A iust discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet's vnjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome with a discovery of the vanity of his late defence in his pretended answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolaters : by way of dialogue between Eunomius, a conformist, & Catharinus, a non-conformist : the first part : concerning the charge of idolatry, &c.

THE FOVRTH DIALOGVE.

THE ARGUMENT.

CAtharinus waves the Question of Jupiter's being the true God: and inforces the Parallel from the Heathen's acknowledgment of one Supream Being, to which Dr. St. contends, that they ref••rred the worship of their Inferiour Deities. Another notable Instance of his unfaithful reporting a passage of Tho∣mas Aquinas; and the Generality of the Heathens shown by most evident Argu∣ments to haue believed and worshipped a multitude of Gods properly so called and esteemed by them. What kind of Notion the Vulgar Heathens had of the Divi∣nity explained, and the Parallel between their worship, and that of the Church of Rome shown to be unjust, and rejected as such by Eminent Divines of the Church of England.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

EVn:

I perceive by the desire you ex∣press'd of seeing me again, there is something still behind, which you haue a mind to propose. I shall bewilling to hear it, but hope you will not trouble your self or me any more with the Dr's Fa∣thers; I dare assure you, it will not be at all for his Credit.

Cathar.

T'is a Transport which Great Wits are too often subject to out of a desire of Glory, to advance a Paradox, and endeavour to make it plausible by Artifices of Rhetorick and gain credit to it by unexpected Explications of Ancient Authors, especially when they haue a fair Occasion of catching an Adversary nodding, if not fast a sleep. as Dr. St. pre∣sum'd he had done T. G. when he as∣serted the Heathen's Supream God Iu∣piter, to be according to the Fathers an Arch-devil, and produced none for it but Father Origen.

Eun:

Wits then you see as well as Souldiers must haue care how they go a catching of Tartars, as I think Dr. St.

hath done, whilst he endeavoured to set Iupiter in the Throne of God. But what is it, that you haue to propose?

Cathar.

Perhaps I may be mistaken in the Conjecture I haue made; but whatever it were that engaged the Dr. in that Controversy, I do not see but he might haue wav'd it without any pre∣judice to his main Argument against T. G. For whether the Heathen's Iupiter were the Supream God or no, it is cer∣tain from the Testimonies of the Fathers, that the Heathens acknowledged a Su∣pream Being, Maker and Governour of the world. And if they worshipped their Inferiour deities, but as his Ministers, and their Images, but as Symbols or Representations of Him and Them, and yet were charged by the Fathers with Idolatry for so doing, t••is evident that T. G. will never be able to excuse himself, and those of the Church of Rome from Idolatry, by pretending they referr the worship they giue to Saints and Images to God, but He must vpon the same Principle excuse the Heathens also. This I take to be the Summe and Force of the Dr's discourse, and I think it will prove a Tartar to T. G.

Eun:

A Tartarian Argument indeed, or such an one as a Tartar, were he as subtil a Disputant as Dr. St. would bring to defend himself from becoming a Christian. But where the force of it lies I cannot see. For if we consider the Whole, it can be no Just Ground to charge either the Heathens in that Supposition, or the Romanists, with Idolatry, till it be proved to be Idolatry to give an In∣feriour degree of Worship or Veneration to any thing for the relation it hath to the only true God. Here it was, he should haue laid the Axe to the root, but it was impossible for him to make it enter, either in respect of the Hea∣thens in the aforesaid Supposition, or of those of the Church of Rome.

1. Not in respect of the Heathens. For from whence should he show it? Not from the light of nature; for that teach∣es us, that although no Irrational and Inanimate Beings be capable of that real Excellency, as to deserve any ho∣nour from us for it's own sake, much less divine, yet even such things may haue a Relation to matters of so high a nature, as to deserve a different usage an I regard from other things, yea a Re∣verence,

and if I may so call it, with the Dr. a Reli••ious Respect. Nor from the Law of Moses, at least for all those Heathens who lived before it was given, and consequently could not be judged by it. Nor yet for the rest, because the Apostle declares them also not to be un∣der the Law, any farther than the light of Nature manifested to them, that what they did was Good or Evil in its self, Of which kind the Dr. supposeth the know∣ledge of Idolatry as to the Heathens ro be none, when he saith, From whence should they kn••w the sinfulness of it, but from the Law of God?

