Abolishing of Things Abused to Superstition and Idolatry, Tract · Section 7
Sect. 7.
Thirdly, HAving in the preceding particular,See this point handled in Zanch. vol. 2. col. 406, 799 ſhewed what things upon their being abuſed, are to be laid aſide, I ſhall in the next place, acquaint you to whom the power, and duty of doing it, do's belong. If ſuch things muſt be removed, it concerns us to inquire who muſt do it, that ſo in order to the effecting of it,Walae…s, loc. co…. p. 542. we may neither uſurp what is above us, nor neglect what belongs to us. Now for the better clearing of this matter, we muſt conſider that the management of the work, is either more private or publick. The more private management of it belongs to every particular Chriſtian, who in his reſpective place, is to contribute his aſſiſtance towards the promoting of it. Ministers in their places, are by preaching, writing, diſcourſing, to ſhew the ſcandalouſneſs and dangerouſneſs of them; people in their places are to decline the uſe of them; and both Miniſters and people in their ſeveral places, are to remove ſuch of them, as are in their own power. Hence we find that when Jacobs houſehold gave to him, the ſtrange gods which were in their hands, with the ear-rings which either had, or might eaſily have been abus'd to Superſtition and Idolatry,Gen. 35.4. he took them and hid them, by the Oak in Shechem. And when the Jewiſh exorciſts were convinced of their error, Acts 19.19. Quiſque enim pater familias eſt quidam minor magiſtratus domi ſuae; &c. Zanch. vol. 2. de Imag. col. 405. v. Contz. Polit. l. 2. c. 16. Eraſtus Conf. Theſ. l. 3. p. 128. Maccov. Vedelius, Utenbogard, Grotius, and the Belgick Arminians, with divers amongſt our ſelvs.they brought thoſe miſchievous books which they had abuſed in their prophane divinations, and burnt them in the fire. This is a more private management of it, belonging to every good man, who ſo far as his propriety and dominion do's extend, is to endeavour the removal of ſuch defiled and offenſive things. The more publick management of it, belongs to the Civil Magiſtrate, who by virtue of the power wherewith God hath intruſted him, is to take a view of his whole Dominions, extirpate and aboliſh whatever is prejudicial and injurious to Gods pure worſhip and ſervice.
Concerning the Authority of the Civil Magiſtrate in matters of Religion, Writers diſcourſe variouſly. The Jeſuites on the one hand, give him too little; Eraſtus and his followers, on the other, give him too much. The former, look upon him, as ſuch a terreſtrial animal, that they allow him no more, than only a power to defend and execute the Popes determinations, and impoſitions, that is to ſay, to be his Ʋaſſal and do what ever he will have him. The latter, take him to be inveſted with ſuch power, that they think he may deviſe new forms of government, make new laws, inſtitute new officers, appoint new ceremonies, and do great matters. It is not neceſſary here to undertake the deciding of this controverſie; yet for the better clearing of the matter in hand, I ſhall in a few words, intimate to you, my apprehenſions concerning it.Eſtius in 4. ſent. diſt. 18. ſect. 1. p. 258. There is (as the School-men diſtinguiſh) a twofold authority; the one of order, the other of juriſdiction. The former conſiſts in a power to preach the Word, dispence the Sacraments; and belongs only to Miniſters, who are duely qualified for, and lawfully called thereunto. The latter conſiſts in a power to govern the Church, and rule all perſons, and things therein. And this likewiſe is twofold, ſpiritual and temporal; the one, conſiſts in a power to apply the keys, exerciſe Eccleſiaſtical cenſures, ſuſpend, excommunicate, abſolve; and this as well as the authority of order belongs only to Ministers. In the time of the Old Teſtament, Numb. 18.7. 2 Sam. 6.7. 1 Sam. 13.13. 2 Chron. 