Abolishing of Things Abused to Superstition and Idolatry, Tract · Section 12
Sect. 12.
Eightly, HAving in the preceeding particulars, confirmed, cleared, and limited the point, I ſhall in the next place anſwer ſuch Objections as I have either found, or may (as I conceive) with any colour, or ſhew of reaſon be made againſt the preſent truth.
Obj. 1. A great part of the ſtrength of this diſcourſe, is taken from thoſe precepts, which God gave to the Iſraelites concerning the Cananites, and the extirpation of them and their religion, which concern us no more, than other poſitive commands relating to them, accommodated to the occaſional ſpecial circumſtances that then took place. Thus Hooker; What God (ſaith he) did command touching Canaan,Eccl. Pol. l. 5. ſect. 17. p. 148 the ſame concerneth not us, any otherwiſe, than only as a fearful pattern of his juſt displeaſure and wrath against ſinful Nations. It teacheth us how God thought good to plague and afflict them: it doth not appoint in what form and manner we ought to puniſh the ſin of idolatry in others, unleſs they will ſay; that becauſe the Iſraelites were commanded to make no Covenant with the people of that Land, therefore leagues and truces made between ſuperſtitious perſons, and ſuch as ſerve God aright, are unlawful altogether, or becauſe God commanded the Iſraelites to ſmite the Inhabitants of Canaan, that therefore reformed Churches are bound to put all others to the edge of the Sword.
Anſw. 1. Should it be granted, that much of the ſtrength of this diſcourſe were taken from thoſe precepts God delivered to the Iſraelites touching the Cananites; and that they are of a poſitive Nature, and ſo concern not us; yet there are other Texts enough cited, both out of the Old Teſtament and the New, to juſtifie what hath been ſaid. But, 2. all that will not be yeilded to; for though it cannot be denied, that much of the ſtrength of this diſcourſe is taken from thoſe precepts God delivered to the Iſraelites touching the Cananites; yet withall it is to be noted that thoſe precepts were not of a meer poſitive nature, intended only to direct the Iſraelites, in the extirpation of the Cananitiſh idolatry, as is ſuggeſted, but in the extirpation of the Idolatry of their own Nation, or any other Nation or people, over whom they ſhould have dominion. This appears ſeveral ways. 1. The reaſons on which thoſe precepts are founded are univerſal and common; and therefore the precepts themſelves muſt be ſo; for where the reaſon of a precept is common, the precept it ſelf is ſo, except the authority whence it comes, do ſome way or other limit it. Now that the reaſons on which theſe precepts be founded, are common, is evident. God would have the Iſraelites deſtroy the monuments of the Cananitiſh idolatry, becauſe they were an abomination to him, and that they might not be ſnares to them, &c. and what is there in theſe reaſons, but what is common to all monuments of idolatry whatſoever? 2. What the pious Kings of Judah did in the extirpation, not only of the Cananitiſh idolatry, but all other idolatry whatſoever, they did it in purſuance of theſe precepts. Joſiah did not only ſuppreſs the idolatry of Judah, but of Iſrael alſo; which the Holy Ghoſt repreſents as done according to the Law of Moſes. 3.2 Kings 23.25. Thoſe Chriſtian Emperors, Kings, Princes, and States, that have duly purged their Dominions of Idolatry, of what kind ſoever, have look'd upon themſelves as both authoriz'd, and oblig'd by theſe precepts to do it.See Zanc. vol. 2. col. 387. Walaeus loc. com. p. 540. Alting. Theol. Elenct. p. 417. with ſuch as have commented on the Books of Moſes. 4. Proteſtant Writers who diſcourſe concerning the extirpation of Idolatry, urge theſe precepts as ſerving not only to authorize and oblige, but alſo direct us therein. By theſe reaſons, to mention no more, it appears, that theſe precepts are not to be look'd upon as being of a meer poſitive nature, concerning the Canaanites only, but as common, and extending to all Nations whatſoever. Which yet I would not have ſo underſtood, as if I thought that all thoſe precepts which God gave to the Iſraelites touching the Canaanites, were of ſuch a latitude; but that thoſe which he gave to them for the extirpation of Idolatry, are (as to the ſubſtance of them) ſo, which is ſufficient for my preſent purpoſe, as ſerving to repell what is urged in this Objection.
