Nehushtan, or, A sober and peaceable discourse, concerning the abolishing of things abused to superstition and idolatry which may serve as one intire, and sufficient argument, to evince that the liturgy, ceremonies, and other things used at this day in the Church of England, ought neither to be imposed, nor retained, but utterly extirpated and laid aside : and to vindicate the non-conformists in their refusal to close with them. Wilson, Joseph, d. 1678. 1668 Approx. 413 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 108 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2013-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A66578 Wing W2927 ESTC R38669 17883622 ocm 17883622 106711

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A66578) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 106711) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1110:20) Nehushtan, or, A sober and peaceable discourse, concerning the abolishing of things abused to superstition and idolatry which may serve as one intire, and sufficient argument, to evince that the liturgy, ceremonies, and other things used at this day in the Church of England, ought neither to be imposed, nor retained, but utterly extirpated and laid aside : and to vindicate the non-conformists in their refusal to close with them. Wilson, Joseph, d. 1678. [22], 192 p. [s.n.], London printed : 1668. Attributed to Wilson by Wing and NUC pre-1956 imprints. Errata: p. [22]. Imperfect: faded and stained, with some loss of print. Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Includes bibliographical references.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Church of England -- Liturgy -- Controversial literature. Church of England -- Customs and practices -- Controversial literature. Dissenters, Religious -- England -- Apologetic works. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2012-04 Assigned for keying and markup 2012-06 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2012-11 Sampled and proofread 2012-11 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2013-02 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

Nehuſhtan: OR, A ſober and peaceable Diſcourſe, concerning the Aboliſhing of things abuſed to Superſtition and Idolatry; Which may ſerve as one intire, and ſufficient Argument, to evince that the LITƲRGY, CEREMONIES, and other things uſed at this day in the Church of England, ought neither to be impoſed, nor retained, but utterly extirpated and laid aſide: and to vindicate the NON-CONFORMISTS in their refuſal to cloſe with them.

Deut. 12.2, 3.

Ye ſhall utterly destroy all the places wherein the Nations which ye ſhall poſſeſs ſerved their gods.

— Ye ſhall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire, and ye ſhall hew down the graven images of their gods, and deſtroy the names of them out of that place.

Concil. Carthag. 5. can. 15.

Item, placuit ab Imperatoribus glorioſiſſimis peti, ut reliquiae, non ſolum in ſimulachris, ſed in quibuſcunque locis, vel lucis, vel arboribus, omnimodo deleantur.

LONDON, Printed in the Year 1668.

To the Sober and Ingenuous READER.

IT is the certain and unqueſtionable duty of every man in his reſpective place and calling, to endeavour to the utmost of his power, the preſervation and furtherance of true Religion, and the extirpation and aboliſhing of what ever is, or in probability may be, prejudicial thereunto. In conſideration and purſuance hereof, it is that I have penned this Treatiſe; wherein I have endeavoured from the ſeveral Topicks and Principles, from which Divines commonly argue, to evince that all unneceſſary things, by whomſoever brought into the Church, having been groſly abus'd to Superſtition and Idolatry, and by virtue thereof being apt to ſcandalize and offend, are for the neceſsary preſervation of the ſyncerity of Religion, the ſafety of mens Souls, and the peace of the Church, to be aboliſhed and laid aſide. This I know, thoſe who are in love with Popiſh cuſtoms, and ſtand ill affected to the carrying on of the work of Reformation, will look upon as Doctrine ſavouring of Novelty, Singularity, and Schiſm; but it is ſo far from that, that divers as learned,Tenenda eſt haec regula, ſi quae in abuſum venerunt, &c. Zanch. vol. 2. col. 678. Regula eſt, adiaphora non neceſſaria, &c. Rivet vol. 1 p. 1346. Laudant religioſi Theologi regulam, adiaphora non neceſtaria, &c. Wend Syſt. Maj. part 2. c. 6. p. 1641. Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 4. ſect. 12. p. (ed. noviſſ) 115. ſober judicious Divines, as the Proteſtant Church hath afforded, have openly and conſtantly maintained it, and ſtill as occaſion hath been, had recourſe to it, as an undenyable, ſtanding rule, which none without incurring the crime, laeſi principii, may withſtand, or gainſay. Nay, ſome of the moſt able and zealous defenders of thoſe ſcandalous things we have amongst us, have found themſelves ſo perplex'd and tortur'd with this very Argument, that they have expreſly acknowledged it, the chief weapon made uſe of againſt them. Which I urge not, as if I thought this ſufficient to ſatisfie all diſſenters, touching the validity of it, but as that which I conceive may ſerve as a proper expedient, to allay prejudice, and make way for a more ingenuous and candid weighing of the caſe; which is all, that I can rationally either expect or deſire. I ſhall never ſolicit men to cloſe with this, or any other Principle, till they are firſt convinced, and ſatisfied of the truth and juſtneſs of it. That we muſt cloſe with the will of God, when revealed to us, there is no queſtion; but then we muſt do it, in that method that he hath appointed, and in ſuch a way, as is agreeable to the nature and order of the faculties and powers he hath beſtowed on us. We must not firſt cloſe with a Principle or Opinion, and then inquire into the ſoundneſs of it (that's prepoſterous) but we muſt firſt inquire into the ſoundneſs of it, and then according as the reaſon attending it do's more or leſs oblige us, cloſe with it. So that he, who laying aſide prejudice, allows me a ſerious and fair audience in the preſent caſe, and cloſes with what I propound in a way proportionable to the reaſon and evidence I offer to him, do's me all the right I can challenge from him. That this Argument, hath by men both of our own and other Nations, been heretofore urged againſt the Reliques and Monuments of Superſtition and Idolatry yet remaining in the Church, I readily grant; but by none that I know of, in ſo clear and full a manner, as the weight and uſefulneſs of it calls for. Thoſe who have gone the furtheſt, and ſaid the moſt of it, have left it in ſtraights and troubles, labouring under thoſe obſcurities and objections, which their handling of it in a tranſient way, in the midſt of other Arguments, would not give them leave to deliver it from. Now theſe I have taken care to meet with and endeavoured to diſpel and remove. I have conſulted Saravia, Dr. Burgeſs, Dr. Pridoaux, Dr. Hammond, with other of the beſt Authors that I know of, who have appeared againſt it, and peruſed their exceptions, and there is not any, if I am not much miſtaken, which I have not fully anſwered. If any upon their entring on the Treatiſe, and reading the ſeveral particulars, which I contend upon their being abuſed ought to be laid aſide, think I expreſs my ſelf in too large and general terms, I deſire them to weigh the Scriptures and proofs alledg'd: and in caſe thoſe ſatisfie not, to ſuſpend their cenſure till they come to the limitations, and the anſwering of the Objections; in the management whereof, I have endeavoured to restrain preceding expreſſions, that ſeem'd too full and large, to their juſt extent and bounds (which I could not well do, before) and remov'd all ſcruples, and exceptions of any weight, that have prepoſterouſly, or otherwiſe, been taken up againſt the preſent truth. The diſadvantage it may undergo through the inſufficiency of the inſtrument, in whoſe hands it is, to manage it in that exact way, wherein it ſhould be handled, muſt needs be great; however, upon ſerious inquiry into it, and impartial weighing of what I find is, or I conceive may be, alledg'd for, and againſt it, I am very confident, that being duely weilded and improved, it will afford ſufficient ſtrength to batter down all the fortifications, thoſe who preſide in the Church, or their Aſſiſtants, can erect in defence of thoſe abuſed and ſcandalous things which they do with ſo much zeal contend for, and with ſo much rigour impoſe on the Miniſters and People of theſe Nations, to the begetting of moſt lamentable diſcords amongſt his Majeſties Subjects, and the expoſing of us to the certain undergoing of thoſe evils, which the peaceableſt reception, and higheſt improvement of them, would never countervail. For my own part, I am ſo well ſatisfied with what I maintain, that were there no other argument againſt Conformity than this one (whereas it is well known there are multitudes more, which never were, nor never will, be anſwered any otherwiſe than the Papiſts anſwer us about other things of the like nature, that we have cast off) I ſhould never, I think, he Conformiſt. But I ſhall not offer to impoſe my belief on others: let them read, and then do as they find cauſe. As for what ſome may alledge, that theſe matters have been inſiſted on long enough: it's a frivolous pretence, ſavouring of lukewarmneſs and carnal oſcitancy. How can it be imagin'd ſuch things have been inſiſted on long enough, when as they ſtill remain as ſtumbling blocks and ſnares to overthrow ignorant and unstable Souls? We proceed otherwiſe, in matters of leſs danger, and importance. So long as the wound continues, we apply the plaiſter; and ſo long as the fire remains, we caſt on water. And if ſuch conſtant ſedulity, be allowable and neceſsary in lower matters, why ſhould it not be thought ſo in higher? Let thoſe who have power once remove offenſive things out of the way, and we have done; but till then, they may make account that witneſs will be born againſt them. What oppoſition hath by good men been made againſt ſuch things, what influence the retaining of them hath had towards the begetting of our unhappy diſtractions, who are to be blam'd,Non negarim multos initio, pio ſtudio ad acricrem reprehenſionem quorundam manifestotum abuſuum impulſos fuiſſe, &c. Conſult. art. 7. p. 56. and what courſe is to be taken for our cure, I ſhall give you an account of, in thoſe ſober words of Caſſander, a moderate and learned Papiſt. I ſhall not (ſaith he) deny but many in the beginning, were by a pious ſtudy moved to a ſharper reprehenſion of manifeſt abuſes, and that the chief cauſe of this calamity and diſtraction of the Church, is to be charged upon thoſe who being puff'd up with ambition of Eccleſiaſtical power, have proudly and diſdainfully contemned and repelled thoſe who have duly and modeſtly admoniſh'd them. Wherefore I conceive there is no firm peace to be expected to the Church unleſs thoſe begin who have given the occaſion of the diſtraction, that is, unleſs thoſe who preſide in Eccleſiaſtical Government, do remit ſomething of their rigour, and yield ſomewhat for the Churches peace; and complying with the deſires and admonitions of many pious perſons, correct manifeſt abuſes, according to the rule of the Divine Scriptures, and the antient Church, from which they have turn'd aſide. Theſe words Conradus Vorſtius, though none of the ſoundest men, thought ſo remarkeable, that he hath ſet them down on the back ſide of the Title Page to his Enchiridion-Controverſiarum. Would thoſe who are over us reſent the maladies, under which we labour, but even as this Papiſt did, we might hope our diſtractions and troubles were nearer to an iſsue. However, we muſt go on in giving our teſtimony, and offering our requeſts and reaſons for the removal of what offends; and though the ſucceſs be not anſwerable to our deſires, yet we ſhall have this to comfort us, that we have done our duty.