26.18. Heb. 5.4.the power both of order and ſpiritual juriſdiction pertain'd only to the Prieſt. Ʋzzah, might not touch the ark; Saul, offer burnt offerings; Ʋzziah, burn incenſe. And, as it was then, ſo it is now: No man (ſaith the Apoſtle) taketh this honour unto himſelf, but he that is called of God as was Aaron. Neceſſity indeed varies the caſe; but in an ordinary way, none may meddle therewith, but only ſuch as by a legal and fit deſignation, are ſet apart for the Miniſtry. The other, conſiſts in a power to overſee,See Salmaſ. Apparat. ad lib. de Primat. p. 303. ed. Lugd. 1645. regulate and diſpoſe in a political way, of all matters in the Church to the advantage thereof; and this belongs to the Civil Magiſtrate, who though he hath not any formal Church power, yet he hath ſuch a power as he is to exerciſe for, and in the behalf of it. Though he hath not any power privative, or contrary to that of the Church, yet he hath a power cumulative, and auxiliary, which he is to exert, improve, and lay out in the behalf of her. Constantine told his Clergy, Euſeb. vit. Conſt. l. 4. c. 24. p. 397.that God appointed them Biſhops, foreign, of the things within the Church, or Temple; and him foreign, of the things without it. Though the Magiſtrate have not power in ſacris, ſo as to preach the Word, adminiſter the Sacraments, and diſpence cenſures; yet he hath power circa ſacra, ſo that he both may, and ought to do many things in relation thereunto. He is to defend the Church from the rage and violence of perſecutors; back divine Laws with his Civil ſanction, that ſo they may be of more authority with his people; ſee that all Officers in the Church do their duty; when there is occaſion convene Synods, and if there be need preſide in them; take care that ſuch Constitutions be made in them as may help to maintain unity and order, and prevent diviſion and confuſion; ſee that Miniſters have competent maintenance; erect Schools of learning;Mr. Nye of the Oath of Supremacy, p. 16. Mr. Tombs his Supplement, p. 3. and purge his Dominions of ſuperſtition and idolatry, with all ſuch things as have been abus'd therein, that ſo God may be purely worſhipp'd, and true Religion may flouriſh and prosper. And, if it were not a deſpotical, nomothetick, arbitrary, but only a ſubordinate, diatactick, auxiliary power that was aim'd at in the Oath of Supremacy, as ſome reverend men from good teſtimonies prove it was not, I ſee no reaſon wherefore the Centuriators, Calvin, or others,Cent. 7. praefat. Com. in Am. 7.12 In what ſenſe the Chriſtian Magiſtrate may be allowed, and called the head of the Church: See in Wendel. Syſtem. Maj. l. 1. c. 28. p. 1307. Iſa. 44.28.49.23, ſhould ſo exclaim againſt it. It ſeems to me to be no more, than what the Scripture does allow; and therefore I am apt to think it was miſinformation, that put thoſe excellent men into ſuch indignation. However, to prove here that the Magistrate both may, and ought to perform all theſe particulars, is more than the orderly proſecution of my preſent theme does require. It is ſufficient for me in this place, to make good that branch of the laſt particular which concerns the removal of ſuch things as have been abus'd in ſuperstitious and idolatrous ſervices; and that I ſhall endeavour to do, in theſe following particulars.
1. God in Scripture gives the Magiſtrate ſuch appellations, and titles, as ſhew he ought to do it. He ſtiles him Shepherd, Father, and the like; and that not only as to the Commonwealth over which he is, but as to the Church within his Dominions. Now though we muſt not ſtretch metaphors too far, yet this we may ſafely conclude, that as Shepherds, Fathers, and ſuch like relations are to provide Neceſſaries for their flocks, children, and thoſe who are under their charge, and remove ſtumbling blocks, and whatever may be hurtfull to them; ſo Magistrates are to provide neceſſaries, for the Church over which they are, and remove ſuch things as have been abusd in corrupt ſervices, and whatever elſe they meet with that tends to infect, or inſnare.
