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
prayers as in their Fables although the Theatre and Poets have seldom erred on the right side in Religion yet it will appear to have been the practice of their Oratours upon solemn occasions to make a particular address to Iupiter O. M. especially in the beginning as not only appears by Pliny 's Panegyrick but by the Testimony of Valerius Maximus Nam si prisci oratores à Iove Opt. Max. bene orsi sunt and Cicero quotes it as the old formula of beginning their Orations Iovem ego Opt. Max. which himself practises in his Oration pro Rabirio but in other places reserves it for an extraordinary occasion Quo circa te Capitoline Iupiter quem propter beneficia P. R. Optimum propter vim Maximum nominavit and at the conclusion of his Orations against Verres Nunc Te Iupiter Optime Maxime c. but most emphatically pro Milone Tuque ex tuo edito monte Latiari Sancte Iupiter c. where the Feriae Latinae were kept And a little before where he speaks of those that seemed to question a divine Power he breaks out into those admirable words Est est profecto illa vis c. And to confute Servius his observation that they only invocated Jove in their exordiums because they attributed the beginnings of things to him we see they made their solemn addresses to Iove likewise in the conclusion Well Paterculus concludes his Book Iupiter Capitoline auctor stator Romani nominus and Pliny both in the beginning and end To praecipuè Capitoline Iupiter precor as he speaks at the conclusion of his Panegyrick But this was not only practised by Orators but by their Commanders in the Field as appears by that prayer of Vocula in Tacitus when he was in a great streight Te Iupiter Opt. Max quem per octingentos viginti annos to triumphis coluimus c. Thus we see that solemn addresses were made to the Supreme God by all sorts of person upon great ocasions but this was no◠the only way whereby they testified there devotion to him For they erected Altars to him as in that inscription which Manutius transcribed from the Marble HANC TIBI ARAM. JUPPITER OPT. MAX. DICO DEDICO QUE UTI SIS VOLENS PROPITIUS MIHI COLLEGISQUE MEIS c. As King Antiochus in Cicero dedicated his rich Candlestick made with admirable workmanship of Gold and Jewels in these words Dare donare dicare consecrare Iovi Opt. Max. testemque ipsum Iovem suae voluntatis ac Religionis adhibere In the old Roman inscriptions we find several vows made to Iupiter O. M. for the safety of the Emperours as in these I. O. M. PRO. SALUTE IMP. c. Sometimes they made vows for the return of the Emperours as in those of the Coss. Cl. Nero and Quintilius Varus for Augustus LUDOS VOTIVOS PRO. REDITU IMP. CAESARIS DIVI AUGUSTI PONTIFICIS MAXIMI JOVI OPTIMO MAXIMO FECIT EX S. C. They made these inscriptions to Iupiter O. M. in behalf of their Emperours because they believed them to be under his particular care tibi cura Magni Caesaris fatis data saith Horace Thence in the inscriptions JUPPITER CUSTOS DOMUS AUG And NUMINI DEORUM AUG JOVI OPT. MAX. AEDEM VOTO SUSCEPTO Q. LEPIDUS It were endless to repeat the Inscriptions that were made to him alone or to him under his several attributes that were peculiar to him as DEO QUI EST. MAXIMUS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or his other titles as CONSVERATOR CUSTOS STATOR 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or to him where he is distinguished from the rest of the Gods as in this I. O. M. ET CONSESSUI DEORUM DEARUMQUE PRO. SALUTE IMPERII ROMANI But these are sufficient to my purpose which was to shew that the Romans did express their devotion to the Supreme God in all their solemn Acts of Religion Of which there is but one part remaining viz. in the way of enquiring into the mind of God which they supposed was to be done by Divination And that they looked on this as a part of Religion is seen by Tullies dividing their Religion in Sacra in Auspicia in Monita Thence there were three chief Colledges of Priests the Pontifices who looked after the rites of sacrificing the Augures and Aruspices who were the Judges in Divination But the Colledge of Augures as appears by many passages in Tully had a very great esteem and authority in the Common-wealth so that nothing of moment was done without them and the younger Pliny calls it sacerdotium priscum religiosum sacrum insigne but the great reason of this seems to be that they were sacred to Iove thence they are said by Tully to be interpretes internuntiique Iovis Opt. Max. and Iovis consiliarii administri and the birds were said to be aves internuntiae Iovis and they who refused to hearken to them nolle moneri à Iove So that this sort of Priesthood was peculiar among them to him whom they believed to be the Supreme God And from hence we may understand the passage in Arrian where he blames the persons that came to the Augury with so much sollicitude of mind which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming to God to know his pleasure as to particular events which they did saith he observing the Augury trembling and crying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord have mercy upon me which is so plain a form of supplication to the Supreme God that Cardinal Bona brings this as a particular instance of the addresses they made to Him and as the common Litany of mankind Thus much I have thought necessary here to clear not only the acknowledgement but the worship of the Supreme God among the Romans I now proceed to other testimones of the Fathers in their disputes against the Heathen Idolaters Athenagoras made an address to the same Emperour M. Aurelius Antoninus in the behalf of the Christians wherein he doth at large assert the concurrence of the Heathens with the Christians in the belief of one Supreme God and proves it from the Testimonies of Euripides Sophocles Philolaus and other Pythagoreans and from Plato and Aristotle and the Stoicks concerning whom he adds that although they seemed to make many Gods by the several names they gave according to the difference of matter which the divine Spirit did pass through yet in truth they did assert but one God nay he saith farther that the generality of mankind were agreed in this whether they would or no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that there was but one God But then to the question why the Christians did refuse to worship Images He gives this considerable answer If God and matter were but several names for the same thing we might be charged with impiety if we did not believe stone 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
signifying Daughters implies the lesser Deities and Olla taal the Supreme God as the words signifie which he proves from Sharestanius that the old Arabs did acknowledge Abraham Ecchellensis speaking of the Religion of the old Arabians saith that those who were of the Sect of Chaled went upon this principle that there was one Creator and Governor of all things most Powerful and most Wise Besides these there were those who worshipped Intelligences or Celestial Spirits and these saith he although they confessed one Creator of the World most holy wise and powerful yet they said we had need of Mediators to him therefore they invoked those Spirits with all rites of Religious worship and these saith he were called the Daughters of God as they are in the Alcoran not much different from these were the worshippers of Images whom he describes as we have done before But he tells us there was a Sect of Dahritae among them whom he calls Philosophers who were meer Atheists and asserted the Eternity of the World and these being excepted he saith that the ancient Arabs did believe the creation of the world and he tells out of them their particular history of it But Ecchellensis was aware of the parallel between the worship practised in the Church of Rome and that among the Arabians supposing they acknowledged one true God and therefore puts the Qustion whether they did worship their Idols for Gods without relation to any Superiour or only took them for second causes and gave them the name of Gods only Analogically It was a question seasonably put but not so wisely answered For as if he had quite forgotten what he had said before he saith without all doubt the most of them looked upon the Gods they worshipped as of Supreme Authority and Majesty and Independent of any other What although they acknowledged but one Supreme God and called all the lesser Deities his Daughters Although all of them a very few excepted believed the creation of all things by one most Wise and Powerful Being But alas he did not think of this Question when he said the other things and he was not bound to remember them now but to say what served best for his present purpose to clear the Roman Church from Idolatry I will not deny then but there might be a Sect of Dahritae who did only in name own any thing of God and Religion that did assert the Eternity of the world and that there were no other Gods but the Sun Moon and Stars both among the Phoenicians and Chaldeans as well as Arabians but I say these were Atheists and not Idolaters those who where charged with Idolatry among them were such as believed a Supreme Deity but gave Divine Honours to Beings created by him The like is suggested by some concerning the Persians as though they attributed omnipotency and divine worship only to the Sun and those who take all things of this nature upon trust meerly from Herodotus or Iustin or other Greek and Latin writers may think they have reason to believe it but if we look into those who have been most conversant in the Persian writings we shall find a different account of them Iac. Golius in his Notes on Alferganus saith that the Persians gave the names of their Gods to their Months and Days according to the ancient Religion of the Persians and Magi whereby they did believe their Gods to preside over them for it was a principle among them