2 Nor in respect of those of the Church of Rome. 1 Because the Law of Moses no where forbids to give an Inferiour degree of Reverence and respect to other things for the Relation they bear to God. 2. Because in case it had, the Law is evinced in that part to be a Positive Pre∣cept only, by God'••, dispensing with the Iews to give it to the Ark, with relation to him; and so not to oblige Christians. 3. Because those of the Church of En∣gland, and all others who give an In∣f••riou•• respect and Veneration to Sacred Things and Places for the relation they

haue to God, must be Idolaters on the same account, and therefore Eminent divines (as I show'd before) of the * 1.1 Church of England free the Church of Rome from Idolatry in that respect. This then was first to haue been done by the Dr. to make those of the Church of Rome Idolaters by paralleling them with the Heathens in the aforesaid Sup∣position viz, he ought to haue shown it to be Idolatry in the nature of the thing independently of any Positive Prohibi∣tion, (in case there were any such, which is denied) to give an Inf••riour degree of respect or Veneration to other things be∣sides God for the relation they haue to him But this he neither hath done, nor ever will be able to do, and consequently this mighty Argument, which the Dr. spent so much time and pains to build vp and adorn with the choicest Paint••ng and Sculpture his Wit and Ar•• could de∣vise, falls to the Ground for want of a Foundation to bear it up.

Cathar.

Yet still me thinks the Argu∣ment holds good against T. G. unless he will set as litle by the Fathers, as you make Dr. St. to do. For if they acknow∣ledged one Supream Being, and referred

all their worship both of Inferiour 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Images to him, and were notwith∣standing charged by the Fathers with Idolatry for so doing, those of the Church of Rome must fall under the same charge.

Eun:

To this I thought I had given you a sufficient Answer in the Account * 1.2 I gaue you of the Heathen's Theology, and the Arguments made use of by the Fathers to impugn it; from all which it appears, that it was not their design to charge them with Idolatry for giving an inferiour degree of worship to things re∣lating to God, but for worshipping the Creatures, not the Creator, (mark that, * 1.3 though they could not but have a na∣tural and inbred knowledge of him) with that worship which is due only to the One true God, as S. Augustin expressly layes the charge. But because I see you are not yet fully satisfied in this Point (so hard it is to shake off a prejudicate Opinion) I shall desire you as you are a Lover of Truth to answer me ingenuously but to this one Question, which I take to be very material toward•• the true Vnder∣standing the nature of Idolatry, viz, Whether you do not think, that the

Heathens, at least the Generality of them (Those I mean who followed the Religion of the State, and squated both their belief and worship according to the Rules of it, for of the Wiser one we may haue occasion to speak afterwards) did not acknowledge and worship more Gods than One?

Cath••r.

To this I shall give you a very cleer and direct Answer, in the words of One, against whom T. G. himself will not except. I mean Thomas Aquinas, in the Book he purposely wrote against the Gentiles, li. 1. c. 4. Where as Dr. St. * 1.4 hath well observ'd he confesses, that most of the Gentiles did acknowledge One Su∣pream God, f••om 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 substan∣ces, chiefly by reason of their Wisdome, Happiness and Government. Which cu∣stome of speaking, saith he, is likewise found in Scripture, where either the Holy Angels or men, and Judges are called Gods, I haue said, yee are Gods, and many other places. By which you see, that if those of the Church of Rome will give any credit to their own great Dr.

Aquinas, in his Book so highly applau∣ded * 1.5 by Possevin and others for the best account of the Christian Religion in oppo∣sition to Heathenism, they must confess also that although the Heathens gave the name of Gods, to others besides the Supream God, yet they did not belieue them to be properly Gods, but Analo∣gically only and by participation.

Eun:

What I expected, Catharinus, was your own Judgment in the case, and not of Thomas Aquinas; and I was in hope you would haue troubled us no more with the Dr's citations. But by what I now experience in you, I see I had done well to haue kept you in the good humour you were in of laying wagers, though you had staked but a Guiney at a time.

Cathar.

I suppose you would haue got∣ten but litle by the bargain at present, had you done so. For the Book is so frequent among all those of the Church of Rome who pretend to learning, that I cannot believe the Dr. would hazard his credit so apparently, as either to cor∣rupt the Text, or cite the passage in such a manner, as to mis-represent the design of the Author.

Eun:

This is indeed what ought to haue weighed with him. But haue you * 1.6 seen the Place your self? for you pro∣mised me from the former discoveries I had made of his Insincerity, in this kind, never to trust Testimony more cited by Dr. St.

Cathar.

I confess I haue not.

Eun:

Give me leaue then to tell you what it was, that Aquinas was treating of in that place, and your self shall be Iudge, whether ••he Dr. haue dealt fairly by him or his Readers in representing him in the manner he doth. The Title of the Chapter cited by the Dr. is, Quod Deus sit unus, that th••re is but One God. * 1.7 This Aquinas proves by many Excellent reasons, to which he shows the Testi∣monies of H. Scripture to be agreable. And among other reasons he gives this for one; because if there be two Gods, the name of God must be attributed to both, either Aequivocally, or Vnivo∣cally. If equivocally, saith he, it is be∣side he present Intention (mark that) for nothing hinders, but that any thing may be called equivocally by any name, if the use and custome, of the Speakers admit it. But if it be said of both Vni∣vocally,

the reason for which it is said, must be the same in both, which he shows there to be Impossible. Having thus declared his Intention to be to prove that there is but one God properly so called, and established it by the plainest demonstrations, as a most certain Truth, the Corollary he inferrs from these Pre∣misses is, that by vertue of this Truth * 1.8 the Gentiles who acknowledged a multi∣tude of Gods, were convinced to be in an Errour, although, saith he, (and then follow the words cited by the Dr) plures eorum, many of them did acknowledge one Supream God, from whom they said all those Others, whom they called Gods, did receive their being; ascribing the name of Divinity to all Immortal Substances, and that chiefly by reason of their Wis∣dome, Happiness, and Government, which eustome of speaking, he saith, is likewise found in Scripture.