THE CONTENTS.

THe Introduction. Of High Places. Two ſorts of them. Uſed by the Patriarchs. Lawfull till the erection of the Tabernacle. Sacrifice limited to the Tabernacle, except ſome extraordinary caſe occurred. Reaſon for it. The abuſe of the High Places. The aboliſhing of them. Of Images, or Statues among the Jews. Two ſorts of them. The unlawfulneſs of the latter ſort, with the removal thereof. Of Groves. Their Original. One eminent above the reſt. Both Jews and Heathens dote on them. In what ſenſe it is ſaid a Grove was in the Temple. They are cut down. Of the Brazen Serpent. The occaſion, uſe, and benefit of it. The abuſe and removal of it. Nehuſhtan what. The General Doctrine. The eminency of Hezekiahs zeal in removing offenſive things, held forth in ſix particulars.

The Method propounded. The point proved. God deals with his people by way of precepts, promiſes, threatnings, commendations, reproofs, rewards, puniſhments, to provoke them to remove abuſed things. The concurrent judgements of Foreign, Orthodox Writers for it. Muſculus, Farell, Rivet, urged more particularly. The Church of England for it. Biſhop Jewell, Biſhop Andrews, the Book of Homilies, the Preface to the Liturgy, for it. The Statute Law for it. The Canon Law for it. An argument a minori ad majus. Several Officers and Orders of perſons removed upon leſs grounds, than ſuperſtition and idolatry. Of Love Feasts. Of the Kiſs of Charity. How uſed in Religious aſſemblies. Of Vigils. Of Sanctuaries for offenders. All, for their abuſe removed.

Idolatrous perſons to be puniſhed. Two ſorts of them aimed at in an eſpecial manner by Moſes. The Law ſevere againſt them. The Chemarims who. Magiſtrates are to diſtinguiſh betwixt ſome Idolaters, and others. What courſe they are to take with the Papists. Whether Hezekiah executed the Law upon thoſe who burn'd incenſe to the Brazen Serpent.

Abuſed Names muſt be aboliſhed. In what ſenſe we may take the Names of falſe gods into our mouths. Why God would not be called Baali. Such as give abuſed Names to their Children, Horſes, Doggs, nay to the Officers and Ordinances of Chriſt, cenſured. What courſe we muſt take when we are to ſpeak of ſuch perſons or things, as have abuſed and ſcandalous Names. Eraſmus, Politian, Lipſius, Castellio, blamed. Whether the Pſalmiſt in that paſſage, Kiſs the ſon, alluded to the Cuſtom of the Heathens? Dr. Sanderſon adviſes to beware of offenſive paſſages. Aquinas does the like. Bellarm. in his old age, declared againſt the uſe of the word Divus. Pope Sylvester altered the names of the dayes, and why.

Abuſed Times muſt be aboliſhed. It hath been the manner of ſuperſtitious and idolatrous people, to ſet apart certain times in the honour of their Deities. So Jeroboam, Belſhazzar, the Romans. Why the Apoſtles aboliſhed the Jewiſh Feſtivals. Why the antient Church would not obſerve the Calend of January, Play-dayes in the beginning of the Spring, nor Eaſter at the uſual time. Mr. Hookers argument for Holy-dayes, retorted.

Abuſed Places, to be aboliſhed. Why God choſe the form of an Ark. The Iſraelites ſtrictly enjoyned to deſtroy all the places wherein the Canaanites had committed then abominations. Why God forſook Shiloh. Why he would not ſuffer the Jews to come to Bethel, and ſlew the Prophet for doing it Why he caſt off the Tabernacle. The zeal of the good Kings of Judah in deſtroying abuſed places. Two ſorts of Religious High Places The zeal of Magiſtrates of latter times in pulling down Heatheniſh Temples, Popiſh Abbies, Monaſteries, commended. Danger in ſuffering ſuch places to remain, but ſafety in removing them. The doubt touching the returning of our Churches, and Chappels, heretofore abuſed by the Papiſts, anſwered. The caſe of Cathedrals, and ſuch unneceſſary buildings, different. Beza's judgement. Abuſed utenſils, ſuch as Altars, Images, and other inſtruments of Idolatry, to be laid aſide. Expreſs precepts in the Word for it. The practice of good men, both in former and latter times. Abuſed rites muſt be aboliſhed Grotius his opinion about the aboliſhing of the Moſaical Ceremonies. Of waſhing of hands before meat: Of Trin-immerſion in Baptiſm. The judgement of Pelican, Calvin, Beza, Lyra.