Obj. 2 But what needs all this ado? what reaſon is there that the ſin of others ſhould hinder us of our juſt liberty? why ſhould we aboliſh lawfull things, becauſe others have abuſed them? It's ſufficient that retaining the uſe, N. Fratri & amico art. 17.we ſeparate them from the abuſe. Thus Saravia; he thinks it not reaſonable that the ſuperſtition, and abuſe of the Croſs, ſhould take away the uſe.
Anſw. 1. Juſt after this manner, the Papiſts proceed with us. When we tell them of the abuſe of many things in their Church, and thereupon urge them to lay them aſide, they anſwer us after this manner. So Caſſander; See Calv. Ep. ad Verſip. See Ruſhworth, Dialog. 1. p. 68.abuſus non tollit bonum uſum. And what more ordinary, than Maneat uſus, tollatur abuſus; and, corrigendus abuſus, uſus non eſt damnandus. So that, if thoſe againſt whom I here diſpute, know how to anſwer the Papists, they need not ſeek for an anſwer to themſelves. 2. It's no good arguing which gives the lye to the Spirit of God, and yet ſuch is this we have here before us. The Spirit of God tells us,See Gen. 3.14. Lev. 20.15. that abuſed things are unfit to remain, and that therefore we muſt lay them aſide; but this kind of arguing, ſaith there is no danger in them, that we need not lay them aſide, that it's ſufficient to ſeparate the abuſe; than which what can be a plainer contradiction to the authority and wiſdom of the Spirit, I know not.Non uti, quam non abuti facilius. de Coron. Milit. Ʋt facilius eſt, it a tutius quoque omnes imagines e templis ſubmovere, &c. in Catec. 3. We ſhould chooſe to do that in all caſes, and in this, in particular, which is eaſieſt, and ſafeſt; now the laying aſide of abuſed things, is both. 1. It's eaſieſt; it's a far eaſier matter to lay ſuch things aſide, than retaining them to preſerve them from abuſe. So Tertullian; It's eaſier (ſaith he) not to uſe, than not to abuſe. 2. As it's eaſier, ſo it's ſafer. In removing them there is no danger, in retaining them much. In both theſe, we have the ſuffrage of the great Eraſmus, who ſpeaking concerning Images, ſaith, as it is eaſier, ſo it is ſafer, to remove them all out of Temples, than to obtain that the mean be not exceeded, nor ſuperſtition mingled. And were not men wilfully, and affectedly blind, one would think that living in an air ſo much thinner, and purer than his was, they might ſee as much. 4. If this be good reaſoning, how as Daniel did not make uſe of it? How as he refuſed the Kings meat? How as he did not ſanctifie it by the word, and prayer, and thereby reſtore it to its right uſe? 5. If this kind of reaſoning be good, now as Hezekiah did not uſe it in behalf of the high places, groves, and eſpecially the brazen ſerpent: for the continuance whereof, I am ſure far more might have been ſaid, than there can for many things yet retain'd amongſt us? Nay, 6. If this kind of reaſoning be of any force, how as we have not retained more of the Popiſh utenſils that are in themſelves lawfull, but have thrown them away, to the high provoking of an inrag'd enemy, who perhaps would otherwiſe have been more propitious to us? 7. Zanchy is ſo far from conceiving this Objection to have any ſtrength in it, that he looks upon it as impertinent, and frivolous. Propoſitio illa, &c. vol. 2. col. 403.As for that Propoſition (ſaith he) that good, and uſefull things are not to be taken away becauſe of abuſe, it is nothing to the purpoſe, for that takes place only in things of themſelves good and neceſſary, ſuch as the preaching of the Goſpel, the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, confeſſion of the name of Chriſt; for though many abuſe theſe things to bad purpoſes, as gain, hypocriſie; yet are they not to be removed out of the Church. But for ſuch things which both of their own nature, and by the law of God are indifferent, and which without prejudice to ſalvation may be omitted, though they were in the beginning inſtituted for good uſes, yet if we after ſee them converted to pernicious abuſes, piety towards God, and charity towards our neighbour requires they ſhould be removed. And he inſtances in Hezekiahs breaking the brazen ſerpent; which though it do not prove that neceſſary things, upon their abuſe, are to be aboliſhed, yet it proves that unneceſſary muſt.