This is the Summe of Aquinas his discourse in that Chapter: And what can be more plain, than that his meaning was to tell us, that although the Phi∣losophers,

particularly the Platonick•• (whom he means by his quamvis plures eorum) did aknowledge one Supream God, from whom they said all those others, whom they called Gods, did receive their being, and therein agreed with the like custome of speaking found in Scripture; yet the Generality of the Heathens did acknowledge a multitude of Gods properly so called: and conse∣quently that this was the Errour which he had convinced them of, by showing that it is impossible there should be more than One God properly so called. This I say is plain both from the declaration he makes, that to speak of Gods equi∣vocally so called was beside his purpose, and from his opposing the Opinion of the Philosophers to that of the Genera∣lity of the Heathens, as an Exception from the General Opinion they had of them. And now I pray Catharinus be Judge your self whether it were fairly done of the Dr. to suppress the General Proposition, viz, [The Heathens erred in acknowledging a multitude of Gods] and the word Quamvis, although, which made the Exception, and then translate the words Plures eorum, by the most of

th•• Gentiles, as if Aquinas had spoken of the Generality of them, when he spake only of the Philosophers, who though they were many, or if you will, a great many, which is the most can be made of the word Plures in that place, yet they were farr from being the most of the Gentiles, as Dr. St. according to his excellent faculty in translating ren∣ders it. Is it not plain that here he mis-represents, to say no more, the meaning and design of Aquinas? And yet vpon such perverted Testimonies as these it is, that he builds his Chimerical Assertion, that the Generality of the Heathens were charged with Idolatry by the Fathers for giving an Inferiour degree of worship and Veneration to others besides the one only true God, for the relation they bare to him; when it is evident from the very Testim••ny he cites, that they were charged with Idolatry for acknowledg∣ing and worshipping more Gods than One, properly so called. I could here give you as good an account of the Ad∣mirable work he makes for 15 Pages together with the Testimony of Athe∣nagoras, from whose discourse he pre∣tends chiefly to inferr the Heathen's Re∣lative

worship, as 1. how he omits some of * 1.9 the expressions of that Author which evidently show that they did not referr their worship to the true God. 2. How he employs all the litle arts of Sophistry and Rhetorick to debauch his Sense in others; and lastly how after all finding the whole Series and Design of that Father point blank opposit to what he would haue it, he sormes the very As∣sertions of Athenagoras into Objections under the name of T. G. and sets him∣self to confute him as a down right Adversary: But as I said before I hope we haue done with the Dr's Testimonies; and you will tell me now wha•• you think your self of the Question, Whether the Heathens did believe and worship more Gods properly so esteemed by them, or not?

Cathar.

I see it is troublesome for an Author to fall into the hands of such Readers, as haue both Curiosity and Patience to examine his Citations, and therefore shall trouble you no more vpon that account. But for the Question you propose; I had rather hear what you will say of it, than produce my own thoughts, which I confess are somewhat

perplexed by what you haue already discoursed.

Eun:

Well then, since you put me to answer my own Question, I shall not trouble you with long discourses, but only offer to your consideration these few following Observations, which I hope will be sufficient to satisfy you, that the Generality of the Heathens did be∣lieve them whom they publickly wors∣hipped to be truly and properly Gods, and not in name only.

The First is, that the whole Christian world till Dr. St. did ever condemn the Heathens as guilty of Polytheism; which they could not justly haue done, had the Heathens believed one only true God, and the rest to be only called so: For vpon the same account both the Iews and Christians might be accused of Po∣lytheism for giving the name of Gods to Angels and Men; yea even God him∣self, for it was he that said, I haue said ye are Gods.

2. That the Heathens accused the Chri∣stians of Atheism, because they denied * 1.10 them to be Gods who were publickly worshipped.

3. That they persecuted the Christians

to death, and the Christians willingly suffered death, for maintaining there was but one only true God, who deser∣ved Divine Honour to be given to him.

4. That they erected Temples, insti∣tuted Priests, and appointed Sacrifices to be offered to them, which if not by the Law of nature, yet by the common consent of mankind were the Exte••••our Signs of the acknowledgment of true divinity; and therevpon is so often urged by the Fathers against them, as who affirmed them to deserve those ho∣nours.

