who acknowledge one Supreme God As to the Heathens who are confessed to be Idolaters I have such plenty and choice of evidence in this matter that it is not easie to know which to leave out for if either the Testimony of the Heathens themselves may be taken or the Testimony of the Writers of the Roman Church concerning them or the Testimonie of the Scriptures or of those Fathers who disputed against their Idolatry or of the Roman Church it self I do not doubt to make it evident that those Heathens who are charged with Idolatry did acknowledge one Supreme God In so great store I have reason to consider the temper of the person I have to deal with For if I produce the Testimony of the Heathen Writers themselves it may be he may suspect that the Devil dwelt in their Books as well as in their Images and being a very cunning Sophister that he might perswade their Philosophers to write for one God that he might have the worship belonging to him as O. C 's Instruments were for a single Person that the Government might be put into his hands But I have a better reason than this viz. that this Work is already undertaken by a very learned Person of our Church The Testimony of Scripture is plain enough in this matter to any unbyassed mind as appears by S. Pauls saying to the men of Athens when he saw the Altar to the unknown God Whom ye ignorantly worship him I declare unto you Did S. Paul mean the Devil by this Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to the world yet he preached him whom they ignorantly worshipped i. e. the Devil saith T. G. Although S. Paul immediately saith it was the God that made the World and all things in it and afterwards quotes one of their Poets for saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For we are his offspring and it is observable that the words immediately going before in Aratus are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice more in the verses before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the very word that T.G. saith doth signifie an Arch-Devil Doth S. Paul then say we are all the Devils off-spring and not an ordinary one neither but the very Arch-Devils Was this his way of perswading the Athenians to leave the worship of Devils to tell them that they were all the Devils off-spring No it was far enough from him for he infers from that saying of Aratus that they were the offspring of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if Saint Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Iupiter was so far from being the Arch-Devil that he was the true God blessed for evermore And it is observable that S. Paul quotes one of their Poets for this saying notwithstanding T. G 's sharp censure of them out of Horace with which the force of S. Pauls testimony is overthrown But he was not alone in making this to be the Poets sense for Aristobulus the Iewish Philosopher produces it to the same purpose and adds that although he used the name of Jove yet his design was to express the true God Minucius Felix saith wisely in this case They who make Jove the chief God are only deceived in the name but agree in the Power so far was he from thinking their Iupiter Father of Gods and men which he applauds the Poets for saying to have been the Arch-Devil But T. G. quotes Origen for saying that the Christians would undergo any Torments rather than confess Jupiter to be God for they did not believe Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same neither indeed to be any God at all but a Devil who is delighted with the name of Jupiter an enemy to men and God I grant Origen doth say so but suppose St. Paul and Origen contradict one another I desire to know whom we are to follow Yet if T. G. had considered Origen as he ought to have done he would have seen how little had been gained by this saying of his For when Celsus had said it was no great matter whether they called the Supreme God Jupiter or Adonai or Sabaoth or Ammon as the Aegyptians did or Pappai as the Scythians Origen answers 1. That he had spoken already upon this subject which he desires may be remembered now in that place he saith that by reason of the abundance of filthy and obscene fables which went of their Jupiter the Christians would by no means endure to have the true God called by his name having learnt from Plato to be scrupulous about the very names of their Gods 2. Origen hath a particular conceit about the power of the Hebrew names and hath a very odd discourse unbecoming a Philosopher and a Christian about the power of words in enchantments and that the same words had great force in their Originals which they lost being translated into other Languages and if it be thus saith he in other names how much more ought we to think it so in the names of God And therefore he would by no means have those powerful names of Adonai and Sabaoth to be changed for any other By which for all that I can see Origen would as much have scrupled calling the Divine Being God as Iove If Vossius his conjecture be true that God is the same with the old German Gode or Godan and according to the common permutation of those letters Wodan who was the chief God among the Germans 3. He saith that it was no fault at all for any persons to call the Supreme God by the names used in their own language as the Aegyptians might call him Ammon and the Scythians Pappai and then why not the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I do not see he finds much fault with them for it but he would not have those names brought into the Christian Religion which had been defiled by such impure stories and representations among the Heathens which is the best thing that he saith to this purpose But we see that Origen himself doth not deny that either the Greeks or Aegyptians or Scythians did own a Supreme God or that they had proper names to express him by but he would not have the Christians bring those names into their Religion And that Origen grants that the Heathens did acknowledge the Supreme God will be proved afterwards But whatever his opinion was we are sure S. Paul by the God that was known among the Heathens did not mean the Devil For was the believing the Devil to be the Supreme God that holding the truth in unrighteousness which S. Paul charges the Heathens with Was this indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is known of God which he saith not only was manifest in them but that God himself had revealed it to them Was this that eternal Power and
God-head which was to be seen by the things that were made so as to leave them without excuse Was this their knowing of God and that incorruptible God whose glory they turned into the Image of a corruptible man c Was all this nothing but Iupiter of Crete and the Arch-Devil under his name But what will not men say rather than confess themselves Idolaters Although these Testimonies of Scriture be never so evident yet I am not sure but T. G. may be the Polus mentioned in Erasmus now whom he mentions for my sake more than once and may espy a red fiery Dragon even the old Serpent there where I can see nothing but the discovery of the True God Therefore supposing that the Testimony of Heathens or the Scriptures may not weigh much with him methinks he might have considered what the Learned men of their own Church have said to this purpose Th. Aquinas confesseth that the most of the Gentiles did acknowledge one Supreme God from whom they said all those others whom they called Gods did receive their being and that they ascribed the name of Divinity to all immortal substances chiefly by reason of their wisdom happiness and Government Which custom of speaking saith he is likewise found in Scripture where either the holy Angels or Men and Iudges are called Gods I have said Ye are Gods and many other places Franciscus Ferrariensis in his Commentaries on that place saith that Aquinas his meaning was that the Scripture only agreed with the Heathens as to the name but that they called their Gods properly so whereas the Scripture speaks of them only by way of participation And did Aquinas mean any otherwise of the Heathens when he saith that all their inferiour Gods derived their very being from the Supreme