Concerning the Indifference of Human Actions, Part 5 – Part 8
Ames His Triplication.
Becauſe the Defender did make this one ground of denying our conſequence from Hezekiahs zeale againſt the monuments of Idolatry, that he 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 Idols. It was replyed, that it may be well thought, they were deſtroyed by Hezekiah, and ſet up againe before the time of Joſiah. This the Rejoinder calleth raſhneſſe to be repented of: becauſe it is ſaid (2. Reg. 23.13.) that Joſiah deſtroyed thoſe high places, which Solomon had ſet up. And was it ſuch a raſhneſſe, to ſay that it may be thought ſo? the phraſe is more modeſt then theirs, who peremptorily affirme thoſe Idols to have been neglected, untill after Hezekias time: when the Scripture teſtifieth plainly, that Ahaz Hezekias his father worſhipped Molech (which was one of thoſe Idols) by making his ſon to paſſe thorow the fire: and was ſo madly given to ſuperſtition, that he ſacrificed under every green tree. 2. Reg. 16. Nay leſſe was ſaid, then ſome learned have with great probability affirmed: (z)Exiſtimamus etiam, vivo Salomone, omnem illam daemonum officinam diſruptam fuiſſe, dilaceratam, atque diſperditam. Videnturque referendae illae ſtatuae, & luci, & …rae & reliqua Idolatriae monumenta (2. Reg. 23.13.) ad Manaſſem, & Ammonem (qui excitaverant illa in eodem loco & ſu… pra eadem fundāenta) non ad Salomonem, ante annos 250. extinctum. Incredibile dictu eſt, tantum ſcandalum ab Aſa, Joſaphato, Joiada, cum late idolatriam diſperderent, in oeulis ipſis poſitum, non vidiſſe, aut non auſo… attingere, & ad annum 3406. Mirum profectò ſi Idola illa poſt tercentos 50. annos ſubſiſterent, quae Salomon ipſe poenitens, & caeteri reges boni ſuſtuliffent. Utique dicendum videtur, ab impiis regibus extructa fuiſſe ejuſdem generis fana, & Idola, quae olim Salomon in iiſdem locis extruxerat: ut illud quae aedificaverat Salomon, ſit idem ac ſi dixiſſer, qualia aedificaverat.Namely, that thoſe Idols with their appurtenances were firſt defaced by Solomon himſelfe, after his repentance; and being reſtored after by Idolaters, were againe defaced. Salianus (in his Annals ad an. 3309.) ſaith thus: we think… alſo that while Solomon lived, that while ſhop of Divels was broken up and ruined. And withall the ſtatues, the groves, and altars, as alſo the reſt of Idolatrous monuments. 2. King. 23.13. to have reference to Manaſſes, and Ammon (who had ſet them up in the ſame place, and upon the ſame foundation) and not to Solomon, who dyed 250 yeares Before. It is incredible to ſpeake, that when Aſa, Joſaphat, and Jehoiada did farre and neare deſtroy idolatery, they notwithſtanding ſuffered a ſcandall ſo apparent. And to the yeare 3406. It were very ſtrange if thoſe idols after 350 yeares ſhould yet remaine, the which Solomon after his repentance, and other good Kings had aboliſhed. So that it is probable that ſuch like temples, and Idols were repaired, and built up againe by other ſucceeding ungodly Kings, which Solomon in former time had made: that that which Solomon builded ſhould be all one with ſuch like as he had builded.
