies Lunae: appoint­ed they should speak of them under the terms, feria prima, feria secunda; which he look'd upon as more harmless and inoffensive. Had they taken the same course in other mat­ters, they had come nearer to the present ex­ample of Hezekiah, and administred less mat­ter of scandal and separation.

Sect. 5.

3. HE would have such times as have been devoted to superstitious and idolatrous services, and thereby have been defiled, to be laid aside. It hath been the manner of super­stitious and Idolatrous people, out of the blind reverence and indiscreet devotion which they have born to their respective deities, to set apart some special times in their behalf, which they have esteem'd holy, and spent in the so­lemnities belonging to them. As the Jews celebrated feast dayes in the honour of their God, so did Idolaters in the honour of theirs. Jeroboam did so in the honour of his Gods, 1 Kings 12.32. Dan. 5.1, 5. and Belshazzar in the honour of his. And who hath not heard of the Saturnalia, Bacchana­lia, Lupercalia, and such like festivals among the Romans, in the celebration whereof they committed such horrible wickedness? Now when men do either appropriate time to false gods, take up superstitious opinions of them, or imploy them in unlawful services, they do thereby imprint such defilement on them, as renders them unfit for more pious and holy use. The Jews not thinking it sufficient to give their festivals the sober and just respect be­longing to them, did no less than make Idols of them, in ascribing to them those virtues and excellencies which were not in them, and [Page 61]thereby cast such filth upon them, as rendred them unmeet for those who professed the Gospel, and desired to keep themselves pure, to have any thing to do with them. This the Apostles saw, and therefore would not give way that the people under their charge should joyn in the observance of them. And when Paul took notice that the Galatians, notwith­standing this, did observe them, he blames them for it: Ye observe (saith he) dayes, Gal. 4.10 and months, and times, and years. Nay he was so affected with it, that he tells them in plain terms, he was affraid he had bestowed upon them labour in vain. The reason wherefore he was so much set against the ob­serving of these festivals, was not only be­cause Christ was come, and the Ceremonial Law, whereon they depended, abrogated, Cultum & meri­tum, &c. in loc. but because the Jews both had, and did (as Pareus shews) abuse them to superstition, by ascri­bing merit and satisfaction to them, which was highly injurious to the interest of Christ, and the design of the Gospel. Concil. Tolet. 4. can. 10. Grat. de­cret. part 2. caus. 26. q. 7. c. 13. Baron. ad ann. 184. And if we con­sult the Records of the Church, we shall find that the Godly Pastors, Teachers, and Chri­stians of succeeding ages, look'd upon the abuse of such and such times and dayes, as a good and sufficient reason wherefore they should decline the observation of them. They would not observe the Calends of January, nor Play­dayes in the beginning of the Spring, nor Easter at the usual time, and that because Heathens and Jews had defiled them with their supersti­tions. [Page 62]And if the grounds whereon some of the ablest defenders of abused things, amongst us, be sound, they did no more herein than what was just and reasonable. Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 69. p. 271. They teach, that the works which God does in times give re­putation to them, and that his extraordinary works have advanced certain times to such a degree of eminency, that all those who honour God ought to esteem them holy. Now if this be so, may we not fairly inferre, that evil works do in like manner disparage times, and that the extraordinary wicked works that have been done by superstitious, idolatrous, pro­phane men, have sunk them down to such a degree of vileness, that all those who honour God, ought to look upon them as unclean and loathsome? If the old Maxime, contrariorum eadem est ratio, be true, certainly we may: for good and evil works are contrary, and therefore if the former have power to make holy and honourable, the latter have power to make unholy and disgracefull. Much more might be said on this point, but I shall have occasion to resume it hereafter, and therefore for the present shall dismiss it.

Sect. 6.

4. HE would have such structures, build­ings, places as have been consecrated to superstitious and idolatrous uses, and thereby [Page 63]have received defilement, to be laid aside. All the Temples, Chappels, Houses, Groves, and other places, wherein Idolaters have celebra­ted their unlawfull solemnities, he would have demolished and thrown down. As soon as ever he appointed his people to make him any place for the recording of his name, he declared his dislike of such places as Idolaters had devis'd and us'd. He was so far from being pleased with them, that he would not have one, though new built, and that for his own peculiar service, so much as like there­unto. Vasquez saith,De Ado­rat. l. 2. disp. 4. c. 4. he chose the form of an Ark rather than another thing, for a testi­mony of his presence, because it was such as they had not abused. But his dislike to such kind of places, will appear more evidently from the many express commands he hath given to his people concerning them. Amongst other things which he gave in charge to the Israelites in the Wilderness, this was one, that when they were come into the Land of Cannan, they should destroy all places wherein the inhabitants had committed their abomina­tions, in the service of their gods. Numb. 33.52. Deut. 7.5. Ye shall (saith he) pluck down all their high places, and cut down their groves. This he over and over again requir'd of them, but such was their remissnesse and lukewarmness, that they neg­lected to do it. They took care to avoid the rage of their enemies, and settle themselves in the Land; but as for the extirpation of Ido­latry, with the reliques and occasions thereof, [Page 64]and the setting up and maintaining of his pure worship and service, they minded it not: which he taking notice of, sends an Angel to them to expostulate with them about it, and blame them for it.Judg. 2.2 Upon this, they lift up their voices and weep, as a people sorry for their neglect, and resolv'd to reform. But this proves only a flourish, and ends in a return to their former security: for, the Angel is no sooner gone, but their zeal is over, and they as far from doing their duty, as every they were before. Nay so gross was their behaviour in this business, that instead of abolishing of such Idols as they had amongst them, (with the high places, houses, and other things belong­ing to them) they fell a worshipping them;Judg. 2.11. they served Baalim. Notwithstanding all the wonders God had wrought for them, all that Moses, Joshua, and the Angel had said to them, and all that they themselves had pre­tended, yet instead of renouncing Idols and serving the Lord, they renounced the Lord and served Idols: Which he being highly moved with, appears to Gideon by night, and bids him go and throw down the altar of Baal, that his Father had, and cut down the grove that was by it;Judg. 6.25. build an altar, take the second bullock, and offer a burnt-offering. He will first have him throw down the altar of Baal, and then set up one for him: first abolish ido­latrous worship, and then set up that which was pure. And this was no other than what upon good grounds he might command him [Page 65]to do; yet had Gideon thought it meet to have expostulated, he might have urged many things against his obedience. He might have pleaded that he was but young, and so less fit for the undertaking of such a work: that there was a Magistrate in the place, to whom it did more properly belong, who might ma­nage the business with less difficulty, and more success: that Joash his Father, whom he ought not to affront, was the man: that the altar he was to throw down, and the grove he was to destroy, stood in his ground: and that the oxe he was to sacrifice was likewise his; but ha­ving such warrant for his undertaking, he dis­putes not, but obeys. He takes ten of his Ser­vants, and goes in the night, and notwith­standing the difficulty and dangerousness of the attempt, does as he was appointed. Which heroical act being commanded by God, and usher'd in by a special miracle the Angel wrought, in fetching fire out of the Rock to consume his sacrifice, one would have thought should have awaken'd the people, and stirr'd them up to the performance of their long neglected duty; yet it prevail'd not, but they still proceeded in their former course, suffer­ing the work required of them to lye undone.

Notwithstanding this their stupidity and slothfulness, God still goes on, and a there is opportunity declares his displeasure against polluted places, and the sin therein committed. Though they were never so dear to him, and [Page 66] convenient for his service, yet when they were polluted, he took up a controversie against them. Shiloh was a place he much respected, was convenient for the residence of the Ark, and the coming of the people from the several Tribes thither to worship, and was honoured therewith for several hundreds of years; yet when it became polluted with the horrible pro­phaneness and wickedness that was there com­mitted, he was so incensed against it, that he remov'd the Ark from it,Jer. 7.12 1 Sam. 7.1. and would not en­dure it should ever come there more. When he brought it back from the Philistines, he would not (though the Tabernacle remain'd there) suffer it to return thither, but placed it in Kirjath-jearim, in the house of Abinadab. So likewise, Bethel was once dear to him, yet when Jeroboam had defiled it with his Idolatry, he was so displeased with it, that he puts ano­ther name upon it, denoting the wickedness of it,Hos. 4.15. 1 Kings 13.9, 24. See Dr. Stillingf. Orig. Sacr. l. 2. c. 5. sect. 2. p. 68. Ps. 78.60 1 Chron. 15.1.16.1. and forbids his servants to come at it. And when the Prophet, contrary to his command, ate and drank in it, he was so incensed against him, that he caused a Lion to meet him and slay him. Nay the Tabernacle it self, though it was made by his special appointment, con­secrated to his special honour, and had for a long time been imployed in his special service, yet when it became defiled, he cast it off, for­sook it, and never made use of it more. He would neither have the Ark brought back to it, nor it fetch'd to the Ark; but caused a new one to be made, wherein it re [...]'d [...] the building of the Temple.

These you'l easily grant, were emphatical intimations of his Mind, and strong motives to stir up this people both to decline and abolish such abused places; yet such was either their love to them, or want of zeal against them, that they still let them alone, to the high pro­voking of him, and insnaring of themselves, who were so apt to be overcome by every temptation. And thus (notwithstanding the many good men that time after time, they had amongst them) it continued all along down to the dayes of Hezekiah, who was the first that undertook their removal. He being ac­quainted with the mind of God in this particu­lar, and indued with a Spirit of rare and princely zeal, no sooner gets the Crown up­on his head, but he goes up to the high places and destroys them, with all the instruments, and incitements of Idolatry, he found in them. Amongst all the particulars mentioned in his reformation, this is the first, that he removed the high places. Presently after him, rises up the famous Josiah, who though when he en­tred upon the Kingdome,2 Kings 23.7. &c. he came short of him in years, yet not in zeal. Such was his indignation against all false and corrupt wor­ship, that he went through out all Judah and Israel, and demolish'd the high places, groves, houses, and what ever had been an occasion thereof. I say Judah and Israel; for though Israel, at that time were a distinct Kingdom, and govern'd by another power, yet the Inha­bitants thereof were then carried away, and [Page 68]those who remain'd, regarded not what be­came of the Idols that were amongst them, which before they had so much doted on, but gave way to this good Prince to come and do with them what he pleased; and he having such liberty, went to them and utterly destroy'd them. The like is reported of Asa and Jeho­shaphat: though their zeal did not carry them so farr as to remove all such places as had been abused, yet it put them upon removing all such as had been abused to Idolatry. 2 Chron. 14.3.17.6. 1 Kings 15.14.22.43. Its said both of the one and the other, that he took away the high places. Indeed in the Kings, its said, they did not take away the high places; but there the Holy Ghost speaks not ad idem: he there speaks of other high places, then he intends in the Chronicles. There were two sorts of high places; excelsa cultus idololatrici, and ex­celsa cultus divini. The former were consecra­ted to Idols, and used in their worship; the latter, to God, and used in his. Now they should have taken away both these; the for­mer, because they had been abused to Idola­try, the people having worshipped a false god in them: the latter, because they both had been, and still were likely to be abused to su­perstition, the people worshipping the true God in them, after a wrong manner, inasmuch as they did it not in the place he had appointed and set apart for that end and purpose. But they contented themselves with removing the former, suffering the latter to remain, which the Holy Ghost takes notice of, and blames them for.

Thus you see what God commanded,Julius Firmicus de Err. profan. relig. p. 68. Ed. Wouver. Enseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 52. Niceph. l. 8. c. 33. l. 12. c. 24, &c. Socrat. l. 5. c. 15. &c. Sozom. l. 2. c. 4. l. 5. c. 7. l. 7. c. 15. Ruffin. l. 2. c. 23. Theodo­ret. l. 5. c. 3. August. Serm. 241. Cent. Magd. cent. 4. c. 15. Zanch. vol. 2. col. 406. Com. in Deut. 12. 2. Colloq. Momp. part 2. p. 29. Com. in 2 Reg. 10.27. Pol. Christ. l. 3. p. 229. Synt. l. 10. c. 68. vol. 2. col. 711. and the most pious Kings in the time of the Old Testament, practiced, as to the present busi­ness. They suffered not the Temples, Chap­pels, Houses, Groves, and other places that had been abused, to remain; but set upon them, and demolish'd them. And if we come in to the times of the New Testament, we shall find, that such Christian Emperors, Kings, Princes, States, as have been tender of the glory of God, and the beauty of Religion, have taken the same course. No sooner did the civil powers after our Saviours time, become Christian, but the Pastors of the Church ad­dressing themselves to them, and acquainting them with the danger of the reviving of Idola­try, so long as the Pagan Temples remain'd, they gave order that they should be demolish'd. And when God was pleased some years ago, to begin a reformation of Religion amongst us, the Magistrates of these and other Na­tions did the like; they fell upon the Abbies, Monasteries, and other places that the Papists had polluted with their Idolatry, and pull'd them down to the ground. And herein they did no more than what was allowed by Cal­vin, Beza, Wolphius, Danaeus, Polanus, and the ablest Teachers of the reformed Churches. Zanchy, who hath writ a learned Treatise on this subject, is so peremptory in it, that he cries out, Quis hunc zelum Domini improbare queat? [Page 70]Who can be against this zeal of the Lord?

Let such places alone, and there is danger they will in time be imployed to bad uses, as they have been heretofore. Hereof History af­fords too many instances.Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 52. Theod. hist. l. 5. c. 20. Socrat. hist. l. 3. c. 1. Zanch. vol. 2. col. 709. Pet. Mart in 2 Reg. 10.27. Constantine hated Idols, forbad the worship of them, and de­stroyed divers of their Temples, yet left o­thers standing: and so upon Julians coming to the Empire, and allowing the Heathens the liberty of their religion, they entred into them, and celebrated their idolatrous myste­ries in them, as in times past. This Theodo­sins taking notice of, did not only forbid the worship of Idols, and destroy some of their Temples, but levell'd all before him, and thereby buried Idolatry, with the instruments of it, in oblivion. Though pious Magistrates do, by laws, forbid Idolaters the worship of their false Gods, yet so long as they see their Temples stand, they will be in hopes of recove­ring of their liberty; and when they have it, will enter into them, and abuse them as much as ever. Lavater therefore thinks it meet, that all such places should be destroyed; Com. in 2 Paral. 12.2. Apis, cae­terorum­que deo­rum aedes dirui ju­bet, &c. Justin. hist. l. 1. al­ledging the saying of the famous Zisca, con­cerning Monasteries. Non relinquendos esse nidos ciconiarum, ne eos repeterent. We must not suffer the nests of these Storks to remain, lest they return to them again. It is to be feared, that so long as such places remain, the Idola­try committed in them, will scarcely be sup­pressed. This the light of Nature taught Cambyses, who fearing the superstition of E­gypt would not be rooted out, if the Temples [Page 71]wherein it was seated, were not taken away, gave order that the houses of Apis and Am­mon should be pull'd down. On the contrary, when men see not only their Idols destroyed, but their Temples and Houses pull'd down, they'll dispair of the reviving of their religi­on, and so be more easily drawn to close with true piety. Eusebius hath writ a Chapter on purpose to acquaint us herewith;Vit. Christ. l. 3. c. 53. wherein he tells us, that when the Heathens, upon Constantines demolishing the Temples of Ve­nus and Aesculapius, saw how little their Idols were able to do for themselves, and what a desperate condition their religion was in, they fell to scorn them, and embraced Christia­nity.

But perhaps you'll say, if it be thus, what shall we think of our selves? either such pla­ces as have been polluted with Idolatry, are not to be demolished, or they are: if they are not, then the forementioned powers err'd in doing it: if they are, then we erre, in not do­ing it. The generality of our Churches and Chappels, are such as have been defiled with Popish abominations; how then, if these prin­ciples be sound, shall we justifie the retaining them? Ans. We must distinguish, 1. be­twixt such buildings, as in respect of their situ­ation, figure, dimensions, and other circumstan­ces, are, notwithstanding their former abuse, fit for religious and honest uses; and such as are not. 2. Betwixt the using of such buildings with their idolatrous ornaments, and adjuncts, [Page 72]and without them. 3. Betwixt such buildings as stand amongst those as are scandaliz'd with them, and such as do not. 4. Betwixt such buildings as stand in places where Idolatry is like to be restored, and such as do not. Now as for those buildings that have been abus'd in idolatrous services, and are in respect of their situation, figure, or the like, unfit for profitable uses, and remain deck'd with their Idols attire, and stand amongst such people as are scan­daliz'd with the use of them, and are in such places where there is danger of the return of Idolatry; such are utterly unlawfull, and ought as well as the high places, and groves, to be removed.

This I speak of the former sort of buildings; then, as for such as in respect of their situation, figure, and the like, are fit for profitable uses, are stripp'd of their Idols attire, stand not amongst such as are scandaliz'd therewith, neither are in such places where there is dan­ger of the return of Idolatry, those we may lawfully retain.Numb. 16.39. As God allowed Eleazar, to take the Censers, wherewith Corah and his re­bellious company offered incense, to make plates for the altar: Josh. 6.24. and Joshua, to take the gold and silver, and the vessels of brass and iron, which he found in Jericho, Judg. 6.27. and put them into the sacred treasury: and Gideon, to take the bullock that Joash his Father had design'd for sacrifice unto Baal, and therewith make a burnt offering to the Lord: So he allows us in this case, to spare such buildings, as those [Page 73]I have now mentioned, and convert them to an holy and profitable use. Herein we have the concurrence of Tertullian, Augustin, De Co­ron. Mi­lit. c. 8. Ep. 154. ad Publ. and other of the Ancients, who notwithstanding their great zeal against Idolatry, and eminent endeavours to extirpate it, thought such build­ings as these might be retained, and imployed in the service of God. Which our Edw. 6. and other Protestant Kings and States, with the Clergy belonging to them, taking into con­sideration, thought it not meet utterly to abo­lish the several Churches and Chappels within their Dominions,See Zanc. vol. 2. col. 711. Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 17. p. 149 Hall a­gainst the Brown­ists, sect. 45. Gil­lesp. a­gainst Cerem. part 3. c. 2. p. 136. Rutherf. of Scan­dal, q. 6. p. 62. though they knew they had been horribly abused by Popish Idolatry; but stripping them of their filthy Ornaments, they converted them to another and better use, wherein they have served ever since, and I trust will do still. I know there have been some amongst us, who have held the retaining and use of such places altogether unlawfull, but the generality of Orthodox Writers are, and that upon good grounds, herein against them.

