Abolishing of Things Abused to Superstition and Idolatry, Tract · Section 4
Sect. 4.
2. HE would have ſuch Names as have been given to Idols, or to ſuch perſons or things as have belong'd to them, and thereby have been polluted, to be laid aſide. So far is he from allowing us to own other Gods, or comply with them in their ſacrilegious and prophane ordinances, that he will not endure we ſhould ſo much as retain their Names. As the King is impatient of the Traytors name, who hath attempted the taking away of his power and life, ſo is God impatient of the names of Idols, in as much as they have attempted the taking away, not only of his power, but alſo whatever is near and dear to him. How ordinary is it for him in Scripture to forbid us to take their Names into our mouths?Exod. 23.13 Make no mention (ſaith he) of other Gods. And, make no mention of the name of their Gods. Joſh. 23.7.And, I will cut off the names of the Idols out of the land. And in obedience to his will ſignified in theſe and ſuch like paſſages,Zech. 13.2. his faithfull ſervants have reſolv'd upon the declining of them. I will not (ſaith David) take their names into my lips. Pſal. 16.4.Such was the perfectneſs of his hatred to them, that he would not ſo much as name them. And if ever God make us men after his own heart, and bleſs us with ſuch ſincere and holy zeal, as he had, we ſhall follow his good example. Name them indeed we may, as the ſacred Pen-men themſelves did afterwards,Vid. Tertull. de Idol. c. 20 p. 153. but then we muſt ſee that we do it upon ſome neceſſary occaſion, and with contempt and indignation, not with any honour or respect to them. We may name them in hiſtorical relations, in confeſſing our faith, or in ſuch diſcourſes as we may be call'd to make in order to the abjuring, refuting, and condemning of them; but not ſo as to justifie, invocate, commend them, or any way promote their reputation or ſervice. The Apoſtle ſpeaking of fornication, uncleanneſs, covetouſneſs,Eph. 5.3. charges the Epheſians that they do not ſo much as name them; that is, by way of approbation or vindication, ſo as either to ſpread or uphold them: which alſo is to be ſaid in the preſent caſe; we may in diſcouſe name Idols by way of diſtinction, not needleſly, or with any ſhew of liking, ſo as to defend or plead for them.
And God do's not only forbid us to take the names of Idols into our mouths in the ſenſe expreſſed, but he charges us, like ſo many execrable and hateful things, to extirpate and root out the remembrance of them in all places where it is.Deut. 12.3. You ſhall (ſaith he) deſtroy the names of them out of that place. He will have us to imploy our authority, power, intereſt, and all, for the total aboliſhing both of them, and all reſpectful remembrance of them. Nay ſuch is his indignation againſt them, that he will not only have ſuch names aboliſhed as have originally and ſolely pertained to them, but ſuch likewiſe as were originally his, and do in a way of ſpecial propriety and ſuitableneſs belong to him, and yet have been given to them. What name is there in all Scripture more becomming him than Baal? What may better ſerve to hold forth his abſolute dominion over his people, or conjugal relation to them? It ſignifies my Lord, or my Husband; what name then more proper or ſuitable for ſuch a purpoſe, than it? Yet when it had long been given to Idols, he took up ſuch a diſlike of it, that he forbids them to call him any more by it.Hoſ. 2.16, 17. Selden de diis Syris. Synt. 2. c. 1. p. 195. Thou ſhalt (ſaith he) call me no more Baali, for I will take the names of Baalim, out of her mouth. Some very learned men think that the Chaldaeans, and Phaenicians, firſt gave this Name to the true God, the Maker and Lord of all: afterwards taking the Sun to be the only God of Heaven, they gave it, to it; then, out of the reſpect they bore to their deceaſed friends, they gave it to their Images which they ſet up and worſhipped.Rivet. vol. 2. in Hoſ. 2.8. p. 537. Mede in 1 Tim. 4.1. Others think it takes its riſe from Belus the firſt Aſſyrian Monarch after Nimrod, who governing his people well, they were ſo affected with it, that upon his death they deified him; and his Son Ninus out of the reſpect he bore to him, ſet up his Statue. After him, they called all their deceaſed Hero's whom they firſt made, and then eſteemed Gods, Baalim. As upon the firſt Roman Emperors, being called Caeſar, thoſe who ſucceeded had the ſame title, ſo upon this great Monarchs being ſtiled Baal (or Belus, for they are both one) thoſe who were deified after him, were termed ſo to; whereby it came to paſs that ſo many as were their deified Hero's, ſo many were their Baals. Hence we read of Baal Berith, Baal Hermon, Baal Peor, and divers others, whereof you find frequent mention in Scripture. The Chaldaeans, out of the high reſpect they bore to this appellation, prefixed it to their Names, as Baladan, Balthazar, Belſhazzar; and the Carthaginians, added it to theirs, as Aſdrubal, Adherbal, Hannibal. Now whether this name were given firſt to God, and then to Idols, or first to Idols and then to him, is not ſo material that we ſhould ſpend much time about it: certain it is that it was given to both, and as certain, that when God ſaw it ſo commonly and groſly abus'd, he do's notwithſtanding the properneſs and fitneſs of it for himſelf, by an expreſs prohibition, forbid his people to give it him any more.Menoch. de Rep. Heb. l. 4. c. 1. Sir W. Rawleigh hiſt. l. 1. c. 10. Sect. 6. p. 194. That this was the very reaſon wherefore he would have it laid aſide, is the judgement of Oecolampadius, Calvin, Danaeus, Zanchy, Tremellius, Junius, Pareus, Rivet, and other learned men. Such is the purity and holineſs of God, that he will not have any communion with Idols, no, not ſo much as in their names, eſpecially when by long and frequent uſe, they become common to them, but will have both them and their names utterly aboliſhed and laid in ſilence.
