The institution of Christian religion, vvrytten in Latine by maister Ihon Caluin, and translated into Englysh according to the authors last edition. Seen and allowed according to the order appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions

¶The .xii. Chapter. That God is seuerally discerned from idols, that he may be only and wholly worshipped.

WE saied in the beginning that the knowledge of God standeth not in bare speculacion, but draweth with it the worshipping of him, and by the way we touched how he is rightly worshipped, which point shalbe in other places more largely to be set forth. Nowe I doe but shortlye repete, that so oft as the Scripture affirmeth that there is but one God, it striueth not for the bare name of God, but withall commaundeth this, that whatsoeuer belongeth to the godhead bee not geuen to any other. Wherby also appeareth what pure religion doeth differ from supersticion. Eusebeia, in Greke signifieth as much as true worship, because alway euen the blinde themselues groping in darke∣nesse haue founde that this rule ought to be holden, that God bee not vnorderly worshipped.* 1.1 The name of religion although Cicero truelye and wel deriueth from relegere, to recorde, or gather vp together: yet is the reason that he assigneth enforced and far fet, that good worshippers did often recorde and diligently wey what was the trueth. I rather thinke that that name is set as a contrary to wandring liberte, because the greater part of the world vnaduisedly taketh holde of that whyche they first mete withall, and flieth aboute hether and thether: but true godlinesse, to the ende it may stande in stedfaste state, Religit, that is to say doth gather vp it selfe together within her bondes. Like as I think supersticion to haue her name herof, that not being contented with the maner and order prescribed she heapeth vp together a supersluous nō∣ber of vaine thinges. But to leaue the wordes it hath alway ben agre∣ed by consent of all ages, that religion is with false errors corrupted & peruerted. Wherupon we gather that it is a very fonde color which the supersticious do pretende, whē with vndiscrete zele we geue our selues leaue to do al thinges. And although this confession sounde in the mou∣thes of al mē: yet herein a shamefull ignoraunce bewraieth it selfe, that neither they cleaue to the one God, nor haue any regarde of order in y^e worshipping of him, as we haue already shewed. But god, to claime his own right vnto himselfe, crieth out that he is ielous, and that he wil be a seuere reuenger if he be mingled with any fained god. And then he setteth forth the lawful maner of worshipping, to holde mankinde in o∣bedience. He conteineth both these pointes in his law, whē first he bin∣deth the faithful vnto hymselfe that he only may be theyr lawemaker: and then he prescribeth a rule wherby to be worshipped after his owne minde. Of the law, because the vses and endes therof are many, I wyl entreate in place fit for it. Now I only touch this point, that therby mē are bridled that they run not out of the way to wrong worshippynges. Now as I first said, we must holde in mind, that if al that euer proper∣ly belōgeth to godhead do not rest in God alone, he is spoiled of his ho∣nor, & his worship broken. And heremust we somwhat he defully marke

with what suttelties superstition deceiueth. For it doothe not so reuolte vnto straunge gods that it semeth to forsake the hyest God, or to bryng hym downe into the numbre of other Goddes: but while she graunteth vnto hym the hyest place, she setteth rounde aboute hym a number of lesser gods, among whome she diuideth his offices? And so (albeit clo∣kedly & craftily) the glorie of the godhead is cut in partes, that it remai∣neth not whole with hym. So in y^e old tyme, as wel they of the Iewes as of y^e Gentiles dyd set beneth the father & iudge of gods a great rout of gods whiche shuld every one accordyng to his degree haue in cōmon with the hyest God the gouernement of the heauen and earth. So the saintes that in a fewe ages past departed this lyfe, are aduanced to the felowship of God, to be worshipped, called vpon, and honoured in stede of him. And yet with suche abhomination we thinke that the maiestie of God is not so muche as diuided, when in deede it is a greate parte suppressed and extinguished, sauyng that we reteine s••yll a poore opini∣on of his supreme power: and in the mean tyme deceiued with entan∣gled suttelties we are sonderly caried to diuers gods.

