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
among them their very rites and customs are like ours they have Images in their Temples and their very habits agree with ours I desire T. G. once more to make use of his Friends kindness for Trigautius that he may see whether I have translated him right or no. In all this he mentions nothing of the Christian Religion but only the rewards and punishments of another world which most Nations of the world have believed and for their other resemblances much good may they do themselves with such parts of Christianity To these Bartoli adds the worshipping the Mother of God with a Child in her Arms their Penances Monasteries Nunneries nay their very Beads and Indulgencies And Semedo saith of their Priests that they wear their Head and Beards shaved they worship Idols they marry not they live in Convents 4 or 500 together they beg mutter prayers they sing they have several offices and prayers against fire tempests misfortunes and especially for the dead in which functions they use sacerdotal garments their Caps are like ours and their sprinkling brushes without any difference at all they eat neither flesh nor fish nor eggs neither do they drink wine But for this last cause of Fish and Wine I might have imagined he had been describing a sort of men much nearer home The same resemblances Bartoli finds and stands amazed at in Iapan here again he finds one Image with three Heads for the Trinity and forty hands to denote his power which they call Denix but he saith their Philosophers interpret it of the Sun Moon Elements and first Matter here they cross themselves but with a S. Andrewes cross and say their prayers exactly with their Beads of which they have 180 on a string and which is yet more observable they understand not one word of their prayers and yet they hope for forgiveness of their sins for saying them They have a kind of Ave-Mary Bell for the times of their prayers have pilgrimages to certain places and have great indulgences promised them for visiting them every year they have a Tribunal of general confession and Troops of persons who carry their Images in procession and have great honour to Reliques especially to a Tooth of Xaca at Meaco which they look upon as of mighty vertue being brought forth either to obtain Rain or Fair weather and which adds yet more cause of admiration they have a Pope too the Dairo whom he calls Zazzus who hath the chief care of Religion and of Canonizing whom he thinks fit and thence have the honour of Cami's or Saints he consecrates Patriarchs and Prelates who make Priests with a power of sacrificing with odors and of disposing the merits of Xaca and Amida for the benefit of the living and the dead Besides saith he they have multitudes of Religious Orders Black and Grey Eremitical and Coenobitical and Nuns which are very serviceable and kind to the Bonzii who shave their Heads profess coelibate abstain from flesh and fish and observe their hours of devotion to Xaca These things Bartoli saith he had from those who were eye-witnesses and had been long conversant among them But to increase the admiration yet more Greuber in his late account of his return from China A. D. 1661. by the way of Lassa or Barantola as Kircher calls it but Greuber himself Baranateka where he saith no Christian had ever been yet there he found Extreme Unction Solemn Processions worshipping of Reliques Monasteries of men and women bare-footed Missionaries and several other things which caused amazement in him but above all he wondred at their Pope to whom they give divine honours and worship his very excrements and put them up in Golden boxes as a most excellent Remedy against all mischiefs and to him all the Kings of Tartary make their solemn addresses and receive their Crowns from him and those that come near him kiss his Toe as Kircher saith and give the same adoration that they do to the Pope at Rome and saith he is only due to him which he looks on as a notable trick of the Devil to steal these customs from Rome and to carry them into such a remote part of the world where he little dreamed of being found out in his villany had not Greuber chanced to have passed that way from China I find these Authours very much puzzled what account to give of all these customs and ceremonies of theirs among Infidels and Idolaters Kircher runs back to Presbyter Iohn others to S. Thomas when alas they all came from the very same fountain from whence they came into the Roman Church viz. folly and Superstition And they do not want wit to defend themselves upon the very same grounds that they do as for instance in their worship of Images and Saints as they esteem them as most proper to our purpose Nicolaus Pimenta in his epistle to Claudius Aquaviva General of the Iesuits from God A. D. 1600. saith that when they disputed with the Brachmans about their worship they told them And we likewise worship one God as well as you and refer all the honour to him which we give to other things I would he had told us what answer he gave them but I find not a word of that neither can I see what it was capable of unless he told them that they lied And we have a considerable Testimony of an understanding Gentleman of Rome who had the curiosity to enquire strictly into the worship the Gentiles in India gave to their Deities that they have no other name to express their Deity but Deu or Deurù which are likewise given to Princes from whence he infers that the Gods of the Gentiles although adored and worshipped both in ancient and modern times were never looked on in the same degree with God the Creator of the Universe and wherein almost all Nations of the World have and do hold him some calling him the First Cause others the Soul of the World others Perabrahmi as the Gentiles at this day in India but the other Gods are and were always with them as Saints are with us of the truth whereof I have great arguments at least among the Indian Gentiles or at the highest they esteemed them only as men Deified by the Favour of God as Hercules Romulus Augustus c. Mons. Bernier when he was at the University of the Brachmans in Benares upon Ganges discoursing with one of the most learned men among them he proposed to him the Question about the adoration of their Idols and reproaching them with it as a thing very unreasonable they gave him this remarkable answer We have indeed in our Temples store of divers Statues as those of Brahma Mahadeu Genich and Gavani who are some of the chief and most perfect Deutas and we have also many others of less perfection to whom we pay great honour prostrating our selves before them and presenting them Flowers Rice Oyles Saffron and such