This, I would have understood of such buildings as are necessary, commodious and usefull. As for pompous Cathedrals, and such like places, that serve for little, but to mind us of the superstitious oftentation, and vanity of former times, and bolster up usurping Prelates, in their Pride and Lordliness, I have no more to say for them, but that it were well, if with the high places, they were pull'd down, and the materials thereof converted to [Page 74]a better use. That you may not think I have only the Brownists, and such kind of persons to bear me company herein, hear what the learned Beza hath.Et quod ad me at­tinet op­tarim, &c. Colloq. Mom­pelg. part 2. p. 29. See also Rutherf. of Scan­dal, q. 6. p. 77. I could wish (saith he) that those great Temples which in many places do by their very form testifie Popish Idolatry, and are fram'd rather to walk and make a noise, than commodiously to receive auditors, or hear the preachers, had been demolished from the be­ginning, and others more convenient for Ser­mons, and administration of the Sacraments, had been erected. I confess if we were to re­vive the Old Testament-administration, turn every Diocess into a land of Jewry, and have a Church in each of them after the similitude of Solomons Temple, there were some reason for their continuance; but being it is other­wise, as every one knows that is not wilfully blind, it is but fit they should be taken down, and the materials of them otherwise imploy'd. How well then those deserve, who instead of appearing against them, expend so much study, pains, time, treasure in repairing and upholding of them, I leave to all sober men to judge; I know no other reward they can look for, but that which the superstitious and hypocri­tical Jews met with;Isa. 1.12. Who hath required this at your hands?

5. He would have such utensils, as have been devoted to superstitious and idolatrous uses, and thereby have been defiled, to be laid aside. All such Altars, Images, Books, Re­liques, Vessels, and other instruments, as have [Page 75]been imployed to the furthering of false, and corrupt worship, he would have extirpated and removed. Though in themselves they are never so innocent, rich, splendid, yet when once they have been serviceable to such wickedness, he would have them cast away, as things unfit to be retained, by those who profess his Name, and are addicted to his pure worship and ser­vice. This appears by divers express precepts he gave to the Israelites to that purpose.Exo. 34.13. Numb. 33.52. Deut. 7.25. Ye shall (saith he) destroy their altars, and break their images. And, ye shall destroy all their pictures, and all their molten images. And, the graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee. He would have them not only to detest the gods of the Heathens themselves, but also the altars, images, groves, and whatever was serviceable to them; and he would have them not only to detest them, but abolish them, as things exe­crable and unfit to be endured by them. And as if this were not sufficient to evidence his indignation against such things, he gives it in charge to them, that when any City revolted from his worship, and turn'd to Idolatry, they should destroy it, and all that was in it.Deut. 13.15, 16, 17 Thou shalt (saith he) smite the inhabitants of that City, with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattell thereof with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the City, [Page 76]and all the spoil thereof every whit, and it shall be an heap for ever, it shall not be built again. And there shall cleave nought of the accursed thing to thine hand, &c. Oh the heat and strength of divine jealousie! They must smite the inhabitants, destroy the cattell, demolish the houses, and consume the spoil without spa­ring, or reserving any part thereof. Hence we find that the good Magistrates of suc­ceeding times, when they met with such mat­ters as Idolaters had abused in their worship, they presently laid hold on them, and abo­lished them as things defiled and unclean. When Hezekiah came to the Throne, he took care that all stumbling blocks, and whatever was disgracefull and unbecoming true Religion, should be removed; and in order thereunto gave it in charge to the Levites, 2 Chron. 29.5, 16. that they should carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place; and it's said, that they in obedience to his command, brought out all the uncleanness which they found in the Temple. By this fil­thiness and uncleanness, Quae sunt im­pura, aut ad prefa­num cul­tum in­vecta, &c Trem. & Jun. in loc. we are to understand those impure and prophane things, which being brought into the Temple, had rendred it filthy and unclean; and these the Levites brought forth and destroyed. Thus they did in par­ticular with the altars which were in Jerusa­lem; for such on the one hand, was the zeal of Ahaz to his filthy Idols, that he built altars to them in every corner in Jerusalem: and such on the other hand, was the zeal of Hezekiah to God, that he caused them to be [Page 77]thrown down and removed.2 Kings 23.4, 6, 11, 12, 14. And Josiah who came after him did the like; he took all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the grove, and all the host of heaven: also the pourtraicture of the grove, that was in the house of the Lord, the horses the Kings of Israel had given to the Sun, with the charrets belonging to them: likewise the altars, and images which his ancestors had made; all these he took and destroyed. And if we de­scend to the times of the New Testament, we shall meet with the like zeal. Act. 19.19. The Evangelist in the history of the Apostles, shews that when the evil spirit had prevailed over the Jewish Exorcists, many of them who had studied the black art, came and brought their conjuring books, wherewith they had committed so much superstition and wickedness, and sacrificed them to justice in the fire. And agreeable hereunto is what we find recorded of the Christians of after-times.Euseb. vit. Const. l. 3. c. 52. Niceph. l. 8. c. 33. Sozom. l. 1. c. 4. Voetius disp. part 3. p. 306. The good Emperors did not only destroy the Temples of Idols, but likewise the statues, images, and whatever they could light on that had been serviceable to them. Con­stantines severity to the [...], or imperial standard, is well known; when he saw his Souldiers adored it, and made an Idol of it, he abolish'd it, and substituted the Cross in its place. And the States of Ʋtretcht, lighting in the year 1609. on the whole fardle of Mass accoutrements, did notwithstanding the costliness thereof, take it into the Market place, and there publickly burn it. Of instances [Page 78]of this nature, there is such plenty in all Hi­stories, that I shall not trouble you with the mention of any more.

6. He would have such rites and ceremonies as have been abused in superstitious and idola­trous services,See Mr. Gillesp. Disp. of cerem. pt. 3 ch. 2. p. 129. and thereby have been defiled, to be laid aside. Whether they are such as consist in vestures, postures, or actions, when they have been imployed to corrupt and bad uses, and thereby have contracted a stain upon them, he would have them thrown by, as being thenceforth disgraceful and scanda­lous, and by virtue thereof unfit to be used, either in his worship, or by his people. The learned Grotius renders this as one rea­son of the abolishing of the Mosaical Cere­monies, that they had been so much abused by the Jews, who overlooking the design of God in that paedagogical administration, under which they were, made other use of them than they were appointed. Postquam in illis praecipua pars pie­tatis col­locari cae­perat, &c. Ann. in Johan. 4.23. After (saith he) a principal part of religion began to be placed in them, they were to be pluckt up as tares hindring the Corn. The error of the Jews consisted not so much in the Neglect, as in the overvaluing of them; they laid greater stress on them than God would have had them, preferring the observation of them before the discharge of those substantial, indispensable duties he requi­red of them: which he taking notice of, did for that and other reasons, think meet to abolish and remove them. And if he abolished his own ceremonies, which had a divine stamp on [Page 79]them, and had been so eminently useful, when they had been abused; we may then fairly in­fer, he would have humane ceremonies that have no such stamp upon them, neither have been so useful, when they have been abused, to be abolished. And this was one, if not the only ground of our Saviours appearing against washing of hands before meat. It was in it self both an innocent and convenient rite; but the Iews superstitiously abus'd it, making it more necessary, and keeping a greater stirr a­bout it than was fit.See Dr. Hamm. in Mat. 15.3. Mar. 7.4. The Sanhedrim appoint­ed it to be observed as a standing Ordinance, insomuch that a man must not eat, till he had performed it. Nay some of their Rabbi's laid such stress on it, that they counted him guil­ty of no less than a capital offence, and wor­thy of death who neglected it. R. Aquiba saith in plain terms, that he who takes meat with unwash'd hands is worthy of death; and being in prison, and having water given him both to wash with and drink, and by accident spilling one half of it, he wash'd him in the remainder, thinking it fitter to do so, than drink it: nay to dye rather than to violate the tradition: of his Ancestors. And R Jose saith, that to eat with unwash'd hands, is all one as to lye with a Whore: which yet their law punish­ed with death. Now our Saviour taking no­tice of the great and horrible abuse of this rite, charges the Scribes and Pharises with it, asserts the liberty of his Disciples, and encou­rages them to stand out against it. Though a [Page 80] rite in it self be never so lawful, yet gross abuse renders it unfit for further use. And thus divers Persons and Churches in different ages,See Hom­mius disp. Theolog. 45. Sect. 4. p. 246. have conceiv'd, and therefore have de­clared against, nay wholly abolished various ceremonies meerly upon this account, because they have been abused, and have look'd upon that as a sufficient reason for their so doing. It seems to be a thing of an arbitrary and indiffe­rent nature whether in the ordinance of Bap­tism,Quia nunc huc usque ab hareticis infans in baptismo tertio mergeba­tur fien­dum apud vos esse, non cen­seo, &c. l. 1. Ep. 41. we use a trin-immersion, that is, a three­fold dipping, or plunging: or a single one; yet some antient Churches have refused to use the former, upon this account, that it was abused by Hereticks and Idolaters. The western Bi­shops, taking notice how the Arrians made use of it to signifie a trinity of natures in the godhead, thought those Churches did no other than what was convenient, who declin'd it. Gregory the great, writing to Leander one of the Bishops of Spain, whose manner was to dip but once, tells him that they at Rome did it three times, and upon what account: partly to represent our Saviours lying three dayes in the grave, partly to signifie the Trinity of per­sons subsisting in the divine Essence,Simpli­cem te­neamus, baptismi mersio­nem, &c. can. 5. yet lets him know that in regard Hereticks used to do it, he thought they in Spain ought to forbear it, and to dip but once. And the fourth Coun­cil of Toledo treading in his steps, do in the like manner assert and commend the use of single immersion, and that for this reason, lest they should seem to allow of the opinion of [Page 81]the Arrians, who used it to a contrary end. Though the Bishops of this Council thought trin-immersion lawful, nay in some respects convenient and useful, yet in regard Hereticks with whom they were not to hold communi­on, or confirm in their way, both had, and did abuse it, they thought good to wave it, and content themselves with a single immersi­on, which had not been so abused, neither neither would be so scandalous and offensive. And the Divines, of the reformed Churches, beyond the Seas, do ordinarily in their wri­tings, shew the concurrence of their judge­ments with them herein. Pelican is full and vehement;Ʋoluit Deus una lege abo­minari, & abjici, &c. in Levit. 18.3, 4. writing upon one of the Levitical precepts against the Jews symbolizing with Idolaters, he thus delivers himself: God (saith he) by this one law would have them cast away, and abhorr whatsoever had in worship pleased the Gentiles; much more care ought Christians to have of this, who being taught to worship God in Spirit and Truth, ought first and last to have abhorred the idle, unreasonable, and deceitfull forms and rites of Idolaters: Modo ne supersti­tio & pravus a­busus eos abolere cogat. Epist. ad Versipell. p. 413 which if the an­tient Bishops had well understood, the Church had never been pestred with so many profane rites and base ceremonies, by which it is come to pass, that some Christians differ little from the antient Gentiles, save in the names of their Idols. To the same purpose writes Calvin; As for antient rites (saith he) which it is lawful indifferently to use, because they are con­sentaneous to the word, we reject them not, pro­vided, [Page 82]superstition and evil abuse, compell us not to abolish them. Additi­tias illas innume­rabiles nugas, &c. Disp. Genev. 66, 84. & de Caena adv Har­gium. p. 4 Beza goes so far, that I believe there are few Non-conformists in England will say more. The trifles (saith he) which had proceeded to manifest superstition, we have abolished as will-worship; And we affirm that they who retain the reliques of unprofitable cere­monies, and out of preposterous judgement cor­rect them rather than abolish them, deserve ill of the Churches. Yet some there are who would have Pastors put on garments, which if not by their first bringing in, yet by their abuse are Baals garments. The Church of England likewise, renders this (as you heard even now) as the weightyest reason of abolishing certain of the ceremonies, that they have been so much abused. Nay Lyra, a Papist, write­ing on the forementioned precept, against sym­bolizing, saith,Intendit excludere a filiis Is­rael om­nem Gen­tilem ri­tum. that God intended thereby to exclude from the children of Israel every rite of the Gentiles. And the reason hereof was, partly because they had abused, and defiled them with their superstitions; and partly be­cause he would not have his people hold com­munion with them. And thus I have dis­patch'd the second particular, and shew'd what those things be that God upon their be­ing abus'd, would have laid aside.

Sect. 7.

Thirdly, HAving in the preceding parti­cular,See this point handled in Zanch. vol. 2. col. 406, 799 shewed what things up­on their being abused, are to be laid aside, I shall in the next place, acquaint you to whom the power, and duty of doing it, do's belong. If such things must be removed, it concerns us to inquire who must do it, that so in order to the effecting of it,Walae [...]s, loc. co [...]. p. 542. we may neither usurp what is above us, nor neglect what belongs to us. Now for the better clearing of this mat­ter, we must consider that the management of the work, is either more private or publick. The more private management of it belongs to every particular Christian, who in his re­spective place, is to contribute his assistance towards the promoting of it. Ministers in their places, are by preaching, writing, dis­coursing, to shew the scandalousness and dan­gerousness of them; people in their places are to decline the use of them; and both Mini­sters and people in their several places, are to remove such of them, as are in their own pow­er. Hence we find that when Jacobs house­hold gave to him, the strange gods which were in their hands, with the ear-rings which either had, or might easily have been abus'd to Superstition and Idolatry,Gen. 35.4. he took them and hid them, by the Oak in Shechem. And when the Jewish exorcists were convinced of [Page 84]their error, Acts 19.19. Quisque enim pa­ter fami­lias est quidam minor magistra­tus domi suae; &c. Zanch. vol. 2. de Imag. col. 405. v. Contz. Polit. l. 2. c. 16. Erastus Conf. Thes. l. 3. p. 128. Maccov. Vedelius, Utenbo­gard, Grotius, and the Belgick Armini­ans, with divers a­mongst our selvs. they brought those mischievous books which they had abused in their prophane divinations, and burnt them in the fire. This is a more private management of it, belonging to every good man, who so far as his propriety and dominion do's extend, is to endeavour the removal of such defiled and offensive things. The more publick management of it, belongs to the Civil Magistrate, who by virtue of the power wherewith God hath intrusted him, is to take a view of his whole Dominions, ex­tirpate and abolish whatever is prejudicial and injurious to Gods pure worship and ser­vice.

Concerning the Authority of the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion, Writers discourse variously. The Jesuites on the one hand, give him too little; Erastus and his fol­lowers, on the other, give him too much. The former, look upon him, as such a terrestrial ani­mal, that they allow him no more, than on­ly a power to defend and execute the Popes de­terminations, and impositions, that is to say, to be his Ʋassal and do what ever he will have him. The latter, take him to be invest­ed with such power, that they think he may devise new forms of government, make new laws, institute new officers, appoint new cere­monies, and do great matters. It is not ne­cessary here to undertake the deciding of this controversie; yet for the better clearing of the matter in hand, I shall in a few words, inti­mate to you, my apprehensions concerning [Page 85]it.Estius in 4. sent. dist. 18. sect. 1. p. 258. There is (as the School-men distinguish) a twofold authority; the one of order, the other of jurisdiction. The former consists in a power to preach the Word, dispence the Sacraments; and belongs only to Ministers, who are duely qualified for, and lawfully called thereunto. The latter consists in a power to govern the Church, and rule all persons, and things there­in. And this likewise is twofold, spiritual and temporal; the one, consists in a power to apply the keys, exercise Ecclesiastical censures, sus­pend, excommunicate, absolve; and this as well as the authority of order belongs only to Ministers. In the time of the Old Testament, Numb. 18.7. 2 Sam. 6.7. 1 Sam. 13.13. 2 Chron. 26.18. Heb. 5.4. the power both of order and spiritual juris­diction pertain'd only to the Priest. Ʋzzah, might not touch the ark; Saul, offer burnt offerings; Ʋzziah, burn incense. And, as it was then, so it is now: No man (saith the Apostle) taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron. Ne­cessity indeed varies the case; but in an ordi­nary way, none may meddle therewith, but only such as by a legal and fit designation, are set apart for the Ministry. The other, con­sists in a power to oversee,See Sal­mas. Ap­parat. ad lib. de Primat. p. 303. ed. Lugd. 1645. regulate and dis­pose in a political way, of all matters in the Church to the advantage thereof; and this belongs to the Civil Magistrate, who though he hath not any formal Church power, yet he hath such a power as he is to exercise for, and in the behalf of it. Though he hath not any power privative, or contrary to that of [Page 86]the Church, yet he hath a power cumulative, and auxiliary, which he is to exert, improve, and lay out in the behalf of her. Constantine told his Clergy, Euseb. vit. Const. l. 4. c. 24. p. 397. that God appointed them Bishops, [...], of the things within the Church, or Temple; and him [...], of the things without it. Though the Magistrate have not power in sacris, so as to preach the Word, administer the Sacra­ments, and dispence censures; yet he hath power circa sacra, so that he both may, and ought to do many things in relation there­unto. He is to defend the Church from the rage and violence of persecutors; back divine Laws with his Civil sanction, that so they may be of more authority with his people; see that all Officers in the Church do their duty; when there is occasion convene Synods, and if there be need preside in them; take care that such Constitutions be made in them as may help to maintain unity and order, and prevent division and confusion; see that Mi­nisters have competent maintenance; erect Schools of learning;Mr. Nye of the Oath of Supre­macy, p. 16. Mr. Tombs his Sup­plement, p. 3. and purge his Dominions of superstition and idolatry, with all such things as have been abus'd therein, that so God may be purely worshipp'd, and true Re­ligion may flourish and prosper. And, if it were not a despotical, nomothetick, arbitrary, but only a subordinate, diatactick, auxiliary power that was aim'd at in the Oath of Supre­macy, as some reverend men from good testi­monies prove it was not, I see no reason where­fore [Page 87]the Centuriators, Calvin, or others,Cent. 7. praefat. Com. in Am. 7.12 In what sense the Christian Magi­strate may be allowed, and called the head of the Church: See in Wendel. System. Maj. l. 1. c. 28. p. 1307. Isa. 44.28.49.23, should so exclaim against it. It seems to me to be no more, than what the Scripture does allow; and therefore I am apt to think it was mis­information, that put those excellent men into such indignation. However, to prove here that the Magistrate both may, and ought to perform all these particulars, is more than the orderly prosecution of my present theme does require. It is sufficient for me in this place, to make good that branch of the last particular which concerns the removal of such things as have been abus'd in superstitious and idolatrous services; and that I shall endeavour to do, in these following particulars.