5. That the Fathers bring infinite ar∣guments to prove that those whom the Heathens called Gods, were not really and truly Gods, which had been a su∣perfluous labour, if the Heathens had not believed, as well as called them Gods.

6. That those who made use of these arguments against them, had many of them been Heathens themselves, as Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Lactantius, and Arnobius, who without doubt under∣stood very well what themselves were taught and had practised while they

were Heathens, and cannot in reason be supposed to haue charged them with more in this matter than they were guilty of, only that they might haue occasion to give some casts of their former employ∣ment.

7. That the Divels, as S. Augustin saith, by prodigious but fallacious signs and * 1.11 predictions, perswaded maximae parti, which I think may be truly translated, the most of the Heathens, that they were Gods, and although the Platonists knew them, not to be so, from their vitious practices, yet they durst not pronounce them neither, to be altogether unworthy of divine honour, for fear saith S. Augustin, of offending the People by whom they saw them served with so many Rites and Temples.

8. That the Wisest of the Heathens, as Varro, Scaevola, Seneca and Cicero, not only concurred with the Vulgar in the external practice of worshipping many Gods, (as the Platonicks also did) but look'd upon it as a Point of prudence or State-Policy, to keep the People in * 1.12 Ignorance, and not let them know, they were no Gods whom they worshipped. The first part is evident from what S.

Augustin saith of Varro, that knowing * 1.13 the Vanity and falsi••y of the Gods who were publickly worshipped, yet for fear of offending the people he worshipped them himself, and maintained that they ought to be worshipped; and therefore re∣proaches him for suffering himself to be overborn wi••h the custome and Laws of the City; as he doth Seneca also for that saying of his, Omnem istam ignobilem * 1.14 Deorum turbam, All this ignoble multi∣tude of Gods, which long Superstition hath for a long time heaped together, we will so worship, as remembring the worship of them to belong more to cu∣stome, than Truth. And whereas Philo∣sophy had in a manner set him at liberty to deride the Errours of the Vulgar, yet because he was an ••llustrious Senator of the Roman People, over-awed by the Laws of the City and the customes of men, he worshipped what he repre∣hended; practic'd, what he reproved, and adored, what he blamed, and this, not as Actor vpon the Theatre, but as a devote in the Temple, so much more culpably, saith S. Augustin, for that he performed, those actions against the inward Sense of his mind, in such a manner that ••he Peo∣ple

judged him to doe them with a real intention. The 2^d part also is no less ma∣nifest * 1.15 from what the same S. Augustin saith of Scaevola, that he affirmed some things would be hurtful for the people to be informed of, as that Hercules; Aescu∣lapius &c. were not Gods; and of Varro, that it was expedient the People should be deceived in Religion. And vpon this ac∣count * 1.16 it is, that Lactantius declaimes in this wise against Cicero. To what pur∣pose is it, saith he, to preach in this sort to the Vulgar, and Illiterate. People, when we see Learned and Wise men, who understood the Vanity of these Religions, to persist nevertheless, by I know not what perversness, in worshipping the very things they condemn? Cicero understood these things to be false which men adored, and yet after he had advanced many things, which were of force to overthrow the Common Religions, he saith that those things were not to be discoursed to the Vulgar, least such kind of disputations should extinguish the publick received Religions, or worship of many Gods. Nothing the•• I think can be more plain, than that the Generality of the Heathens did not only give the name of Gods, ac∣cording

to the custome found in H. Scripture, but did really and truly be∣lieve them to be Gods, whom they worshipped, and that it was the State-Religion of that time to believe and wor∣ship them as such. Yet least any doubt should yet remain in you from the con∣fusion, which the Dr every where makes between the Vulgar and the Wiser Hea∣thens, I shall adde one Observation more, which I am sure ought and will weigh more with you than all the rest. And it is this.

9. That God himself forbids the J••ws to haue any other Gods besides him, and yet was so farr from forbidding the name of Gods to be given to Angels and Men, that himself by the mouth of David pronounceth of the Rulers, I haue said, * 1.17 yee are Gods, and accordingly Moses forbids to revile the Gods, or curse the Ruler of the People. By which it appears that the meaning of the Commandment was not to forbid them to give the nam•• of Gods to others besides himself, but to esteem them to be truly and properly Gods, as the Heathens did.

Cathar.

These Observation. I confess are so clear and home, that I think

what you inferr from them cannot be denied or doubted by any man of Com∣mon Sense. And so I freely grant that the Vulgar Heathens did truly and really * 1.18 esteem them to be Gods, whom they wor∣shipped. But I see not yet the reason, why you were so earnest with me to speak to this Question.

