Nehushtan: OR, A sober and peaceable Discourse, concerning the Abolishing of things abused to Superstition and Idolatry; Which may serve as one entire, 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.  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 hue 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 Topics and Principles, from which Divines commonly argue, to evince that all unnecessary things, by whomsoever brought into the Church, having been grossly abused to Superstition and Idolatry, and by virtue thereof being apt to scandalise and offend, are for the necessary preservation of the sincerity of Religion, the safety of men's 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, etc. Zanch. vol. 2. col. 678. Regula est, adiaphora non necessaria, etc. Rivet vol. 1 p. 1346. Laudant religiosi Theologi regulam, adiaphora non necestaria, etc. 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 undeniable, 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 perplexed and tortured with this very Argument, that they have expressly acknowledged it, the chief weapon made use of against them. Which I urge not, as if I thought this sufficient to satisfy 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 does 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, does 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 Relics 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 straits 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 entering on the Treatise, and reading the several particulars, which I contend upon their being abused aught to be laid aside, think I express myself in too large and general terms, I desire them to weigh the Scriptures and proofs alleged: and in case those satisfy 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 seemed too full and large, to their just extent and bounds (which I could not well do, before) and removed 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, alleged for, and against it, I am very confident, that being duly wielded 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 Majesty's 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 allege, that these matters have been insisted on long enough: it's a frivolous pretence, savouring of lukewarmness and carnal oscitancy. How can it be imagined 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 plaster; 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 blamed, 
Non negarim multos initio, pio studio ad acricrem reprehensionem quorundam manifestotum abusuum impulsos fuisse, etc. 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 puffed up with ambition of Ecclesiastical power, have proudly and disdainfully contemned and repelled those who have duly and modestly admonished 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 Church's 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 ancient Church, from which they have turned aside. These words Conradus Vorstius, though none of the soundest men, thought so remarkable, 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.  
Sect. 1. p. 1. THe Introduction. Of High Places. Two sorts of them. Used by the Patriarches. Lawful 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.  
Sect. 2. p. 20. The Method propounded. The point proved. God deals with his people by way of precepts, promises, threaten, 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 Jewel, 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.  
Sect. 3. p. 44. 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 burned incense to the Brazen Serpent.  
Sect. 4. p. 51. 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, Dogs, 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 days, and why.  
Sect. 5. p. 60. 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 ancient Church would not observe the Calend of January, play-days in the beginning of the Spring, nor Easter at the usual time. Mr. hooker's argument for Holidays, retorted.  
Sect. 6. p. 62. Abused Places, to be abolished. Why God chose the form of an Ark. The Israelites strictly enjoined 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 Abbeys, Monasteries, commended. Danger in suffering such places to remain, but safety in removing them. The doubt touching the returning of our Churches, and Chapels, 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.  
Sect. 7. p. 83. The removing of abused things, does 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 Magistrate's power, answered. 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. Augustine's 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.  
Sect. 8. p. 98. How abused things must be removed, showed in six particulars. The readiness of jacob's family to part with their Earrings. The willingness of the Jewish Exorcists, to deliver up their Conjuring books. The value of them. Our ends in such undertake 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 hide the Idols of his Relations under an Oak. The integrity of Moses, Asah, Josiah, Hezekiah, herein.  
Sect. 9 p. 109. When abused things must be abolished. It concerns us to make haste in the business. The eminent forwardness of David, Hezekiah, Josiah.  
Sect. 10. p. 111. Why abused things must be laid aside, showed 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 God's 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 entice. Images, why called, strange Gods. Idols, why called, Lovers. They are apt to entice. What Calvin, and Zanchy thought of the relics of Popish Idolatry.  
Sect. 11. p. 123. 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 Nabuchadnezzar. Of the Temple itself. Of the Jewish water pots. Of our Churches, and Chapels. Of things slightly abused. Of things more grossly abused, in case there be no danger for the future.  
Sect. 12. p. 131. 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. It's 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 alleged obliges us to lay aside not only the same individual, numerical things that have been abused, but those of the same kind.  
Sect. 13. p. 153. The first Use, 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 Ancients. 2. Of many amongst our selves. As the Papists symbolise in many things with Heathens, so we symbolise with the Papists. The 2. Use, 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 naaman's bowing in the house of Rimmon, discussed, and he evinced to be a true Convert. In what cases we may appear before an Idol, showed in 7. particulars. Of daniel's abstinence. The change Ephraim's conversion wrought on him. Tertullia's 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 alleged 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 alleges against it. Worshipping towards the East. Voetius his reason against it. Of Holidays, The reason rendered by Bucer, Rivet, Capellus, Wendeline, Hospinian, against them.  
Sect. 14. p. 187. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 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 broke the Images, and cut down the Groves, and broke in pieces the brazen Serpent, that Moses had made: For unto those days, 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 proceed, in a way answerable to the same. Though he set them on high, and give them pre-eminence 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 lie 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 Father's impurities, but he also cleanses the Nation, which was in like manner overspread 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 intent to insist on, say somewhat by way of Explication.  
1. He removed the high Places. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in Scripture to denote two sorts of high places, civil and religious. By the former, we are to understand such places as being higher than ordinary, 
Deut. 33.29. Isa. 58.14. Hab. 3.19.  and above the common level, had strong and stately buildings erected on them, both for defence and delight By the latter, we are to understand certain Mountains and Hills that the Israelites used to perform solemn Devotions and Services upon. That you may the better conceive of this, you are to note, that the ancient Patriaches, 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 liable to. An instance of this, we have in Abram, 
Gen. 12.8.  who in obedience to Gods command having left Vr 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 alleged as something towards excusing the people's sacrificing in the high places in the beginning of Solomon's reign, 
1 Kings 3.2.  that till then there was no house built to the Name of the Lord. But though it excused in part, yet not in whole, and that for this cause, that as soon as the Tabernacle was built, God expressly forbade it: What man soever (saith he) there be of the house of Israel, 
Leu. 17.3, 4.  that killeth an Ox, 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 ways.  
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 kill 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 turned 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 killed and offered, and that was before the door of the Tabernacle. He would have the people not only take care that they usurped not the Priest's 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 ordained 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 thyself that thou offer not thy  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 adventured 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, dispense 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. etc. 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 designed, 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 Ancient 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 Deities. Nay, they did not only not build Temples, but thought it unlawful to do it; the reason whereof was probably this, That worshipping the Sun, which they looked 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 aftertimes 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 used 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 Mowtains or Hills themselves, but that he demolished such buildings and works, as were made upon them, for the carrying on of their Sacrifices, Oblations, and other Services there performed. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
See Buxt. in voc. Menoch. de Rep. Heb. l. 2. c. 7.  as divers show, does not only signify high or lofty places, taken strictly, but also the Temples, Chapels, Altars, that were erected on them. Hence we find that some versions of good authority, render it by words of such particular signification. The Syriack renders it altaria; the Arabic, arras. In as much then, as it is said that Hezekiah removed the high places, the meaning is, that he demolished the Temples, Chapels, 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 broke the Images. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 entered 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 Soldiers 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 spoke 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, taketh them and breaks them in pieces.  
