Abolishing of Things Abused to Superstition and Idolatry, Tract · Section 13
Sect. 13.
…nthly, THe objections being thus anſwered, and the Doctrinal, or Explicatory part of this difcourſe, therewith diſpatched, I ſhall now paſs to the uſes. And if …is be indeed a truth, that it is the pleaſure of …od that ſuch things as have been abuſed in …perſtitious, and idolatrous ſervices, ſhould be …id aſide: then it ſerves,
1. For confutation and conviction of … great many in the world, who, Ʋſe. 1 though …ey acknowledge the Divine authority of …e Scripture, even from the beginning to the …d, and pretned to believe what is delivered …erein, yet think they may embrace, and …ake uſe of, and that not only in civil, and …mmon tranſactions, but alſo in the worſhip …f God, ſuch things as have been abuſed in the …rementioned kind of ſervices, and therewith …ave been polluted and defiled. And of theſe it …ay ſerve more particularly, for the confutation and conviction;
1. Of the Papiſts, who though they pre…end to have left the tents of the Heathens, …nd to abhorre their falſe gods, worſhip, and …ayes, yet think they may obſerve the ordinances and rites abuſed by them.Rev. 11.2. See Pareus in loc. Upon which ground the Holy Ghost does in plain …erms call them Gentiles. The court (ſaith he) which is without the Temple leave out, and meaſure it not, for it is given to the Gentiles. Here doubtleſs, by Gentiles he means the Papiſts, whom he ſo calls not in reſpect of their deſcent or extraction, but in reſpect of their obſervations and practiſes, wherein they do ſo much agree with the Gentiles. And here I might give you an account of many particular cuſtoms and practiſes, which they have derived from them, and wherein they ſymbolize with them, but divers have done it already, and therefore I ſhall forbear. Moreſinus a Scotchman, hath written a Diſcourſe intituled, Origo Papatus, wherein, after the order of the Alphabet, he ſhews at large what I here inſert. And Francis de Croy, a Frenchman, hath written a Diſcourſe of the like nature, called, The three conformities of the Romiſh Church, with Gentiliſm, Judaiſm, and antient Hereſie: turn'd out of French, into Engliſh. Oliver Ormerod likewiſe many years ago, put forth a piece in Engliſh, De Invent. l. 5. c. 1. p. 405. De Orig. err. l. 1. c. 33. Conf. with H. p. 495. Diſc. of Cerem. p. 16, &c.called Pictura Papistae, wherein he does in multitudes of particulars, give us an account of the Papiſts agreement both with Mahometans, and Heathens, eſpecially the latter. Nay ſome of the Papists have done it themſelves; St. Choul, put forth a piece i… French to that purpoſe. If you have not theſe Authors at hand, you may conſult Pol. Virgil, Bullinger, Rainolds, Du Moulin, Andrews, who will give you ſome account of the proceedings of the Papists as to this particular. Did you ſee them ſometimes in their ſolemnities, you would think they had received their Religion rather from ſome ſuch perſon as Numa, than Chriſt. Lud. Vives (as the Author laſt nam'd tells us) confeſſes there is ſuch agreement betwixt their worſhip, and that of the Heathens, that waving names and titles; there is no difference to be ſhew'd.Vid. Hoſ. pin. de Orig Imag. p. 200. Nay the caſe is ſo plain, that Pope Pius 5. acknowledg'd that Rome did more Gentilizare, quam Christianizare; that is, did ſavour more of Heatheniſm, than Christianity. This is ſad; and yet to aggravate the matter, their teachers who ſhould acquaint them with the unwarrantableneſs of ſuch courſes, and diſſwade them from them, do inſtead thereof, openly countenance them therein,Acts 14.14. Conſulto introductum videtur, &c. ad ann. 200. ſect. 5. Gentilium imagines adoramus, &c. in Thom. t. 1. diſp. 54. ſect. 7 Inſtit. chap. 57. nay labour to vindicate them againſt ſuch as find fault. Whereas they ſhould (as Paul and Barnabas dealt with the men of Lyſtra) rent their cloaths and run in amongſt them, crying out, and ſaying, Sirs, why do ye theſe things, they ſtand up and plead for them, and thereby encourage and ſettle them in their way. Thus Baronius; It was ordered (ſaith he) on purpoſe, that the offices of Heatheniſh ſuperſtition ſhould be imployed in the ſervice of true Religion. Thus Suarez; We worſhip (ſaith he) the Images which the Gentiles worſhip, not in a way of imitation, but correction. Thus likewiſe Cotton; As the Temples (ſaith he) dedicated unto Idols, were turned into Churches dedicated unto God, ſo the Ceremonies which of themſelves are indifferent, have been with good reaſon tranſported to Gods ſervice. Now if this be juſtifiable, what meant the Council of A…ra, Can. 7.approved by the General Council of Nice, to decree againſt it?Can. 10. Omnem afflatum ejus vice peſtis etiam de longinquo devitemus. de Idol. c. 13. O melior fidei Nationum in ſectam ſuam, &c c. 14. Ep. 11, 44, 119. Orat. 1. Cont. Jud Cont. Haereſ. l. 3. Orat. de Sanct. Epiph. luminib. t. 3. q. 65. Diſp. 15. ſect. 2. Or what meant the …. Council of Toledo, celebrated divers years after, to do the like? Or what meant Tert…an to appear with ſo much heat and indignation againſt it? Speaking of the Gentiles, he ſaith, We muſt neither in habit, food, nor any other practiſe comply with them, but avoid, and that at the greateſt diſtance, all their pomp as the very plague it ſelf. And afterwards, ſpeaking of ſome in his time that complyed with them in their ſolemnities and obſervations, he thus exclaims and cryes out againſt them. Oh the far greater faithfulneſs of the Nations about us to their own way, not medling with any of our Chriſtian ſolemnities, neither the Lords day, nor Pentecoſt! Though they had known of them, they would not have communicated with us, leſt they ſhould ſeem to be Chriſtians, but we fear not leſt we be accounted Heathens. Or what meant Auguſtine, Chryſoſtome, Epiphanius, Nazianzen to diſcourſe after the ſame manner? Nay, and Suarez tells us, that the antient Church diligently avoided omne conſortium & apparentem ſimilitudinem, all fellowſhip and appearing likeneſs with Jews, or other Infidels. Now either ſuch teſtimonies as theſe are of weight or not: If not, what a miſerable condition are the Papiſts in, who build their religion upon the reports of the antients; If they are, then what a world of ſin have they committed in taking up ſo many cuſtoms of Heathens and complying with them in the uſe of them? Let them turn … whether hand they pleaſe, they'll find themſelves (like Abrahams Ram) caught in the bryars.