The removing of abuſed things, do's in an eminent manner belong to the Civil Magiſtrate. His power in matters of Religion. Some give him too little; others, too much. Diſtinctions about authority. That it belongs to the Civil Magiſtrate to remove offenſive things, proved in ſix particulars. Why the Iſraelites were to bring Idolaters to the gates of the City. The want of a good Magiſtrate, the occaſion of Micahs Idolatry. Two exceptions againſt the Magiſtrates power, anſwer'd. The judgement of divers Churches, and Perſons in the caſe. What is to be done in caſe the Magiſtrate refuſe or neglect to perform is Office in this particular. Auguſtines judgement. Pope Sylveſters decree, cenſured. What we are to think of Marcus Biſhop of Arethuſa, Nicolaus, Theodorus, and others, who without any order from the Civil Power, took upon them the demoliſhing of abuſed things. The judgement of Zanchy, Beza, Voetius.

How abuſed things muſt be removed, ſhewed in ſix particulars. The readineſs of Jacobs family to part with their Ear-rings. The willingneſs of the Jewiſh Exorciſts, to deliver up their Conjuring books. The value of them. Our ends in ſuch undertakings muſt be right. Superſtitious, Idolatrous things, muſt be handled with ſcorn and indignation. What diſgraceful terms the Scripture gives Idols. We muſt be impartial. The work muſt be managed in a way proportionable to the ſin and ſcandal committed. We muſt do it throughly. Why Jacob hid the Idols of his Relations under an Oak. The integrity of Moſes, Aſah, Joſiah, Hezekiah, herein.

When abuſed things muſt be aboliſhed. It concerns us to make haſte in the buſineſs. The eminent forwardneſs of David, Hezekiah, Joſiah.

Why abuſed things muſt be laid aſide, ſhewed in ſix particulars. They are abominable. Mr. Hooker confeſſes that Communion with Idolaters is to be avoided. The opinion of Maimonides, Calvin, Dr. Stillingfleet, touching the reaſon of Gods forbidding ſeveral things to the Iſraelites, that were uſed by the Canaanites. The diſtance the antient-Chriſtians ſtood at, from the Heathens. Maccovius, peremptory againſt communion with Idolaters in indifferent things. Aquinas his reaſons to the contrary, without weight. Mr. Hooker and Paybody anſwered, by Gilleſpy. The holineſs and honour of Gods worſhip, to be maintained. We muſt labour to prevent abuſes for the future. Manaſſes his error. Conſtantine, guilty of the like. Grotius his opinion, in caſe the abuſe become cuſtomary. Abuſed things muſt be removed, leſt they intice. Images, why called, ſtrange Gods. Idols, why called, Lovers. They are apt to intice. What Calvin, and Zanchy thought of the reliques of Popiſh Idolatry.

The Point limited and bounded. Neceſſary things notwithſtanding abuſe, are to be maintained. Of Gods own Ordinances. Of his good creatures. Of meat offered to Idols. Scandal muſt be avoided. Of the profitable devices of men. Of the Veſſels of the Temple, defiled by Nebuchadnezzar. Of the Temple it ſelf. Of the Jewiſh water pots. Of our Churches, and Chappels. Of things ſlightly abuſed. Of things more groſly abuſed, in caſe there be no danger for the future.

Objections made by ſeveral Authors, anſwered. 1. Ob. inſiſted by Mr. Hooker, concerning the nature of the precepts given to the Iſraelites about the extirpating of Idolatry, anſwered. 2. Obj. inſiſted on by Saravia, anſwered. Its not ſufficient that retaining the uſe of abuſed things, we ſeparate them from the abuſe. 3. Obj. urged by Dr. John Burgeſs, anſwered. Things that for the preſent have no bad uſe made of them, may in time, have. Whether Solomon did aboliſh the Idols he ſuffered to be ſet up in his life time, or whether Hezekiah did it, or whether it were done by Joſiah. Salianus his judgement. 4. Obj. made uſe of likewiſe by Dr. Burgeſs, anſwered. Preaching againſt the abuſe of things, not ſufficient to prevent it. 5. Obj. offered by Biſhop Lindſey, anſwered. Though the abuſe proceed not from the nature of the things themſelves, yet being abuſed they are to be laid aſide. 6. Obj. inſiſted on by Bellarmine, and Dr. Hammond, anſwered. It does not follow from what hath been ſaid, that neceſſary things, being abuſed, are to be aboliſhed. 7. Obj. urged by Biſhop Morton, anſwered. The Scripture does not either directly, or indirectly hold forth to us a liberty of retaining abuſed, unneceſſary things. 8. Obj. made uſe of by Dr. Burgeſs, anſwered. The Scripture does not afford us any approved inſtances of the uſe of abuſed, unneceſſary things. 9. Obj. anſwered. The abrogation of the Ceremonial Law, does not yield us any liberty to uſe ſuch things. What liberty we have thereby. 10. Obj. anſwered. The abuſed things amongſt us, do offend both Papiſts and Proteſtants. 11. Obj. inſiſted on by Biſhop Andrews, Dr. Burgeſs, Dr. Prideaux, anſwered. What hath been alledged obliges us to lay aſide not only the ſame individual, numerical things that have been abuſed, but thoſe of the ſame kind.

The firſt Ʋſe, for confutation, and conviction, 1 Of the Papiſts. Why the Holy Ghoſt calls them Gentiles. Several Writers mentioned, who have ſet down their agreement in many things of their Religion, with Heathens. Their Leaders encourage them therein. Their practice herein, againſt the judgement of the Antients. 2. Of many amongſt our ſelves. As the Papiſts ſymbolize in many things with Heathens, ſo we ſymbolize with the Papiſts. The 2. Ʋſe, for exhortation. What hath been ſaid ſhould engage our hearts againſt ſuch things amongſt us as have been abuſed. Things abuſed to Idolatry, abominable. Upon what grounds Moſes pretended to Pharaoh, that they were to Sacrifice ſuch creatures to the Lord as the Egyptians worſhipped, when as the Law about Sacrifices was not yet delivered. We muſt decline the uſe of abuſed things. Wherefore the Iſraelites would not Sacrifice to the Lord in the Land of Egypt, nor the Jews in Babylon. The caſe of Naamans bowing in the houſe of Rimmon, diſcuſſed, and he evinced to be a true Convert. In what caſes we may appear before an Idol, ſhewed in 7. particulars. Of Daniels abſtinence. The change Ephraims converſion wrought on him. Tertullians judgement about keeping at a diſtance from Idols. The hatred of modern Jews to Idols. We muſt do our endeavour to root out abuſed things. What things amongſt us, we are upon the account of their abuſe to endeavour the extirpation of. Of the preſent Liturgy. What King Edw. 6. ſaid of it. King James, his opinion of it. What the late Aſſembly of Divines alledged againſt it. A compariſon betwixt it, and the brazen ſerpent. Of the ſign of the Croſs, How Voetius, and Mr. Bradſhaw, diſputed againſt it. Of the Surplice. Zanchy thought the abuſe, a ſufficient reaſon, wherefore it ſhould be laid aſide. Of Kneeling at the Sacrament. The principal reaſon, Voetius alledges againſt it. Worſhipping towards the Eaſt. Voetius his reaſon againſt it. Of Holy-dayes, The reaſon rendred by Bucer, Rivet, Capellus, Wendeline, Hoſpinian, againſt them.