as well as other Nations of the East that the things of this lower world are administred by Angels and accordingly they had their particular prayers and devotions according to the several Days and Months and not only so but their very meat drink clothing and perfumes were different and they had their Tables or Rubricks to instruct them And what worship they gave to the Planets was not saith he to themselves but to those Intelligencies which they supposed to rule them nay they supposed particular Spirits to rule over all the material parts of the world the Spirit over fire was called Adar and Aredbahist the Spirit over Herbs and Trees Chordad the Spirit over Bruits was Bahmen the Spirit over the Earth was Asfendurmed and so they had an Angel of Night and another of Death and the Spirit over the Sun was called Mihrgîan from Mihr the Sun whence the word Mithras but above all these they believed there was one Supreme God whom they called Hormuz and Dei and the Persian Writers say that Zoroaster appointed six great Festivals in the year in remembrance of the six days creation And to this is very agreeable what the Persees in Indosthan do to this day deliver of the principles of their Religion for they affirm God to be the maker of all things but that he committed the Government of the world to certain Spirits and they worship the fire as a part of God and call the Sun and Moon Gods great witnesses and the description of them in Varenius fully accords with this that they acknowledged one Supreme God every where present that governs the world but he makes use of seven chief Ministers for the management of it one over men another over bruits another over fire as is before described and under these they place 25 more who are all to give an account to the Supreme God of their administration With this account agrees the relation of Mandelslo concerning them who saith that the Parsis believe that there is but one God preserver of the Universe that he acts alone and immediately in all things and that the seven servants of God for whom they have also a great veneration have only an inferiour administration whereof they are obliged to give account and after the enumerating these with their particular charges he reckons up 26 under them with their several names but they call them all in common Geshoo i. e. Lords and believe he saith that they have an absolute power over the things whereof God hath intrusted them with the administration Whence it comes that they make no difficulty to worship them and to invocate them in their extremities out of a perswasion that God will not deny them any thing they desire on their intercession Schickard relates a particular story of the Persian King Firutz or Perozes which shews the acknowledgement of a Supreme Deity among the Persians in his time which was about the time of the Council of Chalcedon there happened a mighty drought in Persia so that it rained not for seven years and when the Kings granaries were utterly exhausted and there was no hope of further supplies he called his People out into the open Fields and there in a most humble manner he besought the great God Lord of Heaven and Earth to send them rain and gave not over praying till a plentiful shower fell upon them which saith he is another example after the Ninivites of Gods great mercy
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
believe the seasons of the year and the affairs of humane life to be managed by certain Spirits under him whom they endeavour to propitiate by certain rites of worship Leo Africanus testifies concerning some of the ancient African Idolaters that they worshipped Guighimo i. e. the Lord of Heaven which part of Religion he saith was not delivered to them by any Prophet or Teacher but was inspired into them by God himself Varenius takes notice of the false and imperfect description which is commonly given of the Religion of the Negroes and saith he understood by those who lived long among them that although they worship many Gods yet they acknowledge one Supreme whom they call Fetisso and believe him to be the Author both of the good and evil they receive and therefore endeavour to appease him by many Sacrifices Ceremonies and Prayers Mandelslo saith of the Inhabitants of Madagascar that he was informed that they believe there is one God who made Heaven and Earth and will one day punish bad actions and reward the good Ioh. de Barros saith that the Inhabitants of Monomotapa believe in one God whom they call Mozimo and if we believe him they worship nothing else besides him the same others say of the Mordui a people that inhabit the farther parts of Muscovy who declare that they worship only the Creator of the Universe to whom they offer the first fruits of all things even of their meat and drink casting some parts of them towards Heaven but they have no Idols nor baptism and say they live according to nature but Brietius saith they worship Idols or are Mahumetans Texeira and Pimenta say that the Sect of the Baneans called Lon Kah worship only the Supreme God without Idols but Mexery hath Idols and doth worship them Iosephus Indus a Native of Cranganor saith that the Gentile Idolaters there did worship the God of Heaven under the form of a Statue with three faces and his hands folded whom they called Tambram and he saith the King of Calecut is of the same Religion with them of Cranganor and Ludovicus Vartomannus saith that in Calecut they call the Great God Tamerani whom they believe to be the maker of the World but he adds that they believe him to live at ease and that he hath committed the Government of the world to Deumo whose Image they worship having on his head saith Vartomannus just such a Crown as the Popes of Rome have only it hath three horns upon it and the same is confessed by Iarricus The people of Narsinga likewise believe one Supreme God but worship Idols as the rest of the Indians do Linschoten gives this general testimony of them that although they worship the Sun and Moon yet they acknowledge one God Creator and Governor of all things and do believe the rewards and punishments of another life to be according to mens good or bad actions in this life But withall they worship Idols called Pagodes after such a terrible representation as we make of Devils whom they assert to have lived formerly upon earth and to have been famous for sanctity and miracles and to whom they address themselves as Mediators to the Supreme God for them The Kingdom of Siam is supposed to have been the ancient Seat of the Bramans from whence the Religion of the Indies did spread it self and here Schouten who lived long among them saith that the common perswasion of the Gentiles although different in other points is that there is one Supreme God who created all things and after him many inferiour Gods in Heaven that men shall receive rewards and punishments in another life according to their actions here And that this Religion hath been delivered down to them by the succession of many ages and confirmed by the Testimony of Saints whose memory they worship in their Images which they have set up like so many lesser Deities who have merited Heaven by their good Works The Ceremonies of their worship the nature of their Images the manner of their Oblations the customs of their Talapois or Friers are such that some few things excepted one would imagine no great difference between the Varelles of Siam and the Iesuits Church and devotions there M. de Bourges who hath given an account of the late French Mission into those parts confesses that their external devotion to their Images is extraordinary that they offer no bloody sacrifices but all their oblations are of the fruits of the earth and that they free themselves from the charge of Idolatry because they acknowledge and worship one God who is Lord over all and that their Images are intended to preserve the Memories of their Saints that by the sight of them the people might be excited to imitate their vertues And it is very true saith he that the Priests of Siam do thus answer the Christians who charge them with Idolatry and think themselves no more guilty than the Missionaries of the Church of Rome who charge them But he thinks he hath cleared the difference between them by saying that those of Siam are more uncertain in the belief of the Supreme God and defective in giving any peculiar worship to him and that they terminate their worship absolutely upon their Idols and ask of them those things which God alone can give As to the former we have seen the general consent of the Indians in the belief of a Supreme God which is no token of their uncertainty and that many of them did think internal worship most proper to him and for the latter if they suppose those Deities to be so by participation and subordinate to the Supreme I do not see how the difference is made appear between the addresses they made to their Saints by their Images and those made in the Church of Rome unless it be sufficient to say that the Pope at Rome hath only power to Canonize Saints and not the High-Priest of Siam And therefore Campanella very wisely confesses upon these principles the Heathens were no more guilty of Idolatry than themselves in case the persons they worshipped had real vertues and he doth not blame the wiser Gentiles but the common people who forgot the true God and worshipped their Varelles or Images with the worship of Latria which the Church of Rome likewise gives to the Cross but of these things afterwards If from the Indies the model of this Discourse would allow us to search into the Idolatries of these Northern parts we should find that the Nations which were the deepest sunk into Idolatry did yet retain a sense of one Supreme Deity Among whom we may justly reckon our Saxon Ancestors and yet from the Gothick Antiquities which have been lately published we have reason to believe that there was a Supreme God acknowledged among them too For in the Edda of Snorro Sturleson which contains the ancient Religion of the Goths the first