1. God in Scripture gives the Magistrate such appellations, and titles, as shew he ought to do it. He stiles him Shepherd, Father, and the like; and that not only as to the Common­wealth over which he is, but as to the Church within his Dominions. Now though we must not stretch metaphors too far, yet this we may safely conclude, that as Shepherds, Fathers, and such like relations are to provide Necessa­ries for their flocks, children, and those who are under their charge, and remove stumbling blocks, and whatever may be hurtfull to them; so Magistrates are to provide necessaries, for the Church over which they are, and remove such things as have been abusd in corrupt ser­vices, and whatever else they meet with that tends to infect, or insnare.

2. He charges the punishing, suppressing, [Page 88]and purging of Idolatry and false Worship, in a peculiar manner upon him.Deut. 17 5. The judicial Law required of the Jews, that if there were any amongst them guilty of Idolatry, they should bring him to the gates of the City, and there upon his being convicted by the evidence of two or three witnesses, stone him to death. The reason wherefore they were to bring him to the gates of the City, was because the places of publick judicature, where offenders were tryed and received their sentence, were there. And if the Magistrate were thus to take cog­nisance of, sit in judgement on, and remove idolatrous persons, we may reasonably in­ferre, he was to do the like with idolatrous things.

3. He imputes the rising up, and practice of Idolatry, to the want of a Magistrate. When he hath given us an account how Micah had an house of Gods, an Ephod and Teraphim, how his mother had a graven and molten Image, Judg. 17.6. he immediately adds, that in those dayes there was no King in Israel. Where we a [...] not to take the word [...], translated King, strictly, for a particular kind of Magistrate passing under that name, (for in that sense the Israelites never as yet, either at one time or other, had any King) but largely, for a supreme Magistrate in general, without respect to this, or that particular kind. And so the meaning is, that it was a time of Anarchy, and confusion, wherein the people having no better guide than their own corrupt and li­centious [Page 89] natures, broke forth into sad extra­vagancies, such as superstition, idolatry, pro­phaness; whereas if there had been a good Magistrate, he would have kept them in awe, and restrain'd them. He would either have prevented Micahs Idolatry, or else presently have gone and suppress'd it.

4. He takes it well from Magistrates, when they imploy their power,Exod. 32.20. Josh. 22.20. 1 Kings 15.12. 2 Chron. 17.6. 2 Chron. 33.15. 2 Kings 23.4. 1 Kings 15.4.22.43. 2 Kings 15.4. and interest in root­ing out Idolatry, with all the instruments, me­morials, and occasions thereof. Moses, Joshua, Asa, Jehosaphat, Hezekiah, Manasses, Josiah, did all eminently lay out themselves herein, and he accepted of their zeal, and commended them for it.

5. He is so far from being displeas'd with them for ingaging in such matters, that he is offended with them that they proceed no fur­ther, and blames them for it. He reproves Asa, Jehosaphat, Azariah, that when they threw down the Idols, which they found in the land, they did not with them destroy the high places, but suffered them to remain, and the people to burn incense in them. Here two exceptions are made: 1. It's said, that what is alledged from these instances, concerns the Kings of Judah, who were types of Christ, and therefore though they had, and exercised such a power, it does not follow, especially now, the Messias being come, that others may do it. Answ. 1. Divers of the forecited places did not only concern the Kings of Ju­dah, as it was a divided State, but also the [Page 90]Kings of Israel, and all Kings and Princes whatsoever. Not only the Kings of Judah, but the Kings of Israel, and other foreign Princes,Ezr. 5.13.6.1. Neh. 2.8 such as Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, did as much in the matter of Religion, as the thing in the present discourse amounts to, and yet the Holy Ghost is so far from blaming them, that he records it to their praise, and commends them for it. 2. How does it ap­pear that the Kings of Judah were types of Christ? It does not follow that because they were his predecessors, or bore some resemblance of him, that therefore they were types of him. 3. Admit that in some respects they were types of him, yet that in it self without divine commission, could not impower them to do any more, than those who were no types at all of him. It is not the being types, but the having a command, that invests men with power to undertake and perform services. But 2. It's further said, that the condition of Kings, in the Old Testament, was different from what it is now. They had Prophets to advise with, and receive directions from, which in these dayes they have not. Answ. 1. Their in­gaging so far in Religious matters, was not from hence that they had Prophets to consult with,2 Kings 23.24. 2 Chron. 16.40.30.16.31.3, 21 but from this, that the Law required them to do it, the directions whereof they pre­ferred before any particular suggestions what­soever. Though they had Prophets by them, nay though some of them were Prophets themselves, yet unless it were in some special, [Page 91]extraordinary cases they kept to the Law, and followed the directions thereof. 2. What is here objected against the power of Magi­strates in the time of the Old Testament, may also be objected against the power of Priests, concerning whom it may as well be said, that they had Prophets to advise with, and that therefore what they did in reforming the Church, is of no force to us. Which conse­quence I know will be thought unsound and weak, and yet if we admit the former, I see not how we can withstand it. Will it be said, that the Priests had a standing Law, to autho­rize and warrant their proceedings? I answer, so had the Magistrate as well as they. Or will it be said, that that Law was granted to the Magistrate with respect to the Prophets, with whom he was to advise: What hinders but I may say the like of the Priests? These Exceptions being thus removed out of the way, I shall go on with my Discourse.

6. The Church of God hath all along ac­knowledged and taught, that this work be­longs to Magistrates; and thereupon hath still as there hath been occasion and encourage­ment, Quomo­do igitur Reges serviunt Deo in timore, &c. t. 2. Ep. 50. ad Bonif. called upon them to perform it. Au­gustine in that known place of his, is very clear and full. Speaking out of the second Psalm, of the duty of Kings, he thus expresses himself. How therefore do Kings serve the Lord in fear and trembling? No otherwise but by prohibiting and punishing those things which are done against his command, He serves him [Page 92]after one manner as he is a man, and after ano­ther, as he is a King. As he is a man, he serves him by living religiously: as he is a King, by establishing such kind of Laws with convenient rigour, as do command things just, and forbid things unjust; even as Hezekiah serv'd him, by destroying the groves, and the temples of the Idols, and the high places which were built against his commandment; t. 10. de Serm. Dom. in Mont. Hom. 6. Item pla­cuit ab Impera­toribus gloriosissi­mis peti, &c. Conc. Carth. 5. can. 15 See Corp. Conf. ed. Genev. 1654. part 2. p. 38, 90, 198. pt. 1.60, 146, 107 124. as Josiah serv'd him, by doing the same things which Hezekiah did; as the King of the Ninivites serv'd him, by compelling the whole City to make their peace with him. Thus that grave and judicious Fa­ther; and yet as if this were not sufficient, he speaks more fully in another place, to which I referre you. Some years after this, the Bishops assembled in the Council of Carthage, decreed, (as you have before heard) that the most glorious Emperors should be intreated, that Reliques not only in Images, but in all manner of places whatsoever, groves or trees, should be utterly demolished. And the whole stream of Protestant Divines, in their publick Confessions, Bodies of Divinity, Commentaeries, Controversies, do still assert and maintain, that the defence of Religion, reforming disorders in the Church, extirpating false worship, with all the appurtenances thereof, does belong to the Magistrate, and that he is to take care truely and faithfully to perform the same. To this purpose speak the Augustan, Saxon, Helvetian, Bohemian, Dutch, Scotch, English Confessions. To this purpose likewise, speak [Page 93] Pet. Martyr, Zanchy, Bucan, Baldwin, Loc. com. class. 4. c. 13. sect. 31. vol. 2. col. 788. Loc. com. p. 763. Cas. l. 2. c. 6. p. 177. Synops. pur The. disp. 50. sect. 40. t. 1. expl. decal. p. 1372. System. Maj. p. 1307. Defen. p. 519, 610 Tortura Tort. p. 364. De Jud. cont. p. 91. Against Milit. p. 109. Conf. with Hart, p. 586. Cas. l. 5. c. 25. Due Right &c. p. 393. Jus Divin. p. 69. Ed. Rainolds Serm. of the Peace of Jerusalem, p. 28. Polyander, Rivet, Wendeline, Jewell, Andrews, Davenant, Bramhall, Rainolds, Ames, Ru­therford, with divers others of the greatest and eminentest lights that these latter ages have afforded: which I mention the rather, be­cause there are some amongst us, who look upon the Magistrate as a meer civil Officer, appointed only to take care of, and secure mens civil rights and interests, having nothing at all to do in matters of Religion. A great deal more might be said in confirmation of the thing asserted; but what I have in these par­ticulars briefly hinted, may suffice.

But perhaps you'l say, in case the Magi­strate either though ignorance, error, slothful­ness, wilfulness, or the like, refuse to remove offensive things, what course then must we take? Must we without his consent, go and remove them our selves, or must we let them alone, and suffer them to remain as Snares and Engines, to intrap people, and draw them to sin? Answ. As for those things to which we have jus dominii, a civil right, and over which we have a lawful power to dispose of them as we please, we may remove them our selves; but as for those to which we have no right, and over which we have no power, we may not do it. We may indeed, and ought to declare our dislike of them, decline the use [Page 94]of them, admonish, perswade, and intreat those to whom they do belong to do it, shew­ing them out of the word, how unlawful they are, what others have done in the like case, and of what ill consequence the retaining of them may be; withall, praying that our ad­monitions, perswasions, intreaties, may be effectual, and that God would open their eyes, to see the vanity of such things, and incline their hearts to abolish them. This doubtless we may do, but to go and take them forcibly out of the Proprietors hands, and dispose of them, as we see good, unless we have some special order, either from God, or the Supreme Magistrate under whom they live, we may not do it. What is ours, we may dispose of as we please; but what is anothers, we may not meddle with it,Gen. 31.19. In modo peccare videtur primo quia au­fert rem alienam quod est contra le­gem, &c, Pareus in loc. Dan. 3.18. except we be in some spe­cial manner impowered thereunto. Though Labans Images were (as the septuagint calls them) [...], Idols, yet was it not justi­fiable in Rachel to take them from him. Ne­buchadnezzar's Image likewise, was an Idol, yea an abominable and filthy one, and upon that account Shadrach, Meshech, and Abed­nego, justly refus'd to worship it, but yet they might not lay violent hands on it, neither did they offer to do it. And when Christ had offer­ed up himself in Sacrifice to his Father, and thereby abolished the ceremonial law, how many things in the Temple, did thereupon be­come useless and dangerous, and how sadly did the Jews abuse them every day, to the great [Page 95]prejudice of the Gospel? Yet did not the Apo­stles for all that,Furioso­rum Cir­cumcelli­onum est ubi po­testatem non ha­bent, sae­vire. t. 10. de Serm. dom. in Mont. Hom. 6. Judg. 6.25. Si in ali­cujus presbyte­rio in fi­deles, aut facultas (I sup­pose it should be facu­las) ac­cende­rint, aut arbores, &c. Can. 23. run into the Temple amongst them, and demolish them, but contenting themselves with the discharge of their duty, let [...] that work to whom it belonged. To go, and seize upon other mens rights, because of their abuse, is (saith August.) the property of the furious Circumcellions, who rage where they have no power.

Indeed Gideon though a private man, went into his Fathers ground, threw down the Al­tar of Baal, and cut down the Grove that was by it; but he did it not of his own head, but by immediate and special direction from God, whose bare command is sufficient warrant in the most harsh and doubtful case whatsoever. Neither can it be denyed but the second Coun­cil of Arles celebrated under Pope Sylvester, made this decree, That if Infidels set up lights, or worship trees, fountains, or stones, in any Ministers Presbytery, and he neglect to demo­lish them, he shall be guilty of Sacriledge. But this for ought that appears, was without foundation, either of Scripture, or right rea­son. As Religion do's not create dominion, so neither do's it destroy it. Though men by their abuse of Gods creatures do forfeit them to him, yet not to us. Till he by a special grant had given the Israelites power over the Cananites and their Idols, they might no more destroy the one, than the other. And if mens own abuse of their injoyments do not give us any power over them, how can we in reason [Page 96]think that others abuse of them should do it? It would be thought strange Doctrine, if a Minister should teach, that upon an Hea­thens or Papists passing through his Neigh­bours ground, and worshipping his tree or well, he either ought or might thereupon go and demolish it. Should such kind of Doctrine take place, it would make strange work in the world. And therefore I conceive the Council supposed the having either of order from authority to do it, or the consent of the persons whose goods upon their being abused, were to be demolished; otherwise, I know not how the Canon will be justified.

Notwithstanding, Ecclesiastical History makes mention of many zealous and bold at­tempts of this nature, concerning which, mens opinions are various.Ad ann. 362. sect. 34.318. sect. 5.304. sect. 12. Baronius tell us of Marcus Bishop of Arethusa, who in the reign of Constantius the Emperor, demolished an Heathenish Temple, which rather than at the command of Julian, he would rebuild, he endured great torments; of Nicolaus, and o­ther Bishops, who threw down several Idols, with the buildings belonging to them; nay of Theodorus, a Christian Souldier, who out of indignation to the Temple of the Mother of the Gods, Acts & Mon. ad ann. 1552. went and set it on fire. And Mr. Fox gives us an account of one William Gar­diner an English-man, who in the year 1552, being at Lisbon, and there seeing a Cardinal in the presence of the King, Prince, Nobles, and a great assembly of people, lift up the [Page 97] Hoast, and toss it to, and fro about the Cha­lice, make circles, and play the fool with that Sacred Ordinance, he stept to him, and with one hand took the Hoast from him, and tram­pled it under his feet: and with the other, over­threw the Chalice; all which, notwithstand­ing his severe tortures, he justified and defend­ed to the last. These were high and bold at­tempts, but whether warrantable or no,Haec pri­vata ex­empla in regulam trahenda non sunt, vol. 2. col. 406. In Galliis autem agnosco non tan­tum im­prudentia sed, &c. Colloq. Momp. part. 2. p. 19. Condem­narunt tunc tem­poris, &c. Select. disp. part. 3. p. 310. I leave to graver judgements to resolve. As I would not ecclips the pious zeal of any of Gods faithful servants, who have with such eminent resolution, patience, and constancy, appeared in behalf of his truth, so neither would I have an hand in defending what is not according to the word. Zanchy saith, these private examples are no rule to us. Nay, di­vers learned and judicious Writers, who yet were far from allowing Idolatry, or any occa­sions of it, have openly protested against, and condomned such kind of proceedings, as irre­gular and unjustifiable. Upon the reformation in France, the people not waiting for the conduct of authority, ran into the Churches, and there pulled down images, altars, with o­ther things of that nature: but Beza confesses there was much fin in it, as there uses to be in such preposterous actions, undertaken in time of War. And upon the reformation in the Low Countries, the rabble there did the like: but Ʋoetius declares against it, and saith, that the Dutch Churches did then, and do to this day, condemn it as seditious and disorderly. We [Page 98]must take care that our zeal transport us not, beyond the bounds of discretion, and soberness. We must prosecute good ends by good means. To violate the law our selves, whiles we are endeavouring to vindicate it from the con­tempt and profaness of others, is to pull down with the one hand, what we build up with the other.

Sect. 8.

Fourthly. IT being made out to you, what things upon their being abused, are to be laid aside, and to whom the doing of it do's belong; namely to all of us in one re­spect or other: I shall here shew after what manner we must do it. And

1. We must do it willingly and cheerfully. Though the things we have before us, be of great value and dear to us, yet as soon as we find they are such either in themselves, or by accident, that it may not consist with the safety of religion to retain them, we must with all readiness abolish them. We should be as willing to part with them, as a man is to part with fire out of his cloaths, or a viper out of his bosome. When Jacob set upon the purging of his family, Gen. 35.4. and willed them to put away the strange Gods that were amongst them, they with all readiness delivered them to him, with the Ear-rings which were in [Page 99]their Ears.Acts. 19.19. And when the Jewish exorcists upon the Apostles doctrine, and miracles be­lieved, they of their own accord, brought their Magick Books, and burn'd them.Qui mi­nimi ae­stimant, judicant excresce­re hanc summam ad septem mille, &c. Apud Bibl. Trem. & Jun. in loc. Though the value of them was so great, that it amount­ed to fifty thousand pieces of silver, which the lowest estimate (as Beza shews) raises to eight hundred pounds of our English money, or thereabout; yet considering they had been a­bus'd already, and that they might be so no more, they brought them forth, and threw them into the fire. Whereby we see, on the one hand, how far this impious art had pre­vailed, that at that time there should in E­phesus be so many books to teach and promote it; and on the other hand, the prudent care and religious zeal of these New converts, that rather than suffer such pernicious books to go abroad, or remain any longer, to the insna­ring of the world; they would, notwithstan­ding the great price and value, thus freely bring them forth, and commit them to the flames. How far are these to be prefer'd be­fore the obstinate Papists amongst us, who notwithstanding all the light and evidence of­fered to them, are yet so far from bringing forth their Images, Crucifixes, Agnus Dei's, Reliques, and other things they have most la­mentably abused, that they do not only re­tain them, but prosecute their abuse of them?