Conſiderations tending to excite good men to endeavour the aboliſhing of the forementioned abuſed things. Good men zealous againſt the occaſions of Idolatry. Godly ſorrow is attended with indignation and revenge. Why Rabanus thought Solomon no true penitent. The opinion of learned men, touching his ſtate. Not to endeavour the extirpation of ſuch things, is to go againſt clear light: and to give offence. The Holy Ghoſt calls the Idols of Ephraim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The late Biſhop Hall contradictory to himſelf. If we do not endeavour the aboliſhing of ſuch things, but make uſe of them, we ſhall occaſion good men to ſeparate from us, and God to caſt us off. The godly Jews might not come near the idolatrous Iſraelites. The divorce of the ten Tribes. Uncertain what is become of them.

READER,

THou art deſired to take notice, that whereas the Author in purſuance of the Method propounded to himſelf, intended the having of new Sections in p. 74, 78, 158. the making of them, through inadvertency, was neglected. As for literal miſtakes, thy indulgence is requeſted. Theſe more conſiderable ones, thou may'ſt thus amend.

Marg. P. 29. l. 17. for ch. 20. r. p. 20. p. 35. for 2 Cor. r. 1 Cor.

Book. P. 13. l. 31. for as, r. is. p. 21. l. 7. for 2. r. 1. p. 38. l. 3. for 2, r. 3. p. 58. l. 16. for Sun, r. Son.

2 Kings 18.4.

He removed the high Places, and brake the Images, and cut down the Groves, and brake in pieces the brazen Serpent, that Moſes had made: For unto thoſe dayes, the Children of Iſrael did burn Incenſe to it; and he called it Nehuſhtan.

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 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 I intend to inſiſt on, ſay ſomewhat by way of Explication.

1. He removed the high Places. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which our Tranſlation renders Image, Pagnine, 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 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 ••• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 gave to him, with the form of a Lamb impreſſed on them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lambs, and the Medals that Demetrius made, with the form of Diana's Temple impreſſed on them, Acts 19.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it ſelf, derived of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as evidently in the ſingular; and therefore Pagnine, Montanus, and the ſtream of good Interpreters 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 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 ſeverity of the forementioned reformers; but what theſe Chemarims were, is not ſo eaſie to determine. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 coming of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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? 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of the things within the Church, or Temple; and him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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. 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being in that 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 (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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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, 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 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; 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 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, 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 〈…〉 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. 〈…〉 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 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, 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈…〉 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 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 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 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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 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 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 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.

Another example of this abſtinence from abuſed things, we have in Daniel (a man of far higher attainments, than ſuch a new Convert as Naaman was, can be preſumed to have had) who when Nebuchadnezzar by the hands of Aſhpenaz the Maſter of his Eunuchs offered him of his royal meats, and wines, he refuſed either to eat, or drink thereof. He purpoſed in his heart that he would not defile himſelf with the proportion of the Kings meat. Dan. 1.8 The King had ſuch high eſteem of him, that he was deſirous to win him to his religion, and in order thereunto, he judges it meet to treat him with ſuch meats and drinks, as he had conſecrated to his Idols, thinking, that when he had inur'd him to feed on the one, he ſhould bring him to own the other. Hunc hamum ſubeſſe cibis regiis vidit Daniel, &c. in loc. Dr. Burgeſs Rejoynder, c. 4. ſect. 6. p. 446. Ne illa quidem quorum uſus permittitur lege, integra erant, &c. Trem. & Jun. in loc. This bait he made uſe of to take him; but Daniel (as Pareus notes) eſpying the hook, declines the inticement, and ſo eſcapes the danger. Being aware of the deſign that was laid againſt him, he first purpoſes abſtinence in his heart, and then exerciſes it in his practiſe. I know it's ſaid, that he refuſed to eat of the Kings meat, not becauſe it was abuſed, by being offered to an Idol; but becauſe it was forbidden by the ceremonial law. But 1. ſome writers of very great authority, ſay he refuſed to eat it, not only becauſe the ceremonial law forbade the Jews to eat ſuch kind of meat, but becauſe the King had abuſed it to ſuperſtition and idolatry. 2. Admit the immediate reaſon of his refuſing to eat the Kings meat, was becauſe it was forbidden by the ceremonial law, yet that do's not at all mend the matter; for the reaſon wherefore that law forbade ſuch meats, was, that they had been abuſed by the idolatrous Nations. So that though the immediate reaſon of Daniels refuſing to eat the Kings meat, was perhaps ceremonial, viz. that that law forbade it, yet the remote and more principal was, that his meat had been offered to an Idol, and thereby had been abuſed.

In like manner Ephraim, upon his return, declines the uſe of thoſe things, he had before ſo much doted on. Nay, he is ſo far from respecting them as he did, that he ſpeaks of them with diſdain. Hoſ. 14.8. What (ſaith he) have I to do any more with Idols? Being ſenſible of his having followed them too long already, he reſolves he'll have no more to do with them. Tertullian holds it unlawful, De Coron. Milit. either to give any thing to the ſervice of an Idol, or take any thing from it. As we muſt not take furniture from the houſe of God, to beautifie the Temple of an Idol, ſo neither muſt we take furniture from the Temple of an Idol to beautifie the houſe of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cujus aedes contiguae ſunt templi idololatrico & collapſae fuerint eas aedificare prohibitum. Shulchan Aruch, part 2. num. 143 He will have nothing common with Idols; neither muſt we. The Jews in times paſt, were extremely addicted to heatheniſh Idols; but latter years have taught them more wiſdom: ſuch is their hatred to them, that they will not have an houſe ſtand near one of their Temples. It is forbidden (ſay they) that thoſe houſes which ſtand contiguous to an Idolatrous Temple, if they fall down, to rebuild them. They have found by ſad experience, that Idols are but bad Neighbours, and therefore they think it not good to live near them. And whenever God opens the eyes of men, and ſhews them the vanity and danger of Idols, they'l have little mind to meddle with them, or any thing belonging to them.

3. Lets all do our parts towards the aboliſhing, and extirpating of them. Whatever perſons, names, times, places, utenſils, ceremonies, we find amongſt us, that have been groſly abuſed in ſuperſtitious and idolatrous ſervices, let us endeavour the rooting of them out, and the laying of them aſide. We muſt not only ſtand looking up to authority, and waiting to ſee what they will do, but we muſt every of us, ſo far as may conſiſt with the keeping of our places, endeavour the doing of it. Magiſtrates are often more backward in reforming the Church, and purging out ſuch things, than otherwiſe they would be, becauſe their people are not more forward. The reaſon wherefore Jehoſaphat took not away the high places, 2 Chron. 20.33. was becauſe the people were not yet prepared. He was willing to have ſet upon the work, but he ſaw the people who hankered after their old ſuperſtitions, were averſe to it, and therefore he let it alone. Had they but gone to him, and deſired the removal of them, the work had been done. And I am perſwaded, that if the people of England, who are unſatisfied with thoſe monuments of Popiſh Idolatry, that are amongſt us, would but acquaint his Majeſty therewith, and in a proper, becoming way, ſolicite him to remove them, he would gratifie them in it. Let us not therefore, any longer ſit ſtill in the midſt of ſuch defilements and ſnares, but diſcover our hatred of them, decline their uſe, and in ſuch wayes as prudence, juſtice, and order do allow, endeavour the rooting of them out. Let us not like Rachel, Gen. 31.34. Judg. 18.14. 1 Sam. 19.13. Micah, Michal, keep them by us, but caſt them away as filth out of our houſes. It is but a womaniſh, weak part, to preſerve, or give any countenance to ſuch things, and therefore lets not be guilty thereof, but engage againſt them, and root them out.