Obj. 3. There is difference to be put betwixt ſuch abuſed things as are dangerous, and likely to do hurt, and ſuch as are not. As for the former ſort, its good to remove them;Rejoynder, ch. 4. p. 448. but as for the latter, there is no need of it. To this purpoſe writes Dr. John Burgeſs, who in behalf of this pretence alledges that Hezekiah did not aboliſh the Idols which Solomon ſuffered to be ſet up in favour of his ſtrange Wives, becauſe they were at that time neglected.Exiſtimamus vivo Solomone omnom illam daemonum officinam diſruptam fuiſſe, &c. Salian. ad ann. 3309.
Anſw. 1. Thoſe things which for the preſent are neglected, may (as it hath too often faln out) in time become idolized; for the prevention whereof, it is good to remove them. 2. How will it be proved that Hezekiah did not aboliſh the Idols that Solomon ſuffered to be ſet up. As for what is alledged from the proceedings of Joſiah, that he deſtroyed the high places which Solomon made; from whence the Author of this Objection, inferrs they continued all along till Joſiahs time: it may be anſwered, that for all that, Solomon himſelf might deſtroy them, or if he did not, yet Hezekiah might: and yet they being rebuilt by Manaſſeh, or Amon, might yield matter for Joſiahs godly zeal to work upon, ſtill paſſing under Solomons name, in as much as they were firſt erected by his command, at leaſt by his connivance, and allowance. But 3. Admit that Solomon demoliſhed them not in his time, and that Hezekiah neglected to do it in his, how will it appear that Hezekiah did well in it? nay muſt it not needs be granted that he did very ill in it, in as much as his neglect was acceſſary to the horrible wickedneſs committed by them in after times? and if ſo, this Objection falls to the ground.
Obj. 4. The reaſon then wherefore abuſed things are to be removed, is that they may not be abuſed in time to come; but that may be prevented without removing them: that may be prevented by preaching; by holding forth the nature of them, and diſſwading from the abuſe of them.Rejoynd. c. 4. ſect. 6. p. 456. Thus alſo Dr. Burgeſs.
Anſw. 1. It is better to follow the counſel of God, than to lean to our own wiſdom. Now he adviſes us rather to remove offenſive things, than ſtand admoniſhing people to beware of them.Exod. 21.33. In the time of the Law he required, not that a man ſhould be ſet to warn paſſengers from falling into the pit, but that it ſhould be covered; Deut. 22.8.nor that one ſhould ſtand to caution ſuch as went up to the top of the houſe, that they fell not down, but that there ſhould be battlements. 2. If preaching or teaching were ſufficient, how as Hezekiah did not make uſe of it in behalf of the brazen ſerpent, and other things, but went forthwith and remov'd them. It is worth the conſideration which Naogeorgus hath:Efficacius & plus movent &c. in 1 Joh. 5.21. Thoſe things which are preſented to our eyes, move more efficaciouſly and ſtrongly than thoſe which are preſented to our ears. Hezekiah might have admoniſhed the people that they worſhipped not the brazen ſerpent, but he choſe rather to break it, and wholly remove it out of ſight, and therein he did better. Thus he.
Obj. 5. We muſt conſider whether the abuſe of ſuch a thing proceed from the thing it ſelf, or from the opinion of the agent: if it proceed from the thing it ſelf, it is to be aboliſhed, Proc. in Perth. Aſſembly, part. 2. p. 120.otherwiſe not. Thus Biſhop Lindſey.
Anſw. The proofs I have alledg'd in behalf of the preſent truth, ſhew abundantly, that whether the abuſe ariſe from the nature of the thing it ſelf, or otherwiſe, if it be not neceſſary, it is to be aboliſhed.
Obj. 6. If we muſt aboliſh what ever hath been abus'd to ſuperſtition and idolatry,Si argumentum aliquid valeret, &c. t. 3. de effect. Sac. l. 2 c. 32. then we muſt aboliſh all thoſe things we have to do with, not only ſuch as are of a lower nature, and may better be ſpared, but ſuch as are moſt excellent and neceſſary, even the Word and Sacraments themſelves. After this manner reaſons Bellarmine; ſpeaking in anſwer to Calvin, who charges the Papiſts with the imitation of Heathens and Jews, he thus defends them againſt him. If (ſaith he) this kind of arguing availed any thing, we must take away Baptiſm and the Lords Supper, for that both Heathens and Jews have abuſed them. View of the Direct. p. 76.After the ſame manner likewiſe reaſons Dr. Hammond in behalf of the Liturgy. The Aſſembly urging that it had been made an Idol, he anſwers, that Preaching had been ſo too, and yet (ſaith he) we hope you think not fit to aboliſh Preaching on that ſuggestion, and conſequently that it will be as unjuſt to aboliſh the Liturgy on the like, though it ſhould be prov'd a true one, this being clearly the fault of men, and not of the Liturgy.