Of many amongſt our ſelves, who though they would be thought to have ſeparated from the Papiſts, and cry out againſt them as Superstitious, Idolatrous, Antichriſtian, yet think they may take up ſuch things as they have abuſed, bring them into the houſe of God, and there imploy them in his ſervice. As the Papiſts imploy ſuch things as the Heathens have abuſed in their proceedings, ſo Theſe imploy ſuch things as the Papiſts have ab…'d in theirs. Looking upon Jeruſalem as inſufficient to furniſh them with convenient and proper utenſils for the ſervice of God, they go to Babilon, and ſupply themſelves there. In how many particulars they agree in their Worſhip, Diſcipline, Ceremonies, and other things, with the Church of Rome, was ſhewed in a Treatiſe publiſhed above twenty years ago, Intituled, A Parallel betwixt the Maſs-book and the book of Common-Prayer. This is unwarrantable dealing; yet when their Brethren who would ſee the Service of God, manag'd in a more pure and holy way, complain to them, and urge them to wave the uſe of ſuch ſcandalous and offenſive things, they are ſo far from yielding them juſt ſatisfaction, that they anſwer them with ſcorn and diſdain, nay inveigh againſt them, and perſecute them, as a company of preciſe, ſchiſmatical, factious perſons, … of any thing, but the fulminations of their provok'd authority. Now, what is this but to hender themſelves guilty of, abominable and …thy complyance? What is this but to lick up the vomit of Antichriſt, and feed on his very excrements? What is this, but to imitate, encourage, and ſettle him in his way,See Mr. Cartw. Eccl. diſcip. l. 1. p. 132. l. 3. p. 178, 180. whereas they ſhould ſtand at the utmoſt diſtance from him, and do all they can to convince him of his abominable departure from God and his truth? What is this but to give him occaſion to beaſt that the Proteſtants are his Apes, and know not how to manage the buſineſs of Religion, but by his direction, than which, what can be more to their reproach. What is this but with thoſe impious ones the Scripture cryes out againſt to make the heart of the righteous ſad, Ezek. 13.22.and ſtrengthen the hands of the wicked that he ſhould not raturn from his wicked way? Whether … kind of dealing be juſtifiable, let all ſober … indifferent men judge?
2. It ſerves for exhortation, Ʋſe. 2 to adviſe and perſwade us all in our reſpective places, to perform the ſeveral duties that ſuch a truth calls for. And,
1. Let this ingage our hearts againſt ſuch things amongſt us, as have been abuſed in ſuperstitious and idolatrous ſervices. They are detestable and abominable, and as ſuch we are to eſteem them, and carry our ſelves towards them. Though in themſelves they be never ſo innocent and lawfull, yet having in ſuch 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 foreign in a paſſive ſenfe) repreſents them as abominable, nay as adomination it ſelf.Exod. 8.26. Paſſivam ſignificationem multi amplectantur, Rivet. in loc. When Pharaoh would have had Moſes and Aaron to have contented themſelves with the land of Egypt, and Sacrifice there, Moſes anſwers, It is not meet ſo to do, for we ſhall Sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God: Lo, ſhall we Sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not ſtone us? His anſwer is by way of Dilemma, implying as much as if he had ſaid, if we ſhould follow thy advice, and Sacrifice in his …, we muſt do it, either after the manner of the Egyptians, or the Iſraelites; if after their manner, it would be diſpleaſing to God, if after our own, it would be diſpleaſing to them, inaſmuch as we muſt Sacrifice thoſe very creatures which they adore as deities.
But you'l ſay, how could Moſes pretend to Pharaoh that the Iſraelites were to Sacrifice ſuch creatures as the Egyptians worſhipped, when as the Law concerning Sacrifices was not yet delivered, Exod. 10.26.and when as he himſelf tells him afterwards, that they knew not with what they muſt ſerve the Lord, till they ſhould come to their own land. Anſw. Though the Law concerning Sacrifices was not yet delivered … what God revealed to …, might … what creatures would …. Fortaſſus ſacrifica turi ſumus, &c.… there … to the … we … of the Egyptians to the Lord our God; but … Rivet diſſents from him,Non … &c. in loc. rendring … reaſon, that … from the … the difference be… …, what was to be offe…, and what not, what would pleaſe, and … that which … knew not … he ſpeaks … not of the … but ….
… of my preſent … to take no… … the creature … in their worſhip, … Egyptians; not … to the Egyptians … God, who had been diſhonoured … them in their abominable worſhip: upon which he took up ſuch a diſlike of them, that they became no leſs than hateful to him, ſo that though the Iſraelites might uſe them for their ordinary food, yet not for Sacrifice, or though they might uſe them for Sacrifice in their own land, when they were at a diſtance from the Egyptians, yet not amongst them.
And the ſame language the Holy Ghost uſes here concerning abuſed things, the ſame he uſes alſo in other places.Deut. 32.16. 1 Kings 11.5. Speaking concerning the Iſraelites and their Idolatry, he ſaith, they provoked him to jealouſie with their strange Gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. And ſpeaking of the Idol which the Ammonites worſhipped, he calls it,Deut. 7.25. the abomination of the Ammonites. Nay ſpeaking of the ſilver and gold that was upon the Cananitiſh Images, he calls them (as you heard before) an abomination. Whereby we ſee, that not only ſuch things as have been made Idols, but likewiſe, ſuch as have been abuſed in their ſcrvice, are an abomination to him. And if they are ſo to him, there is good reaſon they ſhould be ſo to us. As we muſt not hate the things that he loves, ſo neither muſt we love the things that he hates; Eph. 5.1.but following him like dear children (as he hath commanded) we muſt love what he loves, and hate what he hates.