The same Aquinas in his Book purposely written against the Gentiles gives this account of their Principles of Religion that some of them held one God the first and universal principle of all things but withall all they gave Divine Worship Latriam next to the Supreme God to intellectual substances of a heavenly nature which they call Gods whether they were substances separated from bodies or the Souls of the heavenly Orbs and Stars in the next place to intellectual substances united to aerial bodies which they called Daemons whom they made Gods in respect of men and thought they deserved divine worship from men as being Mediatours between the Gods and them and in the last place to the Souls of good men as being raised to a higher state than that of this present life Others of them suppossing God to be the Soul of the World did believe that divine worship was to be given to the whole world and the several parts of it not for the sake of the Body but the Soul which they said was God as a wise man hath honour given him not for the sake of his Body but of his mind Others again asserted that things below men as Images might have divine worship given to them in as much as they did participate of a Superiour nature either from the influence of heavenly bodies or the presence of some Spirits which Images they called Gods and from thence they were called Idolaters And so he proves that they were who acknowledging one first principle did give divine worship to any other being because it weakens the notion and esteem we ought to have of the Supreme Being to give divine worship to any other besides him as it would lessen the honour of a King for any other Person to have the same kind of respect shewed to him which we express to the King and because this divine worship is due to God on the account of Creation which is proper only to him and because he is properly Lord over us and none else besides him and he is our great and last end which are all of them great and weighty reasons why divine worship should be appropriated to God alone But saith he although this opinion which makes God a separate Being and the first Cause of all intellectual Beings be true yet that which makes God the Soul of the World though it be farther from truth gives a better account of giving divine worship to created Beings For then they give that divine worship to God himself for according to this principle the several parts of the world in respect of God are but as the several members of a mans body in respect of his Soul But the most unreasonable opinion he saith is that of animated Images because those cannot deserve more worship than either the Spirits that animate them or the makers of them which ought not to have divine worship given them besides that by lying Oracles and wicked Counsels these appear to have been Evil Spirits and therefore deserve no worship of us From hence he saith it appears that because divine worship is proper only to God as the first principle and none but an ill disposed rational Being can excite men to the doing such unlawful things as giving the worship proper to God to any other Being that men were drawn to Idolatry by the instigation of evil Spirits which coveted divine honours to themselves and therefore the Scripture saith they worshipped Devils and not God From which remarkable Testimony we may take notice of these things 1. That he confesseth many of the Gentiles whom he charges with Idolatry did believe and worship the Supreme God as Creator and Governour of the world 2. That divine worship is so proper to the true God that whosoever gives it to any created being though in it self of real excellency and considered as deriving that excellency from God is yet guilty of Idolatry 3. That relative Latria being given to a creature is Idolatry for so he makes it to be in those who supposed God to be the Soul of the world And I desire T. G. or any other cunning Sophister among them to shew me why a man may not as lawfully worship any part of the world with a relative Latria supposing God to be the Soul of the world as any Image or Crucifix whatsoever For if union contact or relation be a sufficient ground for relative Latria in one case it will be in the other also and I cannot but wonder so great a judgement as Aquinas had should not either have made him justifie the Heathens on this supposition or condemn the Christians in giving Latria i. e. proper divine worship to the Cross. For there is not any shadow of reason produced by him for the one which would not held have much more for the other For if the honour of the Image is carried to the Prototype is not the honour of the members of the Body to the mind that animates them If the Image deserve the same worship with the person represented by it is not much more any part of the body capable of receiving the honour due to the Person as the
make so many addresses to the petty and Inferiour Deities This indeed was a thing to be wondred at and yet no doubt they thought they had as good reasons for it as T. G. gives why incontinent persons should rather make their addresses to S. Mary Magdalen in Heaven than to her Sister Martha or to God himself So the Roman women thought Lucina and Opis better for a good hour than Ceres or Minerva and Levana and Cunina for new born Children than Vulcan or Apollo and yet S. Augustin tells us many of them did not esteem these as any distinct Deities but only as representations of the several powers of the same God suitable to the conditions of persons but T. G. will not say that by S. Mary Magdalen he only understood the power of Gods Grace in converting incontinent persons but if he had he had given a much better reason of their praying to her yet even in such a case S. Austin thinks it were better to pray directly to God himself And the old Roman Matrons would have thought they could have directed such persons to Temples proper for them viz. those of Virtue and Chastity the one of which stood ad Portam Capenam the other in vico longo But I need not give such particular directions for I am afraid their Ruines are scarce left in Rome for neither Marlianus nor Alexander Donatus in their accurate descriptions of Rome can tell where to find them For our better understanding the controversie about Idolatry as it is represented by S. Augustin we are to consider that not only Scaevola and Balbus in Cicero but Varro and Seneca and the rest of their wiser men did with great indignation reject the Poetical Theology as they called it and wished several things reformed in the popular Religion and thought themselves as unjustly charged with the practises of the People as T. G. doth for their Church to be charged with all the ridiculous addresses that some make to Saints among them for Varro confesses that the People were too apt to follow the Poets as in the Church of Rome they are to pray by their Legends but they thought the people were better let alone in their fopperies than to be suffered to break loose from that subjection which their Superstition kept them in and with these S. Austin reckons the Philosophers with whom he saith the Question to be debated was this whether we are bound only to worship one Supreme God the Maker of all things or whether it be not lawful to worship many Gods who are supposed to be made by him And after he hath discoursed against Varro and those of his opinion who reduced all their Theology to Nature and made God to be the Soul of the World and the several parts of the world capable of divine Worship on that account in his eighth Book he undertakes those who asserted one Supreme Deity above Nature and the Cause of all things and yet pleaded for the worship of inferiour Deities he confesses that they had the knowledge of the true God and brings the several places of S. Paul mentioned in the entrance of this discourse to prove it and enquiring how the Philosophers came to such knowledge of him he first propounds the common opinion of the Fathers that they learnt it in Egypt meeting with the Books of Scripture there but he rather and with good reason resolves it into the natural knowledge of God for saith he that which was known of God was manifest to them for God had