Anſw. This is a moſt frivolous exception, utterly unworthy the defence or countenance of any learned man; and yet its ordinary for ſuch as appear in the behalf of abuſed things to inſiſt on it. Into this error fell that great man Pet. Martyr, who writing to Hooper Biſhop of Glocester, who, with other things which he alledged againſt the ceremonies, Sed jam aliud argumentum expendamus, &c.urged their being deviſed by Antichriſt, and abuſed by him, he makes this anſwer; I do not (ſaith he) ſee here upon what ground, it can be ſaid, we may not do any of thoſe things which uſe to be done among the Papists. Certainly our Anceſtors ſeized on the Temples of the Gentiles, and converted them into holy Churches for the worſhip of Chriſt; and took the revenews belonging not only to them, but to Stage-plays, and the Veſtal Nuns, for the maintenance of the Miniſters of the Church, whereas theſe things did belong not only to Antichriſt, but to the Devil himſelf. And he afterwards makes mention of bread, wine, learning, and other things, which (ſaith he) we fear not to employ either to religious, or civil uſer. Now I wonder this worthy perſon, ſhould uſe ſo many words to ſo little purpoſe. We muſt ſure put a difference betwixt the ſtanding Ordinances of Chriſt, with other neceſsary and profitable things: and the needleſs and uſeleſs devices of men. When the former are abuſed, we muſt endeavour to vindicate and free them from the corruptions and defilements attending them; but when the latter are abuſed, we muſt in complyance with the forementioned precepts, examples, and reaſons, aboliſh and root them out. Herein our Saviour hath lead us the way. When he ſaw how the Jews abuſed the Temple, John 2.15. Mat. 15.3.making it a Den of Thieves, he aboliſhes it not, but vindicates it: but when he ſaw how they abuſed waſhing of hands before meat, laying greater ſtreſs on it, than the ſubſtantial parts of Religion, he vindicates it not, but aboliſhes it, checking them for their vanity, and justifying his Diſciples in the refuſal of it. And according to this patern we muſt proceed; what is either divine, or neceſſary, we muſt, notwithſtanding its abuſe, retain it, but what is otherwiſe, we muſt upon its abuſe reject it.Cenſ. Liturg. Angl. c. 9. p. 472. Herewith agrees that prudent and wary determination of Bucer; We muſt (ſaith he) aboliſh all matters abuſed, unleſs they are of thoſe things, words, or ſigns, that the Lord hath commended to us. To argue from the aboliſhing of the devices of men, to the aboliſhing of the Ordinances of Chriſt; from the aboliſhing of what is unneceſſary, to the aboliſhing of what is neceſſary, is moſt abſurd & unreaſonable. It is no leſs than to equal men with him: their appointments with his: what is unneceſſary, with what is neceſſary: than which, what can be more improper? Much more might be ſaid, but to what purpoſe ſhould words be multiplyed in ſo plain a caſe?
Obj. 7.See Dr. Burgeſs Rejoynd. ch 4. ſect. 26. p. 608. But what the Scripture holds forth, we may ſafely aſſent to, and own, as being unqueſtionably juſt and lawfull. Now it holds forth, that ſuch things as are defiled may be purged, and rendred fit again for uſe. Thus Biſhop Morton; a man, or woman (ſaith he) legally unclean, might become cleanſed or purged.
Anſw. This pretence, hath ſo little weight in it, that it is ſcarcely worth an anſwer, yet becauſe I would vindicate the preſent truth, from what ever hath any appearance of ſtrength againſt it, I ſhall ſay ſomewhat to it. And 1. there is ſure difference betwixt reaſonable creatures, having intelligent, immortal ſouls; and unneceſſary uſeleſs things. Its not fit we ſhould argue from the courſe taken with the former in caſe of uncleanneſs, to what is to be taken with the latter. That is to inferr, that becauſe a man might take the captive woman to wife,Deut. 21.12. therefore he muſt not ſhave her head, pair her nails, and put off the …arments of her captivity; or, becauſe we may not cut off the leprous mans head, therefore we may not burn his cloaths; or, becauſe we my not ſlay a man, who hath the Plague, therefore we muſt ſpare the clouts that have …ay'n upon his Sores, than which, what can be more abſurd and ridiculous? 2. There is ſure likewiſe a difference to be put betwixt ceremonial uncleanneſs and moral; betwixt what reſults from the touching of a dead body, or the like: and what reſults from the committing of Idolatry. The puniſhment of the former, was more gentle and eaſie: the latter, capital, and ſevere; as appears from the inſtances before mentioned.