3. He cut down the Groves. Our translation following the septuagint and vulgar Latin, turn it in the piural form, Groves; but the wo●●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is singular, and therefore Ing●●ine, Montanus, and others, do render it by a word of that number. Though Hezekiah, 
2 Chron. 31.1.  as appears from what is elsewhere mentioned, cut down many Groves, yet there seems to have been one, that had some peculiar eminency in it above the rest, which the Holy Ghost here speaks with reference to. Though there were many Images in the house of Baal, 
2 Kings 10.26.27.  yet there was one that did in an eminent manner bear his name above the rest; and so I conceive it was in this case: though there were many Groves that fell under Hezekiahs' religious severity, yet there was one that the Holy Ghost had his eye upon above the rest, which he intends in this place. Now for the original of Groves, the ancient Patriarches, 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 Abraham's carrying wood with him three days when he went to Moriah to offer Isaac) and also rendered their devotions more private and reverend. In imitation of the Patriarches, its likely the Heathens made use of them, in the service of their Idols. The Canaanites 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 styles 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lambs, and the Medals that Demetrius made, with the form of Diana's Temple impressed on them, 
Acts 19.24.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Silver Temples or Shrines; so he here styles that which was but an Image of the Grove, the Grove itself. And not thinking it sufficient to have the Images of them, they yielded worship to them. They did not only serve the Idols that were in the Groves, but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Groves themselves. Nay, 
Judg. 3.7.  how they were besotted with them, and what veneration they had them in, we may learn from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself, derived of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying blessedness; intimating that they counted them blessed things, sought blessedness in them, and looked upon themselves in a sort blessed, in the enjoyment 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 broke in pieces the brazen Serpent: What this brazen Serpent was, upon what account it was made, and what use it was of, you may learn from the History of God's proceed with the Israelites in the Wilderness. 
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 used 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 itself had been got within them; for which cause the Holy Ghost calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fiery or burning Serpents. Now being in this distress, they go to Moses confess their fault, & entreat 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 looked 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 missed it, that not contenting themselves with showing what respect was due to it, as a 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 God's great goodness shown 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 shown 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 Idolised it, he took it, and broke it in pieces. He deals not with it as Moses dealt with Aaron's 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 Arabic render the verb by our Translation turned, called, in the plural form, as if, not Moses but the Israelites, had called it Nehushtan; but the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as evidently in the singular; and therefore Pagnine, Montanus, and the stream of good Interpreters render it by a word of that number. 
See A Lapid. in Num. 21 Estins in 2 Reg. 18 4. Rainolds de Idol. Rom Eccl. l. 1. c. 6. Sect. 5. p. 244. Rivet. vol. 3. Cath. Orth. p. 169.  Now this Nebushtan is a diminutive from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying aenulum, or a little piece of brass; so that Hezekiah in giving it this Name did as much, as if he had said to the Jews, what a foolish people are ye? do you think such a despicable thing as this, hath any Divinity in it? do ye think this is a God? do ye 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 itself. It was no more able of itself to do it, than Moses staff was able of itself to fetch Water out of the Rock. It was no more able of itself 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' proceed 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. When 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 ancient 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.  What 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, sacrificed and burned incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree. So far was he from inheriting his Father's virtues, 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 itself 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 stigmatised him with a mark of perpetual infamy, and hanged 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 mere 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; and 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? 
 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 supposed to lie 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 easy to imagine. Which way soever the great Cedars fall, they tear the little shrubs with them. Such as the King is, such is the Kingdom. If Rehoboam forsake the Law of the Lord, all Israel does so too. 
2 Chron: 12.1.  If Alexander carry his head on the one side, his Soldiers 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 Helu. 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 loather to part with it, after they had yielded 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, daily 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 broke 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 Father's 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 praiseworthy, but to do it the very day of his Coronation, is praiseworthy indeed.  
6. It was a work that none, in many material and weighty respects had engaged 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 stirred 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 named, they meddled 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 complied 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 engaged in. Notwithstanding all this, being acted by a spirit of Heroick and Princely zeal, he sets upon it, and prosecutes it with blessed vigour and success. Thus much I thought good to suggest ere I went any farther, to show the difficulties and discouragements that attended this work, and how eminently Hezekiahs' zeal broke 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 show, 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 does 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 employ ourselves 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, ye shall destroy all their Pictures, and all their molten Images, and quite pluck down all their high places. And, ye 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 received them, set upon the observance of them. This he requires from us, and we both may and aught to do it. If he command Abram to kill Isaac, 
Gen. 22.2. Josh. 6.27. Hos. 1.2.  Joshuah to destroy the Canaanites, Hosea to lie 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 authorise and justify our undertake in the most harsh and doubtful case whatsoever. Were there any superior power, than we might stick at his appointments; but since he is the great and sovereign Lord, we must without any contradiction, or haesitancy, comply with them, otherwise, we lay ourselves under the guilt of no less than inexcusable disobedience.  
2. From the comfortable promises he hath made to encourage 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 compliance with our weakness, he does not only lay precepts before us, but likewise promises, wherein he engages, 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, overthrew their molten Images, and pluck down their high places, he adds by way of promise, Ye 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, etc.  Ye 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 withal, and bread of the increase of the earth, and it shall be fat and plenteous: in that day shall thy  feed in large pastures, etc. 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, than 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 itself, 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, etc. q. d. When my people shall hearty and unfeignedly repent, and evidence as much by their vigorous engaging 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 entice us to it.  
3. From the terrible threaten he hath pronounced against us to terrify and affright us to it. Sometimes when a promise will not move, a threatening will, and therefore he uses both. He told the Israelites (and us in them) that if they would not drive out the Canaanites, 
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 die, and perish, and come to ruin.  
4. From the solemn and lasting commendations he hath bestowed 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 Worthies, did eminently here●n, and he hath set it down in the sacred story, where it is daily read to their renown and ●raise; so that whiles the names of Jeroboam, Ahab, Ahaz, and such like idolatrous Prints 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. Aaron's 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 exercised 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. Whether 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 reigned Jehoahaz his Son, than Joash his Grandson, after, Jeroboam his great Grandson, and after him Zechariah the fourth from him, upon whose decease the Sceptre 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 spoke 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 displeased 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 compliance with his strange Wives built high places to them, he was so incensed against him, that he interrupts his peaceable and flourishing reign, stirs up Hadad, Rezon, and other adversaries against him; 
2 Kings 11.4. etc.  nay rents the Kingdom itself from him.  
8. From the concurrent judgements of the most holy, learned, orthodox Writers the Church of God hath had since the Apostles times. Though the best of men not secured against it by divine inspiration and direction, are (as all age's 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, aught to be abolished and laid aside; and for confirmation thereof urge the very Text, I am now upon, which they judged 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, 
rejoined. 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 alleged 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 concerned 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 showed what ttraditions are to be kept, and what not, adds, I speak not these things so as to patronise Popish Traditions, Rites, and Worships, God forbidden: 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, shows how Hezekiah abolished it. And Farell writing to Calvin about a Popish fellow whose name was Carolus, saith, 
Cumque Sanctus Rex Hezekias, etc. Ep. Calv. 49. Regula est illa a diaphora, non necessaria, etc. 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. What 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 rendered unfit for further use. Bishop Jewel 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 public and authentic 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 alleges that of Epiphanius Bishop of Salamine in Cyprus, who entering 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 does not only allege, but approve of, telling us, that what Epiphanius did, he did it in imitation of good King Hezekiah, who broke the brazen Serpent to pieces, and burned it to ashes. And as if this were not sufficient, she does in the discourse prefixed 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 relics 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 complied, that the Stat. 3 Jac c. 5. empowers Justices of Peace, Mayor, Bailiffs, and chief Officers of Cities and Towns corporate, to search the Houses and Lodgings of Popish Recusants, for Popish Books and Relics, and if they find any such Books and Relics, 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 persuade and excite our Governors, 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, etc. Grat. didst 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 turned 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. Which 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 does oblige us thereunto. Whence 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 foreshowed, 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, Chapels, and other places? Tiber itself 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 proceed 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 observed somethings to be abused, though they were not stained with such high matters as superstition and idolatry, yet they took themselves bound to lay them aside, and accordingly did it; as I shall show 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 refused to communicate with those who under the persecution of Decius, had fallen from the faith, thought fit to appoint certain Priests to take the confessions of such as had so fallen: 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 herself 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 discussed to and fro, and the Deacon thrown out of the Church. But this was not all, Eudaemon taking notice of the disgrace that hereby befell the Clergy, and for preventing of the like for the future, advised Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople to lay the penitentiary Priest aside, which was accordingly done. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 692.  This my Author tells me he had from Eudaemons own mouth. Now if the penitentiary Priest were laid aside, for the fault committed by the Deacon, what would have become of him, had he been found guilty in his own person? And if one fault be sufficient, for the throwing of a person, nay an office of long standing in the Church, aside, what are many? 