2. Lets utterly decline, and forbear the uſe of them. Lets beware how we bring them into the houſe of God,Lev. 19.19. and imploy them in his ſervice. He gave it in charge to the Iſraelites, that they ſhould not let their Cattel gender with a divers kind: ſow their field with mingled ſeed: nor put a garment mingled of woollen and linnen upon them. Wherein he plainly forbids the mingling of things impure, with thoſe that are pure: mens inventions with his inſtitutions: Non ſunt cum dei praeceptis aniſcenda hominum commenta, &c. Pareus in loc.idolatrous reliques with his holy ordinances. Munſter (as the Author quoted in the Margent ſhews) tells us, ſuch is the averſeneſs of the preſent Jews, to a garment of divers kinds, that if they find but one linnen thread, wrought in a linnen garment with a Needle, they do no leſs than abominate it. And ſuch averſeneſs muſt we exerciſe towards mixtures in the worſhip of God. We muſt keep cloſe to his institutions, declining the uſe of unwarrantable inventions, and all ſuch things as have been abuſed in falſe worſhip, and thereby have been defiled. God is ſo far from allowing us to reſpect, or uſe them, that he will not have us to touch them.Iſa. 52.11. 2 Cor. 6.17. Touch not (ſaith he) the unclean things. We muſt be ſo far from declaring our unfeigned aſſent and conſent to them: from an hearty embracing of them, and a full cloſure with them, that we muſt not ſo much as touch them. Touch them indeed we may, as Hezekiah, Joſiah, and other good Kings did, in order to the removal of them, but not ſo, as own them, ſhew reſpect to them,Levit. 5.2. or make uſe of them. As in the time of the Levitical Law, he that touch'd any thing that was forbidden, became himſelf unclean; ſo we, if we touch theſe things in any way of allowance, or reſpect to them, ſhall become unclean: and therefore it concerns us as we would obſerve the Apoſtles command of keeping our ſelves pure, 1 Tim. 5.22.to avoid them, and have nothing to do with them.
And if we inquire into the proceedings of former times, we ſhall find the Servants of God, have ſtill evidenced their diſlike of ſuch things, kept at a diſtance from them, and thereby born witneſs againſt them.See Pareus in Exod. 8.25. Mr. Anth Burgeſs his Sermon upon Judg. 6.27, &c. p. 11. P. Mart. in 1 Reg. 18.30. 2 Kings 5.17, 18. The Iſraelites, would not ſacrifice to the Lord in the land of Egypt, becauſe it was polluted. The Jews in Babilon, would not do it there, for the ſame reaſon. Elijah would not do it upon the Altar of Baal, but choſe rather (though, he that while kept the people in ſuſpence) to repair the Altar of the Lord: upon the ſame account. And Naaman the Syrian, upon his turning to the Jewiſh Religion, would not make the Lord an Altar of any Earth, but that of Iſrael, upon the very ſame ſcore. And calling to mind his former bowing in the houſe of Rimmon, the Idol of his Countrey, he was greatly troubled at it, and begg'd of God to forgive him. In this (ſaith he) the Lord pardon thy Servant, &c. Concerning this caſe of Naaman, Expoſitors and Caſuists, diſcourſe variouſly; I ſhall therefore for the better clearning of the truth, and making out what I have in hand, inquire a little into it.Becan. Manual. l. 5. c. 6. p. 455. Tho. a Jeſu de Converſ. Gent. l. 10. c. 3. Sanchez. com. in 2 Reg. 5. Eſtius in loc. Baldwin. Caſ. l. 2. c. 10. Caſ. 6. p. 387. Biſhop Hall of Conſc. p. 186. Ed. 3. Tremel. Junius Pareus, in loc. Some think his going into the houſe of Rimmon, and bowing there was lawfull, and warrantable, for this reaſon, that it was not religious but civil, not out of choice, but neceſſity, not out of reſpect to the Idol, but the King his Maſter, who there lean'd upon him. But if ſo, wherefore did he acknowledge it as a fault, and begg forgiveneſs? Certainly, he either miſs'd it in bowing, or elſe in begging pardon; and then, how as the Prophet did not acquaint him with it, and tell him that he was too forward: that he confeſſed before he had offended, and begg'd pardon before he was guilty, both which are unneceſſary and improper? As for the Prophets valediction foreign go in peace; it argues not his approbation of his former practice, but of his ſucceeding repentance. Others think that though he ſinn'd in going into the houſe of Rimmon, and bowing there, and was convinced of the unlawfulneſs of it, yet he ſtill retain'd a reſolution to do it. But this I conceive is an error as well as the former, proceeding from an apprehenſion that the words are to be taken in the future tenſe, whereas being in the Gerund, they may as well be rendred in the praeter-tenſe, and then they run thus; in this thing the Lord pardon thy Servant that when my Maſter went into the houſe of Rimmon to worſhip there, and leaned on my hand, and I bowed my ſelf in the houſe of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy Servant in this thing. The reaſons wherefore I conceive the words ſhould rather be taken thus, than otherwiſe, are theſe. 1. Its ordinary with the Sacred Pen-men, to put the Gerund for the Praeter-tenſe. To go no further than the word here rendred, go: its ordinary with them to put foreign for foreign and foreign. 2. Being taken thus, they beſt a gree with the context. 1. With Naamans profeſſion. Behold now I know there is no God in all the earth, but in Iſrael. And knowing this, he muſt needs know that he was not to ſhew reſpect, to any other God but him. 2. With his promiſe. Thy Servant will henceforth offer neither burnt Offering nor Sacrifice unto other Gods, but unto the Lord. Under which he comprehends not only Offering and Sacrifice, taken in a ſtrict ſenſe, but all devotion, and reſpect whatſoever. 3. With the Prophets valediction; go in peace. Which I can hardly think he would have ſaid to him, without any inſinuation at all of diſlike, if he had underſtood by his words, that he intended to go and ſhew the ſame reſpect to the Idol, he us'd to do. By this it appears how much Baldwin, Caſ. l. 2. c. 6. Caſ. 6. p. 198.is out of the way, when he ſaith that Naaman obtain'd leave of the Prophet to accompany the King his Maſter into the houſe of Rimmon. He was ſo far from obtaining leave of the Prophet to do it, that he never ſo much as deſired it from him. He asked not leave to ſin for the time to come, but pardon for the time paſt. The ſumme then of all this is, that Naaman whilſt he was of the Syrian Religion, in purſuance of the civil office which he owed to his Maſter, uſed to go with him into the houſe of Rimmon, and there bow with him: which upon his converſion, being convinc'd of the unlawfulneſs of, he confeſses his fault, is ſorry for it, and craves pardon. That the words are to be taken only in this ſenſe, I ſhall not be ſo peremptory as to affirm, but this I am ſure of, that not only many good Authors go this way, but alſo whereas the taking of them in other ſenſes begets divers ſcruples, this do's not, but preſents us with an eminent convert, and a remarkable instance of abſtainng from Idolatry, with the occaſions of it.