revealed it to them But it seems by S. Augustin that there were two opinions among them at that time about divine worship for some of whom he reckons Apuleius the chief were for the worship of Daemons although they acknowledged them to be subject to evil passions yet they looked on them as intercessors between men and the Gods and therefore to be worshipped but others who kept closer to the doctrine of Plato believed none to be Gods but such as were certainly good but were shy of declaring their opinion against the worship of Daemons for fear of displeasing the people by it and with these S. Augustin declares he would have no controversie about the name of Gods as long as they believed them to be created immortal good and happy not by themselves but by adhering to God which he saith was the opinion either of all or at least the best of the Platonists And now we are come to the true state of the Controversie as it is managed by S. Augustin in his tenth Book which is whether those rites of Religious worship which are used in the service of the Supreme God may be likewise used toward any created Being though supposed to be of the highest excellency and as near to God as we can suppose any creature to be And that this and this only is the state of the Controversie I appeal to his own words which I shall set down in the language he writ them that I be not blamed with artificial turning them to my own sense Hoc est ut apertius dicam utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo qui etiam noster est placeat eis ut sacra faciamus sacrificemus vel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos Religionis ritibus consecremus i. e. That I may speak plainly whether it be pleasing to them viz. good spirits that we offer divine worship and sacrifice to them or that we consecrate our selves or any thing of ours to them by Religious rites And this saith he is that worship which is due to the Deity which because we cannot find one convenient word in Latin to express it by I would call Latria as that service which is due to men is called by another name viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he gives this reason why he made choice of Latria to signifie divine worship in the Latine Tongue because the Latine word colere is so very ambiguous it being applied to the tilling of land inhabiting of places and therefore cultus could not so properly be applied only to divine worship nor yet ReligioÌ„ because that according to the custom of the Latins is applyed to other senses and the same reason he gives as to other names For my part I quarrel not at all with S. Augustins use of the word and think it proper enough to apply it in his sense which comprehends in it not meerly sacrifice but all those Religious Rites whereby we give Worship to God And nothing can to me appear more senseless than to imagine that S. Augustiâ—â— should here speak only of Soveraigâ— Worship proper to God in regard of his Supreme Excellency distinguishing that from an inferior kind of Religious Worship due tâ— created Excellency when it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supremâ— Excellency which was incommunicable to any creatures so that the dispute abouâ— Worship must suppose those
this first principle yet they all agreed in this that it was immortal and not only good in it self but the fountain of all good Which surely was no description of an Arch-Devil But what need I farther insist on those Authours of his own Church who have yielded this when there are several who with approbation have undertaken the proof of this in Books written purposely on this subject such as Raim Breganius Mutius Pansa Livius Galantes Paulus Benius Eugubinus but above all Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus who have made it their business to prove that not only the Being of the Deity but the unity as a first principle the Wisdom Goodness Power and Providence of God were acknowledged not meerly by the Philosophers as Plato and Aristotle and their followers but by the generality of mankind But I am afraid these Books may be as hard for him to find as Trigautius was and it were well if his Principles were as hard to find too if they discover no more learning or judgement than this that the Supreme God of the Heathens was an Arch-Devil But T. G. saith that the Father of Gods and men among the Heathens was according to the Fathers an Arch-Devil Is it not possible for you to entertain wild and absurd opinions your selves but upon all occasions you must lay them at the doors of the Fathers I have heard of a place where the people were hard put to it to provide God-fathers for their Children at last they resolved to choose two men that were to stand as God-fathers for all the Children that were to be born in the Parish just such a use you make of the Fathers they must Christen all your Brats and how foolish soever an opinion be if it comes from you it must presently pass under the name of the Fathers But I shall do my endeavour to break this bad custome of yours and since T. G. thinks me a scarce-revolted Presbyterian I shall make the right Father stand for his own Children And because this is very material toward the true understanding the Nature of Idolatry I shall give a full account of the sense of the Fathers in this point and not as T. G. hath done from one single passage of a learned but by their own Church thought heretical Father viz. Origen presently cry out the Fathers the Fathers Which is like a Country Fellow that came to a Gentleman and told him he had found out a brave Covie of Partridges lying in such a Field the Gentleman was very much pleased with the news and presently asked him how many there were what half a score No. eight No. Six No. Four No. But how many then are there Sir saith the Country Fellow it is a Covie of one I am afraid T. G 's Covie of Fathers will hardly come to one at last Iustin Martyr is the eldest genuine Father extant who undertook to reprove the Gentiles for their Idolatry and to defend the Christian worship In his Paraenesis to the Greeks he takes notice how hardly the wiser Gentiles thought themselves dealt with when all the Poetical Fables about their Gods were objected against them just as some of the Church of Rome do when we tell them of the Legends of their Saints which the more ingenuous confess to be made by men who took a priviledge of feigning and saying any thing as well as the Heathen Poets but they appealed for the principles of their Religion to Plato and Aristotle both whom he confesses to have asserted one Supreme God although they differed in their opinions about the manner of the formation of things by him Afterwards he saith That the first Authour of Polytheism among them viz. Orpheus did plainly assert one Supreme God and the making of all things by him for which he produces many verses of his and to the same purpose an excellent testimony of Sophocles viz. that in truth there is but one God who made Heaven and Earth and Sea and Winds but the folly and madness of mankind brought in the Images of Gods and when they had offered sacrifices and kept solemnities to these they thought themselves Religious He farther shews that Pythagoras delivered to his disciples the unity of God and his being the cause of all things and the fountain of all good that Plato being warned by Socrates his death durst not oppose the Gods commonly worshipped but one may guess by his Writings that his meaning as to the inferiour Deities was that they who would have them might and they who would not might let them alone but that himself had a right opinion concerning the true God That Homer by his golden chain did attribute to the Supreme God a Power over all the rest and that the rest of the Deities were near as far distant from the Supreme as men were and that the Supreme was he whom Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God himself which signifies saith Iustin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the truely existent Deity and that in Achilles his Shield he makes Vulcan represent the Creation of the world From these arguments he perswades the Greeks to hearken to the Revelation which the true and Supreme God