in another place he tells us what that worship did consist in which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which we are certain what he meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before and so he reckons up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the first place their prayers or supplications and then vows hymns oblations and sacrifices the giving of any of these to Saints were to worship them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not as the ignorant or wilfully blind Writers of the Roman Church when they meet with this word they cry out presently mark that not with Latria and presently imagine that what sense a word hath obtained among them if they meet with it in the Fathers it must needs signifie the same thing when the sense of words hath been so strangely perverted by them as will more particularly appear by this very distinction of Latria and Dulia which they make S. Augustine the Author of but have carried it far beyond his meaning I come therefore to consider S. Austins mind in this matter which I am the more obliged to do since T. G. so unreasonably triumphs in S. Austins opinion in this matter and is not only content to drag me at his Chariot wheels but he makes a shew of me and calls people to see by my example to what miserable shifts and disingenuous arts they are put who will shut their eyes and fight against the light of a noon-day truth when I first read these words I began to rub my eyes and to look about me and to wonder what the matter was and I find my self as willing to see light as another and my conscience never yet accused me of using disingenuous arts in dealing with them if T. G. can clear himself as well it is the better for him I am sure by standers have not thought so as appears at large by Dr. Whitby especially in his last Chapter against him But it is not my business to recriminate hopeing sufficiently to clear my self in this matter It seems I had said that S. Augustine denyes that any Religious worship was performed to the Martyrs this T. G. again saith I could not affirm without shutting my eyes and yet I thank God by the help of my eyes I find S. Augustin saying the same thing still For is it not S. Augustin that saith non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum let not the worship of dead men be any part of our Religion for if they have lived piously they do not desire such honours from us but they would have us to worship him by whom we may become partakers of their happiness honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem non adorandi propter Religionem Is it possible for any man to speak plainer than S. Austin doth that they are not to have Religious worship given to them but such honour as may excite us to an imitation of them And this not by chance or in some incoherent passage but in a set discourse on purpose where he argues with strong reason against the Religious worship of Angels as well as Saints to the end of that Book And saith the utmost they expect from us is the honour of our love and not of our service and therefore S. Augustin did not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 understand the service of Saints and Angels which he there disputes against from our happiness coming only from God our being the Temples of God the Angels prohibiting S. John to worship him and bidding him to worship God and that the very name of Religion is from tying our Souls to God alone Whosoever of the Angels loves God saith he loves me for worshipping him and he that hath Gods favour hath the favour of all that are good Therefore let our Religion bind us faster to one omnipotent God between whom and us there is no creature interposed with much more to the same purpose Is it not the same S. Austin that saith Haec est Religio Christiana ut colatur unus Deus this is the Christian Religion to worship one God and that for this reason because God only can make the Soul happy for saith he it is made happy only by the participation of God and not of a blessed Soul or Angel Not as though this were intended only against the expectation of our blessedness wholly from Saints or Angels but he makes use of this as an argument to prove that we ought to worship God alone who only is able to make us happy Is it not the same S. Austin that saith this is the character of the true Religion that it unites us only to one God without giving worship to any other Being how excellent soever and he looks on this as a divine and singular part of the Christian doctrine nullam creaturam colendam esse animae that no creature have the worship of our Soul what did he then think of praying to creatures not only with our voyce but our mind too as the Council of Trent saith it is profitable for us to do and not only for their prayers but for their help and assistance but saith good S. Austin the most wise and perfect man the most accomplished and happy soul is only to be loved and imitated and honour given to it according to its desert and order for thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Could any man speak more plainly and fully against giving any Religious worship to creatures than he doth Is it not the same S. Austin that tells Maximus Madaurensis that in the Christian Church none that were dead were worshipped and nothing adored as God that is made by God but only one God who created all things Here T. G. smiles and thinks to avoid this presently for S. Austin speaks of any thing being adored as God which they abhor to do but his smiling will be soon over if he considers what being adored as God there means for no one ever suspected that the Christians believed the Martyrs to be the Supream God but only that they worshipped them as Gods of a lower rank by participation from the Supream And is not the very same thing said and defended in the Roman Church that the Saints are Gods by participation and they have the care and government of the Church committed to them and on that account are worshipped and if this be not being adored as Gods in S. Austins sense I know not what is Is it not the same S. Austin that undertakes to prove against the Platonists that good Spirits are not to be worshipped per tale Religionis obsequium by such Religious worship very right saith T. G. not by the worship of Sacrifices but S. Austin saith neither Sacris nor Sacrificiis which two comprehend all the Rites of Religious worship which were then used For he makes use of several phrases to express the acts of Religious worship sometimes by joyning those two
expresly to the contrary Had it not become him either to have answered these Testimonies or not to have asserted that which these Testimonies most fully and clearly denied But he is content to take them upon my word I thank him for his kindness in it But doth he take them as true or false If as true then the Heathens did not worship their Images as Gods which he yet saith they did if he took them as false when I quoted them as true the kindness was very extraordinary and ought to be acknowledged If he had produced the Testimonies of Bellarmin Vasquez Suarez Valentia and others to shew that the Papists do not take their Images for Gods and I should say I took the Testimonies upon his word and yet asserted the direct contrary to them without so much as the least answering to what they said would not any indifferent Reader account me either impudent or ridiculous Yet this is exactly the case of T. G. for he saith several times in this Chapter that the Heathens did worship their Images as Gods whereas those Testimonies say as plainly as words can express it that they did not and yet these Testimonies he takes upon my word i. e. in common construction he believes them to be true and yet the matter contained in them to be false which is an admirable piece of T. G.'s art and ingenuity But to add yet more to his kindness at the same time he takes these Testimonies on my word he will let the Reader see what credit he is to give to my citing of Authors But why then will he take any upon my word if I have so little credit with him Herein he shews himself either very weak if he will take my word when he thinks I deserve no credit or very malicious if he knows I deserve credit and yet goes about to blast it as much as in him lyes But wherein is it I have exposed my reputation so much in the two Testimonies he hath fastned his Talons upon The first is that of Arnobius wherein I say the Heathens deny that they ever thought their Images to be Gods or to have any Divinity in them but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use. That which he charges me with is that by cogging in the word Divinity in the singular number I would represent it to the Reader as though the wiser Heathens intended to worship the true Divinity by those Images whereas all that they say in Arnobius is that they did not look on their Images as Gods per se of themselves but they worshipped the Gods which by dedication were made to dwell in them i.e. saith he by Magical Incantation by which the Souls of Wicked men were evocated and as it were tied to dwell in those Images as S. Austin relateth l. 8. de Civ Dei c. 23. 