2. We must do it holily, in obedience to Gods will, and in order to his glory. We must see that both the ground upon which, and [Page 100]the end for which we do it, be sound and good. We must not do it out of selfishness, covetous­ness, ambition, revenge, or any such low and base account, but out of unfeigned piety to­wards God, and that we may perform his will, [...] Adag. p 79. and be serviceable to him. Drusius tells us, that amongst other of the Eastern Pro­verbs, this was one, that, whatever we do, we must do it for God; which, as we must ob­serve in other matters, so particularly in this we have here before us. We must either aim at God therein, and do what we do upon his account, or else we shall fall short both of our duty and reward. 2 Kings 10.25, 26, 27. See Val. Max. l. 1. c. 1. Jehu destroyed the Priests, Images, and house of Baal, but he aimed at no higher a mark than his own pri­vate interest, and that spoyled all. And who knows not the story of Dionysius the Tyrant of Sicily? Having a covetous desire of the rich coat that hang'd upon Jupiters Image, made all of beaten gold, he took it from him, and gave him a Cotton one instead of it, alledging it was too heavy for Summer, Dam­nantur qui potius avaritia quam ze­lo, &c. vol. 1. Exerc. in Gen. 35.4. and too cold for Winter, but that the other was suitable to ei­ther season. Had his end been good, both the fact and jest had done well; but the lowness and baseness of that, marr'd both. Rivet speaks with much displeasure, against such, as remove abused things, rather out of covetous­ness than zeal, that they may convert them to private uses: And well he might, for what is this, but to make religion a stalking horse to the world, and commit wickedness under the [Page 101]disguise of holiness? Let a mans undertakings, and performances be never so high and noble in themselves, yet if his aimes be not right, they are worth nothing.

3. We must do it with zeal and indignation. They are such things as are enemies to true Religion, and therefore we must appear with an holy rage, and fury against them. Thus God requires the Jews to deal with such mo­numents of Idolatry, as they found amongst them. Ye shall (saith he) defile the covering of thy graven Images of silver, Isa. 30.22. and the ornament of thy molten Images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, get thee hence. When we set upon the purging out of such things, we must re­member how they have been the mischievous instruments of Gods dishonour, and therefore we must not handle them with any reverence or respect, but with greatest ignominy and dis­grace. It was foretold of Ephraim, that when he should repent, he should be so far from following those things, that before he doted on, that he should loath and scorn them.Hos. 14.8. Ephraim shall say, what have I to do any more with Idols? This he speaks not by way of inquiry, as if he would learn how to dispose of his Idols, but by way of indignation and contempt, as being impatient of having to do any more with them. And it hath been the manner of good men, when they have had to do with such things,Deut. 9.21. to carry themselves towards them in that manner. Moses did not only take the [Page 102]molten calf from the Israelites, but in holy fury and disdain stamp it under his feet, as fit­ter to be trod upon, than have the respect that was given to it.2 Kings 23.8. Josiah did not only demolish the high places, but in token, both of his dis­pleasure and scorn, defile them. Not, that he did any way abuse them, or make them worse than they were, but that in just severity, he let the world see what indeed they were, by casting dung, and filth upon them. And, He­zekiah did not only break in pieces the brazen Serpent, but in way of derision, call it Nehush­tan. As if he had said to the people, this thing which out of a vain and superstitious humour, you thus adore and reverence, is so far from meriting the respect you give it, that it is no other than a piece of brass, fitter to lye rusting in a corner, nay to be beaten to pow­der, than be worshipp'd as a Deity, as by you it is, to the high provoking of that God, who ordain'd it for another use. And to give you one other instance,Ezek. 8.10.14.4.22.3. the Prophet Ezekiel, that he may the better express his contempt, and scorn of the heathenish Idols, does up and down his Book, speak of them under most disgraceful and reproachful terms. He calls them [...], which Tremellius and Junius render stercoreos deos, that is, dunghill, filthy, stincking gods. By these instances, you see how the faithfull servants of God, hereto­fore carried themselves towards those abused things they had to deal with; they appeared against them with a vigorous zeal and indig­nation. [Page 103]And if ever we will be thought sin­cere and cordial to his interest, we must do the like.

4. We must do it impartially, without re­spect to any persons or things whatsoever. We must not connive at this man, because he is great, or that man, because he is mean; this, because he is a relation, or that, because he is a stranger, but over-looking all such outward considerations, we must endeavour the purg­ing of the Church from whatever may be occasion of offence, or prejudice thereunto. Such was the integrity of Levi, that in mat­ters of Religion, he regarded not his own re­lations, or allies, how near or dear soever they were to him, but went on in his duty, faith­fully executing the judgement of the Lord. He said unto his father and his mother, Deut. 33.9. I have not seen him, neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor know his own children. And herein Jesus Christ, who was the Antitype, or person prefigured, exactly agreed with him. He preferred his Fathers will, and the publication of the Gospel, before any relations whatsoever. When one, as he was preaching to the people, came and told him that his mother and brethren stood without desiring to speak with him,Mat. 12.47. he stretching forth his hands towards his Disciples, said, Behold my mother and my brethren: adding, that whosoever does the will of his father, the same is his brother, sister, and mother. And the Apostles, being acted by the same spirit, walking by the same [Page 104] rule, and minding the same thing, proceeded after the same manner. Henceforth (say they) know we no man after the flesh. 2 Cor. 5.16. They respected not those they had to deal with according to kinred, wisdom, honour, wealth, or any such secular matters, but according to their grace, holiness, and usefulness in the Church, which render men far more amiable than any outward accomplishments or privi­ledges can do. And after this manner must we behave our selves in all religious perfor­mances; particularly, in our endeavouring the removal of abused, offensive things. Let that which we have before us, be whose it will or what it will, if it have been abused in false worship, and is thereby rendred unfit to remain, we must endeavour the extirpation of it. Herein many great and holy persons, whose proceedings are recorded in Scripture for our instruction,Exod. 32.20. Judg. 6.27. 1 Kings 15.13. Ne pa­tris qui­dem mei famae parcerem &c. Molin. Apol. l. 2. p 137. imitation and encourage­ment, have lead us the way. Moses, not­withstanding all the reverence he had for Aaron, both as he was his elder brother, and the high Priest, took the calf he had made, and burnt it in the fire. And, Gideon, notwith­standing all the filial respect he bore to his Fa­ther, both as he begat him, and as he was a Magistrate, demolished his altar, and cut down his grove. And Asa, notwithstanding the dutiful respect he bore, both to his Father and his Mother, took their Idols, and destroy­ed them. And this holy impartiality and in­differency, we must use; we must not say, this [Page 105]is my Fathers image, and therefore I'le winck at it; or this is my Mothers Crucifix, and therefore I'le let it alone; but shutting our eyes against all such carnal respects, we must manage the work of God with uprightness and faithfulness. The interest of religion must be dearer to us than any relations, or friends whatever; and therefore when we meet with any thing prejudicial thereunto, we must en­deavour the removal of it, let the authors, or owners be who or what they will.

5. We must do it publickly and openly, that so all may see, and take notice. Indeed, if the abuse of things be only private, then we may without making any noise, or stir, abolish them privately; but if it be publick, we must do it publickly, that so the testimony given in against them, being correspondent to the sin commit­ted by them, we may obviate the scandal, and secure the truth. Exod. 32.20. 1 Kings 18.40. Acts 19.19. When Moses destroyed the golden calf, he did it not in a corner, without spectators, but before Aaron and all Israel. When Elijah flew Baals Prophets, he did it not in secret, but before King Ahab, and all the people. And, when the Exorcists burnt their books, they did it [...], before all men. Pious zeal is bold and resolute, and will appear for the truth, and endeavour the preservation of it, and the removal of what is contrary to it, before the greatest multi­tudes. It's no matter what men think or say either of us or our endeavours, all the while we do nothing but our duty; let's see we keep [Page 106]to that, and then we need not fear, but he that set us on work, will both own us, and bear us out.

6. We must do it throughly and fully, not leaving so much as any remainder, or memorial of them; unless it be such as may serve to render them more vile and hateful. So great is the proness of men to superstition, that if after they have laid it aside, there be but the least occasion offered them, they are ready to resume it, and fall to it as fresh as ever they did before; and therefore, God will have us wholly to remove all the monuments and instru­ments of it, and what ever is apt to incite, or provoke to it.Deut. 12.2. Yoe shall (saith he) utterly de­stroy all the places, wherein the Nations, which ye shall possess, served their Gods upon the Mountains, and upon the Hills, and under every green Tree. Vid. Sixt. Amam. de recta lect. p. 84. In the Original it is [...], perdendo perdetis, which as all know that have any acquaintance with the Hebrew dialect, imports as much as, ye shall mightily, or ex­ceedingly destroy them, so as utterly to over­throw them, and make an end of them. Such must be our severity against Idols, that we must take them, with all the utensils belong­ing to them, and beat them to dust. We must make all the stones of their altars, as chalk stones, Isa. 27.9. that are beaten in sunder. As we beat chalk stones into dust, that we may make thereof lime mortar, plaister; so we must deal with Idols, and their appurtenances: We must put them past all cure, we must dash [Page 107]them in pieces, nay beat them to dust. Thus Jacob dealt with the Idols of his relations; Gen. 35.4. he took them, and hid them under the Oak which was by Shechem. Where we have two things observable. 1. It's said, he hid them; but though there be no mention of his breaking them,Quod ta­men fe­cisse pro­babile est. in loc. yet (as Rivet saith) its probable he did it. He well knew the proneness of his re­lations to abuse them, and therefore it's likely for the better preventing of it, he brake them in pieces. 2. It's said, he hid them under an Oak. The idolatrous people of those times bore great respect to trees, especially the Oak, which either to cut down, or dig up, they held to be no less than sacriledge and prophane­ness. Jacob therefore, that he might the better secure his relations from their wonted idolatry, did not only take their Idols, & break them, but bury them under an Oak, where he thought, if it should happen that they should come to the knowledge of them, they would out of their superstitious reverence to that tree, ra­ther let them lye, than offer any violence to it.

Thus Moses dealt with the golden calf; he did not only break it, but burn'd it with fire, ground it to powder,Exod. 32.20. Deut. 9.21. strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it. Whereby, on the one hand, he let them see the impotency, baseness and ridi­culousness of the God they had set up and wor­shipped, that could not save himself from the Hammer, Fire, Water; no, not from passing [Page 108]into the draught, and being turn'd into filthy excrements: and on the other, he utterly disa­bled it, from being an instrument for the fu­ture, of such wickedness as had been commit­ted by it.1 Kings 15.13. Thus Asa dealt with his Mothers Idol, he destroyed it, burnt it, turn'd it to ashes. Thus Josiah dealt with all the Idolatrous stuff he met with;2 Kings 23.4, 6, 11, 12. he brake down, beat into dust, consum'd and burn'd all before him. He fetch­ed out of the Temple the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Grove, and for all the host of Heaven, and burnt them with­out Jerusalem, in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them to Bethel. He brought the grove out of the Temple unto the brook Kidron, burnt it there, stamped it small to powder, casting the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of Israel. He seized on the charet of the Sun, and burnt it with fire. He also took the altars which Ahaz, Manasses, and other Kings had made, brake them down and beat them to dust, casting the dust thereof into the Brook Kidron. Thus likewise dealt Hezekiah; 2 Chron. 29.16.30.14. he caused the Priests to take the altars which were in Jerusalem, and the uncleaness they found in the Temple, and carry them into the Brook Kidron. And as he dealt thus with other things, so parti­cularly with the Images and brazen Serpent mentioned in the Text; he brake them all to pieces, so that he turn'd them into dust; for though our translation hold it not forth, yet the hebrew words [...] & [...] being in that [Page 109] conjugation wherein they are, import as much. He utterly disabled them from being servicea­ble to such bad ends for the future, as before they had been. Hereby you see the zealous severity that these eminent worthies exercised towards those instruments and occasions of Ido­latry,Memori­am vult penitus delere. Calvin. in Isa. 27.9. Memoria Idolola­triae tota­liter de­lenda. Lyra in Deut. 12.3. which they found amongst them; they pulled them down, brake them all to pieces, and made them for ever after uncapable of the ill use to which they had been put. The very memory of Idolatry, (as not only Protestants, but some of the very Papists teach us) is whol­ly to be blotted out; and what course so likely to do it, as that which these worthies took? when reasons will not take men off it, the ut­ter ceasing of the visible memorials thereof which they have amongst them, will do it.

Sect. 9.

Fifthly YOu have heard in what manner we must every of us in our several places endeavour the removal of abused things; I shall in the next place shew when we must do it. And we must do it spesdily, without loytering or making any delay. It is that wherein the glory of God, and the safety of mens souls are concern'd, in matters of which nature delays are intolerable; and therefore as soon as ever an occasion or opportunity pre­sents self, we must without making any ex­cuses [Page 110]or evasions, fall upon the work and dis­patch it. We must not stand looking on a­bused things, and wishing they were removed, or resolving that hereafter we will endeavour it; but forthwith lay our hands to the work, and get it done. Such was the holy vigour of Davids zeal, that he cryed out, I will early destroy all the wicked of the Land. Psal. 101.8. His upright soul could not endure either such persons or things as made against the honour of God, and beauty of Religion; and therefore girding himself with pious courage, answerable to his Kingly power; he resolves, nay presently falls upon the rooting of them out. He stands not to see what others would do, or what issue things would work themselves to; but being utterly impatient of their continuance, he forthwith betakes himself to the suppressing of them.2 Chron. 29.3.17. So Hezekiah, how loth was he to lose any time in this business? The very first thing that at his coming to the throne, he falls upon, is the reformation of religion, the purging of the Temple, and the rooting of all false worship out of his Dominions. So like­wise Josiah, what hast did that illustrious and flourishing youth make in this holy work?2 Chron. 34.1.4. when he was but sixteen years old, did he undertake it, and purge Judah and Jerusalem from all false worship, with all the instruments and occasions thereof. Whiles other young Princes were merry in their Palaces, following their recreations, and bathing themselves in their royal delights; he was consulting with the [Page 111] Priests and Levites about the reformation of religion, weeping over the neglected Law, and endeavouring to put away what ever was con­trary to it. Oh that all Christian Kings and and Princes would tread in his steps! What Churches, Kingdoms, nay what a world should we then have! And as Kings and Princes, so every of us in our several places, must make hast herein. The glory of God, the purity of religion, the sincerity of Divine worship, and the welfare of mens souls, are all concern'd therein; and therefore we must not, like the Sluggard, lye folding our hands, but up and be doing.

Sect. 10.

Sixthly. HAving shewed that it is the pleasure of God that abused things should be abolished, to whom the work does belong, how and when it must be done; I shall now give you the reasons of the point, and shew you wherefore he will have it done. And he will have it done,

1. Because they are abominable and odious to him. Before they were abused, they were as acceptable and pleasing to him, as other things; but now being abused, and thereby polluted, they are no less than detestable and hatefull. Deut. 7.25. He commands the Israelites to burn the Images of the Heathenish gods, with all [Page 112]the silver and gold upon them, without taking ought thereof, telling them it was an abomina­tion to him. Before this silver and gold was abused, it was no more displeasing to him, than the innocentest of his creatures: no more, than the lilly of the field, upon which he puts forth so much of his wisdom and care; but after it was abused, it was no less than abominable, nay abomination it self. And thus it is with all other such things abus'd in false worship; they are no less than abomination. Let them be as rich or lovely as they will, yet being abused therein, they lose their excel­lency, and become vile. As for those things (saith Mr. Hooker) whereon, Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 17. p. 148. or else where­with superstition worketh, polluted they are by such abuse, and deprived of that dignity which their nature delighteth in. For there is nothing which doth not grieve, and as it were even loath it-self, whensoever iniquity causeth it to serve unto vile purposes. Now if abuse does thus pollute things, deprive them of their dignity, and make them loathsome, no marvel if God will have them laid aside. Would we our selves have any thing imployed in the service given us, that is loathsome to us? We may not wonder then, that since such things as have been abused in sinfull worship, are loathsome to God, he will not have them imployed in the service given him, but laid aside.

2. Because he will not have us to hold com­munion with superstitious and idolatrous per­sons, which we should do, if we used those [Page 113]things they have abused in their sinfull practi­ses. So great is his detestation of them, and all such enemies of his truth and glory,Exod. 20.25, 26. Lev. 19.19, 22, 28.18.3.20.23. Vid. Maimon. More Nevoch. l. 3. c. 37, 48. Calvin. in Lev. 19.27. Gill esp. disp. a­gainst Cerem. l. 3. c. 3. p. 149. Dr. Stillingf. Orig. Sac l. 2. c. 7. sect. 10. p. 219. Fresh Suit, part 2. p. 438, 443. that he will not endure we should have any fellowship with them. As the father cannot endure to see his children, familiar with those that seek the ruine both of himself and them, so neither can God endure to see his servants, familiar with a sinfull and idolatrous people. The reason wherefore he forbad the Israelites many things in themselves lawfull, was because he would not have them like the Nations; white, he cast out from before them. He would [...] have them make him an Altar of hewn stone; go up to it by steps, wear a garment of woollen and linnen, round the corners of their heads or beards, make cuttings in their flesh, print any marks upon them, or do other things of the like nature, because the superstitious and ido­latrous Nations did so, whom he would by no means have them imitate or resemble. And if we consult Christian Writers, we shall find, they teach the unlawfulness of using di­vers things in themselves innocent and harm­less: and disswade from it, meerly upon this ground, that the Servants of God ought not to hold communion with a superstitious and idolatrous people. Dr. Ames shews, that some of the Ancients would not have Chri­stians to wash their hands by way of ceremony, lay aside their cloaks before prayer, sit upon their beds after it, wear a laurel Crown, fast on the Lords, day or Friday: because the Heathens did so.