Obj. 8. But waving perſons, the Scripture affords inſtances of ſeveral things, which though Idolaters had abuſed them, the Church made uſe of them.Rejoynd. ch. 4. ſect. 4. p. 587. Thus the ſame Dr. Burgeſs, who inſtances in the wood that Gideon …ook out of his Fathers grove, the ſilver and gold of Jericho, that Joſhuah appointed to be brought into the Treaſury, kneeling, and other geſtures of the body, veiling the head, preſerving trophies of victory, and ſeveral other things.
Anſw. We muſt diſtinguiſh 1. Betwixt what the common light of Nature (without any contradiction from the word) do's direct to, as proper to expreſs the reſentments and workings of our minds and hearts; and what ſome particular mens head drawn away to ſuperſtition, have thought fit to uſe and impoſe upon others. 2. Betwixt what men d… by divine appointment, and what they do o… their own heads. 3. Betwixt what is neceſſary, and profitable, and what is otherwiſe. 4. Betwixt what is uſed in the ſame outward viſible form it paſs'd under before, and what i… uſed in another, wholly diſtinct and different. 5. Betwixt civil, harmleſs cuſtoms, practiſe… without ſcandal; and innovations in Religion practiſed with ſcandal. As for thoſe things that are of the former ſort, that is to ſay, either ſuggeſted (as I told you) by the common light of Nature, as the bowing of the knee in prayer: or appointed by God, as Gideons taking wood out of his Fathers grove: or are neceſſary and profitable, as the reſerving trophies of victory, ſuch as Goliahs ſword: or paſs under another outward viſible form, as the ſilver and gold taken in Jericho, which, to ſay nothing of the neceſſity and profitableneſs of it,Numb. 31.22, 23. was in all probability, according as the law required, firſt melted, and then put into the Treaſury: or are civil, harmleſs cuſtoms practiſed without ſcandal, as veiling the head: I ſay as for thoſe that are of this nature, they may (nay ſome of them are, as I ſhewed in the limitations) notwithſtanding their abuſe to be retained. But then, for thoſe things that are neither ſuggeſted by the common light of Nature, nor appointed by the Word, neither are neceſſary and profitable, nor are changed from their antient form, but are innovations … with ſcandal,See this … anſwered by Dr. Ames Freſh ſuit, part. 2. p. 491. they … Scripture … formerly was … uſe, and … without any … … of … 1 Tim. 4.4, 5.… out that notwithſtanding … may freely make uſe … Mar. 7.15.… they that defile the … And, I know (ſaith Paul) and … by the Lord Jeſus, Rom. 14.14.that there is … unclean of it ſelf: but to him that … any thing to be unclean, to him, it is unclean. What need we then to trouble our ſelves with any ſuch caution, or ſcrupulouſneſs, as this diſcourſe ſeems to aim and Lets ſee that all be right within, and as for the free uſe of things in their own nature lawful, there is no danger.
Anſw. What the Holy Ghoſt ſaith in theſe plac… he ſpeaks concerning meats, which the common… …, that limited the Church of the Old … to ſeveral kinds thereof, being … …ely and lawfully uſed by us, provide … her to our …. And winds is this to the …? What is this to things … in … …lives, and offenſive in their uſe … all the liberty refultin… to … broughtion of the …ecremon… Law, yet … teaches us to hate even the garme … ſported by the fleſh.Jude 23. Nay Paul himſelf who went ſo far in aſſerting Chriſtian liberty, and ſpeaks ſo much concerning the free uſe of meats, tells us that it meat make our Brother to offend, 1 Cor. 8.13.we muſt eat no fleſh while the world ſtandeth.