Eun:

Pardon me there, Good Catha∣rinus; What was it made you so back∣ward to speak to it, but that you saw, that to answer this Question would be to answer the Argument you proposed, in which you supposed the Heathens to re∣ferr all their worship, both of their In∣feriour Deities and Images to the true God, and vpon that account to haue been charged by the Fathers with Idolatry, that so you might make the Parallel compleat between the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome? For if the Generality of the Hea∣thens did truly and properly esteem those to be Gods, whom they worshipped, as hath been shewed, tis evident that they did not referr the worship they gaue to them to the true God, but worshipped each of them as an absolute Deity. And this being the Fundamental Principle of

the State-Religion at that time, was that with which the Fathers primarily charged the Heathens, and that in such terms as evidently exclude from their thoughts the Dr's Chimerical Imagina∣tion of Relative worship; as when S. A∣thanasius * 1.19 charges them, for turning away from the true God, and giving all the ho∣nour of the Divinity to the creatures; S. Augustin for giving divine honour crea∣turae, * 1.20 non Creatori, to the creature, not to the Creator, and praetermisso vel prae∣terito Deo, passing by God, and making Gods of the Elements, in like manner as if one should take the Ship in which he * 1.21 is carried, for the Pilot that governs it, as Athenagoras expresses it. And the same is confessed by Vossius in his first Pre∣face, where he acknowledges that the Heathens did relicto Deo in naturae Ve∣neratione consistere, forsaking God stay in the worship of the creatures. By all which it appears, that the Paralel be∣tween the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome, like a House built of Cards, when one of the Suppo••ters is drawn away, falls down in great confusion. And this is confessed also by Eminent Doctors of the Church

of England; as 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Hāmond, who makes the Heathen Idolatry to haue been the * 1.22 worshipping of the many false Gods first, and then of the Images of them; and then addes, that those of the Church of Rome are not said or thought to be guilty of the former, He might haue added, nor vpon the same account of the latter neither, for if they do not worship many false Gods, they do not worship the Images of them. And Arch Bp. Whitgift, (whom Dr. St. will by no means suffer to be thrown away to the Puritans,) when he makes his third kind of Idola∣try to be, the worshipping false Gods ei∣ther in heart, mind, or in external crea∣tures * 1.23 living or dead, and altogether forget¦ting the worship of the true God; inge∣nuously confesseth, that for all that he can see or learn, the Papists are not in this third kind of Idolatry.

Cathar.

And I can be contented to hope at least with these Learned men, that taking Idolatry in this Sense the Paralel doth not hold with the Papists: but yet not so as to free them from the guilt of Idolatry vpon another account, if it be true what T. G. saith, that it is the giving the Soveraign worship of God to a crea∣ture;

For though the Heathens gaue divine worship to their Inferiour deities, yet they gaue Soveraign worship only to the Supream God, and the Mat••rs sacrificed their lives on this Principle, * 1.24 that divine worship (and not meerly So∣veraign worship) is to be given to none but the Supream God. So that either the Heathens must be excused from Idola∣try in what they did, and the Primitive Martyrs not be deemed so wise as they might haue been; Or the Papists, at least those who give Latria to the Crosse and the Images of Christ, must be in∣volved in the same crime.

Eun:

I cannot easily think that the Dr. intended to be serious when he put in that subtil Parenthesis (not meerly Soveraign worship) and yet because it is a string he often harps vpon, I must not passe it by as a Trifle, though in reality it be no other, as to the present dispute, whe∣ther we consider it with respect to T. G. or to the Heathens. And first for T. G. * 1.25 the Dr. having been so charitable to him as to suppose him to believe the Supream Being Maker and Governour of the world to be the true God, it seems plain to me that he meant the same by Sove∣raign,

and by divine worship. Nor do I see what ground Dr. St. had to fancy he made any distinction between them, when he confesseth the definition of Idolatry according to T. G. to be, the giving the worship due only to God to a * 1.26 creature, more than he has to make him distinguish between God, and the Supream Being, which in this case is just none at all. For if God and the Su∣pream Being be adequately the same with him (and I never heard he made more Gods than On••) t'is manifest that by the worship due to the Supream Being (that is, Soveraign worship) he meant no other than the worship due to God alone, i. ē. divine worship. By this it appears that the distinction had no ground in any thing that T. G. said: It was the Dr's Proper Invention; and so if he please, * 1.27 let it be writ vpon his Monument, that he may not be unprovided of an Ins∣cription, as well as T. G. Hic jacet Au∣thor hujus distinct••onis.

Cathar.

But if T. G. intended no di∣stinct on by these terms, why does he call it Sov••raign worship?

E••n:

Not to distinguish it from the worship due only to the one true God,

but with intention to haue avoided, if possible, the Equivocation the Dr. had brought vpon the word, divine, by his applying it to that Relative and Inf••riour kind of worship, which some of the School men call latria and assert to be due to the Cross and the Images of Ch••ist. And I should haue thought he might haue expected to haue found the Dr. favourable here, after so serious a Profes∣sion that he loves not to wrangle abo••t words; but I see that rocks sometimes lye under the smoothest waters: and a man through too much care may fall vpon Scylla, whilst he endeavours to avoid Charybdis.