detests that opinion and calls the Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any corporeal figure or shape and therefore he proposes the objection of a Christian against him how it could then be proper to make any corporeal Images of them Why to that saith Iulian I answer the Images of the Gods are placed by our Ancestors as Signs and Symbols of their presence not that we should believe them to be Gods but that we should worship the Gods by giving Reverence to them For we living in the body ought to give them a worship suitable to our corporeal state 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but they are incorporeal So that Iulian did not look on Images as the proper likenesses of the Gods but as ancient and venerable Symbols of their presence in which he saith all Nations of the world were agreed and in all Ages Wherein he lashes too far but that is at least but a venial sin to stretch a little for the sake of so good a Cause And Iulian was not singular in this opinion of his of the fitness of corporeal Images although the Gods were not like them for Varro was of the same mind who gives this account of the first design of making the Images of the Gods like to men Quorum qui simulachra specie hominis fecerunt hoc videri secutos quod mortalium animus qui est in corpore humano simillimus est immortalis animi c. that the soul of man was most like the Deity and men made Images like to their Bodies just as if a Wine-vessel were put in the Temple of Bacchus to represent him intending thereby to represent first the Wine which should be in the Vessel and by the Wine him that is the God of Wine so saith he by Images of mens shape they signified the Soul contained within the body and by the Soul they represented God as of the same nature viz. the Soul of the World Porphyrie such another good Catholick as Iulian was in this point of the worship of Images doth not in the least suppose any similitude between the Shape of a Man and the Nature of God but he gives this account of representing the Gods in Figures like to men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They made the Gods like to men because the Divinity is a rational Being and withall he saith that many were wont to represent him by a black stone to shew that he is invisible Dio Chrysostome at large debates the case about Images in his Olympick Oration wherein he first shews that all men have a natural apprehension of one supreme God the Father of all things that this God was represented by the Statue made by Phidias of Jupiter Olympius for so he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before whom we now are and then describes him to be the King Ruler and Father of all both Gods and men this Image he calls the most blessed the most excellent the most beautiful the most beloved Image of God He saith there are four wayes of coming to the knowledge of God By nature by the instructions of the Poets by the Laws and by Images but neither Poets nor Law-givers nor Artificers were the best Interpreters of the Deity but only the Philosophers who both understood and explained the Divine Nature most truly and perfectly After this he supposes Phidias to be called to account for making such an Image of God as unworthy of him when Iphitus Lycurgus and the old Eleans made none at all of him as being out of the power of man to express his nature to this Phidias replies that no man can express mind and understanding by figures or colours and therefore they are forced to fly to that in which the soul inhabits and from thence they attribute the seat of Wisdom and Reason to God having nothing better to represent him by and by that means joyning power and art together they endeavour by something which may be seen and painted to represent that which is invisible and inexpressible But it may be said we had better then have no Image or representation of him at all no saith he for mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance but to come near and feel him and with assurance to sacrifice to him and crown him Like Children newly weaned from their Parents who put out their hands towards them in their dreams as if they were still present so do men out of the sense of Gods goodness and their relation to him love to have him represented as present with them and so to converse with him thence have come all the representations of God among the barbarous Nations in Mountains and Trees and Stones But if the quarrel be that I have given a humane shape to him for that saith he the Poets are much more to blame who began those things especially Homer who compared Agamemnon to God in his head and eyes but for my statue no man that is not mad would compare it to a mortal man much less to the perfection of the Deity and so Dio proceeds with a great deal of eloquence to shew how the representation of God by his Image was more decent and becoming God than that which the Poets had made of him and how he had endeavoured by the utmost of his skill to represent the perfections of the Divine Nature in the admirable workmanship of his Statue as to his power Greatness and Good Will to Mankind and concludes all with saying that as to his workmanship he thinks he hath gone beyond all others but yet no workmanship can be compared to the God that made the whole World Thus we see from the Testimony of these very considerable Authors the Wiser Heathens had no such foolish Imagination as T. G. supposes them to be possessed with viz. that the Images of the Deity which they worshipped were the proper likenesses of him and if T. G's Light of Nature and Common sense do sufficiently decide this Controversie it is very plain on which side the ballance inclines viz. towards Paganism against Christianity Macrobius saith that anciently they made no Image at all of the Supreme God as being above any representation but they made Images of the inferiour Gods although they were formarum talium prorsus alieni in nothing like to them The former Clause in Macrobius must be understood of the most ancient times before the Age of Phidias as appears by the foregoing passages and yet Porphyrie saith that the Aegyptians were wont to represent the Creator whom they called Cneph in the figure of a man of a dark blew Colour holding a girdle and a Scepter in his hand out of whole mouth came an Egg by which they represented the world as his production Not much unlike to this is the Image of the Creator in the Temple of Meaco in Iapan which is all over black with a Scepter in his hand and they likewise represent the world