Controu. 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 Jesuits themselves, notwithstanding all their plausible insinuations, have by several Nations, like a company of Vipers been thrown out from amongst them. 
Further Discovery etc. Ep. ed. p. 2.  The Jansenist soliciting the States of Holland to rid their hands of them, tells them, that the Republic of Venice looking on them as a public 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 rigour 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 showing 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 persuasions have had of such kind of Officers and orders of persons, and what course they have taken with them. They judged 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 rejoicing, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. morel. etc. 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 compliance herewith, still when they had eaten the Euc harist, celebrated certain feasts, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, charities, or loves, for that they were (as Pareus shows) 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 risen 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 Precedent made a Sermon, wherein he exhorted them to faith, piety, and virtue. 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 Precedents appointment, was distributed among the indigent, and the rest laid out in provision for the love-feast; at which, rich and poor sat 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, etc. Apud Trem. & Jun. Bibl. in loc.  but not contenting themselves herewith, they broke forth into several disorders, such as preposterousness, contempt of the poor, divisions, schisms, intemperance and the like, which he being informed of, labours 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) judged they ought to be laid aside. We see then, that though these love feasts were so ancient, of Apostolical institution, and might (had they been rightly observed) have contributed much towards the advancement of piety and charity; yet when the Apostle saw them so abused, he takes them away. 
See Moulins Nou. 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 Whitsuntide 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 pleas as Mountagu, Selden, Fisher, use in the behalf of them, would have prevailed with him to have spared 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 derived it: they did not only allow the faithful to use it, but exhorted them to it. What more frequent in the close of Paul's 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 honour 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 show their Christian respect to each other. And for the utter removal of all matter of suspicion and jealousy in the case, we must know, that it was not his mind that the men and women should in the sacred assemblies, where this custom 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 honour 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 liable 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 custom having this foundation, 
Ed. Paris. graecol. a Jac. Goar p. 134, etc. 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 show. And in the West it remained 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 dissuade 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 customs, as most, that their Church hath afforded.  
3. It was an use among the Christians heretofore, in the honour 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 employ 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 practised 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 rejoicings, thanksgivings, and praises, they entertained players and singers, passing away the time in filthy songs, dances, banquets, drink, nay fornications; and for these (saith he) and many other inconveniencies which attended them, they were interdicted. Nay and Bellarmine, though he show from Basil, Jerom. and other writers, that these Night-watches were anciently used, yet he saith, that inasmuch as they became occasions of great abuses, 
Caeterum quoniam paulatim occasione nocturnarum vigiliarum, abusus quidem irrepere caeperant, etc. t. 2. de Eccl. Trump. 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 Wilderness, and lay in one entire body round about the Tabernacle; but when they came into the land of Canaan, where they were to live at a greater distance, God out of his care and goodness, lest the Altar should be too far from the place where the fact was committed, and so the Offender be taken, ere he could reach it, did ordain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Josh. 20.6.  certain Cities of refuge, whither the offender fleeing, and continuing till the death of the high Priest (which typified the death of Jesus Christ our great high Priest, that was to put his poor exiled one's 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 privileged places, to which the offender fleeing, he remained 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 settled this privilege 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, etc. p. 266.  have made their several Churches, Chapels, nay their impure Monasteries such places, and that not only to the unwilling offenders, but to Traitors, Murderers, Whoremongers; where contrary to all reason and justice they keep them from being brought to due trial 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 shows, as it manifestly appears, that we received 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, etc. And that which he thus seriously bewails 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 thoughtfit to lay aside such things as have been abused in Idolatry, but likewise such as have been abused in proceed of a lower nature; which I have insisted on, for this end, to show that if such things are to be laid aside, than those that have been abused the former way, and so have received defilement of a deeper and worse die, are much more. Idolatry does 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 abused 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 show 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 gracious 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. 
Leu. 17.3, 4.  What man (saith he) soever there be of the house of Israel that killeth an Ox, 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 signify 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 war with them: and if they had not satisfied them that they did it merely 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 resolved 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 breathes 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 looked 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 days of the Old Testament he required the Magistrates, whom he entrusted 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 days 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 joined 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 prophets 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 Baal's 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 death's wound, and bury it in everlasting oblivion, does 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 skulking up and down, secretly acted their wont Idolatry, the Lord declares by one of his Prophets, who prophesied 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 easy to determine. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in its primary notion, signifying Incaluit, Calefecit, adustus fuit, the generality of Orthodox interpreters, do by a Metalepsis render it atrati, which denotes such as go in black or mourning; so that these Chemarims seem to have been a special sort of Priests pertaining to Baal, who that they might the better gain to themselves the reputation of seriousness, mortifiedness, holiness, went in a black or mourning garb. It's likely they were his domestic Chaplains, who pertained to that which the Scripture does 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 performed 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 applied to them for their recovery; and such as after the use of all due means remain obstinate in their error. 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, solicit 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 ringleaders. 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 applied for their recovery, especially if they commit it secretly, and without soliciting 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 ways and practices, will inform us. That they are Idolaters, the soberest and best of our Protestant Writers do peremptorily determine. To allege 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 margin is so clear and full on it, that I shall only answer an Objection, and so go on to what follows.  
Perhaps you'll 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 burned incense to the brazen Serpent? Answ. Though I reserve the answering of Objections till I come towards the close of this Discourse, where I intent 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 judged 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 belonged 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 profane ordinances, that he will not endure we should so much as retain their Names. As the King is impatient of the Traitor's 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 faithful servants have resolved 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 Penmen 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 called to make in order to the abjuring, refuting, and condemning of them; but not so as to justify, 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 needlessly, or with any show of liking, so as to defend or plead for them.  
And God does 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 employ 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 becoming 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 Emperor's, being called Caesar, those who succeeded had the same title, so upon this great Monarches being styled 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 Baal's. 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, Balthasar, 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 grossly abused, he does notwithstanding the properness and fitness of it for himself, by an express prohibition, forbidden his people to give it him any more. 
Menoch. de Rep. Heb. l. 4. c. 1. Sir W. Raleigh 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, days, 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 compliance, and needlessly 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 say. This is home to the case; but for the further informing and satisfying yourselves touching this matter, I leave you to advise with the Authors set down in the Margin.  