26. Hereupon he charges me very severely with soul dealing in putting Divinity in the singular number when the Infernal Spirits were meant by it as if they intended to worship the true God by these Images when they declared they worshipped false Gods by them A very heavy charge to which I shall give a distinct answer 1. To that of translating Divinity in the singular number T. G. may if he please take it upon my word or if not let him search the place once more that I translated these very words of Arnobius Nihil Numinis in esse simulachris that the Images have no Divinity in them and if these words be not in that very place and but two lines before those quoted by him Erras laberis c. I will venture my credit in citing Authors upon T. G.'s ingenuity but if they be there as most certainly they are what doth such a man deserve for so notorious fair dealing 2. My design was not to represent by this means that the Heathens only intended to worship the true God by Images but that the worship of Images was unlawful although men did not take the Images themselves for Gods so I said in the very beginning of those quotations that I would prove that the Heathens did look on their Images as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine worship Do I say of the True God Are not the words so general on purpose to imply that whatever Being they worshipped they looked on the Images as symbols or representations of it And after to prevent all such cavils I purposely added I do not ask whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their worship But what can a man do to prevent the cavils of a disingenuous Sophister 3. As to what he saith that what they plead in Arnobius is only that their Images were not Gods per se of themselves but by virtue of the Spirits dwelling in them I answer that T. G. charges the Heathen Idolaters with worshipping the Images themselves and saith that I deal very disingenuously in affirming that the Wiser Heathens did not worship the Images themselves Now what could be more pertinent to my purpose than to produce those very words of Arnobius You erre and are mistaken O T. G. in what you affirm for we do not think the matter of Brass Silver and Gold to be Gods or adorable Deities per se of themselves Whereby we see T. G's own words as he renders them out of Arnobius do sufficiently vindicate me and contradict him He saith they did worship the Images themselves and they say they did not What doth he mean else when he saith in other places that the Heathens worshipped their Images as Gods what is this but to take the Images themselves for Gods For he never once supposes it unlawful to worship Images on the account of a Divine Spirit being present in the Images supposing that spirit of it self to deserve adoration as suppose upon consecration of an Image of the B. Virgin she should manifest her self in and by that Image in speaking or moving or working miracles doth T. G. think it the more unlawful to worship such an Image no certainly but that men ought to shew more devotion towards it Therefore T. G. could not condemn the Heathens for the worshipping the Images supposing good Spirits did dwell in them Setting aside then the dispute about the nature of the Spirits all that he could imagine the Fathers had to condemn in those that worshipped Images was that they worshipped the Images themselves for Gods which the Heathens in Arnobius deny and which was the thing I produced that Testimony to prove Bellarmin whom my Adversary follows saith that the Heathens did take the Images themselves for Gods for which he gives some very substantial Reasons 1. Because their Priests told them so 2. Because almost all the world believed it This one would think were enough to justifie the belief of it having the Authority of their Teachers and Consent of Nations for it 3. The motion speech and oracles
that came from them 4. The humane shape it self which he saith is a very notable argument to make men think that Images live because men do especially he saith if it be said so by Wise men But whatever the reasons be he saith he would prove that the Heathens believed ipsa idola esse Deos the very Images themselves to be Gods Now what could be more contradictory to this assertion than those words of the Heathens in Arnobius are So that the Per se which T. G. charges me with leaving out adds rather more weight and Emphasis to the Testimony 4. After all this I say that Arnobius doth reject the worship of Images on such grounds as do hold against the worship of the true God by an Image For he brings that as the objection of the Heathens against the Christians that supposing they had never so right apprehensions of the nature of those Beings which the Heathens worshipped for Gods yet they were to blame for not worshipping their Images Nec eorum effigies adoramus saith Arnobius of the Christians which I beseech T. G. to remember are the words I translate for fear he should take the next words Templa illis extruimus nulla and then cry out there is no such thing as Images in the words that I have cogged in the word to serve my turn that this is setting up a flag in a Fireship Dolus an Virtus with such kind of laudable plain-dealing Nay Arnobius goes yet farther For saith he what greater honour can we attribute to them than that we place them there where the Head and Lord and King of all is to whom they owe the same acknowledgements that we do But do we honour him delubris aut Templorum constructionibus with Images and Temples So I render it without the fear of T. G's new charge of disingenuity for besides that the delubra were saith Festus wooden Images it is certain that afterwards according to Varro the most learned of the Romans when delubrum was applyed to a place it signified such a one in quo Dei simulachrum dedicatum est and in the old Glossaries it is rendred into Greek by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore to honour God sine delubris must be to worship him without Images and this was the reason why the Christians denyed they had any Temples because the Heathens supposed there could be no proper Temples without Images therefore in S. Hierom Sanctorum Basilicas in Templa convertere is all one as turn Churches into Idol Temples and both in Origen and Minucius the Heathens joyn those accusations together that the Christians had no Altars nor Images nor Temples and Vitruvius in the building of a Temple takes the greatest care of placing the Images that they may stand so that the Images may look on those who come up to the Altars And it appears by the discourse in Arnobius that they valued no Temples where there were no Images thence came the suspicion that Hadrian intended to worship Christ because he commanded Temples to be built in all Cities without any Images as Lampridius saith in the Life of Alexander Severus It is all one to our purpose whether Hadrian had any such intention or no for its being believed that he had from this Reason because the Temples were without Images is a most undeniable evidence that the Christians then did not worship God or Christ by any Images in their Churches After this Arnobius argues against the use of Images for this Reason if you believe your Gods to be in Heaven to what purpose do you make Images of them to worship cannot you as well pray to the Gods themselves But it may be you will say because you cannot see the Gods themselves you represent them as present by those Images But saith he he that thinks he must have Gods to be seen doth not believe any at all However say they we worship them through these Images And what saith he can be more injurious or reproachful than to know God to be one thing and yet to pray to another to expect help from the Deity and yet to fall down before a senseless Image which is like a man that should pretend to take advice from men and to ask it of Asses and Swine Is not that saith he not meer mistake but madness supplicare tremebundum factitatae abs te rei to fall down trembling before a thing made by your selves Besides this he argues from the matter form and design of them how ridiculous it is to worship Images and after exposing the other pretences of the Heathen Idolaters in the last place he considers this that the ancients understood well enough Nihil habere Numinis signa that there was no Divinity in Images T. G. sees I am for the singular number still and I think Numen is so too but that Images were set up to keep the rude people in awe which he saith they were so far from that they only made their Gods contemptible and thereby encouraged them more in their Wickedness I desire now the Reader to reflect whether these arguments are peculiar to the worship of false Gods and whether they do not with as much force hold against the worship of the true God by Images And if it be possible to suppose that a man that hath not the stupidity of an Image should object those things against their worship which would be returned upon his own and never provide in the least for any defence of it So that after all the loud clamours and insolent charges of T. G. we find that Arnobius himself doth fully prove that the Divinity cannot be worshipped by Images and that what the Heathens plead for themselves in him doth shew that they believed there was no Divinity in Images but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use. The next Testimony he charges me with foul-dealing in is that of S. Austin wherein I say the Wiser Heathens deny that they worshipped the Images themselves but they add that through them they worship the Deity After this T. G. sets down those words of S. Austin Videntur sibi purgatiores esse Religionis c. And because in the following expressions mention is made of the Corporeal Creatures or the Spirits that rule over them as worshipped by their Images therefore he charges me with great disingenuity in saying that the Heathens in S. Austin affirmed that through their Images they did worship the Deity and yet as it falls out these are the very words I translated in S. Austin Non hoc visibile colo sed Numen quod illic invisibiliter habitat and I now appeal to men of any common ingenuity what usage I have met with from this Adversary who passes by the very words I translated as near to the signification as possible and produces other passages and then Hectors and Triumphs and cryes out of my disingenuity when