But you'l ſay, may we not at all appear before an Idol, or be preſent at idolatrous worſhip? Anſw. Yes, we may; but then we muſt ſee, 1. That we be not ignorant, weak, unſetled in Religion, but well-grown, firm and ſtable. We muſt ſee that we have ſenſes capable of diſcerning betwixt good and evil; that we have strength to encounter with a temptation; that we are able to ſtand out againſt the allurements of gliſtering and pompous vanities. And hereof, we are to have good aſſurance: otherwiſe we muſt forbear. Many good and holy men have been inſnar'd, and therefore we had beſt beware how we venture. 2. That we do it, not raſhly, or of our own heads, but have a call from God for it. We muſt keep the places and ſtations we ſupply, and not depart from them. The ſtory of Origen is well known; Hearing of ſome Chriſtians, that under the Perſecution by Decius, were carried to an Idols Temple, to be intic'd to Sacrifice: out of an indiſcreet zeal ran to them, and being urged to it himſelf, unhappily, and ſinfully yielded; whereby he made ſuch a wound in his conſcience, as he could not get cured of a long time. Thus does God many times in a way of juſt ſeverity, puniſh our vain confidence, by letting us fall before thoſe temptations, we through our indiſcretion and raſhneſs caſt our ſelves upon. 3. That we do it not with doubting, concerning the lawfulneſs of it, but with full perſwaſion and ſatiſfaction. Whatever buſineſs we are about,Rom. 14.5, 23. we muſt be ſatisfied, touching the warrantableneſs of it, ere we undertake it. If therefore we doubt of the lawfulneſs of going to the Idols Temple, we muſt forbear it. It may be unlawful to go, it can hardly be unlawful to ſtay. 4. That we do it not out of vain curioſity, but to inform and ſatisfie our ſelves of the folly, madneſs and wickedneſs of Idolaters, who having forſaken the true God, give up themſelves to the worſhipping of meer ſhaddows and vanities. Ezekiel in his Viſion, Ezek. 8.3goes from place to place to take a view of the abominations of the Jews; but this he did not out of curioſity, but to acquaint himſelf with what he was either wholly ignorant, or uncertain of. Paul beheld the devotions of the Athenians, Acts 17.23.but he did it not to gratifie his fancy, but upon the ſame account that Ezekiel did, to inform his judgement, that ſo he might the better know how things were carried on amongſt them. 5. That we do it not with reſpect to the Idol, but with deteſtation, and that we may the better ſhew the vanity thereof, and undeceive ſuch as we ſee addicted to it.1 Kings 18.27. Elijah ſtood before Baal, while his Prophets called on him; but this was not out of any respect he bore to him, but that he might the better have an opportunity to mock him, convince the halting Iſraelites of the vanity of him, and draw them away from him.2 Kings 23.15. Joſiah in like manner, went to the calf at Bethel, not to worſhip it, but to break it in pieces, that ſo the deluded people might no longer commit idolatry to it. 6. That we do it not to the offending of any, whether good or bad, but to their edification and advantage. We may eat meat ſacrificed to Idols, Rom. 14.21. 1 Cor. 8.9. Vid. D. Coeleſt. Hiſt. Auguſt. Comit. part 1. f. 82.but then we muſt ſee that we do it neither to the confirming of ſuch as reſpect them, nor the grieving of ſuch as hate them. Though the Proteſtant Electors and Princes, being met together at the Diet of Auguſta, were ready to perform all thoſe civil Offices, they owed to the Emperour, yet they would neither go with him to the Maſs, nor accompany him in the Proceſſions on Corpus Chriſts day, leſt they ſhould confirm the Papiſts in their abominations, which they came thither to bear witneſs againſt 7. That we do it not at ſuch a time, when it is likely to bring us into trouble, but when we may do it with ſafety. Indeed, when God calls us forth to appear in the behalf of his truth, we muſt do it, let the danger be what it will; but till he call us, we muſt avoid it, and not through curioſity, affectation of novelty, precipitancy, or the like, expoſe our ſelves to it. If we be preſent at Idolatrous ſervices, we muſt evidence our diſlike; if therefore we may not ſafely evidence our diſlike, we muſt not, except we have ſome ſpecial call thereunto, be preſent. To this purpoſe is that of Baldwin; Ʋbi publice diſſenſum declarare non licet, &c. l. 2. c. 6. Caſ. 6. p. 197.where (ſaith he) we may not publickly declare our diſſent, it is better to abſtain, leſt we either beget a ſcruple in our own conſciences, or danger from the adverſary. If then, we are of good progreſs in religion, have a call from God, are ſatisfied in our own conſciences with what we are about, have need of informing our judgements, will do what we do with an evidence of our diſlike, Of Communicating with the Lutherans in the Euchariſt, See Alting. Probl. Theol. pt. 3. p. 164. Jo. Crocius Ant. Weigel. p. 152.and may do it without giving offence to any, or bringing our ſelves into needleſs trouble, then we may appear before an Idol, and be preſent at the worſhip given to it; otherwiſe, not. As for Naamans going into the houſe of Rimmon, it makes nothing againſt what I have here ſaid; for, as he ſinned in it, ſo (as you have heard) upon his converſion, he confeſſed his error, and beg'd pardon.
Another example of this abſtinence from abuſed things, we have in Daniel (a man of far higher attainments, than ſuch a new Convert as Naaman was, can be preſumed to have had) who when Nebuchadnezzar by the hands of Aſhpenaz the Maſter of his Eunuchs offered him of his royal meats, and wines, he refuſed either to eat, or drink thereof. He purpoſed in his heart that he would not defile himſelf with the proportion of the Kings meat. Dan. 1.8The King had ſuch high eſteem of him, that he was deſirous to win him to his religion, and in order thereunto, he judges it meet to treat him with ſuch meats and drinks, as he had conſecrated to his Idols, thinking, that when he had inur'd him to feed on the one, he ſhould bring him to own the other. Hunc hamum ſubeſſe cibis regiis vidit Daniel, &c. in loc. Dr. Burgeſs Rejoynder, c. 4. ſect. 6. p. 446. Ne illa quidem quorum uſus permittitur lege, integra erant, &c. Trem. & Jun. in loc.This bait he made uſe of to take him; but Daniel (as Pareus notes) eſpying the hook, declines the inticement, and ſo eſcapes the danger. Being aware of the deſign that was laid againſt him, he first purpoſes abſtinence in his heart, and then exerciſes it in his practiſe. I know it's ſaid, that he refuſed to eat of the Kings meat, not becauſe it was abuſed, by being offered to an Idol; but becauſe it was forbidden by the ceremonial law. But 1. ſome writers of very great authority, ſay he refuſed to eat it, not only becauſe the ceremonial law forbade the Jews to eat ſuch kind of meat, but becauſe the King had abuſed it to ſuperſtition and idolatry. 2. Admit the immediate reaſon of his refuſing to eat the Kings meat, was becauſe it was forbidden by the ceremonial law, yet that do's not at all mend the matter; for the reaſon wherefore that law forbade ſuch meats, was, that they had been abuſed by the idolatrous Nations. So that though the immediate reaſon of Daniels refuſing to eat the Kings meat, was perhaps ceremonial, viz. that that law forbade it, yet the remote and more principal was, that his meat had been offered to an Idol, and thereby had been abuſed.