Obj. 10. It is not then the unlawfulneſs of things abuſed in themſelves, but the ſcandal which renders them unfit for uſe; but what danger is there that any of the abuſed things amongſt us, ſhould offend any? It is therefore needleſs we ſhould make any ſtirr, or trouble our ſelves about them,
Anſw. How can any without bluſhing, pretend there is no danger of offending: when on the one hand, the watchful Papiſts being in hopes of our return to them, are upon the uſe of them, ſo much confirmed and encouraged; and on the other hand, thoſe that be for the parity of Divine worſhip, and the ſincerity of Religion, are ſo much diſpleaſed and grieved? As for the former, hear a triumphing Jeſuite; Proteſtaniſm (ſaith he) waxeth weary of it ſelf, the Profeſſors of it, they eſpecially, See Chillingw. Pref. ſect. 20.of greateſt worth, learning, authority, love temper and moderation, and are at this time more unreſolv'd where to faſten, than at the infancy of their Church. Their Churches begin to look with a new face, their walls to ſpeak a new language, &c. When they ſee us ſet our Communion tables Altar-wiſe, rail them about, deck our walls with hangings, and our windows with Images, what hope do they thereupon conceive of our return to Egypt, Quid vero de privatorum fidelium conſcientiis dicam, &c. vol. 3. Ep. ad Reg. Eliz. col. 246.and going back to the ſtate from whence we came? And as for the latter, hear the mourning Zanchy; What ſhould I ſay (ſaith he) of the Conſciences of private believers? It is manifest that they are greatly troubled with this commandment about putting on theſe linnen garments. For they do ſo greatly complain that their lamenting voices, and groans do reach unto, and are heard in Germany. And the Goſpel hath not been preached ſo long amongſt us, to ſo little purpoſe, but that the trouble, o… people, upon the uſe of them now, is as great … as ever. If therefore we will av…yd either the confirming of the Enemies of the truth on the one hand, or the grieving of ſuch as are friends to it, on the other, we muſt lay ſuch things aſide.
Obj. 11. Grant that what hath been alledged did oblige us to lay aſide the ſame individual, numerical things that have been abuſed, yet what is that to thoſe of the ſame kind that have not been abuſed? It do's not follow that we muſt upon that account, lay them aſide. This is urged by many; particularly, by Biſhop Andrews, Diſc. of Ceremon. p. 6. Rejoynd. c. 4. ſect. …1. p. 561. Doct. of Conſc. p. 157, 158.Dr. Burgeſs, Dr. Prideaux; the laſt of which diſcou…ng in the behalf of the Croſs in Baptiſm, thus expreſſes himſelf. It cannot (ſaith he) weigh with any rational man, what is buzz'd in the ears of men, to amuſe them, that it is an …, and hath been abuſed to Idolatry, in which charge, the Popiſh Croſs is concerned, not … 'Twill be no good reaſon, that becauſe the … have abus'd the Croſs to Superſtition, therefore we ſhould be denyed the lawful uſe thereof. Neither can they be lead thereunto from that inſtance (ſo much uſed) of the brazen Serpent, whence it may only be inferred that the ſame individual thing idolized, is to be destroyed, but not their whole kind. We may not burn all trees becauſe one tree or grove hath been abuſed to idolatry.