And as this is the reason wherefore God forbids his people the use of many things in themselves lawfull, so this is the reason where­fore he commands them to endeavour the ex­tirpation of them. Having told the Israelites how the Heathenish Nations served their gods, and that they must destroy all the places where­in they served them, overturn their altars, break their pillars, burn their groves, hew down their images, and root the very Names of them out of the Land;Deut. 12.5. he adds, ye shall not do so to the Lord your God. Which implyes as much as if he had said, ye shall not worship as they worship, ye shall not serve me in the use of such things as they make use of, but in the way that I my self have prescribed. They worship their gods in the use of groves, images, and the like, but I will not have you to follow their wayes; I will not have you to worship me in the use of such things, but will have you to destroy and overthrow them, that so you may be preserved from it. You have a peculiar God, are a peculiar people, and must worship after a peculiar manner; and for this reason, will I have you to destroy the monuments of Heathenish Idolatry,Non licet mutuari aut reti­nere res aut ritus sacros, &c. Loc. Com. p. 860. lest you should do other­wise, and so become like to those Nations, with which I will not have you hold any fel­lowship. And with this agrees that of Mac­covius; It is not lawfull (saith he) either to borrow or retain, the things or sacred rites of Idolaters, whether Heathenish or Popish, al­though indifferent in themselves, because we are [Page 115]taught to decline all conformity with them. Aquinas indeed, handling this question,Ʋtrum infideli­um ritus sint tole­randi? 22. q. 10. a. 11. Whe­ther the rites of Infidels are to be tolerated? holds it affirmatively; but how little he hath said towards the satisfying an intelligent Rea­der, I leave those who are fit to judge. We must neither receive, nor keep such things, though in themselves lawfull, as Idolaters of what sort soever have abused, and that, as for other reasons, so for this in particular, because we must have no communion with them, which we must needs have, in case we use those things, which they in their snperstitious so­lemnities do abuse. As for what is said by Hooker and Paybody, to the forecited Texts, Disp. a­gainst Cerem. p. 150. it is so solidly and fully answered by Mr. Gil­lespy, that I judge it needless to spend time about it.

3. That he may maintain the holiness, and purity of his worship, and preserve it from the pollutions and defilements, that otherwise it would lye open to. Should we mingle things holy and pure, with those that are prophane and unclean, what an heterogeneous and uncomely miscellany, would his worship then consist of? For the prevention whereof, he will not have such things as have been defiled in false wor­ship, to be used by us, but to be abolished, and laid aside. When Nadab, and Abihu, had defiled both the worship of God, and them­selves, in offering strange fire, he immediately destroys them, saying,Lev. 10.3. I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me. Wherein he holds [Page 116]forth as much as if he had said, I am an holy God, and have commanded you to witness as much in celebrating my worship after an holy manner; and since these men that I appointed to wait at mine altar, have not done it, but have defiled it, by adding that which is of man, I have asserted the holiness both of my self, and worship, in this just degradation and de­struction of them. And be it known to you all this day, that whosoever of you, do ap­proach, or come near me, I expect holy wor­ship from you, which if you refuse to give me, I will make you examples of my severity. Holy I am, and the holiness of my self, and worship I will maintain, and if you will not sanctifie me actively, you shall do it passively; if I must not be sanctified by you, I will be sanctified upon you. This destruction then of these sons of Aaron, hapned not through a casual flash of lightning, falling from the con­tending Elements, but from the special hand of God, who inflicted it on them, partly to punish them for the sin past, and partly to secure his worship from defilement for the future.

4. To preserve his worship from the dis­honour, and contempt attending abused things. Such matters as have been abused in corrupt worship, when they are imployed in the wor­ship of God, do dishonour it, cast contempt up­on it, and bereave it of that just veneration and reverence that otherwise it would have. The wickedness of the sons of Eli, did not only [Page 117]disparage them, but the service of God,1 Sam. 2.17. which they were imployed in the celebration of, in­somuch that they caused men to abhorre it. When those who wait at his altar, manage his worship according to rule, and with that re­verence, gravity, and seriousness, which the nature of the work calls for, men honour both them and it; but when they break forth into arbitrariness, levity, and prophaness, then they abhorre both the one, and the other. When the Priests in after times, grew corrupt and prophane, they drew disgrace both upon them­selves, and that holy Law they were to walk by; they then became contemptible, Mal. 2.8, 9. and base before all the people, and caused many to stumble at the Law. When the people saw the cor­ruptness of their administrations, and disor­derliness of their lives, they knew not what to think; they began to call in question their function, and the Law it self, and to despise both them, and whatever was done by them, or belong'd to them. And how many are there at this day, that abhorre the publick assem­blies, nay the offerings themselves that are made in them, meerly upon the account of the insufficiency, and prophaness of Teachers, and those scandalous things that are made use of by them? Now God to preserve his worship from this contempt, and keep up the honour of his house and ordinances, hath given order that all abuses, and abused things shall be laid aside, and his work carried on with all accu­rateness and exactness. Upon his destroying [Page 118] Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10.3. he does not only say that he will be sanctified, but that he will be glori­fied: that is, he will either be glorified in the sincere and holy management of his worship, or else in the severe and due punishment of those that do neglect it; and he executes the latter for this end, that he may obtain the former.

5. To prevent their being abused in such manner for the time to come. Not judging it sufficient to tell men they must not abuse them, that if they do they will dishonour him, and incense him against them, he will have us utterly to abolish them, and root them out. And no marvel, for such is the proneness of men to superstition, and the restlessness of Satan in exciting them to it, that if we re­move not the occasions of it, it's a thousand to one they fall to it again, and become as bad as ever. Hereof History, both divine and hu­mane, affords store of instances. The Holy Ghost tells of Manasseh, 2 Chr. 33.15, 22. that upon his repen­tance he took away the strange gods, which he had worshipped, with the altars and other things belonging to them, and cast them out of the City. He should have burnt them, as the Law required, and as his religious Grand­son Josiah did, and then he had made sure work, but he only cast them out of the City. And what comes of it? why his eyes are no sooner closed, but Amon his son succeeding him, brings them in again, and so they are abus'd as much as ever. And Constantine [Page 119](as you heard even now) though he were (the times considered) a good man, and zea­lous in suppressing the Religion of the Hea­thens, yet he suffered some of their Temples and Groves to stand, and so upon Julians coming to the Empire, they enter into them again, and make as bad use of them, as ever they did. In this respect Zanchy saith,Vol. 2. col. 709. Loc. Com. p. 544. he came short of Theodosius; nay, in this respect, Walaeus saith, he sinn'd, that he only shut the Temples of the Heathens, and did not over­throw them, with the altars, statues, and other instruments of Idolatry, that they made use of. It is to little purpose to forbid Idolatry, or endeavour the suppressing it, except we destroy the instruments of it. While we suffer them to remain, we do not only preserve it in peo­ples memories, but give them hopes that in time it will be restored, and then they have no more to do, but to take them up, and so they are statu quo prius, as ready to dishonour God in the use of them, as if nothing had been done against it; whereas if we would utterly abolish them, we should not only blot Idolatry out of their memories, and take away the hopes of restoring it, but disable them, in case it be restored, from practising it with so much rea­diness and solemnity as otherwise they would. And therefore God requires, whenever we set upon the reformation of the Church, to take all the instruments, monuments, incite­ments, furtherances, and occasions of Idolatry, and utterly destroy them, leaving no more [Page 120]than the very dust or ashes of them to tell po­sterity what formerly they were. Grotius tells us, that good things ought not to be condem­ued, because there are which abuse them: Non de­bent qui­dem res bonae damnari quia sunt qui iis a­b [...]tuntur, &c. De Imp. c. 11. sect. 12. p. 361. yet in case the abuse become customary, to inter­mit the use of such things (he saith) is not unusual. Moses his Serpent, if we respect the thing it self, might have remain'd without su­perstition: but Ezekiah taking notice, the sin of the people became setled, that he might take away the superstition, he took away the Serpent. Whereby you see, that in his judgement, the use of things in themselves, not only indiffe­rent and lawful, but good and necessary, when they become abused, ought to be waved, and that for this reason, to prevent the abuse of them for the time to come; which is the thing contended for under the present head.

6. That they may not remain as snares to intrap us, and draw us away from God and his service, Idolatrous, images, vestments, and such like things, though they seem innocent and harmless, yet through the deprivation of our natures, they have an unhappy aptitude to draw away our hearts from God, and estrange us from him. The Holy Ghost speaking of the Images of Jacobs family, calls them [...], strange gods; and that as some think, because of their estranging the heart from God. Gen. 35. Such things being laid before us, and presented to our senses, and thereby get­ting access to our hearts, do secretly solicit and intice them from him. Moses disswades [Page 121]the Israelites from coveting the silver or gold upon the heathenish Idols, and for this reason,Deut. 7.25. lest it should be a snare to them. And when the Angel took notice that they did not throw down their Altars, as they should have done,Judg. 2.3. he tells them that they should be a snare to them. And what he foretold came to pass; for the Psalmist tells us in express terms,Ps. 106.36. they were a snare to them. Had they observed Gods command, and demolished them, they had been secure; but they let them alone, and so were intangled by them. They were there­by corrupted in their affections, and drawn a­way from God and his pure worship. Men are apt to say, what danger is there in an image, vestment, altar, or any such trivial thing? what hurt are they like to do to any, that have not lost their reason? But they know not what they say. What a famous man was Solomon? what a Cedar was he in the Church of God? and yet such things as these, as in­nocent as some take them be,1 Kings 11.5. brought him down from his excellency, and fastned such a blot upon his name, as will never be wip'd off while the sacred history remains. So Gideon, what a worthy man he? how couragious and resolute in the behalf of God? and yet a silly Ephod, or Coat, Judg. 8.27. became a snare to him and his house. The Scripture do's often speak of Idols under the term of Lovers; and that for this reason, that as Lovers draw away the heart, Hos. 2.5. &c. so they carry away the affections of the soul from God. Calvin writing to the Lord Pro­tector [Page 122]about some reliques of Popish Idolatry remaining amongst us, [...] e­ [...]im aliud fuerunt quam totidem, &c. Ep. 86. Sunt pompae istae om­nes & Ceremo­niae Pa­pisticae nihil ali­ud quam fuci me­retricii, &c. Ep. l. 1. col. 244. demands of him what such things were, but so many allurements drawing miserable souls to sin. And Zanchy afterwards, writing to Queen Elizabeth to purg her dominions of such things, tells her in plain terms, that chey were nothing else, but whorish devices, invented to intice men to spiritual fornication. And upon this ground God hates them, and will not endure that his people should have any thing to do with them. As the jealous Husband cannot endure his Wife should have any thing to do with a known adulterer, who makes it his business to corrupt and alienate her conjugal affections; so neither can God endure his people should have any thing to do with those things that tend to the corrupting and alienating of their affections from him; and therefore it must be our care to avoid and remove them. You hear what hap'ned to the Israelites in general, and to Solomon and Gideon in particular; and it such as they were not able to stand before such temptations, how can we without the guilt of vain confidence and presumption judge our selves secure against them? It concerns us then, that in pursuance both of the will of God, and our own safety, we take such things and utterly abolish them.

Sect. 11.

Seventhly, THe point being thus explica­ted, and the reasons given, I shall here set down some cautions or restri­ctions, whereby (comparing them with what hath been said) you may come to see the just extent, and bounds of the truth we have before us, and so be secur'd from mistakes. Though it be the pleasure of God that such things as have been abused in superstitious and idola­trous services, should be laid aside, yet

1. This hinders not, but that though his own Ordinances have been abused in such kind of services, we both may and ought still to make use of them. They are not only such things as he hath appointed, but likewise such as are of perpetual use; and therefore though men do never so much pervert or injure them, yet we must still retain them. This rule (saith Zanchy) is to be held, Tenenda est haec regula, &c. vol. 2. col. 678. that if those things which are necessary in Divine worship happen to be abused, and contaminated with superstitions, they neither ought, nor may be taken away; but in case those things which are indifferent are a­bused: they both may, and sometimes ought wholly to be taken away, as Hezekiah dealt with the brazen Serpent. There are many things necessary in Divine worship that be grosly and sadly abus'd, and yet we must for all that retain them. The Jews make a plain [Page 124] Idol of the Law; they do not only bow to it, and kiss the clothes wherein it is wrapped: but if it happen to fall to the ground, they presently institute a Fast, lest the World thereupon should be reduc'd to its primitive Chaos, and all turn'd into confusion. The Pa­pists most lamentably abuse prayer; not con­tenting themselves with praying to God, the only object of all religious worship, they pray to Angels, nay to Saints, and such too, as we have good reason to think, are so far from being able to relieve others, that they stand in need of relief themselves. And after the same manner do they deal with the Sacra­ments; they do most lamentably abuse them: partly by giving them more respect than is due, partly by giving them too little; one while by adding, another while by diminishing. Of the one, they make a God, by teaching the real presence; of the other, a meer bawble, by applying it to Bells and such like things: and both of them, they cloath with such a compa­ny of superstitious ceremonies, See what Comeni­us saith of Ordi­nation. Annot. ad Rat. Ord. & discip. fratrum Bohem. p. 76. that they bu­ry what is of God in the midst of the devices of mens. Now though these and other Or­dinances, be thus abused, we must not upon this lay them aside; that, were to bereave our selves of the benefit God offers to us in them, and encourage Satan and his instruments in their work.

2. Neither do's this hinder but that though Gods own creatures have been abused in such kind of services, we may notwithstanding, [Page 125]make use of them. Those he hath by our ve­ry constitution and frame made necessary to us, and by an act of gracious indulgence granted us the free use of; and therefore though men do either one way or other abuse them, that is no sufficient reason, wherefore we should thenceforth lay them aside.2 Kings 17.16. The Israelites worshipped all the host of heaven: yet we must not upon that account turn our backs on them, and reject their light and influence; that were to equal their Idolatry, with an un­required, ridiculous preciseness. Numb. 22.40. The Hea­thens offered Oxen and Sheep in Sacrifice to their Idols, yet did not Moses, or the Israe­lites, thereupon lay them aside, but still made use of them, both for the service of God, and their own necessary food.Judg. 6.25. Gideons Father de­signed his Ox for Sacrifice to Baal; yet Gide­on for all that, took him, & offered him to the Lord. And the Apostle teaches, that though such and such meat have been offered to an Idol, yet when it is brought into the Market, we may lawfully buy, and eat thereof.1 Cor. 10.25. Speaking of things offered to Idols, saith he, Whatever is sold in the Shambles, that eat, ask­ing no question for Conscience sake. To go into the Idols Temple, and eat it there,See Voe­tius select disp. part 3. p. 263. whiles it remains sub sigillo Idoli, & in statu Idololatri­co, under the Idols Seal, and in idolatrous state, that we may aot do; but when it is re­duced ad statum usumque communem, to com­mon state and use, in which, and for which it was given us of God, the Author, and Con­server [Page 126]of nature, then we may do it.

But then we must take care that what we do, be without scandal: Should we by eating such meat, grieve, discourage, unsettle our weak brother; or rejoyce, encourage, confirm Ido­laters, we should for all its being reduced to a common use, become culpable. When Mo­ses delivered the ceremonial Law, every crea­ture of God in its own Nature, was then good, and nothing to be refused, as well as afterwards, when that Law was abrogated: and yet he forbad the use of many of them; and that for this reason (as several learned men think) that they were so much abused by the Egyptians, See Mor­ney de verit. c. 26 p. 520. Grotius de verit. l. 5. p. 248. and that the Israelites might thereby be brought to abhor and abominate their idolatries. Had he allowed the Israelites the free use of all creatures without any limitation or exception, there would in all likelihood have faln out these two evils: the Egyptians would have been more confirmed in their own religion, and the Israelites would have been readier to have complyed with them in it. And for Paul, notwithstanding his vigorous as­serting of Christian liberty, yet he was so ten­der in the case of scandal, that he passes his word,1 Cor. 8.13. that if eating of flesh make his brother to offend, he will eat none, while the World stands.

Having thus by the way, signifi'd what care we must take to avoid scandal, and what a­batements of our liberty we must make upon that account, I shall add thus much more; [Page 127]that God does not only allow us the use of such creatures as the Heathens sacrificed, but of such likewise as they have sacrificed to. How grosly the Egyptians abused the oxe, or calf, multitudes of Histories make mention. Amongst all the gods which they worshipped, one (and the principal, as some think,Bell. t. 4. de Imag. l. 2. c. 13. Rainolds de Rom. Eccl. Idol. l. 2. c. 3. sect. 7. p. 368. but others deny it) was Apis, who taught them husbandry, upon which account they yielded divine honour to him, under the form of an oxe. Notwithstanding, God when he deli­vered the Ceremonial Law to the Israelites, did not forbid the use of that creature, either in religious or civil matters, neither did they de­cline it. The result then, in the present bu­siness is this: that as for those creatures, which are of a supeior nature, such as those were which he allowed the Israelites, without whose use we cannot well subsist, 'tis none of his pleasure, that we should upon their abuse lay them aside; but as for those things which are of an inferior nature, such as those were for the most part which he forbad them, it seems to be his pleasure, that upon their abuse, especially if there be [...]pparent danger of scan­dal, we should forbear the use of them.