In like manner Ephraim, upon his return, declines the uſe of thoſe things, he had before ſo much doted on. Nay, he is ſo far from respecting them as he did, that he ſpeaks of them with diſdain. Hoſ. 14.8.What (ſaith he) have I to do any more with Idols? Being ſenſible of his having followed them too long already, he reſolves he'll have no more to do with them. Tertullian holds it unlawful,De Coron. Milit. either to give any thing to the ſervice of an Idol, or take any thing from it. As we muſt not take furniture from the houſe of God, to beautifie the Temple of an Idol, ſo neither muſt we take furniture from the Temple of an Idol to beautifie the houſe of God.foreign Cujus aedes contiguae ſunt templi idololatrico & collapſae fuerint eas aedificare prohibitum. Shulchan Aruch, part 2. num. 143 He will have nothing common with Idols; neither muſt we. The Jews in times paſt, were extremely addicted to heatheniſh Idols; but latter years have taught them more wiſdom: ſuch is their hatred to them, that they will not have an houſe ſtand near one of their Temples. It is forbidden (ſay they) that thoſe houſes which ſtand contiguous to an Idolatrous Temple, if they fall down, to rebuild them. They have found by ſad experience, that Idols are but bad Neighbours, and therefore they think it not good to live near them. And whenever God opens the eyes of men, and ſhews them the vanity and danger of Idols, they'l have little mind to meddle with them, or any thing belonging to them.
3. Lets all do our parts towards the aboliſhing, and extirpating of them. Whatever perſons, names, times, places, utenſils, ceremonies, we find amongſt us, that have been groſly abuſed in ſuperſtitious and idolatrous ſervices, let us endeavour the rooting of them out, and the laying of them aſide. We muſt not only ſtand looking up to authority, and waiting to ſee what they will do, but we muſt every of us, ſo far as may conſiſt with the keeping of our places, endeavour the doing of it. Magiſtrates are often more backward in reforming the Church, and purging out ſuch things, than otherwiſe they would be, becauſe their people are not more forward. The reaſon wherefore Jehoſaphat took not away the high places, 2 Chron. 20.33.was becauſe the people were not yet prepared. He was willing to have ſet upon the work, but he ſaw the people who hankered after their old ſuperſtitions, were averſe to it, and therefore he let it alone. Had they but gone to him, and deſired the removal of them, the work had been done. And I am perſwaded, that if the people of England, who are unſatisfied with thoſe monuments of Popiſh Idolatry, that are amongſt us, would but acquaint his Majeſty therewith, and in a proper, becoming way, ſolicite him to remove them, he would gratifie them in it. Let us not therefore, any longer ſit ſtill in the midſt of ſuch defilements and ſnares, but diſcover our hatred of them, decline their uſe, and in ſuch wayes as prudence, juſtice, and order do allow, endeavour the rooting of them out. Let us not like Rachel, Gen. 31.34. Judg. 18.14. 1 Sam. 19.13.Micah, Michal, keep them by us, but caſt them away as filth out of our houſes. It is but a womaniſh, weak part, to preſerve, or give any countenance to ſuch things, and therefore lets not be guilty thereof, but engage againſt them, and root them out.
Now for the better directing of your courſe, I ſhall in a few words, point at ſome particular things amongſt us, which have been abus'd in ſuperſtitious and idolatrous ſervices, and that in ſo high a degree, that wiſe, learned, and good men of different perſwaſions, have judg'd they ought to be laid aſide. I know I ſhall be cenſur'd for appearing againſt ſuch things, they being of ſuch eſteem with divers amongſt us, and being back'd and fenc'd with Authority and Law. Some, will charge me with malice, and ill will to the publick eſtabliſhment: others, with indiſcretion and raſhneſs; but that's no ſufficient reaſon wherefore I ſhould not do my duty. Christ blames the Paſtor of the Church of Pergamus, Rev. 2.14.for being ſilent in this caſe, and therefore I underſtand not how we may, without rendring our ſelves liable to the like reproof, hold our peace. Its no great matter what men think, 1 Cor. 4.3.or ſay of us, all the while we do nothing, but what we may not omit. We muſt appear againſt the corruptions amongſt us, and endeavour the ſecuring of Gods glory, and the ſouls of people, let the iſſue be what it will. And if thoſe who upon the reading hereof, do cenſure me, will but lay aſide ſiniſter reſpects, and ſeriouſly weigh the reaſons and authorities, I have on my ſide, they'l perhaps ſee cauſe to reſent things better.