Anſw. I have ſaid enough in another Treatiſe, in anſwer to this Objection, and therefore ſhall ſpend leſs time about it now. 1. God hath inſtituted ſeveral Ordinances, as preaching, praying, baptiſm; Now I demand when he inſtituted theſe, whether he intended only one ſingle prayer, ſermon, baptiſm, or divers of the ſame kind? If only one, how ſhall we juſtifie the uſe of more? if divers, what hinders but we may underſtand his commands touching the aboliſhing of abuſed things, after the ſame manner. 2. The Holy Ghoſt in Scripture, does in plain terms forbid the uſe not only of the ſame individual things, which idolaters have abuſed, but alſo ſuch as are of the ſame ſort. He forbids the Iſraelites not only to uſe the ſame things that the Egyptians, and Canaanites had abuſed, but ſuch as were like to them.Lev. 18.3. After the doings (ſaith he) of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, ſhall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, ſhall ye not do, neither ſhall ye walk in their ordinances. More particularly, to prevent their compliance with idolatrous Nations,Lev. 19.27. he forbids them to ſhave their heads, and cut their beards; not ſure becauſe their heads and beards were the ſame individually with thoſe of the Egyptians and Canaanites, but that he would not have the Iſraetites to uſe cuſtoms, and practiſes of the ſame kind with them. It was unlawfull for Ahaz, 2 Kings 16.10.not only to ſacrifice on that altar which he ſaw at Damaſcus, but on one of the ſame faſhion with it. What then ſhall we ſay in defence of our ſelves, who though we have not the very ſame individual faſhions of Heathens and Papiſts; yet we have of the ſame kind, ſo like them, that he muſt do little leſs than divine, who diſtinguiſhes the one from the other. What beholder, ſeeing two Prieſts, the one a Papiſt, the other a Proteſtant, making the ſign of the Croſs, can without knowledge of the perſons tell which is Popiſh, and which is Proteſtant? Or caſt two Surplices into a corner, the one uſed in England, the other in Italy, and who is he that upon the ſeriouſeſt view, can ſay this is Popiſh, and this is Protestant? Dr. Ames tells of a Miniſter in Qu. Elizabeths dayes,Freſh Suit, part 2. p. 435. who being urged by his Ordinary to wear the Surplice, alledged that the Surplice offered to him, was the very ſame the Maſs-Prieſt was wont to Sacrifice in. The Ordinary admitting that excuſe, commanded another to be made; which being done, and brought to the Miniſter into the Church, he took it and ſpake thus to thoſe that were preſent. Good people, the Biſhop himſelf confeſſed that the former Maſſing Surplice was not to be worn by a Miniſter of the Goſpel, and judge you if this be not as like that, as one egge to another: let this therefore go after the other; and ſo he caſt it away. 3. The method of Chriſtian Churches in aboliſhing abuſed things, ſhews they did not only hold that the ſame individual thing which had been abuſed ought to be aboliſhed, but alſo others of the ſame ſort, though never ſtained with any miſcarriage whatever. Obſerving (as you heard before) the abuſe attending the office of the Shriving Prieſt, they did not only remove the particular perſon that had offended, but the office it ſelf; and obſerving likewiſe the abuſe attending certain Religious Orders, they did not only appear againſt the particular perſons that had tranſgreſſed, but put down the Orders themſelves. 4. The Author of this Objection himſelf, a little before, even in the preceding page, ſaith the Croſs hath been a laudable rite, and very antient in the Church of Chriſt; from which he endeavours to juſtifie the preſent uſe of it. Now I would know what Croſs it is that hath been ſuch a laudable rite, and ſo antient in the Church. Does he mean the ſame individual Croſs that we uſe every day? No, that he cannot, for that receives its birth the very inſtant wherein it is made. What then does he mean? why, only the ſame in kind; and if we may argue from the uſe of ſome to the uſe of others of the ſame kind, why may we not argue from the abuſe of ſome, to the aboliſhing of others of the ſame kind? The Church of England heretofore thought we might, and therefore (as I have before told you) renders this as the principal reaſon of the aboliſhing of divers things upon the Reformation laid aſide, that they had been ſo far abuſed; which I do much wonder this great Doctor, whiles he is writing in defence of the Liturgy, (to which that paſſage is prefix'd) ſhould ſo far injure both the truth and himſelf, as not to remember. And then, 5. As for what he alledges concerning the burning of all trees, becauſe of the abuſe of one tree, or one grove, is nothing to the purpoſe, unleſs he had made it appear, that there was never above one Croſs abuſed, or at leaſt that it hath been far leſs abuſed, than lawfully uſed; whereas he could not but know, that it hath been a thouſand times over more abuſed, than it either hath, or is ever like to be lawfully uſed; admitting that uſe which he himſelf here pleads for, in England, were lawfull. Let the caſe be but rightly ſtated, and I am content to ſtand to this instance. Suppoſe then, 1. that all trees were indifferent, that is to ſay, needleſs things, as the croſs and other ceremonies are confeſs'd to be. 2. That for one time they were rightly uſed, they were a thouſand times abuſed, as every one knows the croſs is, that underſtands what an Idol the Papiſts make of it; whether would it not be our duty (as the Doctor here ſaith) to burn them every one, and ſo prevent the miſchief, that otherwiſe would be committed by them? I think there is not any man truly pious and zealous, but would ſubſcribe to the affirmative. Sure I am ſuch was the ſpirit of Hezekiah, that though the brazen Serpent was of higher original, more profitable uſe than the croſs can be pretended to be, and had never been ſo much abuſed as the croſs hath been, yet he took it and brake it in pieces.