to the supreme God inferiour worship to the Gods under Him and so proportionably till they came to their Heroes or Deified persons to whom they allowed the lowest kind and degree of worship For it is a palpable mistake in any who think they did give the same degrees of honour and worship to all Plutarch saith That Plato did put a difference between the worship of Coelestial Gods and Daemons and so did Xenocrates between the worship of Gods and good Daemons and those sowre and morose and vindictive Spirits which lived in the Air. Plato he tells us made it the office of good Daemons to carry mens Prayers to the Gods and to bring from them Oracles and other Divine Gifts and so their worship must be suitable to their imployment which is inferiour to that of the Coelestial Deities whose station and employment was more immediately under the supreme God Apuleius thus reckons up the order of Deities according to Plato 1. The supreme God the Author and Ruler of all 2. The Coelestial Deities spiritual immortal good and infinitely happy to whom the Government of things is committed next under God but because they supposed no immediate communication between these Coelestial Gods and men therefore they ranked between them and men 3. Daemons as Intercessors between the Gods and men who were subservient to the Coelestial Gods 4. The lowest sort of Daemons he saith are souls discharged of the body which if they take care of their posterity are called Lares or domestick Gods Lar in the old Hetruscan Language signifies a Prince thence the Lares are the Gods of Families and those who were good had the Title of Gods for honours sake conferred upon them as he speaks But he confesses That there was a peculiar honour belonging to the supreme God Cum sit summi Deorum hic honor proprius and him they did solemnly invocate as not only appears by frequent passages in Plato but by that of Boethius For as Plato saith we ought to invocate the divine assistance in the least affairs therefore in so great a matter invocandum rerum omnium Patrem we ought to call upon God the Father of all things Next after him they prayed to the Coelestial Deities which prayers the inferiour order of Spirits was to carry up and to bring down answers So that the addresses were made to the Coelestial Deities which the Aereal Daemons carried to them saith Apuleius to keep a due distance between Gods and men And although the other Platonists differ from Apuleius in the manner of reckoning up the several orders of inferiour Deities as may be seen in Alcinous Proclus Iamblichus and others yet they all agree in making one Supreme God the First Author and Cause of all things and therefore making an infinite distance between him and his Creatures and that there are several degrees of the Beings that are to be worshipped under him some as the Bestowers of Blessings but subordinate to the supreme and others only as Intercessors between the Gods and Men. Diogenes Laertius saith of Pythagoras That he charged his Disciples not to give equal degrees of honour to the Gods and Heroes Herodotus saith of the Greeks That they worshipped Hercules two waies one as an immortal Deity and so they sacrificed to him and another as a Hero and so they celebrated his memory Isocrates distinguisheth between the Honours of Heroes and Gods when he speaks of Menelaus and Helena but the distinction is no where more fully expressed than in the Greek inscription upon the Statue of Regilla wife to Herodes Atticus as Salmasius thinks which was set up in his Temple at Triopium and taken from the Statue it self by Sirmondus where it is said That she had neither the honour of a Mortal nor yet that which was proper to the Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any ask wherein the difference of these honours lay Lilius Gyraldus saith That the Gods were worshipped to the East the Heroes to the West Vossius thinks That among the Greeks and Romans it lay in having their Images carried in the publick Processions but without Sacrifices and their names put into the Saliar Hymns at Rome and inserted into the Peplus of Minerva at Athens Hesychius makes the honour of a Hero to lie in a Temple a Statue and a Fountain but Plutarch in the Life of Alexander saith That he sent to the Oracle of Ammon to know whether Hephaestion should be made a God or no the Oracle answered That they should honour him and sacrifice to him as to a Hero whence we observe that the material act of sacrifice as T. G. speaks might be common to Gods and Heroes but the inward intention of the mind made the great difference between their worship besides that which is expressed in the Inscription of Regilla viz. that the honour of one sort was looked on as a voluntary Act but the other was a necessary duty they might sacrifice and pray to the Heroes who were the Beati amongst them but no man was absolutely bound to do it but those who were devout and Religious would as Salmasius there explains the words of the Inscription And it is observed by the Criticks that among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are words of a different importance i. e. in the Language of the Court of Rome to Beatify and to Canonize For I perceive the Heathen Heroes did stand upon their preferment as well as the Roman Saints and those who had been Beatified a competent time came to be Canonized at last So Plutarch saith of Isis and Osiris Hercules and Bacchus that for their Vertues of good Daemons they were promoted to Deities and of Lampsaca That she had at first only Heroical honour given her and afterwards came to Divine It seems by the Inscription of Herodes and by the Testament of Epicteta extant in Greek in the Collection of Inscriptions that it was in the power of particular Families to keep Festival daies in honour of some of their own Family and to give Heroical honours to them In that noble Inscription at Venice we find three daies appointed every year to be kept and a Confraternity established for that purpose with the Laws of it the first day to be observed in Honour of the Muses and Sacrifices to be offered to them as Deities the second and third in honour of the Heroes of the Family between which honour and that of Deities they shewed the difference by the distance of time between them and the preference given to the other But wherein soever the difference lay that there was a distinction acknowledged among them appears by this passage of Valerius in his excellent Oration extant in Dionysius Halicarnass I call saith he the Gods to witness whose Temples and Altars our Family hath worshipped with common Sacrifices and next after them I call the Genii of our
Ancestors to whom we give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the second Honours next to the Gods as Celsus calls those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the due honours that belong to the lower Daemons which he contends ought to be given to them From which we take notice that the Heathens did not confound all degrees of divine worship giving to the lowest object the same which they supposed to be due to the Coelestial Deities or the supreme God So that if the distinction of divine worship will excuse from Idolatry the Heathens were not to blame for it 2. If this pretence doth excuse from Idolatry the Carpocratian Hereticks were unjustly charged by Irenaeus Epiphanius and S. Augustin for they are said To worship the Images of Christ together with the Philosophers Pythagoras Plato and Aristotle Wherein lay the fault of these Hereticks was it only in joyning the Philosophers together with Christ If that had been all it had been easie to have said That they worshipped the Philosophers together with Christ but they take particular notice of it as a thing unusual and blame-worthy that they worshipped the Images of Christ which they pretended to have had from Pilat which had been no wonder if there had been as many Images of Christ then extant as Feuardentius pretends viz. the Image of Christ taken by Nicodemus not I suppose when he came by night to our Saviour that at Edessa besides those which S. Luke drew of Him if there had been so many Images abroad of Him in veneration among Christians why should this be pitched upon as a peculiar thing of these Gnosticks That they had some Images painted others made of other matters which they crowned and set forth or worshipped as the Heathens did among which was an Image of Christ as Irenaeus reports it And supposing they had worshipped the Images of Christ as the Gentiles did worship their Images wherein were they to blame if the honour given to the Image be not the honour of the Image but of that which is represented by it And since Christ deserves our highest worship on this pretence they deserved no blame at all in giving divine worship of the highest degree to the Image of Christ. 