For this purpose also was inuented the distinction of latria and Du∣lia, [ 2] as they terme them, that is worship and seruice, wherby they might freely seme to geue away the honors of God to angels and dead men. For it is euident, that the worship whiche the Papistes geue vnto sain∣tes differeth nothyng in dede from the woorship of God. For all alike without diuersitie they worship both God and them: sauyng that when they be charged with it, they wynde away with this exception, that they keepe still for God the honour that is due vnto him inuiolate, because they leaue vnto him the worshippe that they call latria. But sith the que∣stion standeth vpon the matter, and not the woorde, who wolde permit them so carelesly to mocke in a matter of all matters moste weyghtie? But to lette that also passe, yet winne they nothyng by this distinction, but to proue, that thei geue worship to one God and seruice to an other. For Latria in greke signifieth as much as in latin Cultus, & Englishe worship. Dulia, proprely signifieth seruice. And yet somtyme in scripture this difference is confounded together without diuersitie. But graunte it be a perpetuall difference, then must we searche what bothe the wor∣des may meane. Dulia is seruice, Latria, is worship. Now no man dou∣teth that to serue, is more then to whorshippe. For many tymes a manne coulde hardely beare to serue hym whome he would not sticke to wor∣ship. So is it an vnegall dealyng to geue to the sainctes that whiche is the greatter, and to leaue to God that whiche is the lesser. But many of the auncient authors haue vsed this distinction. What maketh that matter, if all menne doo perceiue it to be not onely vnfitte, but all toge∣ther very fonde?

Nowe leauyng nice suttleties, lette vs wey the matter it selfe. When [ 3] Paule putteth the Galathians in remembrance what they were before that they were lightened in the knowledge of God,* 1.2 he saieth that they gaue Duliam seruice to those that of nature were no gods. Although he name not Latriam or worship, is therfore theyr superstitton excusable? He doth neuerthelesse condemne their peruerse superstition, whiche he termeth by the name of Dulia seruice, than if he had expressed the name of Latria, worship. And when Christe repulseth the assault of Sathan

with his buckler, that it is written, thou shalt woorshyp the Lorde thy God,* 1.3 the name of Latria was not brought in question. Sathan requi∣red but an adoration. Likewise whē the angel ••eproued Iohn, because he felle downe on his knees before hym, we oughte not to thinke that Iohn was so madde that he woulde geue vnto the angell the honoure that was due onely to God. But because it was not possible, but that all worshyp that is ioyned with religion sauoureth somwhat as pertei∣nyng to God, therefore he coulde not adore the angell, but that he must take away sommewhat from the glorye of God. We reade in deede of∣ten, that men haue bene honoured: but that was a ciuile honour, as I maye so call it. But religion hath an other rule, whyche so soone as it is ioyned with worshyppe, bryngeth with it a prophane abuse of the honour of God. The same maye we see in Cornelius. He hadde not so sclenderly profyted in godlynesse,* 1.4 but that he hadde learned to geue the soueraigne worshippe to God alone. Therfore when he fell downe before Peter, he didde it not of this meanyng to worshyppe hym in the steede of God. And yet dydde Peter earnestly forbyd hym to doo that whiche he didde. And why so? but because men doo neuer so narrow∣ly put difference betwene the worshyppe of God, and of his creatures: by that without diuersitie they geue away that vnto the creature, whi∣che belongeth vnto God. Wherefore if we haue one God, we must re∣membre that nothyng be it neuer so lyttle muste bee taken awaye from his glorye, but that he kepe styll that whyche is proprely his. Therfore zacharie when he preacheth of the repayryng of the Churche, in playne words expresseth:* 1.5 That there shal not only be one God, but also y^t there shalbe one name of y^e god, to the end y^e he haue nothing in common with Idols. What maner of worshyp God requyreth, we shal see in an other place when it falleth in order. For it pleased hym in his law to prescribe vnto men what is lawfull and ryght, & so to bynd thē to a certayn rule, that euery man should not geue hymselfe leaue to deuise what forme of worshyp he lyst. But because it is not expediēt to loade the readers with heapyng many matters together, I will not touche that poynte yet. Onely lette it sus••ise for this tyme to kepe in mynd, that euery cariyng away of the dutyefull behauiours of godlynesse to any other than to God alone, is not without robbery of God. And fyrste superstition de∣uysed to geue diuine honours to the Sonne, or other starres or idols: then folowed ambitious pryde, whyche garnyshyng mortall men with spoyles taken from God, presumed to prophane all that euer was holy. And although this principle remayned among theim, to honour the soueraigne deitie, yet grewe it in vse indif∣ferently to offer sacrifices to spirites, lesser gods, or dead mē of honor. So slippery is the way to slide into this fault, to make common to a num∣ber that whiche God seuerely cha∣lengeth to hym selfe alone.

Notes

• * 1.1

  ••i. de na∣••u. deo∣rum,
• * 1.2

  Gal. iiii.viii.
• * 1.3

  Mat. iiii.x. Reue. xix x.
• * 1.4

  Act. x.xxv
• * 1.5

  zac. xxiiii.ix.