This being ſo, what ſhall we think of thoſe who give the names of Idols to their children, to months, dayes, ſhips, horſes, dogs, and ordinarily diſcourſe of them under the ſame, without evidencing any deteſtation or diſlike? Nay what ſhall we think of thoſe who do not only take this liberty in civil matters, but alſo in religious: that declining the names Chriſt hath given to his Officers, Ordinances, and ſuch things as belong thereunto, uſe ſuch as have been abuſed by Idolaters?Non ſolum thura, &c. Gratian. Dec. pt. 1. diſt. 37. c. 15. Sect. 7. See Voetius diſp. ſelect. pt. 3. p. 260, 261, 263, 285, 317 Theſ. Salm. pt. 3. Sect. 37. p. 356 Alſted. Encyclop. vol. 1. l. 17. Uran: pt. 1. c. 13. Sect. 15. p. 406. & part. 3. c. 4. Sect. 3. p. 345. Hoſp. Fest. p. 27. Numb. 32 38. Duo illa civitatum Nomina mutata fuerunt, &c. Tremel. & Jun. in loc. Vid. Bez. vit. Calv. Thus many call Miniſters, Prieſts; the Supper, a Sacrifice; and the Table, Altar. What is this but to be guilty of ſinful complyance, and needleſly keep up the remembrance of thoſe things which God would have forgotten? Iſidore was of opinion that to uſe the phraſes of Idols, was no other than to Sacrifice to them. We do not only Sacrifice (ſaith he) to Devils when we burn Incenſe to them, but likewiſe when we willingly, without any neceſſity moving us to it, uſe their ſayings. This is home to the caſe; but for the further informing and ſatisfying your ſelves touching this matter, I leave you to adviſe with the Authors ſet down in the Margent.
But you'l ſay, when a man comes into a place and finds perſons and things bearing ſuch names, what muſt he do? If he ſpeak of them under thoſe names, he ſins; if he do's not, either the people do not underſtand him, or laugh him to ſcorn: what then muſt be done? Anſw. We muſt conſider whether in the uſe of ſuch names in the places where we are, there be danger of ſcandal, yea, or no; that is, whether there be any who are likely thereby either to be drawn to, or confirmed in, their reſpect to Idols; or whether there be any who are likely to be grieved at the uſe of ſuch names. If there be not, then we may take the more liberty; if there be, then, 1. where we have authority we muſt take away ſuch names, and appoint others in their ſtead. Thus the Children of Reuben dealt with Nebo, and Baalmeon, two Idolatrous Cities which they repaired. And thus they of Geneva dealt with Balthazar, the uſe of which name, they forbade. 2. Where we have not authority, we muſt by ſuch arguments, and reaſons, as are proper, perſwade them who have, to do it. 3. Where we neither have authority to alter, nor can perſwade thoſe who have, to do it, we may lawfully uſe them in historical relations, and by way of distinction. Dagon, Aſhtoreth, Milchom, and divers others mentioned in Scripture, were the names of Heatheniſh Idols, and yet the ſacred Pen-men did in that way, make uſe of them. Uſe them we may, but then we muſt do it ſo, that we make it to appear we do it not out of choice, Neque puto ſolida ratione probabis, &c Diſſert. de Cerem. c. 9. Sect. 7. p. 90. See Rivet. vol. 2. in Hoſ. 2.16. p. 558. Voetius ſelect. diſp. part. 2. p. 607.or in a way of approbation, but out of neceſſity, and by way of diſtinction only, that we may ſignifie our minds, and make known what we have to impart.