Now for the better directing of your courſe, I ſhall in a few words, point at ſome particular things amongſt us, which have been abus'd in ſuperſtitious and idolatrous ſervices, and that in ſo high a degree, that wiſe, learned, and good men of different perſwaſions, have judg'd they ought to be laid aſide. I know I ſhall be cenſur'd for appearing againſt ſuch things, they being of ſuch eſteem with divers amongſt us, and being back'd and fenc'd with Authority and Law. Some, will charge me with malice, and ill will to the publick eſtabliſhment: others, with indiſcretion and raſhneſs; but that's no ſufficient reaſon wherefore I ſhould not do my duty. Christ blames the Paſtor of the Church of Pergamus, Rev. 2.14. for being ſilent in this caſe, and therefore I underſtand not how we may, without rendring our ſelves liable to the like reproof, hold our peace. Its no great matter what men think, 1 Cor. 4.3. or ſay of us, all the while we do nothing, but what we may not omit. We muſt appear againſt the corruptions amongſt us, and endeavour the ſecuring of Gods glory, and the ſouls of people, let the iſſue be what it will. And if thoſe who upon the reading hereof, do cenſure me, will but lay aſide ſiniſter reſpects, and ſeriouſly weigh the reaſons and authorities, I have on my ſide, they'l perhaps ſee cauſe to reſent things better.

1. The preſent Liturgy, though there be many good and uſeful things in it, yet it hath been ſo much abuſed, both heretofore among the idolatrous Papiſts from whom we had it, and ſince amongſt our ſelves, that it hath for many years been the deſire of ſeveral thouſands of ſober and godly people of all degrees in theſe Nations, that it ſhould after the other Popiſh traſh, thrown out of the houſe of God in the beginning of the Reformation, be laid aſide. What relation it hath to the Papiſts, and of what nature it is, we may learn from the meſſage ſent by King Edward the 6th. to the men of Devonſhire and Cornwall, Acts and Mon. vol. 2. p. 667. who upon that pious Kings caſting off Popery, and ſetting up Protestaniſm, roſe up in arms, and made ſeveral impudent demands to him, telling him, amongſt other things, that they would not receive the New Service, but would have their Old Service of Mattins, Maſs, Even-ſong, and Proceſſion in Latin, as it was before. To which he returns this anſwer; As for the Service (ſaith he) in the Engliſh tongue, though it may ſeem to you a New Service, it is indeed none other than the Old. You have the ſelf ſame words in Engliſh which were in Latin, ſaving a few things that are taken out, which were ſo fond, that it had been a ſhame to have heard them in Engliſh, as all they can judge who liſt to report the truth. And how can this with reaſon offend any reaſonable man? If the Service in the Latin Church was good in Latin, it remaineth good in Engliſh, for nothing is altered, but to ſpeak with knowledge, what was spoken with ignorance. See Mr. Ball againſt Separation, p. 149. Thus that Religious King. And King James, who came after him, ſpake to the ſame purpoſe. In a Speech of his in Scotland, he ſaid in plain terms, that the Engliſh Liturgy, was an ill ſaid Maſs. And hence it is that the Papiſts themſelves have ſuch a liking to it. Pope Pius the 4th. ſending Vincentio Parpatia, Abbot of St. Saviour, to Queen Elizabeth, offered to confirm it, if ſhe would yield to him in ſome other things. And when the Popes intelligencers had ſeen Service ſolemnly ſung and ſaid in Canterbury and London, with all their pomp and proceſſion, they wondred that their Maſter would be ſo unadviſed, as to interdict a Prince or State, whoſe Services and Ceremonies ſo ſymboliz'd with his own. Nay, ſo well were the Papiſts of our own Nation pleaſed with it the firſt eleven years of Q. Elizabeths Reign, that they came to the Church, and joyned themſelves with Proteſtants in the uſe of it. Hereby you ſee whence it came, and from whoſe hands we received it, even from the Children of Babilon; and coming from ſuch impure hands, its eaſie for any that know what Antichriſtianiſm means, to gueſs what uſage it had amongſt them. And if we come amongſt our ſelves, and take a view of it ſince it ſpake Engliſh, what a ſtrange reverence have the ignorant and ſuperstitious people it in? How do they admire and adore it? What an Idol do they make of it? This is ſo well known, that there are none, ſetting out ſuch as are as ignorant and ſuperſtitious as they, but they are acquainted with it. And upon this and other grounds, there have been various and eminent oppoſitions made againſt it, and endeavours uſed for the aboliſhing of it. Voetius takes notice that it hath met with various contradictions from firſt to laſt.Ea ſemper contradictiones varias paſſa eſt. Pol. Eccl. pt. 1. l. 2. tract. 1. c. 1. p. 349. Who hath not heard of the Admonition exhibited to the Parliament, Ann. 1572. of the Petition of the thouſand Moniſters preſented to King James 1603. of the Declaration of the Lincolnſhire Miniſters? The very Names of the Addreſſes, Remonſtrances, Complaints, and other Diſcourſes that from time to time, ever ſince the beginning of the Reformation, have been made againſt it, would amount to no leſs than a juſt Volume. But waving other Teſtimonies, I ſhall only offer to your thoughts, what upon the advice of the Aſſembly of Divines was urged by the late houſe of Lords and Commons, in order to the ſatisfying of people touching the aboliſhing of it. Amongſt other reaſons which they render for the taking of it away, Pref. to the Direct. p. 5. this was one, that the Prelates and their faction had laboured to raiſe the eſtimation of it to ſuch in height, as if there were no other worſhip, or way of worſhipping God amongſt us, but only it, to the great hindrance of the Preaching of the Word, and (in ſome places of late) to the justling of it out as unneceſſary, or at leaſt, as far inferiour to the reading of the Common Prayer, which hath been made no better than an Idol, by many ignorant and ſuperstitious people, who pleaſing themſelves with their preſence at that Service, and their lip-labour in bearing a part in it, have thereby hardned themſelves in their ignorance, and careleſſeneſs of ſaving knowledge, and true piety. I produce not this, or other testimonies of the like nature, for the ſakes of thoſe high flown gallants, that have ſacrificed their reaſon to humour and prejudice; but for the ſakes of ſuch a are ſober and moderate, and will liſten to truth when it ſpeaks. And to theſe I appeal, whether the Service book being no inſtitution of God, but a device of man: nor of any ſuch neceſſary uſe, but that it may well be spared: and ſo many of the Nobles, Gentlemen, Miniſters, together with ſo many thouſands of private Chriſtians, being offended with it, and crying out againſt it, as a thing horribly abuſed, and made an Idol, it ſhould not, as well, as the brazen Serpent, be aboliſhed and laid aſide? What reaſon can any render wherefore the former ſhould be aboliſhed, and not the latter? Is it pleaded, that the latter is in it ſelf lawful (which many queſtion, and others deny) ſo was the former. Will it be ſaid that the latter hath been, is, and ſtill may be, uſeful; the like may be ſaid as to the former. Cannot the latter be removed without giving offence to many whoſe ſatisfaction is to be endeavoured as well as others, neither could the former. Turn you which way you will, you ſhall find that the reaſons for ſparing the brazen Serpent, were as many and ſtrong, as thoſe alledged in the behalf of the Service book; nay, far more, and ſtronger. The Service book, is not of divine inſtitution, but the Serpent was. The Service book was never any instrument of miraculous cures, but the Serpent was. The Service book was never any figure of Chriſt, either being to come, or being already come, but the Serpent was. Hereby, to proceed no farther, it appears, that the reaſons for ſparing the Serpent, were of as much, nay more weight than thoſe be, which are produced in behalf of the Service book; yet Hezekiah conſidering it had been made an Idol, did in obſervance of the Law of God, take it, and break it in pieces. Why then the Service book ſhould not be dealt with after the ſame manner, I underſtand not.