But you'll 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 does 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, than 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 Balthasar, the use of which name, they forbade. 2. Where we have not authority, we must by such arguments, and reasons, as are proper, persuade them who have, to do it. 3. Where we neither have authority to alter, nor can persuade 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 Penmen 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 signify 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, will justify 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 showed in his Translation, Beza, 
Praef. in def. translat. suae cont. Castell. Praefat. in Nou. 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 pretty 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 intolerable. Drusius speaking of that passage, Kiss the Sun; and of some that think the Psalmist does 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 refer it to Christ is most absurd. He thought it an improbable thing that the Psalmist should express 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 concur 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, 
Vnde Leo Papa in quadam Epistola, etc. 22. q. 11. a. 2.2. Nunquam probavi vocem Divus, etc. init. Beatus Sylvester nolens, etc. 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 advised, having in the first book and the third chapter of his disputations, de verbo dei used the heathenish term Divus; he does 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 ancient 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 shows that Pope Sylvester judging it unfit to speak of the days 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 looked 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 administered 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 esteemed holy, and spent in the solemnities belonging to them. As the Jews celebrated feast days 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 employ 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 rendered 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 join 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) days, 
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 afraid 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, etc. in loc.  but because the Jews both had, and did (as Pareus shows) 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, looked upon the abuse of such and such times and days, as a good and sufficient reason wherefore they should decline the observation of them. They would not observe the Calends of January, nor play-days 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 infer, that evil works do in like manner disparage times, and that the extraordinary wicked works that have been done by superstitious, idolatrous, profane men, have sunk them down to such a degree of vileness, that all those who honour God, aught to look upon them as unclean and loathsome? If the old Maxim, 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 disgraceful. 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, Chapels, Houses, Groves, and other places, wherein Idolaters have celebrated their unlawful 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 devised and used. 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 Cannon, 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 required of them, but such was their remissness 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 relics 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 resolved 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 ox 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 ushered 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 awakened the people, and stirred them up to the performance of their long neglected duty; yet it prevailed not, but they still proceeded in their former course, suffering the work required of them to lie 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 controversy 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 profaneness and wickedness that was there committed, he was so incensed against it, that he removed 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 remained 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 itself, though it was made by his special appointment, consecrated to his special honour, and had for a long time been employed 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 fetched to the Ark; but caused a new one to be made, wherein it re●●●'d 〈◊〉 the building of the Temple.  
These you'll 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 ensnaring 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 days of Hezekiah, who was the first that undertook their removal. He being acquainted with the mind of God in this particular, and endued 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, riseth up the famous Josiah, who though when he entered upon the Kingdom, 
2 Kings 23.7. etc.  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 demolished 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 governed by another power, yet the Inhabitants thereof were then carried away, and those who remained, 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 destroyed them. The like is reported of Asa and Jehoshaphat: though their zeal did not carry them so far 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.  It's said both of the one and the other, that he took away the high places. Indeed in the Kings, it's 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, than 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, etc. Socrat. l. 5. c. 15. etc. 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, practised, as to the present business. They suffered not the Temples, Chapels, Houses, Groves, and other places that had been abused, to remain; but set upon them, and demolished 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 Saviour's 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 remained, they gave order that they should be demolished. 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 Abbeys, Monasteries, and other places that the Papists had polluted with their Idolatry, and pulled 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 employed 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, forbade the worship of them, and destroyed divers of their Temples, yet left others standing: and so upon julian's coming to the Empire, and allowing the Heathens the liberty of their religion, they entered 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 levelled all before him, and thereby buried Idolatry, with the instruments of it, in oblivion. Though pious Magistrates do, by laws, forbidden 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, etc. Justin. hist. l. 1.  alleging 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 pulled down. On the contrary, when men see not only their Idols destroyed, but their Temples and Houses pulled down, they'll despair 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 Constantine's 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, than the forementioned powers erred in doing it: if they are, than we err, in not doing it. The generality of our Churches and Chapels, are such as have been defiled with Popish abominations; how then, if these principles be sound, shall we justify 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 scandalised 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 abused in idolatrous services, and are in respect of their situation, figure, or the like, unfit for profitable uses, and remain decked with their Idols attire, and stand amongst such people as are scandalised with the use of them, and are in such places where there is danger of the return of Idolatry; such are utterly unlawful, and aught 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 stripped of their Idols attire, stand not amongst such as are scandalised 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 designed for sacrifice unto Baal, and therewith make a  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 employed 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 Chapels 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 unlawful, 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 useful. As for pompous Cathedrals, and such like places, that serve for little, but to mind us of the superstitious ostentation, 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 pulled 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, etc. 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 testify Popish Idolatry, and are framed 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 Diocese into a land of Jewry, and have a Church in each of them after the similitude of Solomon's 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 employed. 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, Relics, Vessels, and other instruments, as have been employed 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 turned 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 cattles 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, etc. Oh the heat and strength of divine jealousy! They must smite the inhabitants, destroy the cattles, 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 disgraceful 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 profane things, which being brought into the Temple, had rendered 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, shows 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 aftertimes. 
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. Constantine's severity to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or imperial standard, is well known; when he saw his Soldiers adored it, and made an Idol of it, he abolished it, and substituted the Cross in its place. And the States of utretcht, lighting in the year 1609. on the whole fardel of Mass accoutrements, did notwithstanding the costliness thereof, take it into the Market place, and there publicly 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 employed 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, etc. Ann. in Johan. 4.23.  After (saith he) a principal part of religion began to be placed in them, they were to be plucked up as tares hindering 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 Saviour's appearing against washing of hands before meat. It was in itself both an innocent and convenient rite; but the jews superstitiously abused it, making it more necessary, and keeping a greater stir 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 unwashed 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 washed him in the remainder, thinking it fit to do so, than drink it: nay to die rather than to violate the tradition: of his Ancestors. And R Jose saith, that to eat with unwashed hands, is all one as to lie 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 itself 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 conceived, and therefore have declared against, nay wholly abolished various ceremonies merely upon this account, because they have been abused, and have looked 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, etc. l. 1. Ep. 41.  we use a trin-immersion, that is, a threefold dipping, or plunging: or a single one; yet some ancient Churches have refused to use the former, upon this account, that it was abused by Heretics and Idolaters. The western Bishops, taking notice how the Arrians made use of it to signify a trinity of natures in the godhead, thought those Churches did no other than what was convenient, who declined 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 Saviour's lying three days in the grave, partly to signify the Trinity of persons subsisting in the divine Essence, 
Simplicem teneamus, baptismi mersionem, etc. can. 5.  yet lets him know that in regard Heretics 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 Heretics 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, show the concurrence of their judgements with them herein. Pelican is full and vehement; 
Voluit Deus una lege abominari, & abjici, etc. in Levit. 18.3, 4.  writing upon one of the Levitical precepts against the Jews symbolising with Idolaters, he thus delivers himself: God (saith he) by this one law would have them cast away, and abhor 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 deceitful forms and rites of Idolaters: 
Modo ne superstitio & pravus abusus eos abolere cogat. Epist. ad Versipell. p. 413  which if the ancient Bishops had well understood, the Church had never been pestered with so many profane rites and base ceremonies, by which it is come to pass, that some Christians differ little from the ancient Gentiles, save in the names of their Idols. To the same purpose writes Calvin; As for ancient 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, compel us not to abolish them. 
Addititias illas innumerabiles nugas, etc. 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 relics 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 Baal's 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, writing on the forementioned precept, against symbolising, 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 dispatched the second particular, and showed what those things be that God upon their being abused, would have laid aside.   

Sect. 7.  
Thirdly, HAving in the preceding particular, 
See this point handled in Zanch. vol. 2. col. 406, 799  shown 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, does 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 public. 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 show 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 jacob's household gave to him, the strange gods which were in their hands, with the earrings which either had, or might easily have been abused 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; etc. 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 Belgic Arminians, with divers amongst our selus.  they brought those mischievous books which they had abused in their profane divinations, and burned 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 does extend, is to endeavour the removal of such defiled and offensive things. The more public management of it, belongs to the Civil Magistrate, who by virtue of the power wherewith God hath entrusted him, is to take a view of his whole Dominions, extirpate and abolish whatever is prejudicial and injurious to God's pure worship and service.  