the sense of the Christian Church that even an Image of Christ becomes a Rival when it hath Divine Honour given to it and T. G. himself will not allow Sacrifice to be offered to an Image and he denies from the Catholick Catechism although contrary to the Catholick Practice that they do pray to Images let us then suppose that men do pray and Sacrifice to the Image of Christ. Is all this only like the Wifes kissing the Picture for the Husbands sake If it be no more it is lawful and commendable to do them according to T. G's principles if it be more then an Image of Christ may have such honour done to it as makes it an Idol and consequently a Rival with God for His Honour And so the dispute comes to this whether the practices of the Roman Church in the worship of Images do not imply giving Divine Honours to them of which I have treated at large already 2. By this distinction men might say the Lords Prayer to Saints or offer up the Host to an Image so they were done absolutely to God and only Relatively to the Saints or Images T. G. being nettled with this tells me in some passion That I can no where contain my self within bounds of Mediocrity he shall see I can by not following his Extravagancy but he lets me know that the Church of God hath no such custom I do not ask whether the Church of Rome have any such Custom the Church of God I know hath not but whether it may not have that as well as some others and upon the same grounds of Relative Worship But if I must not understand this till I become a Proselyte I hope I shall be alwaies cntented with my Ignorance if I can be no otherwise informed I am not sorry to see such evidence of their inability to answer who make such put-offs Having thus passed through the several Charges drawn up against me I come in the last Place to consider his parallel Instances by which he hopes to clear and vindicate their Worship of Images To his first about the Chair of State and the third about the Iews worshipping towards the Ark and Cherubims I have answered already the fifth belongs to the Adoration of the Host. There remain only three to be examined 1. The Reverence shewed to the Ground by Moses and Ioshua 2. The bowing at the name of Iesus 3. The bowing towards the Altar If I can clear these from being of the same Nature with the worship of Images as allowed and practised in the Roman Church I know no shadow of difficulty which remains throughout his Book 1. To the Reverence shewed to the Holy Ground where God himself appeared by Moses and Joshua being commanded to pull off their Shoos I answered That whatever T. G. thinks of it there is some difference to be made between what God hath commanded and what he hath forbidden for in the case of Moses and Ioshua there was an express Command but in the case of Image-worship there is as plain a prohibition The former part he calls a short Descant on the former erroneous Ground and the latter a note above Ela. I am glad to see the second Commandment set to Musical Notes among them for I was afraid it had been quite cast out of their Churches 2. That the special presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it but this will not hold for Images unless God be proved present in them in the same manner as he appeared to Moses and Ioshua and yet even then the Reverence he required was not kissing it or bowing to it much less praying to it but only putting off their shooes Upon this T. G. being in a Musical vein sings his Io Paean and cryes out of the wonderful force of Truth that after long standing out makes all her Adversaries submit to her Power I wish we could see such effects of the Power of Truth for it would soon rid us of many Fears and Iealousies But what is it I have said so much amiss to gain T. G's good word Enough as he thinks to ruin our own Cause and establish theirs That were indeed confuting him with a Vengeance But what 's the matter wherein have I given up the Cause I yield that the special Presence and appearance of God doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree that we may lawfully testifie our Reverence towards it And what then Why then saith T. G. all my darts which I have so spitefully thrown in the face of the Images of Christ or the Holy Trinity and the Saints recoil with double force on my own Head How with double force nay how doth it appear that they recoil at all for to the best of my sight they stick fast where they did and I do not by my feeling perceive they recoil upon my Head Well but a subtle Logician would ask me whether this Reverence be absolute or Relative and he doth not question my answer would be that it was not to the Ground for it self but meerly out of a Respect to God Is this indeed the fatal blow I have given the Cause of our Church when I expresly mention a Command of God going before it and who doubts but we may give a Reverence to places with respect to God especially when God requires it as he did in this case And when T. G. hath made the most of this Ceremony of pulling off the Shooes he will find that it was of no other signification in the Eastern parts than having our heads uncovered is with us which is the lowest testimony of Respect that may be Yet this was all which God himself required when he was present after a signal and extraordinary manner and what is all this to the consecrating bowing kneeling praying to Images as they do in the Roman Church and this I say and have proved against an express Command of God and that not upon any real but Imaginary presence of the true object of worship He that cannot see the difference of these things hath some Cataracts before his Eyes which need couching But still T. G. demands is this the same Reverence that is due to God or distinct from it I say it is distinct from it then saith he Vasquez comes upon you wish his artillery for then you express your submission to an inanimate thing that hath no kind of excellency to deserve it from you Alas poor T. G how doth he argue like a man spent and quite gone That which Vasquez saith is that for a man to use all the acts of adoration to Images which are performed in the Roman Church without respect to the exemplar were to express our submission to an inanimate thing which is Idolatry Where it is to be observed that he speaks of all the Acts of Worship which in the Church of Rome they