2. He charges the puniſhing, ſuppreſſing, and purging of Idolatry and falſe Worſhip, in a peculiar manner upon him.Deut. 17 5. The judicial Law required of the Jews, that if there were any amongſt them guilty of Idolatry, they ſhould bring him to the gates of the City, and there upon his being convicted by the evidence of two or three witneſſes, ſtone him to death. The reaſon wherefore they were to bring him to the gates of the City, was becauſe the places of publick judicature, where offenders were tryed and received their ſentence, were there. And if the Magiſtrate were thus to take cogniſance of, ſit in judgement on, and remove idolatrous perſons, we may reaſonably inferre, he was to do the like with idolatrous things.
3. He imputes the riſing up, and practice of Idolatry, to the want of a Magiſtrate. When he hath given us an account how Micah had an houſe of Gods, an Ephod and Teraphim, how his mother had a graven and molten Image, Judg. 17.6.he immediately adds, that in thoſe dayes there was no King in Iſrael. Where we a… not to take the word foreign, tranſlated King, ſtrictly, for a particular kind of Magiſtrate paſſing under that name, (for in that ſenſe the Iſraelites never as yet, either at one time or other, had any King) but largely, for a ſupreme Magiſtrate in general, without reſpect to this, or that particular kind. And ſo the meaning is, that it was a time of Anarchy, and confuſion, wherein the people having no better guide than their own corrupt and licentious natures, broke forth into ſad extravagancies, ſuch as ſuperſtition, idolatry, prophaneſs; whereas if there had been a good Magiſtrate, he would have kept them in awe, and reſtrain'd them. He would either have prevented Micahs Idolatry, or elſe preſently have gone and ſuppreſs'd it.
4. He takes it well from Magiſtrates, when they imploy their power,Exod. 32.20. Joſh. 22.20. 1 Kings 15.12. 2 Chron. 17.6. 2 Chron. 33.15. 2 Kings 23.4. 1 Kings 15.4.22.43. 2 Kings 15.4. and intereſt in rooting out Idolatry, with all the instruments, memorials, and occaſions thereof. Moſes, Joſhua, Aſa, Jehoſaphat, Hezekiah, Manaſſes, Joſiah, did all eminently lay out themſelves herein, and he accepted of their zeal, and commended them for it.
5. He is ſo far from being diſpleas'd with them for ingaging in ſuch matters, that he is offended with them that they proceed no further, and blames them for it. He reproves Aſa, Jehoſaphat, Azariah, that when they threw down the Idols, which they found in the land, they did not with them deſtroy the high places, but ſuffered them to remain, and the people to burn incenſe in them. Here two exceptions are made: 1. It's ſaid, that what is alledged from theſe instances, concerns the Kings of Judah, who were types of Christ, and therefore though they had, and exerciſed ſuch a power, it does not follow, eſpecially now, the Meſſias being come, that others may do it. Anſw. 1. Divers of the forecited places did not only concern the Kings of Judah, as it was a divided State, but alſo the Kings of Iſrael, and all Kings and Princes whatſoever. Not only the Kings of Judah, but the Kings of Iſrael, and other foreign Princes,Ezr. 5.13.6.1. Neh. 2.8 ſuch as Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, did as much in the matter of Religion, as the thing in the preſent diſcourſe amounts to, and yet the Holy Ghoſt is ſo far from blaming them, that he records it to their praiſe, and commends them for it. 2. How does it appear that the Kings of Judah were types of Chriſt? It does not follow that becauſe they were his predeceſſors, or bore ſome reſemblance of him, that therefore they were types of him. 3. Admit that in ſome reſpects they were types of him, yet that in it ſelf without divine commiſſion, could not impower them to do any more, than thoſe who were no types at all of him. It is not the being types, but the having a command, that inveſts men with power to undertake and perform ſervices. But 2. It's further ſaid, that the condition of Kings, in the Old Teſtament, was different from what it is now. They had Prophets to adviſe with, and receive directions from, which in theſe dayes they have not. Anſw. 1. Their ingaging ſo far in Religious matters, was not from hence that they had Prophets to conſult with,2 Kings 23.24. 2 Chron. 16.40.30.16.31.3, 21 but from this, that the Law required them to do it, the directions whereof they preferred before any particular ſuggeſtions whatſoever. Though they had Prophets by them, nay though ſome of them were Prophets themſelves, yet unleſs it were in ſome ſpecial, extraordinary caſes they kept to the Law, and followed the directions thereof. 2. What is here objected againſt the power of Magiſtrates in the time of the Old Teſtament, may alſo be objected againſt the power of Prieſts, concerning whom it may as well be ſaid, that they had Prophets to adviſe with, and that therefore what they did in reforming the Church, is of no force to us. Which conſequence I know will be thought unſound and weak, and yet if we admit the former, I ſee not how we can withſtand it. Will it be ſaid, that the Prieſts had a ſtanding Law, to authorize and warrant their proceedings? I anſwer, ſo had the Magistrate as well as they. Or will it be ſaid, that that Law was granted to the Magiſtrate with reſpect to the Prophets, with whom he was to adviſe: What hinders but I may ſay the like of the Prieſts? Theſe Exceptions being thus removed out of the way, I ſhall go on with my Diſcourſe.