Where he ſheweth by divers inſtances, both out of ſcripture, and out of common ſpeech, how that word which, doth not alwayes note the ſame ſingular ſubſtance; therein confuting all the ground that the Rej. had for cenſuring the Repl. of raſhnes to be repented of. This ſentence is the more alſo to be favoured; becauſe according to the other, which our Def. and Rej. maintaine, it will be very hard to anſwer that objection againſt Solomons repentance, which (a)Solomon de admiffo Idolatriae ſcelere, nunquam per. fectè paenituit. Nam ſi fractus paenitentiae dignos faceret, ſatageret ante omnia, ut idola quae aedificave…at, …ollerentur, & non in ſcan…alum ſtultotum, quae ipſe …um fuiſset ſa…ientiſſimus, …tronea fecerat …uaſi ſapientè …c rectè facta …elinqueret.Rabanus on 2 Reg. 23. groundeth on that ſuppoſition: Solomon never truly repented of his Idolatry: for if he had manifeſted fruits worthy repentance, he would have taken order with thoſe Idols, which he had ſet up by remooving them, and (being ſo wiſe a man) never have left them to ſtand for ſtumbling blockes to fooles, as if what he had erroneouſly deviſed, had been well and wiſely done. Beſide all this, it is not credible, that the ſame individuall Temples ſtood by Jeruſalem from Solomons time to Joſias; if it were but for this, that the Aſſyrians came even to the gates of Jeruſalem, ſpoiling and breaking downe all coſtly buildings, (Such as Solomons Temples were) not ſparing, but deriding the Gods of nations. 2. Reg. 8.
Unto the ſecond branch of the Reply Dr. Burges thus rejoineth
Burges his Rejoinder,
This prooves not that they were, nor is it likely that God himſelfe would have vouchſafed ſuch thorow praiſes to Hezekiah, as he doth, 1. Kings. 18.5. If Hezekiah had been bound to deſtroy thoſe neglected Idols, as well as others then taken in the manner, and did not ſay, why he was bound to do that which he did not.
Becauſe either Hezekiah had as good cauſe to deſtroy them as Joſiah; or elſe he might have prevented that cauſe which Joſiah had; and to prevent evill, we are as well bound, as to correct it.
If Hezekiah had as good cauſe to deſtroy thoſe high places, which ſtood neglected, (and had done perhaps about three hundred yeares, even ſince the death of Solomons wives, whoſe Chappels they were) as Joſiah had, when Manaſſes, or Ammon had, after Hezekiah his time, revived that Idolatry; the holy Ghoſt would have taxed Hezekiah for not doing that, for doing whereof he commendeth Joſiah; or at leaſt, not have left his integrity crowned with like praiſes, as he doth, 2 Kings, 18.5. nor was Hezekiah bound to prevent the cauſe which Joſiah had, unleſſe he had ſuſpected it. For though we are bound to prevent evill which we foreſee, ſo farre as we well can, yet are we not bound to foreſee all that may happen. Neither are the ſame meanes alwayes requiſite for prevention, which muſt be vſed for recovery. If you thinke otherwiſe, burne all your popiſh bookes, leſt they fall into the hands of popelings, and do miſcheife; for you are bound to prevent evill, as well as to correct it.
Ames his Triplication.
It was added by the Repl. that thoſe Idols ſhould have been deſtroyed, (though they had been for the time neglected) becauſe that evill for which Joſiah deſtroyed them, ought as well to have been prevented as corrected. To this the rejoinder anſwereth, that this is not true, except Hezekiah had ſuſpected that evill. And who will ſay, that there is no cauſe to ſuſpect evill of an Idoll, though it be for a time neglected? or can any man thinke, that if the Iſraelites had neglected them, no Sydonian, Moabite, or Ammonite gave occaſion of any evill to be ſuſpected by thoſe Idols? The Spaniſh and French Papiſts (to ſay nothing of Engliſh) when they in paſſing by the Croſſe in Cheape-ſide, do reverence unto it, give they not cauſe to ſuſpect ſome evill to cleave unto it? The ſame meanes (ſaith the Rejoinder) are not alwaies requiſite for prevention, which muſt be uſed for recovery. Yes truly, about Idols (if we judge out of the Scripture) the very ſame meanes. Burne then (ſaith the Rejoinder) all your Popiſh books, leſt they fall into the hands of Popelings to abuſe them. So will I certainly, if you can ſhew me, that they muſt be burned, when Popelings have had them in their hands, and abuſed them, which here you grant concerning theſe Idols.
Here is nothing of the Rejoinder left unexamined, but his quotation of the 2 Kings 18.5. and how impertinently that is alledged will appeare by compariſon of it with 1 King. 15.5. David did that, which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aſide from any thing, that be commanded him all the daies of his life, ſave onelyonly in the matter of Ʋriah the Hittite. For from this commendation of David we may as well conclude, that his numbering of the people, and his purpoſe and attempt to revenge himſelfe of Nabal by deſtroying him and all his, were lawfull; as we may inferre from the praiſes of Hezekiah, that his omiſſion in not demoliſhing Solomons outlandiſh Idols, muſt be unlawful: See Rutherford pag. 90.