Concerning the Authority of the Civil Magistrate in matters of Religion, Writers discourse variously. The Jesuits 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 Pope's determinations, and impositions, that is to say, to be his Vassal 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 controversy; 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 Schoolmen distinguish) a twofold authority; the one of order, the other of jurisdiction. The former consists in a power to preach the Word, dispense the Sacraments; and belongs only to Ministers, who are duly 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 pertained only to the Priest. Vzzah, might not touch the ark; Saul, offer burnt offerings; Vzziah, 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 Primate. 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the things within the Church, or Temple; and him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the things without it. Though the Magistrate have not power in sacris, so as to preach the Word, administer the Sacraments, and dispense censures; yet he hath power circa sacra, so that he both may, and aught 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 abused therein, that so God may be purely worshipped, 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 aimed 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 Wendol. 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 aught 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 abused 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 show he ought to do it. He styles 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 hurtful to them; so Magistrates are to provide necessaries, for the Church over which they are, and remove such things as have been abused in corrupt services, and whatever else they meet with that tends to infect, or ensnare.  
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 public judicature, where offenders were tried 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 infer, 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 days there was no King in Israel. Where we a●● not to take the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated King, strictly, for a particular kind of Magistrate passing under that name, (for in that sense the Israelites never as yet, either at one time or other, had any King) but largely, for a supreme Magistrate in general, without respect to this, or that particular kind. And so the meaning is, that it was a time of Anarchy, and confusion, wherein the people having no better guide than their own corrupt and licentious natures, broke forth into sad extravagancies, such as superstition, idolatry, profaneness; whereas if there had been a good Magistrate, he would have kept them in awe, and restrained them. He would either have prevented Micahs Idolatry, or else presently have gone and suppressed it.  
4. He takes it well from Magistrates, when they employ 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, memorial, 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 displeased with them for engaging 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 alleged 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 Messiah 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 empower 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 days they have not. Answ. 1. Their engaging 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 authorise and warrant their proceed? 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, etc. 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 forbidden things unjust; even as Hezekiah served 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, etc. 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 served him, by doing the same things which Hezekiah did; as the King of the Ninivites served 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 refer 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 entreated, that Relics 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 public 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 truly 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. come. class. 4. c. 13. sect. 31. vol. 2. col. 788. Loc. come. 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 etc. p. 393. Jus Divin. p. 69. Ed. Rainolds Serm. of the Peace of Jerusalem, p. 28.  Polyander, Rivet, Wendeline, Jewel, 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 mere civil Officer, appointed only to take care of, and secure men's 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'll 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 ourselves, or must we let them alone, and suffer them to remain as Snares and Engines, to entrap 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 ourselves; 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 aught to declare our dislike of them, decline the use of them, admonish, persuade, and entreat those to whom they do belong to do it, showing 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; withal, praying that our admonitions, persuasions, entreaties, 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 another's, 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 Laban's Images were (as the septuagint calls them) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Idols, yet was it not justifiable in Rachel to take them from him. Nebuchadnezzar's Image likewise, was an Idol, yea an abominable and filthy one, and upon that account Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego, justly refused 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, etc. 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 men's 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 Father's 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 denied 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 Minister's Presbytery, and he neglect to demolish them, he shall be guilty of Sacrilege. But this for aught that appears, was without foundation, either of Scripture, or right reason. As Religion does not create dominion, so neither does it destroy it. Though men by their abuse of God's creatures do forfeit them to him, yet not to us. Till he by a special grant had given the Israelites power over the Canaanites and their Idols, they might no more destroy the one, than the other. And if men's own abuse of their enjoyments 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 Neighbour's ground, and worshipping his tree or well, he either aught 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, men's 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 Soldier, 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 Englishman, 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 Host, and toss it to, and fro about the Chalice, make circles, and play the fool with that Sacred Ordinance, he stepped to him, and with one hand took the Host 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, etc. Colloq. Momp. part. 2. p. 19 Condemnarunt tunc temporis, etc. Select. disp. part. 3. p. 310.  I leave to graver judgements to resolve. As I would not eclipse the pious zeal of any of God's 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 proceed, 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 Voetius 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 ourselves, whiles we are endeavouring to vindicate it from the contempt and profaneness 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 does belong; namely to all of us in one respect or other: I shall here show 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 , or a viper out of his bosom. 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 Earrings 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 Magic Books, and burned them. 
Qui minimi aestimant, judicant excrescere hanc summam ad septem mille, etc. 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 shows) raises to eight hundred pounds of our English money, or thereabout; yet considering they had been abused 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 ensnaring 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 preferred 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, Relics, 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, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 spoiled all. And who knows not the story of Dionysius the Tyrant of Sicily? Having a covetous desire of the rich coat that hanged upon Jupiter's Image, made all of beaten gold, he took it from him, and gave him a Cotton one instead of it, alleging it was too heavy for Summer, 
Damnantur qui potius avaritia quam zelo, etc. 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, marred 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 man's undertake, and performances be never so high and noble in themselves, yet if his aims 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 God's 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 loathe 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 fit 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, fit to lie rusting in a corner, nay to be beaten to powder, than be worshipped as a Deity, as by you it is, to the high provoking of that God, who ordained it for another use. And to give you one other instance, 
Ezek. 8.10.14.4.22.3.  the Prophet Ezekiel, that he may the better express his contempt, and scorn of the heathenish Idols, does up and down his Book, speak of them under most disgraceful and reproachful terms. He calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Tremellius and Junius render stercoreos deos, that is, dunghill, filthy, stinking gods. By these instances, you see how the faithful 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 overlooking 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 Father's 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 kindred, 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 privileges can do. And after this manner must we behave ourselves 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 rendered unfit to remain, we must endeavour the extirpation of it. Herein many great and holy persons, whose proceed are recorded in Scripture for our instruction, 
Exod. 32.20. Judg. 6.27. 1 Kings 15.13. Ne patris quidem mei famae parcerem etc. 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 burned 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 Father's image, and therefore I'll wink at it; or this is my Mother's Crucifix, and therefore I'll 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 publicly and openly, that so all may see, and take notice. Indeed, if the abuse of things be only private, than we may without making any noise, or stir, abolish them privately; but if it be public, we must do it publicly, 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 Baal's Prophets, he did it not in secret, but before King Ahab, and all the people. And, when the Exorcists burned their books, they did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before all men. Pious zeal is bold and resolute, and will appear for the truth, and endeavour the preservation of it, and the removal of what is contrary to it, before the greatest multitudes. It's no matter what men think or say either of us or our endeavours, all the while we do nothing but our duty; let's see we keep to that, and then we need not fear, but he that set us on work, will both own us, and bear us out.  
6. We must do it throughly and fully, not leaving so much as any remainder, or memorial of them; unless it be such as may serve to render them more vile and hateful. So great is the proness of men to superstition, that if after they have laid it aside, there be but the least occasion offered them, they are ready to resume it, and fall to it as fresh as ever they did before; and therefore, God will have us wholly to remove all the monuments and instruments of it, and what ever is apt to incite, or provoke to it. 
Deut. 12.2.  Yoe shall (saith he) utterly destroy all the places, wherein the Nations, which ye shall possess, served their Gods upon the Mountains, and upon the Hills, and under every green Tree. 
Vid. Sixt. Amam. de recta lect. p. 84.  In the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perdendo perdetis, which as all know that have any acquaintance with the Hebrew dialect, imports as much as, ye shall mightily, or exceedingly destroy them, so as utterly to overthrow them, and make an end of them. Such must be our severity against Idols, that we must take them, with all the utensils belonging to them, and beat them to dust. We must make all the stones of their altars, as chalk stones, 
Isa. 27.9.  that are beaten in sunder. As we beat chalk stones into dust, that we may make thereof lime mortar, plaster; 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 hide them under the Oak which was by Shechem. Where we have two things observable. 1. It's said, he hide 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 broke them in pieces. 2. It's said, he hide 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 sacrilege and profaneness. Jacob therefore, that he might the better secure his relations from their wont 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 lie, than offer any violence to it.  