3. Neither does this hinder, but though the necessary and profitable devices of men (whe­ther framed by direction from God, or with­out) be abused in such kind of services, we may notwithstanding make use of them. As for such devices, as are unnecessary and unpro­fitable, we must when they become abused lay [Page 128]them aside, for the use will not countervail the abuse; but when such devices as are both necessary and profitable are abused, we may not­withstanding that, retain them. Nebuchad­nezzar prophan'd the Vessels of the house of the Lord, by dedicating them to his gods, yet did not that hinder Zerubbabel from carrying them back to Jerusalem, Ezr. 1.7. and restoring them to their former use. Manasseh defiled the Temple by his idolatrous altars and sacrifices, yet did not Josiah, 2 Kings 21.5. who came after him, and went so far in purging out Idolatry, offer upon that account to demolish it. Antiochus Epi­phanes afterwards did the like, when he entred into the Temple, Joseph. Antiq. l. 12. c. 7. and there offered swines flesh, and sacrificed to his own gods; yet did not the Jews upon that offer to pull it down, or our Saviour blame them for the neglect of it. The Jews following the tradition of the El­ders, abused their water-pots to superstitious and unlawfull purifications; yet did not that hinder our Saviour from making use of them to glorifie God, Joh. 2.6. by the miracle, which he wrought in turning water into wine, for the supply of the guests which were at the marri­age. See Chemn. Harm. in loc. Mr. Bradsh. Disc. of Cerem. p. 15. Yet we must not think that these water­pots were of such little value, as our ordinary small pitchers be; they were of a more consi­derable nature. They were (as the Evange­list shews) not of earth, but stone; and so large, that they were not upon every occasion carried about, but set in places meet for them, where the water was not poured out of them, [Page 129]but drawn, as the manner is with greater Ves­sels. The quantity they held, was two or three Firkins apiece: From which it is evident, that they were not ordinary, trivial pots, but such as were of more value and benefit, and being such though they were abused, our Saviour makes use of them. The Papists have abused our Churches by their Will-worship, supersti­tion, idolatry, yet did not that hinder our godly Reformers, from retaining them and converting them to the use, wherein they are now imployed. There are many other devices, and works of men which have been variously abused, yet being necessary and profitable, it is no other than reasonable, that being separated from their abuse, they should be retained. I confess if they are such as may with any tolerable inconvenience be spared, and the evil that is (either already, or likely to be) com­mitted by them, be such as does over-ballance the advantage we receive from them, we ought to abolish them as Hezekiah did the high places, groves, and brazen serpent; but if it be otherwise, we may retain them, and go on in the comfortable use of them. And when it is once prov'd that the controverted Cere­monies, and other things impos'd on us, are not only lawfull, but necessary and profitable: so necessary, that they cannot with any tolera­ble inconvenience be spared; and so profitable, that the evil committed by them, does not over-ballance the advantage received from them, I shall say as much of them; but till [Page 130]then, I must needs be of this perswasion, that we lye under an obligation to lay them by.

4. Neither do's this hinder but that though things (especially if they are in any compe­tent degree useful) are in a slight manner abu­sed, they may notwithstanding be retained, and made use of. For instance; suppose a man should be so simple as to bow to the Pen, I am now writing with, I see not but having told him of his folly, I may go on to use it as before: Or suppose, one should be so silly, as to bow to Angel or Saint standing for a Sign at an Innkeepers door, I do not think but the owner of it may for all that, let it stand. In­deed, if such a thing should become customary or frequent, it would for the prevention of sin, be his duty to take it down, but for one single act I think it may stand.

5. Neither do's this hinder, but that those things that have been more grosly abused, in case there be no danger for the future, may be spared, and imployed either to civil or religi­ous uses. Had I one of the Knives wherewith the antient Heathens killed sacrifices for their gods, I would keep it by me, and if there were occasion imploy it to honest uses; and I question not, but I might do it without sin. This I would do as to some instruments of Heathenish idolatry, but as to the instruments of Popish idolatry, I would not have an hand in preserving them; For though I hope God will never so far forsake these Nations, as to suffer it to be restored, yet we are not altoge­ther [Page 131]without danger; and where there is dan­ger caution must be used.

And thus I have shewed you what things God upon their being abused would not have laid a­side. The sum of all is this, that for such things as are necessary either by institution or use, without which we cannot well, either serve God, or live comfortably in the world: that have been ab [...]s'd but slightly, Amabo si auferat tibi Deut quibus a­buteris omnia, quid tan­dem reli­quum fi­at? Mor­ney de verit. c. 17. p. 343. or though more grosly, yet are now in no danger, we may, notwithstanding their abuse still retain them. If we must use nothing that hath been abused, we must go out of the world; for what is there which hath not one way or other been abused. But then, for those things that are no way necessary, and have been, and are still grosly abused, we must lay them by, and not needlesly keep them up, to the scandalizing and indangering both of our selves and o­thers.

Sect. 12.

Eightly, HAving in the preceeding parti­culars, confirmed, cleared, and limited the point, I shall in the next place an­swer such Objections as I have either found, or may (as I conceive) with any colour, or shew of reason be made against the present truth.

Obj. 1. A great part of the strength of this discourse, is taken from those precepts, which God gave to the Israelites concerning the Cananites, and the extirpation of them and their religion, which concern us no more, than other positive commands relating to them, accommodated to the occasional special circum­stances that then took place. Thus Hooker; What God (saith he) did command touching Canaan,Eccl. Pol. l. 5. sect. 17. p. 148 the same concerneth not us, any o­therwise, than only as a fearful pattern of his just displeasure and wrath against sinful Nati­ons. It teacheth us how God thought good to plague and afflict them: it doth not appoint in what form and manner we ought to punish the sin of idolatry in others, unless they will say; that because the Israelites were commanded to make no Covenant with the people of that Land, therefore leagues and truces made between super­stitious persons, and such as serve God aright, are unlawful altogether, or because God com­manded the Israelites to smite the Inhabitants of Canaan, that therefore reformed Churches are bound to put all others to the edge of the Sword.

Answ. 1. Should it be granted, that much of the strength of this discourse were ta­ken from those precepts God delivered to the Israelites touching the Cananites; and that they are of a positive Nature, and so concern not us; yet there are other Texts enough ci­ted, both out of the Old Testament and the New, to justifie what hath been said. But, 2. [Page 133]all that will not be yeilded to; for though it cannot be denied, that much of the strength of this discourse is taken from those precepts God delivered to the Israelites touching the Cana­nites; yet withall it is to be noted that those precepts were not of a meer positive nature, intended only to direct the Israelites, in the extirpation of the Cananitish idolatry, as is suggested, but in the extirpation of the Idola­try of their own Nation, or any other Na­tion or people, over whom they should have dominion. This appears several ways. 1. The reasons on which those precepts are founded are universal and common; and therefore the precepts themselves must be so; for where the reason of a precept is common, the precept it self is so, except the authority whence it comes, do some way or other limit it. Now that the reasons on which these precepts be founded, are common, is evident. God would have the Israelites destroy the monuments of the Cananitish idolatry, because they were an abomination to him, and that they might not be snares to them, &c. and what is there in these reasons, but what is common to all mo­numents of idolatry whatsoever? 2. What the pious Kings of Judah did in the extirpati­on, not only of the Cananitish idolatry, but all other idolatry whatsoever, they did it in pursuance of these precepts. Josiah did not on­ly suppress the idolatry of Judah, but of Israel also; which the Holy Ghost represents as done according to the Law of Moses. 3.2 Kings 23.25. Those [Page 134] Christian Emperors, Kings, Princes, and States, that have duly purged their Dominions of Idolatry, of what kind soever, have look'd upon themselves as both authoriz'd, and ob­lig'd by these precepts to do it.See Zanc. vol. 2. col. 387. Walaeus loc. com. p. 540. Alting. Theol. Elenct. p. 417. with such as have commen­ted on the Books of Moses. 4. Protestant Writers who discourse concerning the extir­pation of Idolatry, urge these precepts as ser­ving not only to authorize and oblige, but also direct us therein. By these reasons, to men­tion no more, it appears, that these precepts are not to be look'd upon as being of a meer positive nature, concerning the Canaanites only, but as common, and extending to all Nations whatsoever. Which yet I would not have so understood, as if I thought that all those pre­cepts which God gave to the Israelites touch­ing the Canaanites, were of such a latitude; but that those which he gave to them for the extirpation of Idolatry, are (as to the sub­stance of them) so, which is sufficient for my present purpose, as serving to repell what is urged in this Objection.

Obj. 2 But what needs all this ado? what reason is there that the sin of others should hinder us of our just liberty? why should we abolish lawfull things, because others have abused them? It's sufficient that retaining the use, N. Fratri & amico art. 17. we separate them from the abuse. Thus Saravia; he thinks it not reasonable that the superstition, and abuse of the Cross, should take away the use.

Answ. 1. Just after this manner, the Pa­pists proceed with us. When we tell them of [Page 135]the abuse of many things in their Church, and thereupon urge them to lay them aside, they answer us after this manner. So Cassander; See Calv. Ep. ad Versip. See Rush­worth, Dialog. 1. p. 68. abusus non tollit bonum usum. And what more ordinary, than Maneat usus, tollatur abusus; and, corrigendus abusus, usus non est damnan­dus. So that, if those against whom I here dis­pute, know how to answer the Papists, they need not seek for an answer to themselves. 2. It's no good arguing which gives the lye to the Spirit of God, and yet such is this we have here before us. The Spirit of God tells us,See Gen. 3.14. Lev. 20.15. that abused things are unfit to remain, and that therefore we must lay them aside; but this kind of arguing, saith there is no danger in them, that we need not lay them aside, that it's sufficient to separate the abuse; than which what can be a plainer contradiction to the authority and wisdom of the Spirit, I know not.Non uti, quam non abuti fa­cilius. de Coron. Milit. Ʋt faci­lius est, it a tutius quoque omnes imagines e templis submo­vere, &c. in Catec. 3. We should choose to do that in all cases, and in this, in particular, which is easiest, and safest; now the laying aside of abused things, is both. 1. It's easiest; it's a far easier matter to lay such things aside, than retaining them to preserve them from abuse. So Tertullian; It's easier (saith he) not to use, than not to abuse. 2. As it's easier, so it's safer. In re­moving them there is no danger, in retaining them much. In both these, we have the suf­frage of the great Erasmus, who speaking con­cerning Images, saith, as it is easier, so it is safer, to remove them all out of Temples, than to obtain that the mean be not exceeded, nor [Page 136]superstition mingled. And were not men wil­fully, and affectedly blind, one would think that living in an air so much thinner, and purer than his was, they might see as much. 4. If this be good reasoning, how as Daniel did not make use of it? How as he refused the Kings meat? How as he did not sanctifie it by the word, and prayer, and thereby restore it to its right use? 5. If this kind of reasoning be good, now as Hezekiah did not use it in behalf of the high places, groves, and especially the brazen serpent: for the continuance whereof, I am sure far more might have been said, than there can for many things yet retain'd amongst us? Nay, 6. If this kind of reasoning be of any force, how as we have not retained more of the Popish utensils that are in themselves lawfull, but have thrown them away, to the high provoking of an inrag'd enemy, who perhaps would otherwise have been more pro­pitious to us? 7. Zanchy is so far from con­ceiving this Objection to have any strength in it, that he looks upon it as impertinent, and frivolous. Propositio illa, &c. vol. 2. col. 403. As for that Proposition (saith he) that good, and usefull things are not to be taken away because of abuse, it is nothing to the pur­pose, for that takes place only in things of them­selves good and necessary, such as the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of the Sacra­ments, confession of the name of Christ; for though many abuse these things to bad purposes, as gain, hypocrisie; yet are they not to be remo­ved out of the Church. But for such things [Page 137]which both of their own nature, and by the law of God are indifferent, and which without pre­judice to salvation may be omitted, though they were in the beginning instituted for good uses, yet if we after see them converted to pernicious abuses, piety towards God, and charity towards our neighbour requires they should be removed. And he instances in Hezekiahs breaking the brazen serpent; which though it do not prove that necessary things, upon their abuse, are to be abolished, yet it proves that unnecessary must.

Obj. 3. There is difference to be put be­twixt such abused things as are dangerous, and likely to do hurt, and such as are not. As for the former sort, its good to remove them;Rejoyn­der, ch. 4. p. 448. but as for the latter, there is no need of it. To this purpose writes Dr. John Burgess, who in behalf of this pretence alledges that Heze­kiah did not abolish the Idols which Solomon suffered to be set up in favour of his strange Wives, because they were at that time neg­lected. Existi­mamus vivo So­lomone omnom illam dae­monum officinam disrup­tam fu­isse, &c. Salian. ad ann. 3309.

Answ. 1. Those things which for the pre­sent are neglected, may (as it hath too often faln out) in time become idolized; for the prevention whereof, it is good to remove them. 2. How will it be proved that Heze­kiah did not abolish the Idols that Solomon suffered to be set up. As for what is alledged from the proceedings of Josiah, that he de­stroyed the high places which Solomon made; from whence the Author of this Objection, [Page 138]inferrs they continued all along till Josiahs time: it may be answered, that for all that, Solomon himself might destroy them, or if he did not, yet Hezekiah might: and yet they being rebuilt by Manasseh, or Amon, might yield matter for Josiahs godly zeal to work upon, still passing under Solomons name, in as much as they were first erected by his com­mand, at least by his connivance, and allow­ance. But 3. Admit that Solomon demolished them not in his time, and that Hezekiah neg­lected to do it in his, how will it appear that Hezekiah did well in it? nay must it not needs be granted that he did very ill in it, in as much as his neglect was accessary to the horrible wickedness committed by them in after times? and if so, this Objection falls to the ground.

Obj. 4. The reason then wherefore abused things are to be removed, is that they may not be abused in time to come; but that may be prevented without removing them: that may be prevented by preaching; by holding forth the nature of them, and disswading from the abuse of them.Rejoynd. c. 4. sect. 6. p. 456. Thus also Dr. Burgess.

Answ. 1. It is better to follow the coun­sel of God, than to lean to our own wisdom. Now he advises us rather to remove offensive things, than stand admonishing people to be­ware of them.Exod. 21.33. In the time of the Law he re­quired, not that a man should be set to warn passengers from falling into the pit, but that it should be covered; Deut. 22.8. nor that one should stand to caution such as went up to the top of [Page 139]the house, that they fell not down, but that there should be battlements. 2. If preaching or teaching were sufficient, how as Hezekiah did not make use of it in behalf of the brazen serpent, and other things, but went forthwith and remov'd them. It is worth the considera­tion which Naogeorgus hath:Efficacius & plus movent &c. in 1 Joh. 5.21. Those things which are presented to our eyes, move more effi­caciously and strongly than those which are pre­sented to our ears. Hezekiah might have ad­monished the people that they worshipped not the brazen serpent, but he chose rather to break it, and wholly remove it out of sight, and therein he did better. Thus he.

Obj. 5. We must consider whether the abuse of such a thing proceed from the thing it self, or from the opinion of the agent: if it proceed from the thing it self, it is to be abo­lished, Proc. in Perth. Assem­bly, part. 2. p. 120. otherwise not. Thus Bishop Lindsey.

Answ. The proofs I have alledg'd in be­half of the present truth, shew abundantly, that whether the abuse arise from the nature of the thing it self, or otherwise, if it be not necessary, it is to be abolished.

Obj. 6. If we must abolish what ever hath been abus'd to superstition and idolatry,Si argu­mentum aliquid valeret, &c. t. 3. de effect. Sac. l. 2 c. 32. then we must abolish all those things we have to do with, not only such as are of a lower nature, and may better be spared, but such as are most excellent and necessary, even the Word and Sa­craments themselves. After this manner rea­sons Bellarmine; speaking in answer to Cal­vin, who charges the Papists with the imita­tion [Page 140]of Heathens and Jews, he thus defends them against him. If (saith he) this kind of arguing availed any thing, we must take away Baptism and the Lords Supper, for that both Heathens and Jews have abused them. View of the Di­rect. p. 76. After the same manner likewise reasons Dr. Ham­mond in behalf of the Liturgy. The Assembly urging that it had been made an Idol, he an­swers, that Preaching had been so too, and yet (saith he) we hope you think not fit to abolish Preaching on that suggestion, and consequently that it will be as unjust to abolish the Liturgy on the like, though it should be prov'd a true one, this being clearly the fault of men, and not of the Liturgy.

Answ. This is a most frivolous exception, utterly unworthy the defence or countenance of any learned man; and yet its ordinary for such as appear in the behalf of abused things to insist on it. Into this error fell that great man Pet. Martyr, who writing to Hooper Bi­shop of Glocester, who, with other things which he alledged against the ceremonies, Sed jam aliud ar­gumen­tum ex­penda­mus, &c. ur­ged their being devised by Antichrist, and abu­sed by him, he makes this answer; I do not (saith he) see here upon what ground, it can be said, we may not do any of those things which use to be done among the Papists. Certainly our Ancestors seized on the Temples of the Gentiles, and converted them into holy Churches for the worship of Christ; and took the revenews be­longing not only to them, but to Stage-plays, and the Vestal Nuns, for the maintenance of the [Page 141]Ministers of the Church, whereas these things did belong not only to Antichrist, but to the De­vil himself. And he afterwards makes menti­on of bread, wine, learning, and other things, which (saith he) we fear not to employ either to religious, or civil user. Now I wonder this worthy person, should use so many words to so little purpose. We must sure put a diffe­rence betwixt the standing Ordinances of Christ, with other necessary and profitable things: and the needless and useless devices of men. When the former are abused, we must endeavour to vindicate and free them from the corruptions and defilements attending them; but when the latter are abused, we must in complyance with the forementioned precepts, examples, and reasons, abolish and root them out. Herein our Saviour hath lead us the way. When he saw how the Jews abused the Tem­ple, John 2.15. Mat. 15.3. making it a Den of Thieves, he abolishes it not, but vindicates it: but when he saw how they abused washing of hands before meat, laying greater stress on it, than the substantial parts of Religion, he vindicates it not, but abolishes it, checking them for their vanity, and justifying his Disciples in the refusal of it. And according to this patern we must proceed; what is either divine, or necessary, we must, notwithstanding its abuse, retain it, but what is otherwise, we must upon its abuse reject it.Cens. Li­turg. Angl. c. 9. p. 472. Herewith agrees that prudent and wary deter­mination of Bucer; We must (saith he) a­bolish all matters abused, unless they are of those [Page 142]things, words, or signs, that the Lord hath commended to us. To argue from the abolish­ing of the devices of men, to the abolishing of the Ordinances of Christ; from the abolishing of what is unnecessary, to the abolishing of what is necessary, is most absurd & unreasona­ble. It is no less than to equal men with him: their appointments with his: what is unne­cessary, with what is necessary: than which, what can be more improper? Much more might be said, but to what purpose should words be multiplyed in so plain a case?