6. The Church of God hath all along acknowledged and taught, that this work belongs to Magiſtrates; and thereupon hath ſtill as there hath been occaſion and encouragement, Quomodo igitur Reges ſerviunt Deo in timore, &c. t. 2. Ep. 50. ad Bonif.called upon them to perform it. Augustine in that known place of his, is very clear and full. Speaking out of the ſecond Pſalm, of the duty of Kings, he thus expreſſes himſelf. How therefore do Kings ſerve the Lord in fear and trembling? No otherwiſe but by prohibiting and puniſhing thoſe things which are done against his command, He ſerves him after one manner as he is a man, and after another, as he is a King. As he is a man, he ſerves him by living religiouſly: as he is a King, by eſtabliſhing ſuch kind of Laws with convenient rigour, as do command things juſt, and forbid things unjuſt; even as Hezekiah ſerv'd him, by deſtroying the groves, and the temples of the Idols, and the high places which were built againſt his commandment; t. 10. de Serm. Dom. in Mont. Hom. 6. Item placuit ab Imperatoribus glorioſiſſimis peti, &c. Conc. Carth. 5. can. 15 See Corp. Conf. ed. Genev. 1654. part 2. p. 38, 90, 198. pt. 1.60, 146, 107 124.as Joſiah ſerv'd him, by doing the ſame things which Hezekiah did; as the King of the Ninivites ſerv'd him, by compelling the whole City to make their peace with him. Thus that grave and judicious Father; and yet as if this were not ſufficient, he ſpeaks more fully in another place, to which I referre you. Some years after this, the Biſhops aſſembled in the Council of Carthage, decreed, (as you have before heard) that the most glorious Emperors ſhould be intreated, that Reliques not only in Images, but in all manner of places whatſoever, groves or trees, ſhould be utterly demoliſhed. And the whole ſtream of Protestant Divines, in their publick Confeſſions, Bodies of Divinity, Commentaeries, Controverſies, do ſtill aſſert and maintain, that the defence of Religion, reforming diſorders in the Church, extirpating falſe worſhip, with all the appurtenances thereof, does belong to the Magiſtrate, and that he is to take care truely and faithfully to perform the ſame. To this purpoſe ſpeak the Auguſtan, Saxon, Helvetian, Bohemian, Dutch, Scotch, Engliſh Confeſſions. To this purpoſe likewiſe, ſpeak Pet. Martyr, Zanchy, Bucan, Baldwin, Loc. com. claſs. 4. c. 13. ſect. 31. vol. 2. col. 788. Loc. com. p. 763. Caſ. l. 2. c. 6. p. 177. Synops. pur The. diſp. 50. ſect. 40. t. 1. expl. decal. p. 1372. Syſtem. Maj. p. 1307. Defen. p. 519, 610 Tortura Tort. p. 364. De Jud. cont. p. 91. Againſt Milit. p. 109. Conf. with Hart, p. 586. Caſ. l. 5. c. 25. Due Right &c. p. 393. Jus Divin. p. 69. Ed. Rainolds Serm. of the Peace of Jeruſalem, p. 28.Polyander, Rivet, Wendeline, Jewell, Andrews, Davenant, Bramhall, Rainolds, Ames, Rutherford, with divers others of the greateſt and eminenteſt lights that theſe latter ages have afforded: which I mention the rather, becauſe there are ſome amongſt us, who look upon the Magistrate as a meer civil Officer, appointed only to take care of, and ſecure mens civil rights and intereſts, having nothing at all to do in matters of Religion. A great deal more might be ſaid in confirmation of the thing aſſerted; but what I have in theſe particulars briefly hinted, may ſuffice.