Thus Moses dealt with the golden calf; he did not only break it, but burned 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 turned 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 Mother's Idol, he destroyed it, burned it, turned it to ashes. Thus Josiah dealt with all the Idolatrous stuff he met with; 
2 Kings 23.4, 6, 11, 12.  he broke down, beat into dust, consumed and burned 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 burned 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, burned it there, stamped it small to powder, casting the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of Israel. He seized on the chariot of the Sun, and burned it with fire. He also took the altars which Ahaz, Manasses, and other Kings had made, broke 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 broke them all to pieces, so that he turned them into dust; for though our translation hold it not forth, yet the hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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, broke 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 memorial 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 show when we must do it. And we must do it spesdily, without loitering or making any delay. It is that wherein the glory of God, and the safety of men's souls are concerned, 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 David's zeal, that he cried 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 loath 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 haste 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 haste herein. The glory of God, the purity of religion, the sincerity of Divine worship, and the welfare of men's souls, are all concerned therein; and therefore we must not, like the Sluggard, lie folding our hands, but up and be doing.   

Sect. 10.  
Sixthly. HAving showed 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 show 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 hateful. 
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 aught 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 lily 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 itself. And thus it is with all other such things abused 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 employed in the service given us, that is loathsome to us? We may not wonder then, that since such things as have been abused in sinful worship, are loathsome to God, he will not have them employed 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 sinful practices. So great is his detestation of them, and all such enemies of his truth and glory, 
Exod. 20.25, 26. Leu. 19.19, 22, 28.18.3.20.23. Vid. Maimon. More Nevoch. l. 3. c. 37, 48. Calvin. in Leu. 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 ruin both of himself and them, so neither can God endure to see his servants, familiar with a sinful and idolatrous people. The reason wherefore he forbade the Israelites many things in themselves lawful, 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 linen, 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 dissuade from it, merely upon this ground, that the Servants of God ought not to hold communion with a superstitious and idolatrous people. Dr. Ames shows, 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 lawful, 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, hue 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 implies 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 myself have prescribed. They worship their gods in the use of groves, images, and the like, but I will not have you to follow their ways; 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, etc. 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 lawful (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, 
Vtrum 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 lawful, 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 lie open to. Should we mingle things holy and pure, with those that are profane 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, 
Leu. 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 sanctify 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, happened 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 employed 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 employed in the celebration of, insomuch that they caused men to abhor 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 profaneness, than they abhor both the one, and the other. When the Priests in after times, grew corrupt and profane, they drew disgrace both upon themselves, and that holy Law they were to walk by; they than 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 itself, and to despise both them, and whatever was done by them, or belonged to them. And how many are there at this day, that abhor the public assemblies, nay the offerings themselves that are made in them, merely upon the account of the insufficiency, and profaneness 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, 
Leu. 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 abused 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 julian's 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 sinned, 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 people's 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, etc. 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 itself, might have remained without superstition: but Ezekiah taking notice, the sin of the people became settled, 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, aught 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 entrap 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 jacob's family, calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, strange gods; and that as some think, because of their estranging the heart from God. 
Gen. 35.  Such things being laid before us, and presented to our senses, and thereby getting access to our hearts, do secretly solicit and entice them from him. Moses dissuades 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 God's command, and demolished them, they had been secure; but they let them alone, and so were entangled 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 fastened such a blot upon his name, as will never be wiped off while the sacred history remains. So Gideon, what a worthy man he? how courageous 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 does often speak of Idols under the term of Lovers; and that for this reason, that as Lovers draw away the heart, 
Hos. 2.5. etc.  so they carry away the affections of the soul from God. Calvin writing to the Lord Protector about some relics of Popish Idolatry remaining amongst us, 
〈◊〉 e●im aliud fuerunt quam totidem, etc. Ep. 86. Sunt pompae istae omnes & Ceremoniae Papisticae nihil aliud quam fuci meretricii, etc. 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 purge her dominions of such things, tells her in plain terms, that chey were nothing else, but whorish devices, invented to entice 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 happened 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 ourselves 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 secured 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, etc. vol. 2. col. 678.  that if those things which are necessary in Divine worship happen to be abused, and contaminated with superstitions, they neither aught, 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 grossly and sadly abused, 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 reduced to its primitive Chaos, and all turned 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 mere bauble, by applying it to Bells and such like things: and both of them, they cloth 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 men's. Now though these and other Ordinances, be thus abused, we must not upon this lay them aside; that, were to bereave ourselves of the benefit God offers to us in them, and encourage Satan and his instruments in their work.  
2. Neither does 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.  gideon's 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, ask 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, than 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 rejoice, 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 forbade 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 fallen out these two evils: the Egyptians would have been more confirmed in their own religion, and the Israelites would have been readier to have complied 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, signified 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 grossly the Egyptians abused the ox, 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 ox. 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 forbade them, it seems to be his pleasure, that upon their abuse, especially if there be apparent 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. Nabuchadnezzar profaned 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 entered into the Temple, 
Joseph. Antiq. l. 12. c. 7.  and there offered swine's 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 unlawful purifications; yet did not that hinder our Saviour from making use of them to glorify 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 water-pots were of such little value, as our ordinary small pitchers be; they were of a more considerable nature. They were (as the Evangelist shows) 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 employed. 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 overbalance 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 proved that the controverted Ceremonies, and other things imposed on us, are not only lawful, 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 overbalance the advantage received from them, I shall say as much of them; but till then, I must needs be of this persuasion, that we lie under an obligation to lay them by.  
4. Neither does 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 Innkeeper's 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 does this hinder, but that those things that have been more grossly abused, in case there be no danger for the future, may be spared, and employed either to civil or religious uses. Had I one of the Knives wherewith the ancient Heathens killed sacrifices for their gods, I would keep it by me, and if there were occasion employ 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 showed 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 grossly, 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 grossly abused, we must lay them by, and not needlessly keep them up, to the scandalising and endangering both of our selves and others.   

Sect. 12.  
Eightly, HAving in the preceding 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 show 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 Canaanites, 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 Canaanites; 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 justify what hath been said. But, 2. all that will not be yielded 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 Canaanites; yet withal it is to be noted that those precepts were not of a mere 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 itself 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, etc. 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 looked upon themselves as both authorised, and obliged by these precepts to do it. 
See Zanc. vol. 2. col. 387. Walaeus loc. come. 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 authorise and oblige, but also direct us therein. By these reasons, to mention no more, it appears, that these precepts are not to be looked upon as being of a mere 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 repel 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 lawful 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 lie 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. Leu. 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.  facilius est, it a tutius quoque omnes imagines e templis submovere, etc. 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 King's meat? How as he did not sanctify 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 retained 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 lawful, but have thrown them away, to the high provoking of an enraged 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, etc. vol. 2. col. 403.  As for that Proposition (saith he) that good, and useful 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, hypocrisy; 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; 
rejoinder, 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 alleges 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, etc. Salian. ad ann. 3309.   
Answ. 1. Those things which for the present are neglected, may (as it hath too often fallen out) in time become idolised; 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 alleged from the proceed of Josiah, that he destroyed the high places which Solomon made; from whence the Author of this Objection, infers 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 Solomon's 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 dissuading from the abuse of them. 
rejoined. 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 removed them. It is worth the consideration which Naogeorgus hath: 
Efficacius & plus movent etc. 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 itself, or from the opinion of the agent: if it proceed from the thing itself, it is to be abolished, 
Proc. in Perth. Assembly, part. 2. p. 120.  otherwise not. Thus Bishop Lindsey.  