1. The preſent Liturgy, though there be many good and uſeful things in it, yet it hath been ſo much abuſed, both heretofore among the idolatrous Papiſts from whom we had it, and ſince amongſt our ſelves, that it hath for many years been the deſire of ſeveral thouſands of ſober and godly people of all degrees in theſe Nations, that it ſhould after the other Popiſh traſh, thrown out of the houſe of God in the beginning of the Reformation, be laid aſide. What relation it hath to the Papiſts, and of what nature it is, we may learn from the meſſage ſent by King Edward the 6th. to the men of Devonſhire and Cornwall, Acts and Mon. vol. 2. p. 667.who upon that pious Kings caſting off Popery, and ſetting up Protestaniſm, roſe up in arms, and made ſeveral impudent demands to him, telling him, amongſt other things, that they would not receive the New Service, but would have their Old Service of Mattins, Maſs, Even-ſong, and Proceſſion in Latin, as it was before. To which he returns this anſwer; As for the Service (ſaith he) in the Engliſh tongue, though it may ſeem to you a New Service, it is indeed none other than the Old. You have the ſelf ſame words in Engliſh which were in Latin, ſaving a few things that are taken out, which were ſo fond, that it had been a ſhame to have heard them in Engliſh, as all they can judge who liſt to report the truth. And how can this with reaſon offend any reaſonable man? If the Service in the Latin Church was good in Latin, it remaineth good in Engliſh, for nothing is altered, but to ſpeak with knowledge, what was spoken with ignorance. See Mr. Ball againſt Separation, p. 149.Thus that Religious King. And King James, who came after him, ſpake to the ſame purpoſe. In a Speech of his in Scotland, he ſaid in plain terms, that the Engliſh Liturgy, was an ill ſaid Maſs. And hence it is that the Papiſts themſelves have ſuch a liking to it. Pope Pius the 4th. ſending Vincentio Parpatia, Abbot of St. Saviour, to Queen Elizabeth, offered to confirm it, if ſhe would yield to him in ſome other things. And when the Popes intelligencers had ſeen Service ſolemnly ſung and ſaid in Canterbury and London, with all their pomp and proceſſion, they wondred that their Maſter would be ſo unadviſed, as to interdict a Prince or State, whoſe Services and Ceremonies ſo ſymboliz'd with his own. Nay, ſo well were the Papiſts of our own Nation pleaſed with it the firſt eleven years of Q. Elizabeths Reign, that they came to the Church, and joyned themſelves with Proteſtants in the uſe of it. Hereby you ſee whence it came, and from whoſe hands we received it, even from the Children of Babilon; and coming from ſuch impure hands, its eaſie for any that know what Antichriſtianiſm means, to gueſs what uſage it had amongſt them. And if we come amongſt our ſelves, and take a view of it ſince it ſpake Engliſh, what a ſtrange reverence have the ignorant and ſuperstitious people it in? How do they admire and adore it? What an Idol do they make of it? This is ſo well known, that there are none, ſetting out ſuch as are as ignorant and ſuperſtitious as they, but they are acquainted with it. And upon this and other grounds, there have been various and eminent oppoſitions made againſt it, and endeavours uſed for the aboliſhing of it. Voetius takes notice that it hath met with various contradictions from firſt to laſt.Ea ſemper contradictiones varias paſſa eſt. Pol. Eccl. pt. 1. l. 2. tract. 1. c. 1. p. 349. Who hath not heard of the Admonition exhibited to the Parliament, Ann. 1572. of the Petition of the thouſand Moniſters preſented to King James 1603. of the Declaration of the Lincolnſhire Miniſters? The very Names of the Addreſſes, Remonſtrances, Complaints, and other Diſcourſes that from time to time, ever ſince the beginning of the Reformation, have been made againſt it, would amount to no leſs than a juſt Volume. But waving other Teſtimonies, I ſhall only offer to your thoughts, what upon the advice of the Aſſembly of Divines was urged by the late houſe of Lords and Commons, in order to the ſatisfying of people touching the aboliſhing of it. Amongſt other reaſons which they render for the taking of it away,Pref. to the Direct. p. 5. this was one, that the Prelates and their faction had laboured to raiſe the eſtimation of it to ſuch in height, as if there were no other worſhip, or way of worſhipping God amongſt us, but only it, to the great hindrance of the Preaching of the Word, and (in ſome places of late) to the justling of it out as unneceſſary, or at leaſt, as far inferiour to the reading of the Common Prayer, which hath been made no better than an Idol, by many ignorant and ſuperstitious people, who pleaſing themſelves with their preſence at that Service, and their lip-labour in bearing a part in it, have thereby hardned themſelves in their ignorance, and careleſſeneſs of ſaving knowledge, and true piety. I produce not this, or other testimonies of the like nature, for the ſakes of thoſe high flown gallants, that have ſacrificed their reaſon to humour and prejudice; but for the ſakes of ſuch a are ſober and moderate, and will liſten to truth when it ſpeaks. And to theſe I appeal, whether the Service book being no inſtitution of God, but a device of man: nor of any ſuch neceſſary uſe, but that it may well be spared: and ſo many of the Nobles, Gentlemen, Miniſters, together with ſo many thouſands of private Chriſtians, being offended with it, and crying out againſt it, as a thing horribly abuſed, and made an Idol, it ſhould not, as well, as the brazen Serpent, be aboliſhed and laid aſide? What reaſon can any render wherefore the former ſhould be aboliſhed, and not the latter? Is it pleaded, that the latter is in it ſelf lawful (which many queſtion, and others deny) ſo was the former. Will it be ſaid that the latter hath been, is, and ſtill may be, uſeful; the like may be ſaid as to the former. Cannot the latter be removed without giving offence to many whoſe ſatisfaction is to be endeavoured as well as others, neither could the former. Turn you which way you will, you ſhall find that the reaſons for ſparing the brazen Serpent, were as many and ſtrong, as thoſe alledged in the behalf of the Service book; nay, far more, and ſtronger. The Service book, is not of divine inſtitution, but the Serpent was. The Service book was never any instrument of miraculous cures, but the Serpent was. The Service book was never any figure of Chriſt, either being to come, or being already come, but the Serpent was. Hereby, to proceed no farther, it appears, that the reaſons for ſparing the Serpent, were of as much, nay more weight than thoſe be, which are produced in behalf of the Service book; yet Hezekiah conſidering it had been made an Idol, did in obſervance of the Law of God, take it, and break it in pieces. Why then the Service book ſhould not be dealt with after the ſame manner, I underſtand not.
2. The ſign of Croſs, hath been long uſed in the Church; if the account that ſome give of it be true,Dr. Burgeſs Rejoynd. ch. 1. ſect. 15. p. 61. near ſixteen hundred years: during which time, it hath by ſeveral ſorts of perſons, eſpecially the Papiſts, been ſo abuſed, that its thought fit by many it ſhould be laid aſide. Voetius, debating this Probleme, Whether the ceremony of the Croſs uſed in ſome places in the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, do ſymbolize with Idolatry, determines it affirmatively, the reaſon whereof I ſhall give you in his own words.Quia est ceremonia abhominibus inſtituta, &c. Diſp. part. p. 266. It is (ſaith he) a ceremony inſtituted of men, and not of God, and hath been polluted with idolatry in an horrid manner, even as it is yet polluted at this day; yea it is the univerſal inſtrument, and ſtandard (as it were) of all idolatry and ſuperſtition in the Papacy, and therefore ought wholly to be aboliſhed. The reaſon (you ſee) wherefore he thinks it ſhould be aboliſhed, is that it hath been ſo much abuſed, eſpecially in the Papacy, where it ſerves as the grand inſtrument of their ſuperſtition, folly, and madneſs. And this reaſon is urged by many; particularly, by that moſt learned man Dr John Rainolds, Conf. with Hart. c. 8. diviſ. 4. p. 509. See his Opuſc. p. 113.who argues from Hezckiahs breaking down of the brazen Serpent, to the aboliſhing of the ſign of the Croſs; but eſpecially by the reverend and judicious Mr. Bradſhaw, who hath written a particular Treatiſe upon it, which in the Title page, we find contracted into this ſyllogiſm. No religious uſe of a Popiſh Idol in Gods publick Service is indifforent, but utterly unlawful, but the uſe of the Croſs in Baptiſm, is a religious uſe of a Popiſh Idol in Gods publick Service, Ergo, the uſe of the Croſs in Baptiſm, is not indifferent, but utterly unlawful. Thus his Argument runs; with how, and with what ſtrength he manages it, I leave to every one upon his own inquiry to judge. For my part, I never ſaw any competent anſwer to it, neither do I expect it.