2. The ſign of Croſs, hath been long uſed in the Church; if the account that ſome give of it be true,Dr. Burgeſs Rejoynd. ch. 1. ſect. 15. p. 61. near ſixteen hundred years: during which time, it hath by ſeveral ſorts of perſons, eſpecially the Papiſts, been ſo abuſed, that its thought fit by many it ſhould be laid aſide. Voetius, debating this Probleme, Whether the ceremony of the Croſs uſed in ſome places in the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, do ſymbolize with Idolatry, determines it affirmatively, the reaſon whereof I ſhall give you in his own words.Quia est ceremonia abhominibus inſtituta, &c. Diſp. part. p. 266. It is (ſaith he) a ceremony inſtituted of men, and not of God, and hath been polluted with idolatry in an horrid manner, even as it is yet polluted at this day; yea it is the univerſal inſtrument, and ſtandard (as it were) of all idolatry and ſuperſtition in the Papacy, and therefore ought wholly to be aboliſhed. The reaſon (you ſee) wherefore he thinks it ſhould be aboliſhed, is that it hath been ſo much abuſed, eſpecially in the Papacy, where it ſerves as the grand inſtrument of their ſuperſtition, folly, and madneſs. And this reaſon is urged by many; particularly, by that moſt learned man Dr John Rainolds, Conf. with Hart. c. 8. diviſ. 4. p. 509. See his Opuſc. p. 113. who argues from Hezckiahs breaking down of the brazen Serpent, to the aboliſhing of the ſign of the Croſs; but eſpecially by the reverend and judicious Mr. Bradſhaw, who hath written a particular Treatiſe upon it, which in the Title page, we find contracted into this ſyllogiſm. No religious uſe of a Popiſh Idol in Gods publick Service is indifforent, but utterly unlawful, but the uſe of the Croſs in Baptiſm, is a religious uſe of a Popiſh Idol in Gods publick Service, Ergo, the uſe of the Croſs in Baptiſm, is not indifferent, but utterly unlawful. Thus his Argument runs; with how, and with what ſtrength he manages it, I leave to every one upon his own inquiry to judge. For my part, I never ſaw any competent anſwer to it, neither do I expect it.

3. The Surplice is in it ſelf an innocent Veſtment, but hath been ſo abuſed, that it is become unfit for Religious uſe. Though it ſignifie Purity, yet experience tells us, it is ſo far from being able to work or preſerve it, in thoſe whom it covers, that it cannot ſecure it ſelf. Ergo etiamſi nullo alio, hoc ſaltem nomine obtrudendae non ſunt Eccleſiae Chriſti id genus, veſtes, &c vol. 3. Epiſt. ad Reg. Eliz. col. 244. See Hooker cited by Mr. Jeanes in his treatiſe of Abſtain. from app. of evil, p. 143. Having fall'n into fowl hands, it is ſo ſullyed and defil'd, that it is fit rather for an Hoſtler, than a Miniſter of the Goſpel: for a Stable than the Houſe of God. Zanchy ſpeaking to Qu. Elizabeth of it, and ſuch like garments, tells her that the very abuſe thereof conſidered in it ſelf, is a ſufficient reaſon, wherefore they ſhould not be impos'd. Though for no other (ſaith he) yet for this very cauſe, ſuch garments ought not to be thruſt upon the Church of Christ, becauſe the Harlot of Rome hath abuſed them, and doth ſtill at this day abuſe them. Some have been of opinion, that the waſhing of them in the water of new Doctrine, differing from that of the Papiſts, touching their neceſſity, holineſs, efficacy, willpurge them from their defilement, and render them fit for uſe again. But it is not with moral filthineſs, as it is with natural. All the water of Jordan would not have ſerv'd for the cleanſing of Gideons Ephod, when once defiled from its idolatry. And thus it is in the preſent caſe; when we have done all we can to our polluted garments, they will ſtill remain filthy. Though we ſhould waſh them with Nitre and Sope, yet they would ſtill retain their ſpots, and cry out with the Leper, unclean, unclean.

4. Kneeling at the Sacrament of the Supper, is a rite contended for, and ••• tiſed by many, but hath been ſo pollu •••• with Antichriſtian Idolatry, that it is judg'd fit it ſhould be wav'd, and another more proper, as well as antient, uſed inſtead of it. Beza looks upon it as a ſufficient reaſon wherefore it ſhould not be uſed, that it hath been the occaſion of ſuch Idolatry in the Papacy. Quoniam ex hoc fonte orta eſt, &c. Ep. 12. Myſt. Iniq. ad an. 1209. p. (ed. lat. fol.) 343 Becauſe (ſaith he) from this fountain roſe that detestable worſhipping of the bread, which yet cleaves to the minds of many, it ſeems deſervedly to be taken away. Whether Kneeling, proceeded from the worſhipping of the bread, or lead to it; whether it were the effect of it, as Morney thinks, or the cauſe of it, as Beza here ſuggeſts, I ſhall not now inquire. It is manifeſt to all the world it hath been abuſed in it, and that is thought ſufficient reaſon wherefore it ſhould be laid aſide. This is not the judgement of a ſingle. Beza only, but of others. Voetius diſputing concerning it, amongſt other reaſons which he renders againſt it, this is one, and the firſt in order,Ritus quo homines excellenter abuſt ſunt ad idololatriam, &c. Pol. Eccl. part 1. p. 815. that it hath been ſo much abuſed. His argument runs thus; that rite which men have highly abuſed to Idolatry, and which neither divine nor natural right hath made neceſſary, is not to be held for a ſacred matter, or for any thing belonging to a ſacred matter, but is to be removed from divine worſhip; but the rite of Kneeling is ſuch as men have ſo abuſed, and which neither divine nor natural right hath made neceſſary; Ergo. His major he proves from ſeveral places of Scripture, particularly from the example of Hezekiah, who upon the account of abuſe, did not only take away the high places, but likewiſe the brazen ſerpent, though ſuch an illuſtrious teſtimony of antiquity, (as he fitly calls it) made by the expreſs command of God himſelf. The former branch of the minor, he proves from this, that the Papiſts have uſed this geſture, and do yet uſe it, to their horrid breadworſhip, or adoration of the Hoaſt. The latter branch of the minor, he proves from this, that there is no command touching Kneeling at the Supper, nor any reaſon, nor natural neceſſity to induce, or lead us to it. Of what force Dr. Sanderſons arguments are, though manag'd with ſo much ſubtilty, you may gather from the particular anſwers he afterwards returns to them.Ezek. 8.18. Cum idclatrae eum ad idololatriam & ſuperſtitionem per agendam appropriant, &c. Diſp. pt. 3. p. 267.