2. As for the Heathens, they may in∣deed be conceived to mean by divine worship, not only the worship due to their Supream God Jupiter, but the ho∣nour due to any thing, which according to their Erroneous Fancy they believed to haue true divinity in it, of which sort they had good store, whom they belie∣ved to be truly and properly Gods, as I shewed before. But what was this to the Christian Martyrs? who were not to regulate their actions by the Errours of the Heathens, but by the truth of

Christianity, which as it believes, that true divinity belongs to none but to the only one Supream Being so it teaches that true divine honour is to be given to none but him. And therefore vpon the same account, that they were bound to Sacrifice their lives on this Principle, that there were no more true Gods but one; they were bound also to do it vpon that other that true divine worship is to be given to none but the Supream God: But then again, what is this to those of the Church of Rome, who do not believe either the Saints or Images to be Gods, or to haue any divinity in them; but give an Inferiour respect or Veneration only to the former for the Sanctity they haue received from the only true God, and to the latter for the relation they beat to their Prototypes, viz the same true God, or his Servants?

Cathar.

I must confesse I was afraid there was something like that we call Scholastick Fooling in this distinction as applied to T. G. when I first read it. But still there remains a Scruple with me, concerning the Heathens, and I should be glad you could remove it; how, if they acknowledged one Supream Being.

Maker and Governour of the world, they could think any others to be truly and properly Gods besides him? For this seems to me so palpable and gross a Con∣tradiction, that nothing that hath the use of reason could fall into it.

Eun:

For the Heathens contradicting themselves, I think we need not be much concerned, when we see some Christians can so easily run into it. But by this Scru∣ple of yours, Catharinus, I perceive you imagin the Generality of them to haue had as cleer and distinct a Notion of the one Supreā Being, maker and Governour of the world, as the Wise Philosophers had, if not as we Christians haue now adayes. And this indeed is what Dr. St. hath laboured to instill into the minds of his Readers, by representing what the Philosophers said of God, and the wisest too among them, as if it had been the constant belief of the Vulgar, or as if they had as thoroughly believed the first Article of the Creed, I believe in one God Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things Visible and Invisible, as Christians do. That this was his Practice, to dress vp the Paralel he intended to make be∣tween

their worship, and that of the Church of Rome, is manifest frō the very Testimonies he cites to prove that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supream Being; as you haue seen already in that of Thomas Aquinas, who speaks not there of the most of the Gentiles, as the Dr translates it, but of the wisest of the Phi∣losophers. And the like is to be observed in the Testimonies he cites out of Justin Martyr. Def. p. 25. Athenagoras p. 60. Clemens Alexandrinus p. 76. Origen. p. 81. S. Augustin p. 97. For what these Fathers alledge out of the Philosophers and P••ets concerning the V••n••ty of God &c. to prove against the common Reli∣gion that more Gods than one were not to be believed and worshipped, the Dr. very artificially insinuates into his Rea∣der, as the N••tion of the Heathens in ge∣neral, as if they had as cleer and distinct a knowledge of the one Supream Being, as the Wisest of the Ph••losophers. And had this been so, supposing the Wisest to haue had a right notion of the one only t••ue God, it is a hard matter indeed to conceive, how this Judgment remain∣ing entire in them, they could fall into so manifest a Contradiction, as the believ∣ing

many Gods properly so called: or how Idola••ry, (as the Dr. himself ob∣serves Def. p. 63.) for that part of it which lies in the inward esteem of our minds, could consist with such an Ac∣knowledgment of one Supream Being.

But whether this were possible or no, 1^st it is nothing to the Question we are now vpon, for whether it be or be not, the matter of Fact is certain, as I shewed before, that the Genera••ity of the H••a∣thens did believe and worship many God properly so esteemed by them, and were vpon this account charged with Idolatry by the Fathers, which is suffi∣cient to show the disparity between their belief and practice, and that of the Church of Rome, as you heard but even now confessed by divines of the Church of England.

2. It concerns not the case of the Vul∣gar Heathens, for the notion they had of the divinity, was not cleer and distinct like that of the Philoso••hers, who there∣fore denied ••hose whom the People wor∣shipped to be Gods; but rude, confuse and imperfect, 1 1.28 like that of men, who see a thing at a distance, but know not what it is, or ² like that of blind men who

feel something of the Sun's Influence, but see not the body of light, 3 1.29 a know∣ledge not setled and cultivated by sober and serious Reflexion, but constrained by the force of nature, like the Natu∣ral Testimony of Conscience which the * 1.30 most Atheistical and debauch••d sinners fee at times, even against their Wills; 4 1.31 not a cleer light but a faint glimmer∣ing▪ In fine, 5 1.32 not a c••rtain and steady knowledge of him who is the true God, but a General Notion of a divine Power, hanging as it were in the ayr like an In∣d••viduum Vagum, and so differently ap∣p••ied by each one to the God, or Gods he worshipped.