had made of himself to the world and to worship him according to his own Will In his Apologies to the Roman Emperours Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius and the Roman Senate and People for so Baronius shews that which is now called the first was truely the second and that not only written to the Senate but to the Emperour too who at that time was Marcus Aurelius as Eusebius saith and Photius after him he gives this account of the State of the Controversie then so warmly managed about Idolatry that it was not whether there were one Supreme God or no or whether he ought to have divine worship given to him but whether those whom the Gentiles called Gods were so or no and whether they or dead men did deserve any divine honour to be given to them and lastly that being supposed whether this honour ought to be given to Images or no For every one of these Iustin speaks distinctly to As to their Gods he denies that they deserved any divine worship because they desired it and were delighted with it From whence as well as from other arguments he proves that they could not be true Gods but evil Daemons that those who were Christians did only worship the true God the Father of all vertue and goodness and his Son who hath instructed both men and Angels for it is ridiculous to think that in this place Iustin should assert the worship of Angels equal with the Father and Son and before the Holy Ghost as some great men of the Church of Rome have done and the Prophetick Spirit in Spirit and truth In another place he saith that they had no other crime to object against the Christians but that they did not
or these are not faithful servants to him by bringing in visible objects of worship by setting up Images and perswading men to make oblations and offer sacrifices to them And because it was so hard a matter to choke those natural motions of mens minds towards the Supreme God and Father of all therefore they endeavour'd to draw men farther from him by tempting them to all manner of impiety Whereas the good Angels we read of in Scripture always directed men to pay their honours and adoration not to themselves but only to the Supreme God and teach men that it is not fit to give them to any of his Ministers and Servants but these Deities of Iulian are willing to receive worship from men and their prayers and acknowledgements and praises and gifts and sacrifices where we see he joyns them all together as parts of that divine worship which is proper only to God But Iulian is very much displeased at the Second Commandment and would have been glad to have seen it struck out of the number of ten as some in the World have done because God therein expresses so much jealousie for his own honour Cyril in answer to him shews that this is no way unbecoming God to be so much concerned for his honour because mens greatest happiness as Alexander Aphrodisiensis said in his Book of Providence lies in the due apprehension and service of God By which we see that the controversie about Idolatry as it was hitherto managed between Christians and Heathens did suppose the belief of one Supreme God in those who were charged with the practise of it After these it may not be amiss to consider what the ancient Author of the Recognitions under Clemens his name saith upon this subject of the Heathen Idolatry he lived saith Cotelerius in the Second Century if that be true his Authority is the more considerable however it is certain Ruffinus translated this Book and thâ—â— makes it ancient enough to our purpose He brings in the Heathen Idolaters pleading thus for themselves We likewise acknowledge one God who is Lord over all but yet the other are Gods too as there is but one Caesar who hath many Officers under him as Praefects Consuls Tribunes and other Magistrates after the same manner we suppose when there is but one Supreme God he hath many other inferiour Gods as so many Officers under him who are all subject to him but yet over us To this he brings in S. Peter answering that he desires them to keep to their own similitude for as they who attribute the name of Caesar to any inferiour Officers deserve to be punished so will those more severely who give the name of God to any of his Creatures Where the name is not to be taken alone but as it implies the dignity and Authority going along with it and the professing of that subjection which is only due to that Authority for what injury were it to Caesar for a man only to have the name of Caesar but the injury lies in usurping the Authority under that name so the nature of Idolatry could not lie in giving the name of Gods to any Creatures but in giving that worship which that name calls for and yet this worship here is supposed to be consistent with the acknowledgement of the supreme excellency of God If we now look into the sense of the Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathen Idolaters we shall find them agreeing with the other Tertullian appeals to the consciences of men for the clearest evidence of one true and Supreme God for in the midst of all their Idolatries they are apt upon any great occasion to lift up their hands and eyes to Heaven where the only true and great and good God is and he mentions their common phrases God gives and God sees and I commend you to God and God will restore all which do shew the natural Testimony of conscience as to the unity and supreme excellency of God and in his Book ad Scapulam God shewed himself to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Iove Minucius Felix makes use of the same arguments and saith they were clear arguments of their consent with the Christians in the belief of one God and makes it no great matter what name they called him by as I have observed already and afterwards produces many Testimonies of the Philosophers almost all he saith that they acknowledged one God although under several names Arnobius takes it for granted that on both sides they were agreed that there was one Supreme God eternal and invisible and Father of all things from whom all the Heathen Deities had their beginning but all the dispute was about giving divine worship to any else besides him Lactantius saith there was no wise man ever questioned the being of one God who made and governed all things yet because he knew the World was full of Fools he goes about to prove it at large from the testimonies of Poets and Philosophers as so many had done before him and for T. G 's satisfaction he saith that Orpheus although as good at feigning as any of the Poets could not by the Father of the Gods mean Jupiter the Son of Saturn yet who can tell but such a Magician as Orpheus is said to have been might mean an Arch-Devil by him But I am sure neither Lactantius nor any of the Fathers ever thought so for if they had they would not so often have produced his Testimony to so little purpose And to the Greek Testimonies mentioned before by others Lactantius adds those of Cicero and Seneca who calls the infeririour Gods the children of the Supreme and the Ministers of his Kingdom Thus far we have the unanimous consent of all the Writers of the Christian Church against the Heathen Idolatry that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God S. Augustin tells us that Varro thought that those who worshipped one God without images did mean the same by him that they did by their Jove but only called him by another name by those S. Austin saith Varro meant the Iews and he thought it no matter what name God is called by so the same thing be meant It is true S. Augustin argues against it from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno but withal he confesses that they thought it very unreasonable for their Religion to be charged with those Fables which themselves disowned and therefore at last he could not deny that they believed themselves that by the Jove in the Capitol they understood and worshipped the Spirit that quickens and fills the world of which Virgil spake in those words Iovis omnia plena But he wonders that since they acknowledged this to be the Supreme if not only Deity the Romans did not rather content themselves with the worship of him alone than run about and