Answ. The proofs I have alleged in behalf of the present truth, show abundantly, that whether the abuse arise from the nature of the thing itself, or otherwise, if it be not necessary, it is to be abolished.  
Obj. 6. If we must abolish what ever hath been abused to superstition and idolatry, 
Si argumentum aliquid valeret, etc. t. 3. de effect. Sac. l. 2 c. 32.  than 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 reason's 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 proved 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 Gloucester, who, with other things which he alleged against the ceremonies, 
Sed jam aliud argumentum expendamus, etc.  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 revenues belonging not only to them, but to stageplays, 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 compliance 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 Thiefs, 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 pattern 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 multiplied in so plain a case?  
Obj. 7. 
See Dr. Burgess rejoined. ch 4. sect. 26. p. 608.  But what the Scripture holds forth, we may safely assent to, and own, as being unquestionably just and lawful. Now it holds forth, that such things as are defiled may be purged, and rendered 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. It's 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 infer, 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 garments of her captivity; or, because we may not cut off the leprous man's head, therefore we may not burn his ; or, because we my not slay a man, who hath the Plague, therefore we must spare the clouts that have lain 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 easy: 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. 
rejoined. ch. 4. sect. 4. p. 587.  Thus the same Dr. Burgess, who instances in the wood that Gideon ●ook out of his Father's 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) does direct to, as proper to express the resentments and workings of our minds and hearts; and what some particular men's 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 passed 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 gideon's taking wood out of his Father's 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 shown 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 ancient 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 itself: but to him that 〈◊〉 any thing to be unclean, to him, it is unclean. What need we then to trouble ourselves with any such caution, or scrupulousness, as this discourse seems to aim and Let's 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 〈◊〉 believes, 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. 
Judas 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 stir, or trouble ourselves 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 Jesuit; Protestanism (saith he) waxeth weary of itself, 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 unresolved 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, etc. When they see us set our Communion tables Altarwise, rail them about, deck our walls with hang, and our windows with Images, what hope do they thereupon conceive of our return to Egypt, 
Quid vero de privatorum fidelium conscientiis dicam, etc. 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 linen 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 avoid 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 alleged 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 does 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. rejoined. 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 buzzed 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 abused the Cross to Superstition, therefore we should be denied 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 idolised, 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 justify 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 forbidden 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. 
Leu. 18.3.  After the do (saith he) of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelled, shall ye not do: and after the do 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, 
Leu. 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 practices of the same kind with them. It was unlawful 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 ourselves, 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. Elizabeth's days, 
Fresh Suit, part 2. p. 435.  who being urged by his Ordinary to wear the Surplice, alleged 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 spoke 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 egg 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, shows they did not only hold that the same individual thing which had been abused aught 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 itself; 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 ancient in the Church of Christ; from which he endeavours to justify the present use of it. Now I would know what Cross it is that hath been such a laudable rite, and so ancient 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 prefixed) should so far injure both the truth and himself, as not to remember. And then, 5. As for what he alleges 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 lawful. 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 confessed 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 broke 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 superstitious, and idolatrous services, should be ●●id aside: than it serves,  
1. For confutation and conviction of 〈◊〉 great many in the world, who, Use. 1 though ●●ey acknowledge the Divine authority of ●●e Scripture, even from the beginning to the ●●●d, and pretned to believe what is delivered ●●erein, yet think they may embrace, and ●●ake use of, and that not only in civil, and ●●mmon transactions, but also in the worship ●f God, such things as have been abused in the ●rementioned kind of services, and therewith ●ave been polluted and defiled. And of these it ●ay serve more particularly, for the confutation and conviction;  
1. Of the Papists, who though they pre●end to have left the tents of the Heathens, ●nd to abhor 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 practices, wherein they do so much agree with the Gentiles. And here I might give you an account of many particular customs and practices, which they have derived from them, and wherein they symbolise with them, but divers have done it already, and therefore I shall forbear. Moresinus a Scotchman, hath written a Discourse entitled, Origo Papatus, wherein, after the order of the Alphabet, he shows 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, Judaisme, and ancient Heresy: turned 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, etc.  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 proceed 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 named 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 showed. 
Vid. Hos. pin. de Orig Imag. p. 200.  Nay the case is so plain, that Pope Pius 5. acknowledged 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 dissuade them from them, do instead thereof, openly countenance them therein, 
Acts 14.14. Consulto introductum videtur, etc. ad ann. 200. sect. 5. Gentilium imagines adoramus, etc. 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) rend their  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 employed 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 God's 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 itself. And afterwards, speaking of some in his time that complied with them in their solemnities and observations, he thus exclaims and cries out against them. Oh the far greater faithfulness of the Nations about us to their own way, not meddling 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, chrysostom, Epiphanius, Nazianzen to discourse after the same manner? Nay, and Suarez tells us, that the ancient 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 ancients; If they are, than 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 Abraham's Ram) caught in the briars.  
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 employ them in his service. As the Papists employ such things as the Heathens have abused in their proceed, so These employ 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 Babylon, and supply themselves there. In how many particulars they agree in their Worship, Discipline, Ceremonies, and other things, with the Church of Rome, was showed in a Treatise published above twenty years ago, Entitled, 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, managed 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 provoked authority. Now, what is this but to hender themselves guilty of, abominable and ●●thy compliance? 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 cries 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, Use. 2 to advise and persuade us all in our respective places, to perform the several duties that such a truth calls for. And,  
1. Let this engage 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 ourselves towards them. Though in themselves they be never so innocent and lawful, 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 a passive senfe) represents them as abominable, nay as adomination itself. 
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'll 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, etc.  〈…〉 there 〈…〉 to the 〈…〉 we 〈…〉 of the Egyptians to the Lord our God; but 〈◊〉 Rivet dissents from him, 
Non 〈…〉 etc. in loc.  rendering 〈◊〉 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 jealousy 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. Let's utterly decline, and forbear the use of them. Let's beware how we bring them into the house of God, 
Leu. 19.19.  and employ them in his service. He gave it in charge to the Israelites, that they should not let their  gender with a divers kind: sow their field with mingled seed: nor put a garment mingled of woollen and linen upon them. Wherein he plainly forbids the mingling of things impure, with those that are pure: men's inventions with his institutions: 
Non sunt cum dei praeceptis aniscenda hominum commenta, etc. Pareus in loc.  idolatrous relics with his holy ordinances. Munster (as the Author quoted in the Margin shows) tells us, such is the averseness of the present Jews, to a garment of divers kinds, that if they find but one linen thread, wrought in a linen 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, show respect to them, 
Levit. 5.2.  or make use of them. As in the time of the Levitical Law, he that touched 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 ourselves pure, 
1 Tim. 5.22.  to avoid them, and have nothing to do with them.  
And if we inquire into the proceed 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, etc. 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 Babylon, 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 suspense) 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 Country, he was greatly troubled at it, and begged of God to forgive him. In this (saith he) the Lord pardon thy Servant, etc. 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 Jesus de Convers. Gent. l. 10. c. 3. Sanchez. come. 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 lawful, 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 leaned upon him. But if so, wherefore did he acknowledge it as a fault, and beg forgiveness? Certainly, he either missed 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 begged pardon before he was guilty, both which are unnecessary and improper? As for the Prophet's valediction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go in peace; it argues not his approbation of his former practice, but of his succeeding repentance. Others think that though he sinned in going into the house of Rimmon, and bowing there, and was convinced of the unlawfulness of it, yet he still retained 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 rendered in the praetertense, 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 myself 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. It's ordinary with the Sacred Penmen, to put the Gerund for the Praetertense. To go no further than the word here rendered, go: its ordinary with them to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. Being taken thus, they best a gree with the context. 1. With Naaman's 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 show respect, to any other God but him. 2. With his promise. Thy Servant will henceforth offer neither  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 Prophet's 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 show the same respect to the Idol, he used 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 obtained 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 sum 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 convinced 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 does not, but presents us with an eminent convert, and a remarkable instance of abstainng from Idolatry, with the occasions of it.  