3. The Primitive Christians did utterly refuse to worship the Images of Emperors although they were acknowledged to be Gods Creatures therefore I say according to their sense acknowledging the Saints to be Gods Creatures is not a sufficient ground to excuse the worship of the Images of Saints from Idolatry As in Pliny's Epistle to Trajan mentioned before one of the tryals of Christians was whether they would Imagini tuae thure ac vino supplicare use the Religious rites that were then customary of Incense Libation and Supplication before the Emperours Image this Minucius calls ad Imagines supplicare to pray before their Images which Pliny saith No true Christian could ever be brought to but would rather suffer Martyrdom than do it S. Hierome speaking of Nebuchadnezzars Image saith Statuam seu Imaginem cultores Dei adorare non debent the worshippers of God ought not to worship an Image Let saith he the Iudges and Magistrates take notice of this that worship the Emperours Statues that they do that which the three Children pleased God by not doing By which we see it was not only the Statues of Heathen Emperours which the Christians refused to give Religious worship to but of the most pious and Christian which out of the flattery of Princes those who expected or received Honours were willing to continue under Christian Emperours but it was at last absolutely forbidden by a Constitution of Theodosius of which I have spoken already in the Discourse about the Nature of divine worship But upon what reason came this to be accounted unlawful among Christians if it were lawful to worship the Images of Saints supposing them to be Gods Creatures Is it possible they should think the Emperours to be otherwise I do not think that the Souldiers who were trepann'd by Iulian to offer Incense to his Image at the receiving the Donative and after they understood what they did were ready to run mad with indignation at themselves crying out in the Streets We are Christians and ran to the Emperour desiring they might suffer Martyrdom for the Christian faith which they were supposed to deny by that act of theirs as Gregory Nazianzen and Theodoret relate the story did imagine that Iulian was any other than one of Gods Creatures or that they had any belief of his being a God but the Christians looked on the act it self of offering incense as unlawful to be done to the Image of any Creature or to the Image it self because it was a Creature and that of the meanest sort viz. the Work of mens hands 4. It is not enough for any of Gods Creatures to be worshipped under the Notion of Saints if any worship be given to them which is above the rank of Creatures i. e. any of that worship which belongs to God For none can have greater confidence of the Saintship of any Persons whose Images they worshipped those excepted which are revealed in Scripture than many of the Heathens had of the goodness of the Deities which they worshipped And if we observe the method which Origen S. Cyril S. Augustin and other Christian Writers took to prove them to be evil Spirits which they worshipped we shall find the great argument was from the Nature of the worship given to them For say they we find in Scripture that good Angels have refused that worship which they seem so desirous of and therefore there is just reason to suspect that these are not good Angels although they firmly believed them to be so and Hierocles saith God forbid we should worship any other And the Heathens in S. Augustin say peremptorily they did not worship Devils but Angels and the servants of the Great God So say I as to those who are worshipped under the name of Saints or Angels if in or at their Images such things are spoken or done which tend to the encouraging that worship which the Primitive Christians refused as Idolatry there is the same reason still to suspect those are not good but evil Spirits under whose name or representation soever they appear For it is as easie for them to play the same tricks among Christians which they did among Heathens for then they pretended to be Good Spirits and why may they not do the same still If we have a fuller discovery of their design to impose upon the world the folly of men is so much the greater to be abused by them and the Gentiles were in that respect far more excuseable than Christians because God had not discovered the Cheat and artifices of Evil Spirits to them so as he hath done to us by the Christian Religion Whatever pretence of miracles or visions or appearances there be if the design of them be to advance a way of
worship contrary to the Law of God we have the same reason to believe that evil Spirits are the Causes of them as the Primitive Christians had that evil Spirits were worshipped by the Heathens under the notion of Good 5. The Arrians believed Christ to be a Creature and yet were charged with Idolatry by the Fathers If it be said that they did give a higher degree of worship to Christ than any do to Saints I answer that they did only give a degree of worship proportionable to the degrees of excellency supposed to be in him far above any other Creatures whatsoever But still that worship was inferiour to that which they gave to God the Father according to the opinion of those Persons I dispute against For if it be impossible for a man that believes the incomparable distance between God and the most excellent of his Creatures to attribute the honour due to God alone to any Creature then say I it is impossible for those who believed one God the Father to give to the Son whom they supposed to be a Creature the honour which was peculiar to God It must be therefore on their own supposition an inferiour and subordinate honour and at the highest such as the Platonists gave to their Coelestial Deities And although the Arrians did invocate Christ and put their trust in him yet they still supposed him to be a Creature and therefore believed that all the Power and Authority he had was given to him so that the worship they gave to Christ must be inferiour to that honour they gave to the Supreme God whom they believed to be Supreme Absolute and Independent But notwithstanding all this the Fathers by multitudes of Testimonies already produced do condemn the Arrians as guilty of Idolatry and therefore they could not believe that the owning of Saints to be Gods Creatures did alter the State of the Controversie and make such Christians uncapable of Idolatry 2. I come to the second Period wherein Images were brought into the Christian Church but no worship allowed to be given to them And I am so far from thinking that the forbearance of the Use of Images was from the fear of complyance with the Pagan Idolatry that I much rather believe the introducing of Images was out of Complyance with the Gentile worship For Eusebius in that memorable Testimony concerning the Statue at Paneas or Caesarea Philippi which he saith was said to be the Image of Christ and the Syrophoenician woman doth attribute the preserving the Images of Christ and Peter and Paul to a Heathen custome which he saith was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. saith Valesius inconsideratè imprudenter contra veterem disciplinam incautè very unadvisedly and against the ancient Rules of the Church And yet to my great amazement this place of Eusebius is on all occasions produced to justifie the antiquity and worship of Images if it had been only brought to prove that Heathenish Customes did by degrees creep into the Christian Church after it obtained ease and prosperity it were a sufficient proof of it Not that I think this Image was ever intended for Christ or the Syrophoenician Woman but because Eusebius saith the people had gotten such a Tradition among them and were then willing to turn their Images to the Stories of the Gospel Where they finding a Syrophoenician Woman making her address to our Saviour and a Tradition being among them that she was of this place and there finding two Images of Brass the one in a Form of a supplicant upon her Knees with her hands stretched out and the other over against her with a hand extended to receive her the common people seeing these figures to agree so luckily with the Story of the Gospel presently concluded these must be the very Images of Christ and the Woman and that the Woman out of meer gratitude upon her return home was at this great expence of two brass statues although the Gospel saith she had spent all that she had on Physitians before her miraculous cure and it would have been another miracle for such an Image of Christ to have stood untouched in a Gentile City during so many persecutions of Christians especially when Asterius in Photius saith this very Statue was demolished by Maximinus I confess it seems most probable to me to have been the Image of the City Paneas supplicating to the Emperour for I find the very same representations in the ancient Coines particularly those of Achaia Bithynia Macedonia and Hispania wherein the Provinces are represented in the Form of a Woman supplicating and the Emperour Hadrian in the same habit and posture as the Image at Paneas is described by Eusebius And that which adds more probability to this conjecture is that Bithynia is so represented because of the kindness done by Hadrian to Nicomedia in the restoring of it after its fall by an earthquake and Caesarea is said by Eusebius to have suffered by an earthquake at the same time and after such a Favour to the City it was no wonder to have two such brass statues erected for the Emperours honour But supposing this tradition were true it signifies no more than that this Gentile custome was observed by a Syrophoenician Woman in a Gentile City and what is this to the worship of Images in Christian Churches For Eusebius doth plainly speak of Gentiles when he saith it is not to be wondered that those Gentiles who received benefits by our Saviour should do these things when saith he we see the Images of his Apostles Paul and Peter and Christ himself preserved in Pictures being done in Colours it being their custome to honour their Benefactors after this manner I appeal to any man of common sense whether Eusebius doth not herein speak of a meer Gentile custome but Baronius in spight of the Greek will have it thus quod majores nostri ad Gentilis consuetudinis similitudinem quà m proximè accedentes at which place Is. Casaubon sets this Marginal Note Graeca lege miraberis but suppose this were the sense of Eusebius what is to be gained by it save only that the bringing of Images among Christians was a meer imitation of Gentilism and introducing the Heathen customes into the Christian Church Yet Baronius hath something more to say for this Image viz. that being placed in the Diaconicon or Vestry of the Church of Paneas it was there worshipped by Christians for which he quotes Nicephorus whom at other times he rejects as a fabulous Writer And it is observable that Philostorgius out of whom Nicephorus takes the other circumstances of his relation is so far from saying any thing of the worship of this Image that he saith expresly the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 giving no manner of worship to it to which he adds the reason for it because it is not lawful for Christians to worship either Brass or any other matter no not