to their Gods but they have Temples for Heaven and Earth in Nankin and Pekim in which the King himself offers the sacrifice and in the Cities they have Temples for Tutelar Spirits to which the Mandarins do sacrifice as to the Spirits of the Rivers Mountains and four parts of the World c. and there are Temples to the honour of great Benefactors to the publick and therein are placed their Images Trigautius saith that he finds in their ancient Books that the Chineses did of old time worship one Supreme God whom they called King of Heaven or by another name Heaven and Earth and besides him they worshipped Tutelar Spirits to the same purpose with Semedo and the same he saith continues still in the learned Sect among them whose first Author was their famous Confutius to him they have a Temple erected in every City with his Image or his name in golden letters whither all the Magistrates every new or full Moon do resort to give honour to Confutius with bowings and Wax-candles and incense the same they do on his birth-day and other set times there to express their gratitude for the mighty advantages they have had by his Doctrine but they make no prayers to him and neither seek nor hope for any thing from him They have likewise Temples to Tutelar Spirits for every City and Tribunal where they make oblations and burn perfumes acknowledging these to have power to reward and punish Bartoli saith it is not out of any contempt of Religion but out of reverence to the Deity because of the excellency of his Majesty that they suffer none but the King to offer Sacrifice to him and accordingly the larger Power the Tutelar Spirits are supposed to have the greater Magistrates are to attend their service and the lesser those of Cities and Mountains and Rivers But that which is more material to our present business is to consider the Resolution of a case of Conscience not long since given at Rome by the Congregation of Cardinals de propagandâ fide after advising with and the full consent of the Pope obtained 12 Sept. 1645. Which resolution and decree was Printed in the Press of the Congregation the same year with the Popes Decree annexed to it and his peremptory command for the observation of it by all Missionaries and that Copy of the Resolution I have seen was attested by a publick Notary to agree with the Original Decree which case will help us very much to the right understanding the Notion of Idolatry according to the sense of the Church of Rome The case was this The Missionaries of the Society of Iesuits having had a plentiful harvest in China and many of the Great men embracing the Christian Religion by their means the Missionaries of other Orders especially the Franciscans had a great curiosity to understand the arts which the Iesuits used in prevailing with so many Great persons to become Christians and upon full enquiry they found they gave them great liberty as to the five Precepts of the Church as they call them viz. hearing Mass annual Confession receiving the Sacrament at Easter Fasting at the solemn times and Tenths and First-fruits besides they did forbear their Ceremonies of baptism their oyl and spittle in the ears and salt in the mouth when they baptized Women and giving extreme Unction to them because the jealousie of their Husbands would not permit them to use them but that which is most to our purpose is the liberty they gave the Mandarins in two things 1. To go to the Temple of the Tutelar Spirit in every City as they are bound by vertue of their office to do twice a month or else they forfeit their places and there to prostrate themselves before the Idol with all the external acts of adoration that others used and swearing before it when they enter into their office so they did secretly convey a Crucifix among the flowers that lay upon the altar or hold it cunningly in their hands and direct all their adorations to the Crucifix by the inward intention of their minds 2. To go to the Temple of Keum-Fucu or Confucius twice a year and to perform all the solemnities there that the rest did and the same as to the Temples of their Ancestors which are erected to their honour according to the precepts of Confucius because the Chineses declared that they intended only to give the same reverence to the memory of their Ancestors which they would do to themselves if they were still living and what they offer to them is nothing but what they would give them if they were alive without any intention to beg any thing from them when they know them to be dead and the same allowance they gave as to the Images of their Ancestors about which many Ceremonies were used by them The Missionaries of S. Francis order being well informed of the Truth of these things from the Philippines they send a Memorial to the King of Spain concerning them who by his Ambassador represents it to the Pope whereupon the Congregation of Cardinals was called and after great deliberation and advising with the Pope about it they made their Decree wherein they by several resolutions declare it unlawful upon any of those pretences to use acts in themselves unlawful and superstitious although directed by their intention to the worship of the true God And lest any should imagine it was only matter of scandal which they stood upon as T. G. doth about worshipping towards the Sun they make use of several expressions on purpose to exclude this for so they resolve the seventh Quere nullatenus licere it is by no means lawful and the eighth nullo praetextu under no pretence whatsoever and to the ninth expresly that it could not be salved propter absentiam gentilium if there were no gentiles present from this Resolution we may observe several things to our purpose That Idolatry is consistent with the belief of the Supreme God and reserving soveraign worship as due only to him For the Congregation calls the Image of the Tutelar Spirit an Idol and consequently the act of adoration must be Idolatry yet it is very clear that the Chineses especially the Christians did never intend to give to the Tutelar Spirit the honour proper to the Supreme Deity And Bartoli hath at large proved that the Chineses did of old acknowledge the true God and his Providence over the World and that their Princes do worship the same God still to whom they offer Sacrifice and they call him by two names Scianti which signifies supreme Monarch and Tienciù Lord of Heaven and as he tells us they put an apparent difference between Tienciù and Tienscin i. e. between God and Angels and say that the power of forgiving sins belongs only to God and not to them that upon a debate among the Missionaries about the use of these words for the true God and some scruples raised from some
and honour is to be given to them and therefore he cannot but wonder what I meant by alledging those Testimonies unless I intend not any worship at all to be due to any besides God or that I think it not possible to worship a good man And afterwards he saith he would willingly understand yet farther whether I allow any honour at all to be due to Princes as Gods Vicegerents for he doth not remember hitherto any passage in my Book from whence he could gather that I hold it lawful to give any worship either to Princes Statues or to themselves Which words have such a venemous insinuation in them that I could hardly believe they could come from a man of the least common ingenuity Because I deny Religious worship to be given to any besides God himself must I therefore be represented as a man that denyes Civil worship to be given to Princes I cannot tell whether the folly or malice of such an insinuation be the greater I pray God help his understanding and forgive his ill will I hope all acts do not go whither they are intended but that which he designs for my dishonour may notwithstanding his intention terminate in his own I do assure him I am so much for the utmost civil worship to be given to Princes as Gods Vicegerents as not to think it in the power of any Bishop in the World to depose them or absolve their subjects from obedience to them and I hope T. G. thinks so too although he may not think it so fit to declare his mind But what is all this to our present business The force of my argument lay in