5. Worſhipping towards the East, is (as the Scripture it ſelf ſhews) of very antient uſe, yet in regard divers Nations have, and do ſo much abuſe it, many have judg'd it meet that we ſhould decline, and forbear the uſe of it. Though it be indifferent, and at our own free choice, which point of Heaven to worſhip towards, yet in regard ſtanding towards the Eaſt, hath been ſo much abuſed by Idolaters, with whom we muſt not in any unneceſſary things, have communion, we are taught to worſhip another way. Thus the forementioned Voetius directs us. Inaſmuch (ſaith he) as Idolaters do appropriate it to the carrying on of their idolatry and ſuperstition, Adoratio ad Occidentem introducta fuit in lege ad excludendum idololatriam, &c. 12. q. 102. a. 4.5. De Idol. l. 2. c. 3. tantis ſuperſlttionibus contaminata illa festa fuerunt ut mirer ſi quiſquam Chriſtianus ſit qui ad nomina eorum non exhorreſcat. in Mat. we ought to abſtain from it, leſt we ſeem in outward ſhew to communicate with them; eſpecially, if our adverſaries improve our uſing it to the defence of their cauſe. Nay Aquinas himſelf ſhews, that the reaſon wherefore the Sanctum Sanctorum ſtood West, and wherefore the Jews were to worſhip that way, was becauſe the Gentiles in reverence to the Sun worſhipped towards the Eaſt. And if God would not have the Jews to uſe an abuſed poſture, or comply with Idolaters therein, what reaſon have we to think he will allow us to do it. Thoſe who would ſee more of this, may read Voſſius, and what our Writers have ſaid in anſwer to Bellarmine on this ſubject.

6. There are divers Holy-dayes obſerv'd amongſt us, which with the forementioned things, have been ſo abuſed, that its thought high time they ſhould be let alone, and imployed to another uſe. What opinion the reformed Churches beyond the Seas are of, concerning this buſineſs, I might ſhew you by a multitude of teſtimonies, but I ſhall only offer to you a few, from ſome Writers amongſt them of prime note, whereby you may gueſs at the judgements of others. Bucer ſpeaking of Holy-dayes, ſaith, they have been ſo tainted with ſuperſtition, that I wonder we tremble not at their very names. Rivet diſcourſing of them, and their obſervation in England, urges the abuſe of them, and the act of Hezekiah mentioned in the Text, for aboliſhing of them upon that account.Inter Orthod xos c nvenit, &c. Vol. 1. Expl. Decal. ad 4. Praec. p. 1346, &c. It is (ſaith he) agreed amongst the Orthodox, that they are celebrated by the Papiſts with manifeſt idolatry. And afterwards; We could wiſh (ſaith he) that as Hezekiah aboliſhed the brazen ſerpent becauſe ſome abuſed it, ſo they would aboliſh thoſe Holy-dayes which are polluted with ſo many ſuperſtitions and idolatries in the Papacy. Cappellus is of the ſame mind; ſpeaking of the keeping of Holy-dayes, ſuch as Chriſtmaſs, Id est quod nec Chriſtus, nec Apoſtoli, Eccleſiae Chriſtianae neceſſarium duxerunt &c. Theſ Salm. pt. 3. ſect. 7. p. 647. Easter, Whitſontide, ſaith, it is that which neither Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles thought neceſſary for the Chriſtian Church; for if they had thought it neceſſary, doubtleſs they would not have omitted it, for they were not deſtitute of wiſdom and prudence to ſee what was profitable and fit to be done in this caſe; yet there is not in the writings of the Evangeliſts and Apoſtles, ſo much as any footſtep, word, or letter touching that particular. And having ſhew'd the riſe, and progreſs of the obſervation of Holy-dayes, he tells us, it had been more adviſeable and conduceable to the welf are of the Chriſtian Church, not to have admitted that deſtination and peculiar obſervation of dayes, becauſe as the event ſhews, from thence proceeded the ſuperſtition and idolatry which hath for ſo many ages poſſeſſed and overſpread the Popiſh Church, from which leaven thoſe Churches are not altogether ſafe, which retain the primitive uſe of Holy-dayes; inſomuch that others fearing leſt they ſhould from ſuch uſe contract contagion, choſe rather in their reformation wholly to aboliſh it. To the ſame purpoſe writes Wendeline; diſcuſſing this Queſtion, What is to be thought of Holy-dayes, which the Papiſts have inſtituted, and do yet celebrate in the honour of Saints, he thus determines the caſe. They are full (ſaith he) of Idolatry, Cultu ſcatent idololatrico, &c. Syſt. Maj l. 2. c. 6. p. 1641. and therefore Chriſtian Churches may not approve of them, no more than they may of the invocation of Saints, which is manifeſt Idolatry. This is plain dealing; and yet as if this were not ſufficient, he goes on, and puts the caſe further; Whether (ſaith he) may Holy-dayes dedicated to the memory of Saints, be rightly retain'd and celebrated, in caſe the Idolatry be taken away, and the honour of the Holy-day terminate, not in the Saint, but in God. To this he anſwers, with that ſtanding rule, allowed by Orthodox Writers, adiaphora non neceſſaria, horrenda idolomania polluta ſunt abolenda; that is, things in themſelves indifferent, and no way neceſſary, being polluted with horrible Idolatry, are to be aboliſhed; but Holy-dayes are ſuch, and are polluted with horrible Idolatry in the Papal Church, An ad campanae pulſum, &c. De Templ. c. 26. p. 337. (and expoſe to much danger, no leſs than Statues and Images) and therefore ought to be aboliſhed. With theſe agrees Hoſpinian; anſwering this Queſtion, Whether the Proteſtants beyond the Seas, upon the tolling of the St. Mary Bell at Noon and Evening, ought to betake themſelves to their Prayers; he reſolves it Negatively, giving this reaſon, that thoſe hours were inſtituted by John 22. and Calixtus 3. to a ſuperſtitious worſhip, which no good man ſhould have any hand in countenancing, or encouraging. Such as would ſee more, may at their leaſure conſult Zanchy, Martyr, Hyperius, Didoclavius, Willet, Vol. 2. in 4. Praec. col. 678. Com. in 1 Reg. 19. Opuſc. Theol. t. 1. de Bacch. Altar. Dam. c. 10. p. 644. Com. in Rom. 11.4. whom for brevity ſake I only referre you to. Thoſe whoſe words I have here given you, may in the mean time, ſuffice to hint to you the judgement of the Churches abroad, in this matter. They ſay that the forementioned Holy-dayes are tainted with ſuperſtition and idolatry, that they are as bad as invocation of Saints, that they have been as ill abus'd as the brazen ſerpent, and that upon that account we ſhould forbear to obſerve them, nay that we ſhould be ſo far from obſerving them, that we ſhould tremble at the very name of them. It remains then that in imitation of King Hezekiah, and in concurrence with the judgement of theſe learned and eminent men, we lay aſide thoſe Festivals yet in uſe amongſt us, that have been, and are ſtill ſo much abuſed both to ſuperſtition and prophaneſs, and in the obſervation of ſome of which we do not only open the mouths of our brethren beyond the Seas, but of the Papiſts themſelves.See Voetius diſp. part 3. de Quadrag & Bacch p. 393. Hoſius, A Lapide, Froymundus upbraid us herewith, that having caſt off divers feaſts and faſts of their Church, we do celebrationem Bacchanalium aliorumque hilariorum retinere; retain the celebratian of Shrovetide, and ſuch like jovial times. Whether they, or we, are more guilty of ſymbolizing with Heathens, and honouring their Deities, they may learn from Pol. Virgil, Lud. Vives, and other of their own Writers. However its ſad, that by the practice of ſuch extravagancies, we ſhould furniſh them with ſuch matter of accuſation, and give them ſuch advantage againſt us.

Thus I have in a few words, given you an account of ſome of thoſe things which in regard of their great abuſe, we are to endeavour the extirpation of. In the management whereof, to prevent the charge of ſingularity, I have mainly inſiſted upon the judgements of others: and thoſe no mean ones, but ſuch as are of chief authority and note; who you ſee, took the abuſe of the abovementioned things, for a ſufficient reaſon wherefore they ſhould be laid aſide. In conſideration whereof, and the grounds I have before alledg'd, let it be your ſtudy, care, and endeavour in ſuch wayes as Chriſtian prudence ſhall direct, to promote the aboliſhment of them, and all other things amongſt us of the like nature.