3. The Surplice is in it ſelf an innocent Veſtment, but hath been ſo abuſed, that it is become unfit for Religious uſe. Though it ſignifie Purity, yet experience tells us, it is ſo far from being able to work or preſerve it, in thoſe whom it covers, that it cannot ſecure it ſelf. Ergo etiamſi nullo alio, hoc ſaltem nomine obtrudendae non ſunt Eccleſiae Chriſti id genus, veſtes, &c vol. 3. Epiſt. ad Reg. Eliz. col. 244. See Hooker cited by Mr. Jeanes in his treatiſe of Abſtain. from app. of evil, p. 143.Having fall'n into fowl hands, it is ſo ſullyed and defil'd, that it is fit rather for an Hoſtler, than a Miniſter of the Goſpel: for a Stable than the Houſe of God. Zanchy ſpeaking to Qu. Elizabeth of it, and ſuch like garments, tells her that the very abuſe thereof conſidered in it ſelf, is a ſufficient reaſon, wherefore they ſhould not be impos'd. Though for no other (ſaith he) yet for this very cauſe, ſuch garments ought not to be thruſt upon the Church of Christ, becauſe the Harlot of Rome hath abuſed them, and doth ſtill at this day abuſe them. Some have been of opinion, that the waſhing of them in the water of new Doctrine, differing from that of the Papiſts, touching their neceſſity, holineſs, efficacy, willpurge them from their defilement, and render them fit for uſe again. But it is not with moral filthineſs, as it is with natural. All the water of Jordan would not have ſerv'd for the cleanſing of Gideons Ephod, when once defiled from its idolatry. And thus it is in the preſent caſe; when we have done all we can to our polluted garments, they will ſtill remain filthy. Though we ſhould waſh them with Nitre and Sope, yet they would ſtill retain their ſpots, and cry out with the Leper, unclean, unclean.
4. Kneeling at the Sacrament of the Supper, is a rite contended for, and …tiſed by many, but hath been ſo pollu… with Antichriſtian Idolatry, that it is judg'd fit it ſhould be wav'd, and another more proper, as well as antient, uſed inſtead of it. Beza looks upon it as a ſufficient reaſon wherefore it ſhould not be uſed, that it hath been the occaſion of ſuch Idolatry in the Papacy. Quoniam ex hoc fonte orta eſt, &c. Ep. 12. Myſt. Iniq. ad an. 1209. p. (ed. lat. fol.) 343Becauſe (ſaith he) from this fountain roſe that detestable worſhipping of the bread, which yet cleaves to the minds of many, it ſeems deſervedly to be taken away. Whether Kneeling, proceeded from the worſhipping of the bread, or lead to it; whether it were the effect of it, as Morney thinks, or the cauſe of it, as Beza here ſuggeſts, I ſhall not now inquire. It is manifeſt to all the world it hath been abuſed in it, and that is thought ſufficient reaſon wherefore it ſhould be laid aſide. This is not the judgement of a ſingle. Beza only, but of others. Voetius diſputing concerning it, amongſt other reaſons which he renders againſt it, this is one, and the firſt in order,Ritus quo homines excellenter abuſt ſunt ad idololatriam, &c. Pol. Eccl. part 1. p. 815. that it hath been ſo much abuſed. His argument runs thus; that rite which men have highly abuſed to Idolatry, and which neither divine nor natural right hath made neceſſary, is not to be held for a ſacred matter, or for any thing belonging to a ſacred matter, but is to be removed from divine worſhip; but the rite of Kneeling is ſuch as men have ſo abuſed, and which neither divine nor natural right hath made neceſſary; Ergo. His major he proves from ſeveral places of Scripture, particularly from the example of Hezekiah, who upon the account of abuſe, did not only take away the high places, but likewiſe the brazen ſerpent, though ſuch an illuſtrious teſtimony of antiquity, (as he fitly calls it) made by the expreſs command of God himſelf. The former branch of the minor, he proves from this, that the Papiſts have uſed this geſture, and do yet uſe it, to their horrid breadworſhip, or adoration of the Hoaſt. The latter branch of the minor, he proves from this, that there is no command touching Kneeling at the Supper, nor any reaſon, nor natural neceſſity to induce, or lead us to it. Of what force Dr. Sanderſons arguments are, though manag'd with ſo much ſubtilty, you may gather from the particular anſwers he afterwards returns to them.Ezek. 8.18. Cum idclatrae eum ad idololatriam & ſuperſtitionem per agendam appropriant, &c. Diſp. pt. 3. p. 267.
5. Worſhipping towards the East, is (as the Scripture it ſelf ſhews) of very antient uſe, yet in regard divers Nations have, and do ſo much abuſe it, many have judg'd it meet that we ſhould decline, and forbear the uſe of it. Though it be indifferent, and at our own free choice, which point of Heaven to worſhip towards, yet in regard ſtanding towards the Eaſt, hath been ſo much abuſed by Idolaters, with whom we muſt not in any unneceſſary things, have communion, we are taught to worſhip another way. Thus the forementioned Voetius directs us. Inaſmuch (ſaith he) as Idolaters do appropriate it to the carrying on of their idolatry and ſuperstition, Adoratio ad Occidentem introducta fuit in lege ad excludendum idololatriam, &c. 12. q. 102. a. 4.5. De Idol. l. 2. c. 3. tantis ſuperſlttionibus contaminata illa festa fuerunt ut mirer ſi quiſquam Chriſtianus ſit qui ad nomina eorum non exhorreſcat. in Mat.we ought to abſtain from it, leſt we ſeem in outward ſhew to communicate with them; eſpecially, if our adverſaries improve our uſing it to the defence of their cauſe. Nay Aquinas himſelf ſhews, that the reaſon wherefore the Sanctum Sanctorum ſtood West, and wherefore the Jews were to worſhip that way, was becauſe the Gentiles in reverence to the Sun worſhipped towards the Eaſt. And if God would not have the Jews to uſe an abuſed poſture, or comply with Idolaters therein, what reaſon have we to think he will allow us to do it. Thoſe who would ſee more of this, may read Voſſius, and what our Writers have ſaid in anſwer to Bellarmine on this ſubject.