this the Christians denyed giving Religious worship to Princes although it were an inferiour kind of Religious worship therefore they did not think an inferiour kind of Religious worship lawful Was this argument too hot for his fingers so that assoon as he touched it he runs away and frets and fumes and vents his spight against me for it However I will urge it again and again till I receive a better answer T. G. saith the Fathers speak only of the Soveraign worship that is due only to God and that is the worship they think unlawful to give to any creature I say it is impossible that should be their sense for they deny it to be lawful to give Religious worship to Princes when they were required to do it but no men ever took Princes for the Supream God T. G. tells me that Tertullian explains Theophilus and Justin saying that the King is then to be honoured when he keeps himself within his own Sphere and abstains from divine honours Very well this is that I aim at and he need not wonder what I brought these testimonies for for it was for this very thing which Tertullian saith that the Christians did refuse to give divine honours to Princes and therefore they thought divine worship comprehended under it all sorts of Religious worship But saith T. G. it is a thing notoriously known that many of the Heathen Emperours exacted to be worshipped as Gods that is with divine worship I grant all this and say that it still proves what I intend For did they mean by worshipping them as Gods that they would have the people believe them to be the Supream God that is madness and folly to suppose for the utmost they required was to be worshipped with the same worship that Deified men were or to have the same worship living which the Senate was wont to decree to them when they were dead And can T. G. possibly believe that this was to suppose them to be the sole Authors of all good to mankind which is that kind of divine worship he saith the Fathers only condemned I desire T. G. to think again of this matter and I dare say he will see more cause to wonder at his own answer than at my argument which so evidently overthrows all that he brings to evade the Testimonies of the Fathers But saith T. G. if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents why may not Saints as the adopted Children of God Who denyes this for Gods sake but I deny that either Kings or Saints are to have divine worship given to them And since T. G. is in the humour of asking me Questions let me propose one to him if Kings may be honoured as Gods Vicegerents why not with divine honour upon his principles i. e. with a relative Latria though not absolute And if that be lawful what he thinks of the primitive Christians who chose to dye rather than to give divine worship to them upon any account By this time I hope T. G. is ashamed of what he adds that on the same principles that I deny any worship to be due to Saints a Quaker would prove that it must be denyed to Princes The worship I deny to Saints is that which God hath denyed to them viz. Divine worship the worship I say is due to Princes is that which God hath required to be given them viz. civil worship And they that cannot find out a difference between these two are a fit match for the Quakers I know not what a Quaker might do in this matter I am sure T. G. doth nothing but trifle in it Was there ever a meaner argument came out of the mouth of a Quaker that what he urges against me viz. that in such a Book printed in such a place and just in such a page I call a Divine of our Nation Reverend and Learned and what then therefore Saints are to be worshipped very extraordinary I confess and one of T. G's nostrum's if he please let it be writ upon his Monument Hic jacet auctor hujus Argumenti for I dare say no body ever used it before him If we give men titles of respect according to their Age and Calling or real worth therefore we are to give Religious worship to Saints and why not as well to Princes because we call the Iudges appointed by them the Reverend Iudges but surely this will prove not only a dulia but an hyperdulia because we not only call the Clergy Reverend but the Bishops Right Reverend and Archbishops Most Reverend I am sorry T. G. did not so well consider the force of his argument to have pressed it home upon me for he now sees how much more advantage might have been made by it but it is an easie thing to add to rare inventions But certainly T. G. to use his own words must believe his Readers to be all stark blind who cannot distinguish titles of respect from Religious worship But is there not a Reverence due to Persons for their Piety as well as for their Age and Dignity who doubts it but that Reverence lyes in the due expressions of honour and esteem towards them which I hope may be done without encroaching upon the Acts of Religious worship and I think I have told him plainly enough what I mean by them in the
because in some he may see Moses painted with Horns on his Forehead I do not think our Church ever determined that Moses should have horns any more than it appointed such an Hieroglyphical Representation of God Is our Church the only place in the World where the Painters have lost their old priviledge quidlibet audendi There needs no great atonement to be made between the Church of England and me in this matter for the Church of England declares in the Book of Homilies that the Images of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost are expresly forbidden and condemned by these very Scriptures I mentioned For how can God a most pure Spirit whom man never saw be expressed by a gross body or visible similitude or how can the infinite Majesty and Greatness of God incomprehensible to mans mind much more not able to be compassed with the sense be expressed in an Image With more to the same purpose by which our Church declares as plainly as possible that all Images of God are a disparagement to the Divine Nature therefore let T. G. make amends to our Church of England for this and other affronts he hath put upon her Here is nothing of the Test of Reason or Honesty in all this let us see whether it lies in what follows 2. He saith That Images of God may be considered two waies either as made to represent the Divinity it self or Analogically this distinction I have already fully examined and shewed it to be neither fit for Pulpit nor Schools and that all Images of God are condemned by the Nicene Fathers themselves as dishonourable to Him 3. He saith That the Reason of the Law was to keep them in their duty of giving Soveraign Worship to God alone by restraining them from Idolatry This is now the Severe Test that my Reason cannot stand before And was it indeed only Soveraign worship to God that was required by the Law to restrain them from Idolatry Doth this appear to return his own words in the Law it self or in the Preface or in the Commination against the transgressors of it if in none of these places nor any where else in Scripture methinks it is somewhat hard venturing upon this distinction of Soveraign and inferiour worship when the words are so general Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And if God be so jealous a God in this matter of worship he will not be put off with idle distinctions of vain men that have no colour or pretence from the Law for whether the worship be supreme or inferiour it is worship and whether it be one or the other do they not bow down to Images and what can be forbidden in more express words than these are But T. G. proves his assertion 1. From the Preface of the Law because the Reason there assigned is I am the Lord thy God therefore Soveraign honour is only to be given to me and to none besides me Or as I think it is better expressed in the following words Thou shalt have no other Gods but me and who denies or doubts of this but what is this to the Second Commandment Yes saith T. G. The same reason is enforced from Gods jealousie of his honor very well of His Soveraign Honour but provided that supreme worship be reserved to Him He doth not regard an inferiour worship being given to Images Might not T. G. as well have explained the First Commandment after the same manner Thou shalt