Obj. 7.See Dr. Burgess Rejoynd. ch 4. sect. 26. p. 608. But what the Scripture holds forth, we may safely assent to, and own, as being unquestionably just and lawfull. Now it holds forth, that such things as are defiled may be purged, and rendred fit again for use. Thus Bishop Morton; a man, or woman (saith he) legally unclean, might become cleansed or purged.

Answ. This pretence, hath so little weight in it, that it is scarcely worth an answer, yet because I would vindicate the present truth, from what ever hath any appearance of strength against it, I shall say somewhat to it. And 1. there is sure difference betwixt rea­sonable creatures, having intelligent, immortal souls; and unnecessary useless things. Its not fit we should argue from the course taken with the former in case of uncleanness, to what is to be taken with the latter. That is to in­ferr, that because a man might take the cap­tive woman to wife,Deut. 21.12. therefore he must not [Page 143] shave her head, pair her nails, and put off the [...]arments of her captivity; or, because we may not cut off the leprous mans head, there­fore we may not burn his cloaths; or, because we my not slay a man, who hath the Plague, therefore we must spare the clouts that have [...]ay'n upon his Sores, than which, what can be more absurd and ridiculous? 2. There is sure likewise a difference to be put betwixt cere­monial uncleanness and moral; betwixt what results from the touching of a dead body, or the like: and what results from the commit­ting of Idolatry. The punishment of the for­mer, was more gentle and easie: the latter, capital, and severe; as appears from the in­stances before mentioned.

Obj. 8. But waving persons, the Scripture affords instances of several things, which though Idolaters had abused them, the Church made use of them.Rejoynd. ch. 4. sect. 4. p. 587. Thus the same Dr. Bur­gess, who instances in the wood that Gideon [...]ook out of his Fathers grove, the silver and gold of Jericho, that Joshuah appointed to be brought into the Treasury, kneeling, and other gestures of the body, veiling the head, pre­serving trophies of victory, and several other things.

Answ. We must distinguish 1. Betwixt what the common light of Nature (without any contradiction from the word) do's direct to, as proper to express the resentments and workings of our minds and hearts; and what some particular mens head drawn away to [Page 144] superstition, have thought fit to use and im­pose upon others. 2. Betwixt what men d [...] by divine appointment, and what they do o [...] their own heads. 3. Betwixt what is necessary, and profitable, and what is otherwise. 4. Be­twixt what is used in the same outward visi­ble form it pass'd under before, and what i [...] used in another, wholly distinct and different. 5. Betwixt civil, harmless customs, practise [...] without scandal; and innovations in Religion practised with scandal. As for those things that are of the former sort, that is to say, either suggested (as I told you) by the common light of Nature, as the bowing of the knee in pray­er: or appointed by God, as Gideons taking wood out of his Fathers grove: or are necessa­ry and profitable, as the reserving trophies of victory, such as Goliahs sword: or pass under another outward visible form, as the silver and gold taken in Jericho, which, to say no­thing of the necessity and profitableness of it,Numb. 31.22, 23. was in all probability, according as the law required, first melted, and then put into the Treasury: or are civil, harmless customs practised without scandal, as veiling the head: I say as for those that are of this nature, they may (nay some of them are, as I shewed in the limitations) notwithstanding their abuse to be retained. But then, for those things that are neither suggested by the common light of Nature, nor appointed by the Word, nei­ther are necessary and profitable, nor are chan­ged from their antient form, but are innovati­ons [Page 145] [...] with scandal,See this [...] answe­red by Dr. Ames Fresh suit, part. 2. p. 491. they [...] Scripture [...] formerly was [...] use, and [...] without any [...] [...] of [...] 1 Tim. 4.4, 5. [...] out that notwithstanding [...] may freely make use [...] Mar. 7.15. [...] [Page 146] they that defile the [...] And, I know (saith Paul) and [...] by the Lord Jesus, Rom. 14.14. that there is [...] unclean of it self: but to him that [...] any thing to be unclean, to him, it is unclean. What need we then to trouble our selves with any such caution, or scrupulousness, as this discourse seems to aim and Lets see that all be right within, and as for the free use of things in their own nature lawful, there is no danger.

Answ. What the Holy Ghost saith in these plac [...] he speaks concerning meats, which the common [...] [...], that limited the Church of the Old [...] to several kinds thereof, being [...] [...]ely and lawfully used by us, provide [...] her to our [...]. And winds is this to the [...]? What is this to things [...] in [...] [...]lives, and offensive in their use [...] all the liberty refultin [...] to [...] broughtion of the [...]ecremon [...] Law, yet [...] teaches us to hate even the garme [...] sported by the flesh.Jude 23. Nay Paul himself who went so far in asserting Christian liberty, and speaks so much concerning the free use of meats, tells us that it meat make our Brother to offend, 1 Cor. 8.13. we must eat no flesh while the world standeth.

Obj. 10. It is not then the unlawfulness of things abused in themselves, but the scandal which renders them unfit for use; but what danger is there that any of the abused things amongst us, should offend any? It is there­fore [Page 147]needless we should make any stirr, or trouble our selves about them,

Answ. How can any without blushing, pre­tend there is no danger of offending: when on the one hand, the watchful Papists being in hopes of our return to them, are upon the use of them, so much confirmed and encouraged; and on the other hand, those that be for the parity of Divine worship, and the sincerity of Religion, are so much displeased and grieved? As for the former, hear a triumphing Jesuite; Protestanism (saith he) waxeth weary of it self, the Professors of it, they especially, See Chil­lingw. Pref. sect. 20. of greatest worth, learning, authority, love temper and moderation, and are at this time more un­resolv'd where to fasten, than at the infancy of their Church. Their Churches begin to look with a new face, their walls to speak a new lan­guage, &c. When they see us set our Com­munion tables Altar-wise, rail them about, deck our walls with hangings, and our win­dows with Images, what hope do they there­upon conceive of our return to Egypt, Quid ve­ro de pri­vatorum fidelium conscien­tiis di­cam, &c. vol. 3. Ep. ad Reg. Eliz. col. 246. and going back to the state from whence we came? And as for the latter, hear the mourn­ing Zanchy; What should I say (saith he) of the Consciences of private believers? It is ma­nifest that they are greatly troubled with this commandment about putting on these linnen garments. For they do so greatly complain that their lamenting voices, and groans do reach un­to, and are heard in Germany. And the Gos­pel hath not been preached so long amongst us, [Page 148]to so little purpose, but that the trouble, o [...] people, upon the use of them now, is as great [...] as ever. If therefore we will av [...]yd either the confirming of the Enemies of the truth on the one hand, or the grieving of such as are friends to it, on the other, we must lay such things aside.

Obj. 11. Grant that what hath been alledged did oblige us to lay aside the same individual, numerical things that have been abused, yet what is that to those of the same kind that have not been abused? It do's not follow that we must upon that account, lay them aside. This is urged by many; parti­cularly, by Bishop Andrews, Disc. of Ceremon. p. 6. Rejoynd. c. 4. sect. [...]1. p. 561. Doct. of Consc. p. 157, 158. Dr. Burgess, Dr. Prideaux; the last of which discou [...]ng in the behalf of the Cross in Baptism, thus ex­presses himself. It cannot (saith he) weigh with any rational man, what is buzz'd in the ears of men, to amuse them, that it is an [...], and hath been abused to Idolatry, in which charge, the Popish Cross is concerned, not [...] 'Twill be no good reason, that because the [...] have abus'd the Cross to Superstition, therefore we should be denyed the lawful use thereof. Nei­ther can they be lead thereunto from that in­stance (so much used) of the brazen Serpent, whence it may only be inferred that the same individual thing idolized, is to be destroyed, but not their whole kind. We may not burn all trees because one tree or grove hath been abused to idolatry.

Answ. I have said enough in another Trea­tise, in answer to this Objection, and therefore shall spend less time about it now. 1. God hath instituted several Ordinances, as preach­ing, praying, baptism; Now I demand when he instituted these, whether he intended only one single prayer, sermon, baptism, or divers of the same kind? If only one, how shall we justifie the use of more? if divers, what hin­ders but we may understand his commands touching the abolishing of abused things, after the same manner. 2. The Holy Ghost in Scrip­ture, does in plain terms forbid the use not only of the same individual things, which ido­laters have abused, but also such as are of the same sort. He forbids the Israelites not only to use the same things that the Egyptians, and Canaanites had abused, but such as were like to them.Lev. 18.3. After the doings (saith he) of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do, neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. More particu­larly, to prevent their compliance with idola­trous Nations,Lev. 19.27. he forbids them to shave their heads, and cut their beards; not sure because their heads and beards were the same indivi­dually with those of the Egyptians and Canaa­nites, but that he would not have the Israetites to use customs, and practises of the same kind with them. It was unlawfull for Ahaz, 2 Kings 16.10. not only to sacrifice on that altar which he saw at Damascus, but on one of the same fashion [Page 150]with it. What then shall we say in defence of our selves, who though we have not the very same individual fashions of Heathens and Papists; yet we have of the same kind, so like them, that he must do little less than divine, who distinguishes the one from the other. What beholder, seeing two Priests, the one a Papist, the other a Protestant, making the sign of the Cross, can without knowledge of the persons tell which is Popish, and which is Pro­testant? Or cast two Surplices into a corner, the one used in England, the other in Italy, and who is he that upon the seriousest view, can say this is Popish, and this is Protestant? Dr. Ames tells of a Minister in Qu. Eliza­beths dayes,Fresh Suit, part 2. p. 435. who being urged by his Ordinary to wear the Surplice, alledged that the Surplice offered to him, was the very same the Mass-Priest was wont to Sacrifice in. The Ordinary admitting that excuse, commanded another to be made; which being done, and brought to the Minister into the Church, he took it and spake thus to those that were present. Good people, the Bishop himself confessed that the former Massing Surplice was not to be worn by a Minister of the Gospel, and judge you if this be not as like that, as one egge to another: let this therefore go after the other; and so he cast it away. 3. The method of Christian Churches in abolishing abused things, shews they did not only hold that the same indivi­dual thing which had been abused ought to be abolished, but also others of the same sort, [Page 151]though never stained with any miscarriage whatever. Observing (as you heard before) the abuse attending the office of the Shriving Priest, they did not only remove the particu­lar person that had offended, but the office it self; and observing likewise the abuse attend­ing certain Religious Orders, they did not only appear against the particular persons that had transgressed, but put down the Orders themselves. 4. The Author of this Objection himself, a little before, even in the preceding page, saith the Cross hath been a laudable rite, and very antient in the Church of Christ; from which he endeavours to justifie the pre­sent use of it. Now I would know what Cross it is that hath been such a laudable rite, and so antient in the Church. Does he mean the same individual Cross that we use every day? No, that he cannot, for that receives its birth the very instant wherein it is made. What then does he mean? why, only the same in kind; and if we may argue from the use of some to the use of others of the same kind, why may we not argue from the abuse of some, to the abolishing of others of the same kind? The Church of England heretofore thought we might, and therefore (as I have before told you) renders this as the princi­pal reason of the abolishing of divers things upon the Reformation laid aside, that they had been so far abused; which I do much wonder this great Doctor, whiles he is writing in de­fence of the Liturgy, (to which that passage is [Page 152]prefix'd) should so far injure both the truth and himself, as not to remember. And then, 5. As for what he alledges concerning the burning of all trees, because of the abuse of one tree, or one grove, is nothing to the pur­pose, unless he had made it appear, that there was never above one Cross abused, or at least that it hath been far less abused, than law­fully used; whereas he could not but know, that it hath been a thousand times over more abused, than it either hath, or is ever like to be lawfully used; admitting that use which he himself here pleads for, in England, were law­full. Let the case be but rightly stated, and I am content to stand to this instance. Suppose then, 1. that all trees were indifferent, that is to say, needless things, as the cross and other ceremonies are confess'd to be. 2. That for one time they were rightly used, they were a thousand times abused, as every one knows the cross is, that understands what an Idol the Papists make of it; whether would it not be our duty (as the Doctor here saith) to burn them every one, and so prevent the mis­chief, that otherwise would be committed by them? I think there is not any man truly pi­ous and zealous, but would subscribe to the af­firmative. Sure I am such was the spirit of Hezekiah, that though the brazen Serpent was of higher original, more profitable use than the cross can be pretended to be, and had ne­ver been so much abused as the cross hath been, yet he took it and brake it in pieces.

Sect. 13.

[...]nthly, THe objections being thus answer­ed, and the Doctrinal, or Ex­plicatory part of this difcourse, therewith dis­patched, I shall now pass to the uses. And if [...]is be indeed a truth, that it is the pleasure of [...]od that such things as have been abused in [...]perstitious, and idolatrous services, should be [...]id aside: then it serves,

1. For confutation and conviction of [...] great many in the world, who, Ʋse. 1 though [...]ey acknowledge the Divine authority of [...]e Scripture, even from the beginning to the [...]d, and pretned to believe what is delivered [...]erein, yet think they may embrace, and [...]ake use of, and that not only in civil, and [...]mmon transactions, but also in the worship [...]f God, such things as have been abused in the [...]rementioned kind of services, and therewith [...]ave been polluted and defiled. And of these it [...]ay serve more particularly, for the confuta­tion and conviction;

1. Of the Papists, who though they pre­ [...]end to have left the tents of the Heathens, [...]nd to abhorre their false gods, worship, and [...]ayes, yet think they may observe the ordi­nances and rites abused by them.Rev. 11.2. See Pare­us in loc. Upon which ground the Holy Ghost does in plain [...]erms call them Gentiles. The court (saith he) which is without the Temple leave out, and [Page 154]measure it not, for it is given to the Gentiles. Here doubtless, by Gentiles he means the Pa­pists, whom he so calls not in respect of their descent or extraction, but in respect of their observations and practises, wherein they do so much agree with the Gentiles. And here I might give you an account of many particular customs and practises, which they have derived from them, and wherein they symbolize with them, but divers have done it already, and therefore I shall forbear. Moresinus a Scotch­man, hath written a Discourse intituled, Origo Papatus, wherein, after the order of the Alpha­bet, he shews at large what I here insert. And Francis de Croy, a Frenchman, hath written a Discourse of the like nature, called, The three conformities of the Romish Church, with Gen­tilism, Judaism, and antient Heresie: turn'd out of French, into English. Oliver Ormerod likewise many years ago, put forth a piece in English, De In­vent. l. 5. c. 1. p. 405. De Orig. err. l. 1. c. 33. Conf. with H. p. 495. Disc. of Cerem. p. 16, &c. called Pictura Papistae, wherein he does in multitudes of particulars, give us an account of the Papists agreement both with Mahometans, and Heathens, especially the latter. Nay some of the Papists have done it themselves; St. Choul, put forth a piece i [...] French to that purpose. If you have not these Authors at hand, you may consult Pol. Virgil, Bullinger, Rainolds, Du Moulin, Andrews, who will give you some account of the pro­ceedings of the Papists as to this particular. Did you see them sometimes in their solemni­ties, you would think they had received their [Page 155]Religion rather from some such person as Numa, than Christ. Lud. Vives (as the Author last nam'd tells us) confesses there is such agreement betwixt their worship, and that of the Heathens, that waving names and titles; there is no difference to be shew'd.Vid. Hos. pin. de Orig I­mag. p. 200. Nay the case is so plain, that Pope Pius 5. acknow­ledg'd that Rome did more Gentilizare, quam Christianizare; that is, did savour more of Heathenism, than Christianity. This is sad; and yet to aggravate the matter, their teachers who should acquaint them with the unwar­rantableness of such courses, and disswade them from them, do instead thereof, openly coun­tenance them therein,Acts 14.14. Consulto introdu­ctum vi­detur, &c. ad ann. 200. sect. 5. Gentili­um ima­gines a­doramus, &c. in Thom. t. 1. disp. 54. sect. 7 Instit. chap. 57. nay labour to vindicate them against such as find fault. Whereas they should (as Paul and Barnabas dealt with the men of Lystra) rent their cloaths and run in amongst them, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things, they stand up and plead for them, and thereby encourage and settle them in their way. Thus Baronius; It was ordered (saith he) on purpose, that the offices of Heathenish superstition should be imployed in the service of true Religion. Thus Suarez; We worship (saith he) the Images which the Gentiles worship, not in a way of imitation, but correction. Thus likewise Cotton; As the Temples (saith he) dedicated unto Idols, were turned into Churches dedicated unto God, so the Ceremonies which of themselves are in­different, have been with good reason transported to Gods service. Now if this be justifiable, [Page 156]what meant the Council of A [...]ra, Can. 7. approved by the General Council of Nice, to decree against it?Can. 10. Omnem afflatum ejus vice pestis eti­am de longin­quo de­vitemus. de Idol. c. 13. O melior fidei Na­tionum in sectam suam, &c c. 14. Ep. 11, 44, 119. Orat. 1. Cont. Jud Cont. Haeres. l. 3. Orat. de Sanct. Epiph. lu­minib. t. 3. q. 65. Disp. 15. sect. 2. Or what meant the [...]. Council of Toledo, celebrated divers years after, to do the like? Or what meant Tert [...]an to appear with so much heat and indignation against it? Speaking of the Gentiles, he saith, We must neither in habit, food, nor any other practise comply with them, but avoid, and that at the greatest distance, all their pomp as the very plague it self. And afterwards, speaking of some in his time that complyed with them in their solemnities and observations, he thus ex­claims and cryes out against them. Oh the far greater faithfulness of the Nations about us to their own way, not medling with any of our Christian solemnities, neither the Lords day, nor Pentecost! Though they had known of them, they would not have communicated with us, lest they should seem to be Christians, but we fear not lest we be accounted Heathens. Or what meant Augustine, Chrysostome, Epipha­nius, Nazianzen to discourse after the same manner? Nay, and Suarez tells us, that the antient Church diligently avoided omne consor­tium & apparentem similitudinem, all fellow­ship and appearing likeness with Jews, or other Infidels. Now either such testimonies as these are of weight or not: If not, what a misera­ble condition are the Papists in, who build their religion upon the reports of the antients; If they are, then what a world of sin have they committed in taking up so many customs [Page 157]of Heathens and complying with them in the use of them? Let them turn [...] whether hand they please, they'll find themselves (like A­brahams Ram) caught in the bryars.