6. There are divers Holy-dayes obſerv'd amongſt us, which with the forementioned things, have been ſo abuſed, that its thought high time they ſhould be let alone, and imployed to another uſe. What opinion the reformed Churches beyond the Seas are of, concerning this buſineſs, I might ſhew you by a multitude of teſtimonies, but I ſhall only offer to you a few, from ſome Writers amongſt them of prime note, whereby you may gueſs at the judgements of others. Bucer ſpeaking of Holy-dayes, ſaith, they have been ſo tainted with ſuperſtition, that I wonder we tremble not at their very names. Rivet diſcourſing of them, and their obſervation in England, urges the abuſe of them, and the act of Hezekiah mentioned in the Text, for aboliſhing of them upon that account.Inter Orthod…xos c…nvenit, &c. Vol. 1. Expl. Decal. ad 4. Praec. p. 1346, &c. It is (ſaith he) agreed amongst the Orthodox, that they are celebrated by the Papiſts with manifeſt idolatry. And afterwards; We could wiſh (ſaith he) that as Hezekiah aboliſhed the brazen ſerpent becauſe ſome abuſed it, ſo they would aboliſh thoſe Holy-dayes which are polluted with ſo many ſuperſtitions and idolatries in the Papacy. Cappellus is of the ſame mind; ſpeaking of the keeping of Holy-dayes, ſuch as Chriſtmaſs, Id est quod nec Chriſtus, nec Apoſtoli, Eccleſiae Chriſtianae neceſſarium duxerunt &c. Theſ Salm. pt. 3. ſect. 7. p. 647.Easter, Whitſontide, ſaith, it is that which neither Chriſt, nor his Apoſtles thought neceſſary for the Chriſtian Church; for if they had thought it neceſſary, doubtleſs they would not have omitted it, for they were not deſtitute of wiſdom and prudence to ſee what was profitable and fit to be done in this caſe; yet there is not in the writings of the Evangeliſts and Apoſtles, ſo much as any footſtep, word, or letter touching that particular. And having ſhew'd the riſe, and progreſs of the obſervation of Holy-dayes, he tells us, it had been more adviſeable and conduceable to the welf are of the Chriſtian Church, not to have admitted that deſtination and peculiar obſervation of dayes, becauſe as the event ſhews, from thence proceeded the ſuperſtition and idolatry which hath for ſo many ages poſſeſſed and overſpread the Popiſh Church, from which leaven thoſe Churches are not altogether ſafe, which retain the primitive uſe of Holy-dayes; inſomuch that others fearing leſt they ſhould from ſuch uſe contract contagion, choſe rather in their reformation wholly to aboliſh it. To the ſame purpoſe writes Wendeline; diſcuſſing this Queſtion, What is to be thought of Holy-dayes, which the Papiſts have inſtituted, and do yet celebrate in the honour of Saints, he thus determines the caſe. They are full (ſaith he) of Idolatry, Cultu ſcatent idololatrico, &c. Syſt. Maj l. 2. c. 6. p. 1641.and therefore Chriſtian Churches may not approve of them, no more than they may of the invocation of Saints, which is manifeſt Idolatry. This is plain dealing; and yet as if this were not ſufficient, he goes on, and puts the caſe further; Whether (ſaith he) may Holy-dayes dedicated to the memory of Saints, be rightly retain'd and celebrated, in caſe the Idolatry be taken away, and the honour of the Holy-day terminate, not in the Saint, but in God. To this he anſwers, with that ſtanding rule, allowed by Orthodox Writers, adiaphora non neceſſaria, horrenda idolomania polluta ſunt abolenda; that is, things in themſelves indifferent, and no way neceſſary, being polluted with horrible Idolatry, are to be aboliſhed; but Holy-dayes are ſuch, and are polluted with horrible Idolatry in the Papal Church, An ad campanae pulſum, &c. De Templ. c. 26. p. 337.(and expoſe to much danger, no leſs than Statues and Images) and therefore ought to be aboliſhed. With theſe agrees Hoſpinian; anſwering this Queſtion, Whether the Proteſtants beyond the Seas, upon the tolling of the St. Mary Bell at Noon and Evening, ought to betake themſelves to their Prayers; he reſolves it Negatively, giving this reaſon, that thoſe hours were inſtituted by John 22. and Calixtus 3. to a ſuperſtitious worſhip, which no good man ſhould have any hand in countenancing, or encouraging. Such as would ſee more, may at their leaſure conſult Zanchy, Martyr, Hyperius, Didoclavius, Willet, Vol. 2. in 4. Praec. col. 678. Com. in 1 Reg. 19. Opuſc. Theol. t. 1. de Bacch. Altar. Dam. c. 10. p. 644. Com. in Rom. 11.4.whom for brevity ſake I only referre you to. Thoſe whoſe words I have here given you, may in the mean time, ſuffice to hint to you the judgement of the Churches abroad, in this matter. They ſay that the forementioned Holy-dayes are tainted with ſuperſtition and idolatry, that they are as bad as invocation of Saints, that they have been as ill abus'd as the brazen ſerpent, and that upon that account we ſhould forbear to obſerve them, nay that we ſhould be ſo far from obſerving them, that we ſhould tremble at the very name of them. It remains then that in imitation of King Hezekiah, and in concurrence with the judgement of theſe learned and eminent men, we lay aſide thoſe Festivals yet in uſe amongſt us, that have been, and are ſtill ſo much abuſed both to ſuperſtition and prophaneſs, and in the obſervation of ſome of which we do not only open the mouths of our brethren beyond the Seas, but of the Papiſts themſelves.See Voetius diſp. part 3. de Quadrag & Bacch p. 393. Hoſius, A Lapide, Froymundus upbraid us herewith, that having caſt off divers feaſts and faſts of their Church, we do celebrationem Bacchanalium aliorumque hilariorum retinere; retain the celebratian of Shrovetide, and ſuch like jovial times. Whether they, or we, are more guilty of ſymbolizing with Heathens, and honouring their Deities, they may learn from Pol. Virgil, Lud. Vives, and other of their own Writers. However its ſad, that by the practice of ſuch extravagancies, we ſhould furniſh them with ſuch matter of accuſation, and give them ſuch advantage againſt us.
Thus I have in a few words, given you an account of ſome of thoſe things which in regard of their great abuſe, we are to endeavour the extirpation of. In the management whereof, to prevent the charge of ſingularity, I have mainly inſiſted upon the judgements of others: and thoſe no mean ones, but ſuch as are of chief authority and note; who you ſee, took the abuſe of the abovementioned things, for a ſufficient reaſon wherefore they ſhould be laid aſide. In conſideration whereof, and the grounds I have before alledg'd, let it be your ſtudy, care, and endeavour in ſuch wayes as Chriſtian prudence ſhall direct, to promote the aboliſhment of them, and all other things amongſt us of the like nature.