have no other Soveraign Gods besides me but inferiour and subordinate Deities you may have as many as you please notwithstanding the Reason of the Law which T. G. thus paraphrases I am the only supreme and super-excellent Being above all and over all to whom therefore Soveraign Honour is only to be given and to none besides me Very true say the Heathen Idolaters we yield you every word of this and why then do you charge us with Idolatry Thus by the admirable Test of T. G's reason the Heathen Idolaters are excused from the breach of the First Commandment as well as the Papists from the breach of the Second 2. He proves it from the necessary connexion between the prohibition of the Law on the one side and the supreme excellency of the Divine Nature on the other For from the supreme excellency of God it necessarily follows that Soveraign Worship is due only to it and not to be given to any other Image or thing but if we consider Him as invisible only and irrepresentable it doth not follow on that account precisely that Soveraign worship or indeed any worship at all is due unto it Which is just like this manner of Reasoning The Supreme Authority of a Husband is the Reason why the Wife is to obey him but if she consider her Husband as his name is Iohn or Thomas or as he hath such features in his face it doth not follow on that account precisely that she is bound to obey him and none else for her Husband And what of all this for the love of School Divinity May not the reason of obedience be taken from one particular thing in a Person and yet there be a general obligation of obedience to that Person and to none else besides him Although the features of his countenance be no Reason of obedience yet they may serve to discriminate him from any other Person whom she is not to love and obey And in case he forbids her familiarity with one of his servants because this would be a great disparagement to him doth it follow that because his Superiority is the general Reason of obedience he may not give a particular Reason for a special Command This is the case here Gods Supreme Excellency is granted to be the general Reason of obedience to all Gods Commands but in case he gives some particular precept as not to worship any Image may not he assign a Reason proper to it And what can be a more proper reason against making or worshipping any representation of God than to say He cannot be represented Meer invisibility I grant is no general reason of obedience but invisibility may be a very proper reason for not painting what is invisible There is no worship due to a sound because it cannot be painted but it is the most proper reason why a sound cannot be painted because it is not visible And if God himself gives this reason why they should make no graven Image because they saw no similitude on that day c. is it not madness and folly in men to say this is no Reason But T. G. still takes it for granted That all that is meant by this Commandment is that Soveraign worship is not to be given to Graven Images or similitudes and of the Soveraign worship he saith Gods excellency precisely is the formal and immediate Reason why it is to be given to none but him But we are not such Sots say the
to Scripture or Reason or the sense of the Primitive or our own Church it might have prevented my writing by changing my opinion for I was no stranger to his Writings or his Arguments But he that can think the Israelites believed the Golden Calf delivered their people out of Egypt before it was made may easily believe that Mr. Thorndikes Book of 1662. was a confutation of mine long before it was written and upon equal reason at least I may hope that this Answer will be a Prophetical Confutation of all that T. G. will ever be able to say upon this Subject CHAP. IV. An Answer to T. G's charge of Contradictions Paradoxes Reproach of the second Council of Nice School disputes and to his parallel Instances UNder these Heads I shall comprehend all that remains scattered in the several parts of his Book which seem to require any farther Answer The first thing I begin with is the Head of Contradictions for he makes in another Book the charge of Idolatry to be inconsistent with my own assertion Because I had said that Church doth not look on our negative articles against the Church of Rome as articles of Faith but as infriour Truths from whence he saith it follows that their Church doth not err against any article of Faith but Idolatry is an errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith and therefore for me to charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry must according to my own principles be the most groundless unreasonable and contradictory proceeding in the World Upon my word a very heavy charge And I must clear my self as I can from it Had not a man need to have a mighty care of dropping any kind words towards them who will be sure to make all possible advantages from them to overthrow the force of whatever can be said afterwards against them Thus have they dealt with me because I allowed the Church of Rome to be a true Church as holding all the essential points of Christian Faith therefore all the arguments I have used to prove them Idolaters are presently turned off with this That herein I contradict my self Thus I was served by that feat man at Controversie I. W. who thought it worth his while to write two Books such as they are chiefly upon this argument and he makes me to pile Contradictions on Contradictions as Children do Cards one upon another and then he comes and cunningly steals away one of the supporters and down all the rest fall in great disorder and confusion And herein he is much applauded for an excellent Artist by that mighty man at Ecclesiastical Fencing E. W. the renowned Champion of our Lady of Loreto and the miraculous translation of her Chappel about which he hath published a Defiance to the World and offers to prove it against all Comers but especially my inconsiderable self to be an undeniable Verity I must have great leisure and little care of my self if I ever more come near the Clutches of such a Giant who seems to write with a Beetle instead of a Pen and I desire him to set his heart at rest and not to trouble himself about the waies of my attacking him for he may lie quietly in his shades and snore on to Dooms-day for me unless I see farther reason of disturbing his repose than at present I do But this charge being resumed by so considerable an Adversary as T. G. is in comparison with the rest I shall for his sake endeavour more fully to clear this whole matter When I. W. had objected the same thing in effect against me the substance of the Answer I made him was this 1. That it was a disingenuous way of proceeding to oppose a judgement of charity concerning their Church to a judgement of Reason concerning the nature of actions without at all examining the force of those Reasons which are produced for it This was the case of I. W. but ingenuity is a thing my Adversaries are very little acquainted with and therefore I said 2. There was no contradiction in it For the notion of Idolatry as applied to the Church of Rome is consistent with its owning the general principles of Faith as to the True God and Iesus Christ and giving Soveraign Worship to them when therefore we say that the Church of Rome doth not err in any Fundamental point of the Christian Faith I there at large shew the meaning to have been only this that in all those which are looked on by us as necessary Articles of Faith we have the Testimony and approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages and are acknowledged to be such by Rome it self but the Church of Rome looks upon all her Doctrines which we reject as necessary Articles of Faith so that the force of the Argument comes only to this that no Church which doth own the ancient Creeds can be guilty of Idolatry And I farther add that when we enquire into the essentials of a Church we think it not necessary to go any farther than the doctrinal points of Faith because Baptism admits men into the Church upon the profession of the true Faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost but if beyond the essentials