But perhaps you'l ſay, in caſe the Magiſtrate either though ignorance, error, ſlothfulneſs, wilfulneſs, or the like, refuſe to remove offenſive things, what courſe then muſt we take? Muſt we without his conſent, go and remove them our ſelves, or muſt we let them alone, and ſuffer them to remain as Snares and Engines, to intrap people, and draw them to ſin? Anſw. As for thoſe things to which we have jus dominii, a civil right, and over which we have a lawful power to diſpoſe of them as we pleaſe, we may remove them our ſelves; but as for thoſe to which we have no right, and over which we have no power, we may not do it. We may indeed, and ought to declare our diſlike of them, decline the uſe of them, admoniſh, perſwade, and intreat thoſe to whom they do belong to do it, ſhewing them out of the word, how unlawful they are, what others have done in the like caſe, and of what ill conſequence the retaining of them may be; withall, praying that our admonitions, perſwaſions, intreaties, may be effectual, and that God would open their eyes, to ſee the vanity of ſuch things, and incline their hearts to aboliſh them. This doubtleſs we may do, but to go and take them forcibly out of the Proprietors hands, and diſpoſe of them, as we ſee good, unleſs we have ſome ſpecial order, either from God, or the Supreme Magiſtrate under whom they live, we may not do it. What is ours, we may diſpoſe of as we pleaſe; but what is anothers, we may not meddle with it,Gen. 31.19. In modo peccare videtur primo quia aufert rem alienam quod eſt contra legem, &c, Pareus in loc. Dan. 3.18. except we be in ſome ſpecial manner impowered thereunto. Though Labans Images were (as the ſeptuagint calls them) foreign, Idols, yet was it not juſtifiable in Rachel to take them from him. Nebuchadnezzar's Image likewiſe, was an Idol, yea an abominable and filthy one, and upon that account Shadrach, Meſhech, and Abednego, juſtly refus'd to worſhip it, but yet they might not lay violent hands on it, neither did they offer to do it. And when Chriſt had offered up himſelf in Sacrifice to his Father, and thereby aboliſhed the ceremonial law, how many things in the Temple, did thereupon become uſeleſs and dangerous, and how ſadly did the Jews abuſe them every day, to the great prejudice of the Goſpel? Yet did not the Apoſtles for all that,Furioſorum Circumcellionum eſt ubi potestatem non habent, ſaevire. t. 10. de Serm. dom. in Mont. Hom. 6. Judg. 6.25. Si in alicujus preſbyterio in fideles, aut facultas (I ſuppoſe it ſhould be faculas) accenderint, aut arbores, &c. Can. 23. run into the Temple amongſt them, and demoliſh them, but contenting themſelves with the diſcharge of their duty, let… that work to whom it belonged. To go, and ſeize upon other mens rights, becauſe of their abuſe, is (ſaith Auguſt.) the property of the furious Circumcellions, who rage where they have no power.