But you'll 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, unsettled 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 ensnared, 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 departed 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 enticed 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 ourselves upon. 3. That we do it not with doubting, concerning the lawfulness of it, but with full persuasion 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 satisfy ourselves of the folly, madness and wickedness of Idolaters, who having forsaken the true God, give up themselves to the worshipping of mere shadows 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 gratify 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 show 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. Commit. 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 Emperor, yet they would neither go with him to the Mass, nor accompany him in the Processions on Corpus Christ's 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 ourselves 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; 
Vbi publice dissensum declarare non licet, etc. l. 2. c. 6. Cas. 6. p. 197.  where (saith he) we may not publicly 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 ourselves into needless trouble, than we may appear before an Idol, and be present at the worship given to it; otherwise, not. As for naaman's 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 begged 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 Nabuchadnezzar by the hands of Ashpenaz the Master of his Eunuches 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 King's 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, etc. in loc. Dr. Burgess rejoinder, c. 4. sect. 6. p. 446. Ne illa quidem quorum usus permittitur lege, integra erant, etc. Trem. & Jun. in loc.  This bait he made use of to take him; but Daniel (as Pareus notes) espying the hook, declines the enticement, and so escapes the danger. Being ware of the design that was laid against him, he first purposes abstinence in his heart, and then exercises it in his practice. I know it's said, that he refused to eat of the King's 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 King's meat, was because it was forbidden by the ceremonial law, yet that does 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 daniel's refusing to eat the King's 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 beautify the Temple of an Idol, so neither must we take furniture from the Temple of an Idol to beautify the house of God. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 shows them the vanity and danger of Idols, they'll have little mind to meddle with them, or any thing belonging to them.  
3. Let's 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 grossly 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 persuaded, 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, solicit him to remove them, he would gratify 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 ways 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 abused in superstitious and idolatrous services, and that in so high a degree, that wise, learned, and good men of different persuasions, have judged they ought to be laid aside. I know I shall be censured for appearing against such things, they being of such esteem with divers amongst us, and being backed and fenced with Authority and Law. Some, will charge me with malice, and ill will to the public 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 rendering ourselves liable to the like reproof, hold our peace. It's 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 God's 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'll 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, risen 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 Matins, Mass, Evensong, 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, spoke 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 Pope's intelligencers had seen Service solemnly sung and said in Canterbury and London, with all their pomp and procession, they wondered that their Master would be so unadvised, as to interdict a Prince or State, whose Services and Ceremonies so symbolised with his own. Nay, so well were the Papists of our own Nation pleased with it the first eleven years of Q. Elizabeth's Reign, that they came to the Church, and joined 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 Babylon; and coming from such impure hands, its easy for any that know what Antichristianism means, to guests what usage it had amongst them. And if we come amongst our selves, and take a view of it since it spoke 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 inferior 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 hardened 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 itself 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 alleged 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 rejoined. 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 Problem, Whether the ceremony of the Cross used in some places in the administration of Baptism, do symbolise with Idolatry, determines it affirmatively, the reason whereof I shall give you in his own words. 
Quia est ceremonia abhominibus instituta, etc. 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 God's public Service is indifforent, but utterly unlawful, but the use of the Cross in Baptism, is a religious use of a Popish Idol in God's public 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 itself an innocent Vestment, but hath been so abused, that it is become unfit for Religious use. Though it signify 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 fallen into fowl hands, it is so sullied and defiled, that it is fit rather for an Ostler, 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 itself, is a sufficient reason, wherefore they should not be imposed. 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 served for the cleansing of gideon's 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 Soap, 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 judged fit it should be waved, and another more proper, as well as ancient, 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, etc. Ep. 12. Mist. Iniq. ad an. 1209. p. (ed. lat. fol.) 343  Because (saith he) from this fountain risen 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, etc. 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 bread-worship, or adoration of the Host. 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. sanderson's arguments are, though managed with so much subtlety, you may gather from the particular answers he afterwards returns to them. 
Ezek. 8.18. Cum idclatrae eum ad idololatriam & superstitionem per agendam appropriant, etc. Disp. pt. 3. p. 267.   
5. Worshipping towards the East, is (as the Scripture itself shows) of very ancient use, yet in regard divers Nations have, and do so much abuse it, many have judged 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, etc. 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 show to communicate with them; especially, if our adversaries improve our using it to the defence of their cause. Nay Aquinas himself shows, 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 Holidays observed amongst us, which with the forementioned things, have been so abused, that its thought high time they should be let alone, and employed to another use. What opinion the reformed Churches beyond the Seas are of, concerning this business, I might show 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 guests at the judgements of others. Bucer speaking of Holidays, 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, etc. Vol. 1. Expl. Decal. ad 4. Praec. p. 1346, etc.  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 Holidays which are polluted with so many superstitions and idolatries in the Papacy. Cappellus is of the same mind; speaking of the keeping of Holidays, such as Christmas, 
Id est quod nec Christus, nec Apostoli, Ecclesiae Christianae necessarium duxerunt etc. Thes Salm. pt. 3. sect. 7. p. 647.  Easter, Whitsuntide, 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 showed the rise, and progress of the observation of Holidays, he tells us, it had been more adviseable and conducible to the welf are of the Christian Church, not to have admitted that destination and peculiar observation of days, because as the event shows, 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 Holidays; 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 Holidays, 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, etc. 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 Holidays dedicated to the memory of Saints, be rightly retained and celebrated, in case the Idolatry be taken away, and the honour of the Holiday 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 Holidays are such, and are polluted with horrible Idolatry in the Papal Church, 
An ad campanae pulsum, etc. De Templ. c. 26. p. 337.  (and expose to much danger, no less than Statues and Images) and therefore aught to be abolished. With these agrees Hospinian; answering this Question, Whether the Protestants beyond the Seas, upon the tolling of the St. Marry Bell at Noon and Evening, aught 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 leisure 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 refer 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 Holidays are tainted with superstition and idolatry, that they are as bad as invocation of Saints, that they have been as ill abused 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 profaneness, 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 symbolising 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 alleged, let it be your study, care, and endeavour in such ways 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 shows, 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 revenged 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 used 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, etc. in 2 Reg. 23.  it uses to be thus; and where it is not thus, we have cause 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 repent 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, threaten, 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 ruin. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 enticed the Israelites to eat meat sacrificed to Idols, and how does the Holy Ghost interpret 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 yourself, you may be present at Idolatrous devotion, answers it negatively. Your presence (saith he) is unlawful 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 naaman's bowing before Rimmon, I see not; unless we must say that in so doing, he neither partaked in the idolatry there committed, nor any way seemed to do it, and if so, then (as I said before) what need was there of a pardon? Certainly whether he partaked in it really, or not 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 fallen to such courses, he requires the godly Jews to have nothing to do with them. Come not ye (saith he) to Gilgal, neither go ye 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 Symbolising and complying. And what he required 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 owned them in an high degree, blessed them with rare and singular privileges; but when they forsook his pure worship, and fell to superstitious and idolatrous courses, he suspends his wont 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 does 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.