This is the Account which the Fa∣thers give of the Notion, which the Vulgar Heathens had of the divinity, * 1.33 with whom Vossius also agrees, affirming

the knowledge they had ••f God, to be * 1.34 confused and undetermined, and that in part they received him, but in part re∣jected him, so that even when they knew God, they knew him not to be Go••. And it cannot be doubted but so dim and imper∣f••ct a N••tion as this was, would easily be laid aside o•• f••rgotten, where Fancy, Pas∣sion and Intere••t gave Laws to R••ason, though vpon occasions it would show it self in their words and actions, against their wills. And what Errours would not such Masters lead them into, especially under the direction of so cunni••g a So∣phister, as the Old Serpent? One of the first Propositions he made to our first Pa∣rents, was that they should be lik•• Gods, inspiring into their minds an affectation of divinity. And they being delighted and pl••ased with it, as S. Augustin saith, what was the consequence like to be in * 1.35 their Posterity, but that they should be seduced to believe more Gods than One.

That this was their belief de facto is undeniable, and supposing what hath been said of the confused notion they had of God, that they knew him but in part, and that so rudely, that the A∣postle of the Gertiles oftentimes affirm∣eth,

that they did not know him, and * 1.36 the Inscription to the Vnknown God, will stand as an E••ernal Memorial of it, it is no hard matter I think to con∣ceive, how they might fall into the Er∣voneous Belief of many Gods. For as men who never had seen that body of light which we call the Sun, beholding only the beams he sends before him at his r••sing could not but inferr from thence, there was a Light which enlight∣ned the world, but would be to seek whether it were one or many, or rather apt to believe from what they expe∣rienced in sublunary Lights, that one Ta∣per alone was not sufficient for the whole Vniverse, So though the Heathens be∣fore the rising of the Sun of Justice, could not but see by the beams he sent before him in the Creation, that there was a Superiour Power which governed the world, yet being led wholly by Sense, and judging of Heavenly things by what they saw pass in Humane, they might be at a loss to know whether this divine Power resided in one or many; or if one were Chief, whether there were not others, who had the right and power of Absolute Lords and Governours over

such and such things, or such and such parts of the Vniverse; And not being able to comprehend, how so vast a Ma∣chin as Heaven and Earth with the va∣riety of creatures in them, could be go∣verned by One, they inclined rather to assign him Partners in the Government of it, some of whom, (as Godwin ob∣serveth in his Roman Antiquities) they * 1.37 fancied to haue possession of Heaven by their own Right, and these they called Dij majorum Gentium o•• Select Gods; and others, no otherwise than by right of donation, as the Semidei or Indi∣getes.

Cathar.

You haue given us here Eu∣nomius a pleasant kind of Hypothesis, not unlike those invented by the Philosophers to explicate the alterations which appear in the Vniverse, some of them placing the cause of them in the motion of the Hea∣vens, others of the Earth and others of both. But how doth it appear that this was the Conceit which the Heathens made?

Eun:

If a Second cause, not cleerly and distinctly known haue given occasion to the Wise Philosophers to frame such strange (and some of them such odd) hy∣pot••eses

to explain the common Phae∣nomena of the world, how can it be expected, but that the Vulgar Hea∣thens, must haue raised much stran∣ger concerning the Government of it, vpon so dim and confuse a know∣ledge as they had of the divinity. As for the Hypothesis it's self, of the Divine Power residing in many, it appears to haue been theirs from the defences they made for themselves, when the Fathers pressed them with the absurdities they run into by asserting more Gods, than One; For as Lactantius saith, some of them said, * 1.38 that their many G••ds were such, (or as much) is Christians would haue the one to be: And others that they presided so over several things and parts of the Vniverse, that there was but one Rector Eximius, Supream Ruler. And therefore speaking afterwards of the division of kingdomes between Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, * 1.39 and having compared the share which sell to Neptune to that of M. Antonius to whom the Senate had given the com∣mand of all the Sea Coast, he showe'th how the Poets (to whom the People as Varro saith, were apt to give credit) by giving the name of Heaven to the East∣ern

Part which belong'd to Jupiter, and of Hell to the Western, which was the Portion of Pluto, and by other Fic∣tions they added, raised it from a terrene power to a divine in the Apprehension of the Vulgar; which was the more con∣firmed in them by the many prodigious, but fallacious signs, as S. Augustin saith, which Evil Spirits wrought in their names, and their exacting sacrifice, which by the common consent of man∣kind was held only due to divinity, to be offered to them. Hence the Question be∣tween the Heathens and the Fathers, was not whether the One Supream God used the Ministery of Angels to execute his commands, for in this, Lactantius saith, that the Christians were ready to agree * 1.40 with them as to the thing, though they denied those whom the Heathens wor∣shipped to be those Angels or Ministers; but whether their many Gods were not the same which Christians would haue their One to be; or as Minucius Felix states the Question to his Friend Caecilius * 1.41 whether the Heavenly Empire were go∣verned by the (undivided) power and Authority of one or by the A••bitrement of many; by which he understands, and