he makes more of his own For he saith these were Samaritan Sectaries who were more precise than the rest of the Iews and were much troubled at the Cherubims in the Temple and more at the respect which the Christians tendered to the Images of Christ and his Saints I never saw a more pittiful pretender to History than this Author who if he offers to add to or vary from his Original he makes the matter worse than he found it For not one of his Authors in the Margin say they were Samaritans but only Hebrews as Zonaras and Cedrenus his other Authors Elmacinus and the Chronicon Orientale have not one word about it where they mention Iezid the Chaliph of Arabia And yet granting they were Samaritans there is not the least ground for his saying they were more precise in this matter of Images than the rest of the Iews for Epiphanius himself whom he quotes suspects them of secret Idolatry in Mount Gerizim and the Iews generally charge them with it for they say they worship the Image of a Dove on Mount Gerizim which Maimonides affirms of them with great confidence and Obadias Bartenora with several others It was therefore very unhappy for this Historian to pitch upon the Samaritan Sectaries of all others as the Beginners of the heresie of the Iconoclasts And was it not luckily done to begin a History with so palpable a falshood But this was a pretty artifice to possess his Reader at the entrance that none but Samaritan Sectaries could be enemies to the worship of Images which he knew to have been the method of the second Council of Nice only he pursued it with greater Ignorance than they 2. By fabulous stories and lying Miracles Of the former we have many instances in the Actions of that famous Council but I shall only mention that out of the Limonarion of the pretended Sophronius about the Spirit of Fornication haunting a Monk who had an Image of the Blessed Virgin to whom the Devil said If thou wilt not worship that Image I will trouble thee no more But the Devil would not tell him this great secret till he had solemnly promised him he would reveal it to no body The Monk next day told it to the Abbot Theodore who assured him he had better go into all the Stews in the City than leave off the worship of that Image with which the Monk went away much comforted But the Devil soon after charged him with perjury the Monk replyed he had forsworn to God and not to him Upon which Iohn Vicar of the Oriental Bishops said it was better to forswear ones self than to keep an oath for the destruction of Images And concerning miracles it is observable that Tarasius confesses that their Images did work none in their dayes because miracles were for unbelievers and yet Manzo a Bishop there present saith he was cured of a disease by laying an Image of Christ upon the part affected Bellarmin and Baronius say the miracle of the Image at Berytus was done in those times and yet after the reading the story which made the good Fathers weep Tharasius saith those words which make this story by comparing these circumstances together appear a meer Fabulous imposture For in the Council of Nice the story is reported as written by S. Athanasius near four hundred years before but not only those Authors but Sigebert saith it was done A. D. 765. and Lambecius undertakes to prove that this story was never written by S. Athanasius But most remarkable is the passage which Eutychius the Patriarch of Alexandria relates concerning the occasion of Theophilus the Emperours extirpating Images out of Churches One of the Courtiers had told him there was an Image of the Blessed Virgin from whose breasts there dropt Milk upon her day but search being made the Cheat was discovered the Church officers executed and all Images prohibited If all the Impostors of this kind were dealt with after the same manner there would be fewer pretences to miracles wrought by Images than there are 3. By crying up those for Martyrs who suffered for the worship of Images and opposing the Imperial Edicts for pulling them down Thus Pope Gregory 2. in his Epistle to Leo magnifies the zeal of the Women who killed the Emperours Officer who was sent to demolish the Image of Christ called Antiphoneta and afterwards suffered themselves for the tumult they raised in the City But this was not the only Act of Zeal in the Women in this good Cause for as Baronius relates it out of the Acts of Stephanus extant in Damascens Works when a new Patriarch was set up in the room of Germanus they shook off all Modesty and ran into the Church and threw stones at the Patriarch and called him Hireling Wolf and what not One need not wonder at the mighty zeal of the Women in this Cause for as Pope Gregory notably observes on behalf of Images the Women were wont to take the little Children in their arms and shew them this and the other Image which contributed mightily to the infallibility of Oral Tradition when the Women and Nurses could point with their Fingers to the Articles of Faith elegantly expressed in Pictures which the Children did delight to look upon The great number of Martyrs in this Cause of which Baronius glories consisted chiefly of Women and Monks who were the most zealous Champions in it And the late Historian can hardly abstain from making the Empress Irene a Martyr in this Cause for in his Epistle to the Queen a Lady of so incomparably greater Virtue and Goodness that it is an affront to her Majesty to commend such an one to her protection he had the boldness to tell her that the only imputation which assaults those Princesses repute viz. Irene and Theodora was their piety in restoring the Religious use and veneration of holy Images to the Eastern Empire What can be expected from such an Historian who durst in the face of the World tell her Majesty so impudent a falshood For Zonaras Cedrenus Glycas Theophanes Constantinus Manasses although Friends to the worship of Images yet all accuse Irene of Intolerable Ambition and Cruelty to her Son the Emperour Constantine and to all his Kindred Nay Baronius himself who minceth the matter as much as may be saith That if she used those cruelties to her Son out of a desire of Empire as the Greek Historians say she did she was worse than Agrippina but Const. Manasses as zealous as any for Images makes her worse than a Tigre or Lion or Bear or Dragon for her cruelty and he can think of no Parallel for her among women but Medea And was not this an excellent Confessour at least if not a Martyr in this Cause a Person fit to be commended to her Majesties protection as one that suffered only under the imputation of her zeal for Images But if any be given up to
a Book no one suspects that his praise is therefore directed to his Book Thus it is in the acts of worship the Object is that Being to which the worship is directed but because external Acts must have some local circumstances by the position of our countenances and the tendency of our posture either towards Heaven or towards some place as the more immediate Symbol of a divine presence the difference is apparent between such a direction of the act towards a place and the direction of it towards an Object in case it can be made appear that may be a place of worship which is not an object of it For which we must consider 1. That the object of worship is that to which the worship is given either for its own sake or for the sake of that which it represents but a local circumstance doth only circumscribe the material act of worship within certain bounds And the proper object of worship is a Person either really present or represented as present The Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods if at least any considerable number of them ever did so it was upon this account that they supposed some Spirit to be incorporated in the Image and so to make together with it a Person fit to receive worship Those who worshipped the Elements or heavenly bodies did it not on the account of the matter whereof they were made but of those spirits which they believed to rule over those things they worshipped as I have already shewed in the general discourse But it is not necessary in order to an object of worship that the Person be really present for if men by imagination do suppose him present as represented by an Image that makes those who worship that Image perform the very same acts as if he were actually present and in the Church of Rome they do make this representation by an Image a sufficient ground for making that an object of worship which we say is the very thing forbidden in the Second Commandment viz. that any Image should be worshipped on the account of what it represents and therefore it forbids all kind of representations to be worshipped by men because an Image seems to have such a relation to the thing it represents that they may pretend they give worship to it on another account than meerly its matter and form viz. the thing represented by it Thus when the Reason of the worship of Images is drawn from the exemplar as it is both in the Councils of Nice and Trent they thereby shew that they do make the Image a true object of worship although the reason of it be drawn from the Person represented But suppose men worship God towards the West as the Iews did or towards the East as the Christians did what is there in this that doth represent God to us what is there that we fix our worship upon but only himself God hath no where forbidden men to worship Him towards the place of His presence for even our Saviour hath bid us pray Our Father which art in Heaven and supposing God had promised a more peculiar presence in His Holy Temple it was as lawful to worship God towards that as towards Heaven but that which God hath strictly forbidden is the worshipping of any thing on the account of the representation either of himself or of His creatures for this doth suppose that Image to be made the object of worship although