we enquire into the moral integrity and soundness of a Church then we are bound to go farther than the bare profession of the essential points of Faith and if it be found that the same Church may debauch those very principles of Faith by damnable errours and corrupt the worship of God by vertue of them then the same Church which doth hold the Fundamentals of Faith may notwithstanding lead men to Idolatry without the shadow of a contradiction But T. G. saith That Idolatry is an Errour against the most Fundamental point of Faith What doth T. G. mean by this I suppose it is that Idolatry doth imply Polytheism or the belief of more Gods than one to whom Soveraign worship is due then I deny this to be the proper Definition of Idolatry for although where ever this is it hath in it the nature of that we call Idolatry yet himself confesses the true notion of it to be The giving the worship due to God to a Creature so that if I have proved that the worship of Images in the Roman Church is the giving the worship due only to God to a Creature then although the Church of Rome may hold all the essentials of Faith and be a true Church it may be guilty of Idolatry without contradiction But it may be I. W. in his Reply saith something more to purpose at least it will be thought so if I do not answer him I must therefore consider what he saith that is material if any thing be found so However he saith that if the Roman Church doth hold any kind of Idolatry to be lawful she must needs hold an Errour destructive to a Fundamental and essential point of Faith and by consequence a Fundamental errour
greatest occasion to do it in the matter of Images But when the worship of Images began to be opposed here in England by Wickliffe the defenders of it finding themselves concerned to find out every thing that made for their advantage Waldensis having heard of some such thing as a Council against Iconoclasts by Thomas and Iohn two Dominicans of his time from a certain Book he adventures to set it down upon their report but so faintly with ut fertur as if he had been telling the story of Pope Ioan and he saith it was called under the pious Emperour Constantius the second and Pascasius by which we may see what an excellent account they had of this General Council but in the last Century Pet. Crabb a Franciscan with indefatigable diligence searching five hundred Libraries for any thing pertaining to Councils lights upon the old Latin Edition of this Council and published it A. D. 1551. From that time this was looked on and magnified as the seventh General Council in these Western parts and its Authority set up by the Council of Trent and the generality of Divines finding it in the Volums of General Councils and there joyned with them search'd no farther but imagined it was alwaies so esteemed But it may be some will become confident of it when they see so good an Author as T. G. speaking with so much assurance That it hath been received for many hundred years as a lawful General Council If he speaks from the time of its being published he might as well have said for many thousand years For 1. In the Age wherein it was first sent abroad it was utterly rejected by the Council of Francford as not only appears by the Canon it self but by the confession of some of the most learned and judicious persons of the Roman Church such as Sirmondus and Petrus de Marcâ were and Petavius confesses That the Council meant by the Council of Francford was the Nicene Council and not the former of Constantinople as Surius Cope or Harpsfield Sanders Suarez and others were of opinion nay Labbé and Cossart in their late Edition of the Councils have most impudently set down this in the very Title of the Council of Francford That the Acts of the Nicene Council in the matter of Images were confirmed therein whereas Sirmondus adds this to the Title of his Admonition about the second Canon of that Council Quo rejecta est Synodus Nicaena all which Advertisement they have very honestly left out although they pretend to give all Sirmondus his Notes But the main pretence for this was because the words of the Canon do mention the Council of Constantinople which Petavius thinks was called so because Constantinople was the Head of the Eastern Empire but the plain reason is because the Nicene Council was begun at Constantinople upon the 17 of August but the Emperours Guards would not endure their sitting there as Theophanes relates upon which they were forced to rise and the Empress found out a trick to disband the suspected Officers and Souldiers and brought in new ones however it was thought convenient the Council should sit no longer there but remove unto Nice And what a mighty absurdity was this to call a Council which was begun at Constantinople the Constantinopolitan Council And it is observable that Gabriel Biel who lived in the latter end of the fifteenth Century quotes the Decree of this Council of Nice under the name of a Decree of the Council of Constantinople And the learned P. Pithaeus speaking of Anastasius his Translation calls it the Council of Constantinople The new French Annalist is satisfied with neither opinion but he thinks That another Council of Constantinople was called between the Nicene Council and that of Francford which did in express words determine that the same worship was to be given to Images which is due to the B. Trinity and that this was the Council condemned at Francford but this New Council is a meer invention of his own there being no colour for it either from the Greek or Latin Historians and in truth he pretends only to these reasons 1. Because it was a Council of Constantinople which was condemned 2. Because it is not to be supposed that the Council of Francford should condemn the Council of Nice For he saith it is not to be believed that so many Bishops the Popes Legates being present should misunderstand the doctrine of that Council yet this is all the refuge T. G. hath in this matter and he offers from Petr. de Marca to give a particular account of it To which I answer That the Author of the Caroline Book as I have already observed takes notice of this passage of the Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus and although there were a mistake in the Translation of it yet it ought to be observed that he saith the whole Council meant the same which Constantine spake out although in words they denied it and he there quotes the very words of their denying it Non adoramus Imagines ut Deum nec illis Divini servitii cultum impendimus c. From whence it is plain that the Western Church understood well enough what they said and what they denied but they judged notwithstanding all their words to the contrary that they did really give that worship to Images which was due only to God and no man that reads the Caroline Book can be of another opinion And T. G. is content to yield it of the Author of that Book from the Testimonies I brought out of him but he saith That Author was not contented with what the Council of Francford had condemned Which is a lamentable answer since Hincmarus saith That this very Volume was it which was sent from the Emperour to Rome by some Bishops against the Greek Synod and he quotes the very place out of it which is still extant in that Book And is it credible that the Emperour should publish a Book in his own name as a Capitular as Pope Hadrian calls it that was different from the sense of the Council of Francford which was called on purpose to resolve this Question about Images as well as to condemn the Heresie of Felix and Elipandus Petavius indeed would have the main Book to have been written some years before the Council as soon as the Acts of the Nicene Synod were known in these parts and Cassander probably supposes Alcuinus to have been the Author of it but when the Council of Francford had condemned the Nicene Synod only some excerpta were taken out of it and sent to the Pope I am not satisfied with Petavius his Reason Because the Pope doth not answer all of it a better cause may be assigned for that but in the Preface of the Book the Author declares that it was done with the Advice of the Council Quod opus aggressi sumus cum conhibentiâ sacerdotum