Theſe being our utmoſt bounds in this caſe, how Mr. Ritſchel, who thinks, that though we may lawfully lay aſide abuſed phraſes, that yet we are not by any law bound to it, wil juſtifie the Lutherans of Auguſta in the voluntary and unneceſſary retaining of the word Maſs, which he thought fit to inſtance in, in favour of his cauſe, I leave him to conſider.
But to proceed; if God will have, not only the Idols themſelves, but their very names aboliſhed, what ſhall we think of ſuch Authors as Eraſmus, Politian, Lipſius, with many more of the ſame ſtamp, who upon every occaſion invocate and ſwear by the heatheniſh deities, mentioning them ſo frequently, as if they could not ſpeak elegantly, unleſs they ſtuff their diſcourſes with their names? What more ordinary than Dii Immortales, Propitia Minerva, Mehercule, and a thouſand more ſuch paſſages unfit to enter into a Chriſtians mouth? what lightneſs and vanity of this kind Caſtellio hath ſhew'd in his Tranſlation, Beza, Praef. in def. tranſlat. ſuae cont. Caſtell. Praefat. in Nov. test. Grac. 160. Hiſt. t. 2. l. 35. p. 271. Pſal. 2.12. Ad Chriſtum referre ipſa abſurditate abſurdius eſt: in Job 31.17.Stephanus, Thuanus, have pritty well told him. That Chriſtians ſhould uſe heatheniſh terms in their ordinary diſcourſe is ſad, but that they ſhould bring them into the Bible, and make the Holy Ghoſt ſpeak ſuch language, is intollerable. Druſius ſpeaking of that paſſage, Kiſs the Sun; and of ſome that think the Pſalmiſt doe's in the uſe of it allude to the manner of Idolaters, who teſtified their reverence and ſubjection to their Idols by kiſſing their hands, ſaith, to referr it to Chriſt is moſt abſurd. He thought it an improbable thing that the Pſalmiſt ſhould expreſſe the honour due to Chriſt by a Phraſe in uſe among Idolaters. And there paſſes a manuſcript from hand to hand, ſaid to be written by that learned man Dr. Sanderſon, wherein he adviſes us to obſerve formam ſanorum verborum, and to abſtain not only from ſuſpected opinions, but as much as may be alſo from ſcandalous and offenſive Phraſes. Nay ſome of the Papiſts themſelves do concurr with us herein. Aquinas diſcourſing of unfit words and expreſſions produces a paſſage out of an Epiſtle of Pope Leo to Proterius Biſhop of Alexandria, Ʋnde Leo Papa in quadam Epistola, &c. 22. q. 11. a. 2.2. Nunquam probavi vocem Divus, &c. init. Beatus Sylveſter nolens, &c. Ration. l. 7. c. 1. n. 11. p. 426. See the Rhemiſts Annot. on 2 Cor. 6.14. 1 Tim. 6.4. Rev. 1.10.wherein he tells him that the enemies of the Croſs of Chriſt, do diligently obſerve all our words and ſyllables, that ſo if we give them the leaſt occaſion, they may improve it againſt us. And Bellarmine being grown old and better advis'd, having in the first book and the third chapter of his diſputations, de verbo dei uſed the heatheniſh term Divus; he do's in his recognition of that book, admoniſh his Reader about it, telling him he never thought fit to give that title to Saints, not only becauſe he found it not uſed by the antient Latin Fathers, but likewiſe becauſe the heathens gave it to their gods, and therefore will have him to know that wherever he meets with that term in his writings, it either fell from him imprudently, or elſe was put in by the Printer without his order. And Durand ſhews that Pope Sylveſter judging it unfit to ſpeak of the dayes under Jewiſh terms, ſuch as prima Sabbati, ſecunda Sabbati: or under heatheniſh terms, ſuch as dies Solis, dies Lunae: appointed they ſhould ſpeak of them under the terms, feria prima, feria ſecunda; which he look'd upon as more harmleſs and inoffenſive. Had they taken the ſame courſe in other matters, they had come nearer to the preſent example of Hezekiah, and adminiſtred leſs matter of ſcandal and ſeparation.