it be on the account of what it represents 2. Supposing the same external acts to be performed towards an Image and towards a place of Gods particular presence yet the case is not alike in both these if those who do them declare they do them not with a design to worship that place For to the making any thing an object of worship there must be some ground to believe that they intend to worship it either from the nature of their actions or the doctrine and practice of the Church they live in but in case it be expressly declared that what they do is only intended as a local circumstance there is no ground to charge them with making it an object of worship Thus those in the Church of Rome who declare that they do not worship the Image but only worship God before an Image although they perform the same external acts of worship yet are condemed of Heresie because hereby they declare they do not give worship to Images which is contrary to the decrees of their Councils Much more certainly will those be condemned by them who declare it unlawful to worship any thing on the account of representation and that they do only determine the acts of outward worship towards a particular place without any intention to worship that place but only to worship God that way And this was the case of the Iews as to the worshipping of Images and of God towards the Holy of Holies they declared it utterly unlawful to do one because God had strictly forbidden it and they though it as lawful to do the other because he allowed the practice of it and it was sufficiently known among the people of the Iews that they had no intention to worship either the Ark or the Cherubims 3. Where there is only a local circumstance of worship the same thing would be worshipped supposing that circumstance changed but where any thing is an object of worship that being changed the same thing is not worshipped This makes the difference between these two easie and intelligible by all If a Iew should worship towards the East or Christians towards the West the same object of their worship continues still for they worship the same God both waies but if the Image of Christ or the B. Virgin be taken away from the Altar a Papist cannot be said to worship the same thing there that he did before Which plainly shews that there is a real difference between these two which is of great moment to clear the Iewish worship of God towards his holy place and to shew how different it was from the worship of Images 2. But T. G. pretends to bring clear Scripture for the Iews worshipping the Ark Adore ye the foot-stool of God for it is holy Psal. 98.5 so all the ancient Fathers he saith read it without scruple and S. Hierome he saith confirms it And why was it placed in the Holy of Holies and why were the people commanded to adore or bow down before it but to testifie their reverence to it To this I answer 1. One might venture odds against T. G. that when he quotes all the Fathers for him he hath very few of his side Nothing less will content him here than all the Fathers reading it without scruple for It is holy when Lorinus saith That all the Greek Fathers not one dissenting that he had seen read it For He is holy and among the Latins he confesses That S. Hierome and S. Augustine both read it so for
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
worship the same Gods with them nor offer up libations and the smoak of sacrifices to dead men Nor crown and worship Images that they agreed with Menander who said we ought not to worship the work of mens hands not because Devils dwelt in them but because men were the makers of them And he wondered they could call them Gods which they knew to be without soul and dead and to have no likeness to God it was not then upon the account of their being animated by evil Spirits that the Christians rejected this worship for then these reasons would not have held All the resemblance they had was to those evil Spirits that had appeared among men for that was Iustins opinion of the beginning of Idolatry that God had committed the Government of all things under the heavens to particular Angels but these Angels prevaricating by the love of Women did upon them beget Daemons that these Daemons were the great corrupters of mankind and partly by frightful apparitions and by instructing men in Idolatrous rites did by degrees draw men to give them divine worship the people not imagining them to be evil Spirits and so were called by such names as they liked best themselves as Neptune Pluto c. But the true God had no certain name given to him for saith he Father and God and Creator and Lord and Master are not names but titles arising from his works and good deeds and God is not a name but a notion engrafted in humane nature of an unexpressible Being But that God alone is to be worshipped appears by this which is the great command given to Christians Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve with all thy heart and with all thy strength even the Lord God that made thee Where we see the force of the argument used by Iustin in behalf of the Christians lay in Gods peremptory prohibition of giving divine worship to any thing but himself and that founded upon Gods right of dominion over us by vertue of creation In his Book of the Divine Monarchy he shews that although the Heathens did make great use of the Poets to justifie their Polytheism yet they did give clear testimony of one Supreme Deity who was the Maker and Governour of all things for which end he produces the sayings of Aeschylus Sophocles Orpheus Pythagoras Philemon Menander and Euripides all very considerable to this purpose In his works there is extant the resolution of several Questions by a Greek Philosopher and the Christians reply in which nothing can be more evident than that it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supreme God infinitely good powerful and wise Nay the Greek Philosopher looks upon the ignorance of God as a thing impossible because all men naturally agree in the knowledge of God But there are plain evidences in that Book that it is of later date than Iustins time therefore instead of insisting any more on that I shall give a farther proof that in his time it could be no part of the dispute between the Christians and Heathens whether there were one Supreme God that ought to be worshipped by men and that shall be from that very Emperour to whom Eusebius saith Iustin Martyr did make his second Apology viz. M. Aurelius Antoninus It is particularly observed of him by the Roman Historians that he had a great zeal for preserving the Old Roman Religion and Iul. Capitolinus saith that he was so skilful in all the practices of it that he needed not as it was common for one to prompt him because he could say the prayers by heart and he was so confident of the protection of the Gods that he bids Faustina not punish those who had conspired against him for the Gods would defend him his zeal being pleasing to them and therefore Baronius doth not wonder that Iustin and other Christians suffered Martyrdom under him But in the Books which are left of his writing we may easily discover that he firmly believed an eternal Wisdom and Providence which managed the World and that the Gods whose veneration he commends were looked on by him as the subservient Ministers of the Divine Wisdom Reverence the Gods saith he but withal he saith honour that which is most excellent in the world that which disposeth and Governs all which sometimes he calls the all-commanding reason sometimes the Mind and Soul of the World which he expresly saith is but one And in one place he saith that there is but one World and one God and one substance and one Law and one common reason of intelligent beings and one Truth But the great objection against such Testimonies of Antoninus and others lies in this that these only shew the particular opinions of some few men of Philosophical minds but they do not reach to the publick and established Religion among them which seemed to make no difference between the Supreme God and other Deities from whence it follows that they did not give to him any such worship a◠belonged to him Which being the most considerable objection against the design of this present discourse I shall here endeavour to remove it before I produce any farther testimonies of the Fathers For which we must consider wherei◠the Romans did suppose the solemn and outward acts of their Religion to consist viz. in the worship appropriated 〈◊〉 their Temples or in occasional prayers and vows or in some parts of divination whereby they supposed God did make known his mind to them If I can therefore prove that the Romans did in an extraordinary manner make use of all these acts of Religious worship to the Supreme God it will then necessarily follow that the controversie between the Fathers and them about Idolatry could not be about the worship of one Supreme God but about giving Religious worship to any else besides him The Worship performed in their Temples was the most solemn and frequent among them in so much that Tully saith therein the people of Rome exceeded all Nations in the world but the most solemn part of that Worship was that which was performed in the Capitol at Rome and in the Temple of Iupiter Latialis in Alba and both these I shall prove were dedicated to the Supreme God The first Capitol was built at Rome by Numa Pompilius and called by Varro the old Capitol which stood at a good distance from the place where the foundations of the great Temple were laid by Tarquinius Priscus the one being about the Cirque of Flora the other upon the Tarpeian Mountain There is so little left of the memory of the former that for the design of it we are to judge by the general intention of Numa as to the worship of the Deity of which Plutarch gives this account That he forbad the Romans making any Image of God either like to men or beast because the First Being is