Sect. 14.

NOw that I may provoke you hereunto, I ſhall as an addition to thoſe grounds you have already heard, offer you ſome few conſiderations, and ſo conclude.

1. It is the property of all ſuch, as ſeeing the evil of ſuperſtition and idolatry, do thereupon unfeignedly diſlike and turn from them, to do it.2 Cor. 7.11. The Scripture ſhews, that godly ſorrow is attended not only with care, fear, and zeal, but alſo with indignation and revenge. And as it ſtands thus affected towards other ſins, ſo particularly towards ſuperſtition and idolatry. When a man ſees what miſchief they have done him, and is duly ſorry for the ſame, he does all he can to be reveng'd on them: and the better to accompliſh his deſire herein, he roots out whatever either hath been an occaſion of it for the time past, or may be an occaſion of it for the time to come. 2 Chron. 33.15. When Manaſſeh became a new man, he preſently took away the ſtrange gods, the Idol out of the houſe of the Lord, and all the altars he had built in the mount thereof, and in Jeruſalem: and caſt them out of the City. So the Jews; upon their turning to God and his pure worſhip, Iſa. 31.7. every man caſts away his Idols of ſilver, and his Idols of gold, which their hands had made to them for a ſin. They do not dote on them as they us'd to do, but throw them away with contempt and ſcorn. And wherever there is true repentance from ſuperſtition and idolatry, Solomon de admiſſo idololatriae ſcelere nunquam perfecte paenituit, &c. in 2 Reg. 23. it uſes to be thus; and where it is not thus, we have canſe to fear there is not true repentance. Rabanus thinks Solomon was no true penitent, and that upon this ground, that he did not aboliſh thoſe things in his Dominions, which had been abuſed to Idolatry. Solomon (ſaith he) never truly repented of his idolatry: for if he had yielded fruits worthy repentance, he would before all things have taken care to remove the Idols which he made, Aug. in Pſ. 126. & alibi. Bell. t. 1. de verb. l. 1. c. 5. See what Voetius ſaith to the contrary, diſp. part. 2. p. 1044 And Prideaux Lect. 6. ſect. 17. p. 90. and not (being ſo wiſe a man) have left them to ſtand as stumbling blocks to fools, as if what he erroneouſly deviſed, had been wiſely and well done. But though what he and ſome others have ſaid concerning his condition, be ſome what too harſh, yet this is certain, that his neglect in the preſent caſe, renders his repentance and ſalvation far more diſputable than otherwiſe it would have been. If we will be accounted the friends of God, we muſt declare our enmity againſt thoſe things that ſtand in oppoſition to him, which we cannot, ſufficiently, be thought to do, whiles we ſuffer the occaſions of his diſhonour, peaceably to abide amongſt us.

2. If we do not do it, but inſtead thereof make uſe of them, we ſhall go againſt the clear light of Scripture which teaches us otherwiſe, we ſhall go againſt all thoſe precepts, promiſes, threatnings, commendations, reprehenſions, rewards, puniſhments before mentioned, which do in a very high degree oblige us thereunto. Now this we muſt by no means be guilty of, leſt with thoſe Job ſpeaks of, Job. 24.13. we be found rebellious againſt the light, and wilfully acceſſary to our own ruine. It is ſinful to withſtand the obſcureſt truth the Scripture offers to us, but to withſtand that which ſhines with ſo much evidence and brightneſs is ſinful indeed, Luk. 12.47. and therefore will no doubt be puniſhed with many ſtripes.

3. If we do not do it, but make uſe of them, we ſhall give great offence to thoſe amongſt whom we live. We ſhall offend ſome by confirming them in their idolatry, others by drawing them to it, and others by grieving and making them ſad with our unwarrantable carriage herein. The Holy Ghoſt according to the ſeptuagint, terms the Idols of Ephraim 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſcandals, or offences; and indeed that is the nature of all Idols, Hoſ. 4.17. with the ornaments and utenſils belonging to them: they tend to the offending either one way or other, of all that have to do with them. Balak inticed the Iſraelites to eat meat ſacrificed to Idols, and how do's the Holy Ghost interprete it? Rev. 2.14. Hall Caſes of Conſc. p. 183. Ed. 3. why he calls it a caſting a ſtumbling block before them. And a late Biſhop diſcuſſing the caſe, whether reſerving your conſcience to your ſelf, you may be preſent at Idolatrous devotion, anſwers it negatively. Your preſence (ſaith he) is unlawfull upon a double ground: of ſin, and of ſcandal: Of ſin, if you partake in the idolatry; of ſcandal, if you do but ſeem to do it. The ſcandal is threefold: you confirm the Offenders in their ſin, you draw others by your example into ſin, you grieve the ſpirits of thoſe wiſe Christians that are the ſad witneſſes of your offence. How we muſt reconcile this with what he ſays after in defence of Naamans bowing before Rimmon, I ſee not; unleſs we muſt ſay that in ſo doing, he neither partak'd in the idolatry there committed, nor any way ſeem'd to do it, and if ſo, then (as I ſaid before) what need was there of a pardon? Certainly whether he partak'd in it really, or no he did in ſome ſort ſeem to do it, which afterwards being convinced was unlawful, he is ſorry for it, and reſolves againſt it for the future. And if the ſeeming to own, and make uſe of abuſed things be thus offenſive, what remains then, but that denying them any countenance, or room amongſt us, we take them and bury them in obſcurity.

4. If we do not do it, but make uſe of them, we ſhall occaſion our godly brethren to ſeparate and withdraw from us. God hath charged them, that when they ſee us fall in with ſuperstitious and idolatrous courſes, to ſtand at a diſtance, and keep off from us. When the Iſraelites were fall'n to ſuch courſes, he requires the godly Jews to have nothing to do with them. Come not ye (ſaith he) to Gilgal, neither go yee up to Bethaven. Hoſ. 4.15. Before the Iſraelites fell to ſuch courſes, the Jews might lawfully enough have gone either to Gilgal or Bethel (here for the wickedneſs of it, called Bethaven) and there have held communion with them, but afterwards they might not, without the guilt of ſinful Symbolizing and complying. And what he requir'd of the Jews, he requires of all his faithful Servants, whom he hath obliged to the like abſtinence; and therefore if we mean to have their communion, we muſt refrain from ſuch courſes, and walk more inoffenſively. Nay

5. If we do not do it, but go on to make uſe of them, we ſhall provoke God to caſt us off and forſake us. If we will preſerve his worſhip and ordinances ſincere, and keep cloſe to him in the regular uſe of them, he will favour us with his preſence, and abide amongſt us; but if otherwiſe, he will withdraw from us and leave us. When the Iſraelites fell to Idols, he proceeded with them after this manner: he claps a Loammi upon Hoſ. 1.9. their heads, divorces them from him, and leaves them. Before, he own'd them in an high degree, bleſſed them with rare and ſingular priviledges; but when they forſook his pure worſhip, and fell to ſuperſtitious and idolatrous courſes, he ſuspends his wonted kindneſs, delivers them into the hands of the Aſſyrians, See Voetius diſp. part. 2. p. 145, 146 drives them out of their own land, and do's ſo diſperſe and ſcatter them; that it's become a dispute, whether there be ſuch a people at this day in the world. As then, we would enjoy the preſence of God, which is the greateſt bleſſing any creature can poſſibly poſſeſs, let's throw away all our Idols of what ſort ſoever, and caſt from us every polluted and unclean thing; otherwiſe, there is nothing to be expected, but utter abdication and rejection, of which what good man, can think without horror and trembling?

FINIS.