Secondly, wee muſt diſtinguiſh of places. That which in ſome places carries a ſhew of evill, elſewhere perhaps is not ſuſpected thereof. According to places therefore, in indifferent matters wee may vary our practiſe. It was the advice of Ambroſe unto Auſtin, and Monica, reſpected by Auſtin, as if it had been the anſwer of an heavenly oracle; (b)Ad quamcunque Eccleſiā veneritis, inquit, ejus monē ſervate, ſi pati ſcandalum non vultis, aut facere. Aug. Ep. 86.unto whatſoever Church ye ſhall come, obſerve the manner or cuſtome thereof, if ye will neither give nor take ſcandall. Which advice if reſtrained unto things indifferent is very good: and beſides we have Pauls precept, and preſident for it: his precept, 1 Cor. c. 10. v. 32. Give none offence, neither to Jew, nor Gentile, which could not be done, but by complying with them in indifferencies. His preſident alſo anſwereth his precept; To the Jewes he became a Jew, to them that were under the Law, as under the Law; to them that were without the law, as without the Law; to the weake, as weake, 1 Cor. 9.20, 21, 22. Amongſt the Jewes he ſhaved his head, made a vow, Acts 18.18. and (c)Circumciſion was then indifferent, but after the full promulgation of the Goſpel it became to be not only mortua but mortifera, not only dead but deadly, as being an interpretative deny all of Chriſts coming in the fleſh.circumciſed Timothy, Acts 16.3. and yet amongſt the Gentiles, where theſe actions bore an appearance of Judaiſme, he withſtood Peter for them even to his face, Gal. 2.11. There be three other inſtances in the former edition, which becauſe they are queſtionable I ſhall wholy wave, and paſſe on unto the examination of my vaine triumph over the non-conformiſts, wherein, as the Proverb is, I reckoned without mine hoſt.
Former Edition.
After theſe limitations of the duty of abſtinence from all appearance of evill; I cannot but wonder at our irregulars miſapplication of it. They hence eagerly cry down the laudable diſcipline, and lawfull Ceremonies of our Church. What fearefull outcries do they make concerning their appearance of Idolatry, ſuperſtition, will-worſhip and Popery? Termes you ſee by the exceptions put to this precept, Hooker.as much too big for our innocent, and harmleſſe Ceremonies, as Hercules ſhoe, for a childs foot. Indeed our Ceremonies, for example, the Surplice, Croſſe in Baptiſme, kneeling at the Lords Supper, may have a materiall ſemblance with thoſe that in Popery have been abuſed to Idolatry, and ſuperſtition, and ſo conſequently taken materially, in reſpect of their materialls, may have an outward ſhew of Popiſh Idol. try, or ſuperſtition; but conſider them as impoſed by our Church, and generally uſed by her members, ſo they are formally differ need from thoſe which Papiſts have applyed to Idolatrous ends and purpoſes. For our Church publickly profeſſeth a quite contrary uſe or application, end, or intention of them. And externall actions have their ſpecification, and conſequently diſtinction from their end, and intention, from it they take their ſpecies, or kind, and accordingly are diſtinguiſhed. Now ſince all Popiſh, whether ſuperſtitious, or idolatrous abuſes of our Ceremonies, are publickly diſclaimed, and their right uſe explained; who can juſtly imagine any ſhew of Popery in them? An Iſraelite was not to be ſmitten for an Egyptian, becauſe for a while he once ſojourned in Egypt, if afterward he had his conſtant abode in Canaan. The garment ſpotted with the fleſh was no longer to be hated, than ſpotted: being once waſhed, it might againe be uſed. Our Ceremonies were defil…d in Egypt, in Popery, with ſuperſtition, and Idolatrie; but our Church (God be praiſed) hath waſhed them from both in her publique, and profeſſed uſe of them. And therefore now they ſtand above either calumnie or ſuſpicion.