Of many amongst our selves, who though they would be thought to have separated from the Papists, and cry out against them as Su­perstitious, Idolatrous, Antichristian, yet think they may take up such things as they have abused, bring them into the house of God, and there imploy them in his service. As the Papists imploy such things as the Hea­thens have abused in their proceedings, so These imploy such things as the Papists have ab [...]'d in theirs. Looking upon Jerusalem as insufficient to furnish them with convenient and proper utensils for the service of God, they go to Babilon, and supply themselves there. In how many particulars they agree in their Worship, Discipline, Ceremonies, and other things, with the Church of Rome, was shewed in a Treatise published above twenty years ago, Intituled, A Parallel betwixt the Mass-book and the book of Common-Prayer. This is unwarrantable dealing; yet when their Brethren who would see the Service of God, manag'd in a more pure and holy way, complain to them, and urge them to wave the use of such scandalous and offensive things, they are so far from yielding them just satisfaction, that they answer them with scorn and disdain, nay inveigh against them, and persecute them, as a company of precise, schismatical, factious [Page 158]persons, [...] of any thing, but the ful­minations of their provok'd authority. Now, what is this but to hender themselves guilty of, abominable and [...]thy complyance? What is this but to lick up the vomit of Antichrist, and feed on his very excrements? What is this, but to imitate, encourage, and settle him in his way,See Mr. Cartw. Eccl. dis­cip. l. 1. p. 132. l. 3. p. 178, 180. whereas they should stand at the ut­most distance from him, and do all they can to convince him of his abominable departure from God and his truth? What is this but to give him occasion to beast that the Protestants are his Apes, and know not how to manage the business of Religion, but by his direction, than which, what can be more to their re­proach. What is this but with those impious ones the Scripture cryes out against to make the heart of the righteous sad, Ezek. 13.22. and strengthen the hands of the wicked that he should not ra­turn from his wicked way? Whether [...] kind of dealing be justifiable, let all sober [...] indifferent men judge?

2. It serves for exhortation, Ʋse. 2 to advise and perswade us all in our respective places, to per­form the several duties that such a truth calls for. And,

1. Let this ingage our hearts against such things amongst us, as have been abused in su­perstitious and idolatrous services. They are detestable and abominable, and as such we are to esteem them, and carry our selves towards them. Though in themselves they be never so innocent and lawfull, yet having in such [Page 159]kind of services been abused, they are no less than hateful and loathsome. Such creatures as Oxen, Calves, and the like, are in themselves good and use full, yet inasmuch as the Egypti­ans adored them, and made Idols of them, the Holy Ghost (as many think, who take the word [...] in a passive senfe) represents them as abominable, nay as adomination it self.Exod. 8.26. Passivam significa­tionem multi amplec­tantur, Rivet. in loc. When Pharaoh would have had Moses and Aaron to have contented themselves with the land of Egypt, and Sacrifice there, Moses answers, It is not meet so to do, for we shall Sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God: Lo, shall we Sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us? His answer is by way of Di­lemma, implying as much as if he had said, if we should follow thy advice, and Sacrifice in his [...], we must do it, either after the man­ner of the Egyptians, or the Israelites; if af­ter their manner, it would be displeasing to God, if after our own, it would be displeasing to them, inasmuch as we must Sacrifice those very creatures which they adore as deities.

But you'l say, how could Moses pretend to Pharaoh that the Israelites were to Sacrifice such creatures as the Egyptians worshipped, when as the Law concerning Sacrifices was not yet delivered, Exod. 10.26. and when as he himself tells him afterwards, that they knew not with what they must serve the Lord, till they should come to their own land. Answ. Though the Law concerning Sacrifices was not yet delive­red [Page 160] [...] what God revealed to [...], might [...] what creatures would [...]. Fortassus sacrifica turi su­mus, &c. [...] there [...] to the [...] we [...] of the Egypti­ans to the Lord our God; but [...] Rivet dissents from him,Non [...] &c. in loc. rendring [...] reason, that [...] from the [...] the difference be­ [...] [...], what was to be offe­ [...], and what not, what would please, and [...] that which [...] knew not [...] he speaks [...] not of the [...] but [...].

[...] of my present [...] to take no­ [...] [...] the crea­ture [...] in their wor­ship, [...] Egyptians; not [...] to the Egypti­ans [...] God, who had been dishonoured [...] them in [Page 161]their abominable worship: upon which he took up such a dislike of them, that they be­came no less than hateful to him, so that though the Israelites might use them for their ordinary food, yet not for Sacrifice, or though they might use them for Sacrifice in their own land, when they were at a distance from the Egyptians, yet not amongst them.

And the same language the Holy Ghost uses here concerning abused things, the same he uses also in other places.Deut. 32.16. 1 Kings 11.5. Speaking concerning the Israelites and their Idolatry, he saith, they provoked him to jealousie with their strange Gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. And speaking of the Idol which the Ammonites worshipped, he calls it,Deut. 7.25. the abo­mination of the Ammonites. Nay speaking of the silver and gold that was upon the Cana­nitish Images, he calls them (as you heard before) an abomination. Whereby we see, that not only such things as have been made Idols, but likewise, such as have been abused in their scrvice, are an abomination to him. And if they are so to him, there is good rea­son they should be so to us. As we must not hate the things that he loves, so neither must we love the things that he hates; Eph. 5.1. but follow­ing him like dear children (as he hath com­manded) we must love what he loves, and hate what he hates.

2. Lets utterly decline, and forbear the use of them. Lets beware how we bring them in­to the house of God,Lev. 19.19. and imploy them in his [Page 162] service. He gave it in charge to the Israelites, that they should not let their Cattel gender with a divers kind: sow their field with mingled seed: nor put a garment mingled of woollen and linnen upon them. Wherein he plainly forbids the mingling of things impure, with those that are pure: mens inventions with his institutions: Non sunt cum dei praeceptis aniscenda hominum commen­ta, &c. Pareus in loc. idolatrous reliques with his holy ordinances. Munster (as the Author quoted in the Margent shews) tells us, such is the averseness of the present Jews, to a gar­ment of divers kinds, that if they find but one linnen thread, wrought in a linnen garment with a Needle, they do no less than abominate it. And such averseness must we exercise to­wards mixtures in the worship of God. We must keep close to his institutions, declining the use of unwarrantable inventions, and all such things as have been abused in false wor­ship, and thereby have been defiled. God is so far from allowing us to respect, or use them, that he will not have us to touch them.Isa. 52.11. 2 Cor. 6.17. Touch not (saith he) the unclean things. We must be so far from declaring our unfeigned assent and consent to them: from an hearty embra­cing of them, and a full closure with them, that we must not so much as touch them. Touch them indeed we may, as Hezekiah, Jo­siah, and other good Kings did, in order to the removal of them, but not so, as own them, shew respect to them,Levit. 5.2. or make use of them. As in the time of the Levitical Law, he that touch'd any thing that was forbidden, became [Page 163]himself unclean; so we, if we touch these things in any way of allowance, or respect to them, shall become unclean: and therefore it concerns us as we would observe the Apostles command of keeping our selves pure, 1 Tim. 5.22. to a­void them, and have nothing to do with them.

And if we inquire into the proceedings of former times, we shall find the Servants of God, have still evidenced their dislike of such things, kept at a distance from them, and thereby born witness against them.See Pare­us in Ex­od. 8.25. Mr. Anth Burgess his Ser­mon upon Judg. 6.27, &c. p. 11. P. Mart. in 1 Reg. 18.30. 2 Kings 5.17, 18. The Is­raelites, would not sacrifice to the Lord in the land of Egypt, because it was polluted. The Jews in Babilon, would not do it there, for the same reason. Elijah would not do it upon the Altar of Baal, but chose rather (though, he that while kept the people in sus­pence) to repair the Altar of the Lord: up­on the same account. And Naaman the Syri­an, upon his turning to the Jewish Religion, would not make the Lord an Altar of any Earth, but that of Israel, upon the very same score. And calling to mind his former bow­ing in the house of Rimmon, the Idol of his Countrey, he was greatly troubled at it, and begg'd of God to forgive him. In this (saith he) the Lord pardon thy Servant, &c. Con­cerning this case of Naaman, Expositors and Casuists, discourse variously; I shall there­fore for the better clearning of the truth, and making out what I have in hand, inquire a lit­tle [Page 164]into it.Becan. Manual. l. 5. c. 6. p. 455. Tho. a Jesu de Convers. Gent. l. 10. c. 3. Sanchez. com. in 2 Reg. 5. Estius in loc. Baldwin. Cas. l. 2. c. 10. Cas. 6. p. 387. Bishop Hall of Consc. p. 186. Ed. 3. Tremel. Junius Pareus, in loc. Some think his going into the house of Rimmon, and bowing there was law­full, and warrantable, for this reason, that it was not religious but civil, not out of choice, but necessity, not out of respect to the Idol, but the King his Master, who there lean'd upon him. But if so, wherefore did he acknowledge it as a fault, and begg forgiveness? Certain­ly, he either miss'd it in bowing, or else in beg­ging pardon; and then, how as the Prophet did not acquaint him with it, and tell him that he was too forward: that he confessed before he had offended, and begg'd pardon before he was guilty, both which are unnecessary and improper? As for the Prophets valediction [...] go in peace; it argues not his appro­bation of his former practice, but of his suc­ceeding repentance. Others think that though he sinn'd in going into the house of Rimmon, and bowing there, and was convinced of the unlawfulness of it, yet he still retain'd a reso­lution to do it. But this I conceive is an error as well as the former, proceeding from an appre­hension that the words are to be taken in the future tense, whereas being in the Gerund, they may as well be rendred in the praeter-tense, and then they run thus; in this thing the Lord pardon thy Servant that when my Master went into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and leaned on my hand, and I bowed my self in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy Servant in this thing. The reasons wherefore I con­ceive the words should rather be taken thus, [Page 165]than otherwise, are these. 1. Its ordinary with the Sacred Pen-men, to put the Gerund for the Praeter-tense. To go no further than the word here rendred, go: its ordinary with them to put [...] for [...] and [...]. 2. Being ta­ken thus, they best a gree with the context. 1. With Naamans profession. Behold now I know there is no God in all the earth, but in Is­rael. And knowing this, he must needs know that he was not to shew respect, to any other God but him. 2. With his promise. Thy Servant will henceforth offer neither burnt Offering nor Sacrifice unto other Gods, but unto the Lord. Under which he comprehends not only Offering and Sacrifice, taken in a strict sense, but all devotion, and respect whatsoever. 3. With the Prophets valediction; go in peace. Which I can hardly think he would have said to him, without any insinuation at all of dislike, if he had understood by his words, that he intended to go and shew the same respect to the Idol, he us'd to do. By this it appears how much Baldwin, Cas. l. 2. c. 6. Cas. 6. p. 198. is out of the way, when he saith that Naaman ob­tain'd leave of the Prophet to accompany the King his Master into the house of Rimmon. He was so far from obtaining leave of the Prophet to do it, that he never so much as de­sired it from him. He asked not leave to sin for the time to come, but pardon for the time past. The summe then of all this is, that Naa­man whilst he was of the Syrian Religion, in pursuance of the civil office which he owed to [Page 166]his Master, used to go with him into the house of Rimmon, and there bow with him: which upon his conversion, being convinc'd of the unlawfulness of, he confesses his fault, is sorry for it, and craves pardon. That the words are to be taken only in this sense, I shall not be so peremptory as to affirm, but this I am sure of, that not only many good Authors go this way, but also whereas the taking of them in other senses begets divers scruples, this do's not, but presents us with an eminent convert, and a remarkable instance of ab­stainng from Idolatry, with the occasions of it.

But you'l say, may we not at all appear before an Idol, or be present at idolatrous worship? Answ. Yes, we may; but then we must see, 1. That we be not ignorant, weak, unsetled in Religion, but well-grown, firm and stable. We must see that we have senses capable of discerning betwixt good and evil; that we have strength to encounter with a temptation; that we are able to stand out against the allurements of glistering and pom­pous vanities. And hereof, we are to have good assurance: otherwise we must forbear. Many good and holy men have been insnar'd, and therefore we had best beware how we venture. 2. That we do it, not rashly, or of our own heads, but have a call from God for it. We must keep the places and stations we supply, and not depart from them. The sto­ry of Origen is well known; Hearing of [Page 167]some Christians, that under the Persecution by Decius, were carried to an Idols Temple, to be intic'd to Sacrifice: out of an indiscreet zeal ran to them, and being urged to it himself, unhappily, and sinfully yielded; whereby he made such a wound in his conscience, as he could not get cured of a long time. Thus does God many times in a way of just severity, punish our vain confidence, by letting us fall before those temptations, we through our indiscretion and rashness cast our selves upon. 3. That we do it not with doubting, concerning the law­fulness of it, but with full perswasion and satis­faction. Whatever business we are about,Rom. 14.5, 23. we must be satisfied, touching the warrantableness of it, ere we undertake it. If therefore we doubt of the lawfulness of going to the Idols Temple, we must forbear it. It may be unlaw­ful to go, it can hardly be unlawful to stay. 4. That we do it not out of vain curiosity, but to inform and satisfie our selves of the folly, madness and wickedness of Idolaters, who having forsaken the true God, give up them­selves to the worshipping of meer shaddows and vanities. Ezekiel in his Vision, Ezek. 8.3 goes from place to place to take a view of the abomina­tions of the Jews; but this he did not out of curiosity, but to acquaint himself with what he was either wholly ignorant, or uncertain of. Paul beheld the devotions of the Athenians, Acts 17.23. but he did it not to gratifie his fancy, but upon the same account that Ezekiel did, to inform his judgement, that so he might the better know [Page 168]how things were carried on amongst them. 5. That we do it not with respect to the Idol, but with detestation, and that we may the better shew the vanity thereof, and undeceive such as we see addicted to it.1 Kings 18.27. Elijah stood before Baal, while his Prophets called on him; but this was not out of any respect he bore to him, but that he might the better have an opportunity to mock him, convince the halt­ing Israelites of the vanity of him, and draw them away from him.2 Kings 23.15. Josiah in like manner, went to the calf at Bethel, not to worship it, but to break it in pieces, that so the deluded people might no longer commit idolatry to it. 6. That we do it not to the offending of any, whether good or bad, but to their edification and advantage. We may eat meat sacrificed to Idols, Rom. 14.21. 1 Cor. 8.9. Vid. D. Coelest. Hist. Au­gust. Co­mit. part 1. f. 82. but then we must see that we do it nei­ther to the confirming of such as respect them, nor the grieving of such as hate them. Though the Protestant Electors and Princes, being met together at the Diet of Augusta, were ready to perform all those civil Offices, they owed to the Emperour, yet they would neither go with him to the Mass, nor accompany him in the Processions on Corpus Christs day, lest they should confirm the Papists in their abomi­nations, which they came thither to bear witness against 7. That we do it not at such a time, when it is likely to bring us into trou­ble, but when we may do it with safety. In­deed, when God calls us forth to appear in the behalf of his truth, we must do it, let the [Page 169] danger be what it will; but till he call us, we must avoid it, and not through curiosity, affe­ctation of novelty, precipitancy, or the like, expose our selves to it. If we be present at Idolatrous services, we must evidence our dis­like; if therefore we may not safely evidence our dislike, we must not, except we have some special call thereunto, be present. To this purpose is that of Baldwin; Ʋbi pub­lice dis­sensum declarare non licet, &c. l. 2. c. 6. Cas. 6. p. 197. where (saith he) we may not publickly declare our dissent, it is better to abstain, lest we either beget a scruple in our own consciences, or danger from the ad­versary. If then, we are of good progress in religion, have a call from God, are satisfied in our own consciences with what we are a­bout, have need of informing our judgements, will do what we do with an evidence of our dislike, Of Com­munica­ting with the Lu­therans in the Eucha­rist, See Alting. Probl. Theol. pt. 3. p. 164. Jo. Cro­cius Ant. Weigel. p. 152. and may do it without giving offence to any, or bringing our selves into needless trouble, then we may appear before an Idol, and be present at the worship given to it; other­wise, not. As for Naamans going into the house of Rimmon, it makes nothing against what I have here said; for, as he sinned in it, so (as you have heard) upon his conversion, he confessed his error, and beg'd pardon.