Indeed Gideon though a private man, went into his Fathers ground, threw down the Altar of Baal, and cut down the Grove that was by it; but he did it not of his own head, but by immediate and ſpecial direction from God, whoſe bare command is ſufficient warrant in the moſt harſh and doubtful caſe whatſoever. Neither can it be denyed but the ſecond Council of Arles celebrated under Pope Sylveſter, made this decree, That if Infidels ſet up lights, or worſhip trees, fountains, or ſtones, in any Miniſters Presbytery, and he neglect to demoliſh them, he ſhall be guilty of Sacriledge. But this for ought that appears, was without foundation, either of Scripture, or right reaſon. As Religion do's not create dominion, ſo neither do's it destroy it. Though men by their abuſe of Gods creatures do forfeit them to him, yet not to us. Till he by a ſpecial grant had given the Iſraelites power over the Cananites and their Idols, they might no more deſtroy the one, than the other. And if mens own abuſe of their injoyments do not give us any power over them, how can we in reaſon think that others abuſe of them ſhould do it? It would be thought ſtrange Doctrine, if a Miniſter ſhould teach, that upon an Heathens or Papiſts paſſing through his Neighbours ground, and worſhipping his tree or well, he either ought or might thereupon go and demoliſh it. Should ſuch kind of Doctrine take place, it would make ſtrange work in the world. And therefore I conceive the Council ſuppoſed the having either of order from authority to do it, or the conſent of the perſons whoſe goods upon their being abuſed, were to be demoliſhed; otherwiſe, I know not how the Canon will be juſtified.
Notwithſtanding, Eccleſiaſtical History makes mention of many zealous and bold attempts of this nature, concerning which, mens opinions are various.Ad ann. 362. ſect. 34.318. ſect. 5.304. ſect. 12. Baronius tell us of Marcus Biſhop of Arethuſa, who in the reign of Conſtantius the Emperor, demoliſhed an Heatheniſh Temple, which rather than at the command of Julian, he would rebuild, he endured great torments; of Nicolaus, and other Biſhops, who threw down ſeveral Idols, with the buildings belonging to them; nay of Theodorus, a Chriſtian Souldier, who out of indignation to the Temple of the Mother of the Gods, Acts & Mon. ad ann. 1552.went and ſet it on fire. And Mr. Fox gives us an account of one William Gardiner an Engliſh-man, who in the year 1552, being at Lisbon, and there ſeeing a Cardinal in the preſence of the King, Prince, Nobles, and a great aſſembly of people, lift up the Hoaſt, and toſs it to, and fro about the Chalice, make circles, and play the fool with that Sacred Ordinance, he ſtept to him, and with one hand took the Hoast from him, and trampled it under his feet: and with the other, overthrew the Chalice; all which, notwithſtanding his ſevere tortures, he juſtified and defended to the laſt. Theſe were high and bold attempts, but whether warrantable or no,Haec privata exempla in regulam trahenda non ſunt, vol. 2. col. 406. In Galliis autem agnoſco non tantum imprudentia ſed, &c. Colloq. Momp. part. 2. p. 19. Condemnarunt tunc temporis, &c. Select. diſp. part. 3. p. 310. I leave to graver judgements to reſolve. As I would not ecclips the pious zeal of any of Gods faithful ſervants, who have with ſuch eminent reſolution, patience, and conſtancy, appeared in behalf of his truth, ſo neither would I have an hand in defending what is not according to the word. Zanchy ſaith, theſe private examples are no rule to us. Nay, divers learned and judicious Writers, who yet were far from allowing Idolatry, or any occaſions of it, have openly proteſted againſt, and condomned ſuch kind of proceedings, as irregular and unjuſtifiable. Upon the reformation in France, the people not waiting for the conduct of authority, ran into the Churches, and there pulled down images, altars, with other things of that nature: but Beza confeſſes there was much fin in it, as there uſes to be in ſuch prepoſterous actions, undertaken in time of War. And upon the reformation in the Low Countries, the rabble there did the like: but Ʋoetius declares againſt it, and ſaith, that the Dutch Churches did then, and do to this day, condemn it as ſeditious and diſorderly. We muſt take care that our zeal tranſport us not, beyond the bounds of diſcretion, and ſoberneſs. We muſt proſecute good ends by good means. To violate the law our ſelves, whiles we are endeavouring to vindicate it from the contempt and profaneſs of others, is to pull down with the one hand, what we build up with the other.