he understood the Heathens to do the like, not a Ministerial Power, such as * 1.42 is given to the Angels, but a sharing of the One true and divine Empire, by a di∣vision of the whole Power among many? And that which made them fall into this Errour, was as I said before, that they could not comprehend, how the Vni∣verse could be governed by one, but look'd vpon it as the most extravagant and Sensless Position in the world, as ap∣pears by the Objection made by Caecilius, What monstrous things, saith he, do the * 1.43 Christians faign of that their One God, when they make him busily pry into the manners, the actions, the words, and even the Secret thoughts of all men, as one that runs up and down, and is every where pre∣sent. They will haue him to be unquiet, importune, and curious even to Impudence: For they make him present to all that is done, and to insinuate himself into all corners, whereas he can neither sufficient∣ly provide for Each particular, being in∣cumbred with all: nor haue sufficient care of all, being intent vpon particulars: Here you see the Fundamental Errour of the Heathens and that which made them multiply the number of their Gods with∣out

number, assigning the care of each * 1.44 thing to the proper office of some Deity, as to the Goddess S••getia the care of the corn to Flora of the Flowers, to Rusina, of the Hills, to Vallonia, of the Vallies, and so of the rest, which Varro affirmeth to haue exceeded thirty thousand. And * 1.45 the same Varro thought he had done a singular peice of service to the Romans, in not only giving them a Catalogue of the Gods they ought to worship, but in teaching them also, what was the parti∣cular Power and Vertue of each Deity in order to the Parts of the Vniverse. For by this, saith he, we may know, what God we ought to invocate for each thing, and not do, as Comedians are wont, when they jest, aske water of Bacchus, and wine of the Nymphs. A great be∣nefit doubtless, saith S. Augustin deri∣ding after his way the fopperies of this great man; but withall adding, that he had deserved thanks indeed, had he showed what was Truth, and taught the One true God, from whom all good things are, to be worshipped by Men.

Cathar.

You are carefull I see to avoid the rock which T. G. run vpon, when citing the Testimony only of good fa∣ther

Origen, he cry'd out the Fathers, the Fathers. But admitting all this to be so, as you haue said, I do not see yet how the Heathens were chargeable with Idolatry in T. Gs. Principles, 1. because they gaue but divine worship to their In∣feriour Deities, and Soveraign alone to Jupiter, 2 because however they imagin∣ed the divine Power to be divided among many, yet without doubt what they referred their worship to, was that which they had in their minds when they pro∣nounced the word God, how rudely soeuer conceived by them.

Eun:

Much good may the Spoils of such a wrack do the Dr. I know none will envy them. But for what you object, to the first I answer, that by what name soeuer you call the worship the Heathens gaue to their Inferiour Deities, yet pro∣fessing, as they did, that they worshipped them as Sharers with Jupiter in the Di∣vine power and Authority and vpon that account believed them to be t••uly and prop••rly Gods, in whose power it was to bestow those benefits vpon them, which they desired, they were justly charged with Idolatry by the Fathers for so doing. For this being a Perfection pe∣culiar

to God, that he is the Sole Author of every good Gift, the giving worship to any other besides him, as a Sharer with him in it though but in this or that particular, will be Idolatry: And in this consideration, (were there no other) they might be justly charged with it by the Fathers. But the case is farr dif∣ferent with those of the Church of Rome, who believe and profess every good and perfect Gift to descend from the Father of Lights, whom they acknowledge to be the only true God; and address them∣selves to the Angels and Saints, as his Ministers and Servants, not to obtain of them the benefits they desire, but of God alone by their Intercession through his only Son and our only Redeemer Jesus * 1.46 Christ, as the Council of Trent hath declared.

As for what you add of the Heathens referring their worship to what they had in their minds, when they pronounced the word God, how rudely soever con∣ceived by them: I answer that as the Ma∣nichees, * 1.47 So the Heathens also though they pro∣nounced the word God, yet fixing the notion they had of him, vpon Jupiter, as the Dr. saith they generally did, (at least the Greeks and Romans) or vpon the Sun as the Persians, or vpon the Soul of the world as the Stoicks, or vpon any other created person or thing, they were in like manner guilty of Idolatry: And the reason of both is, because what the Manichees and Heathens had in their minds and Intentions to worship was not Him, who was the true God; but in reality a man, or a devil, or some other creature, to whom they applied the notion, and whom they erroneously, and without reason, believed to be him. And here the case also is quite different with those of the Church of Rome: For they neither believe the Saints to be Gods nor any divinity to be in Images, nor Bread in the Eucharist to be Christ, but believe the Saints to be but his Servants, the Images but Representations, and the Bread not to be at all, but to be changed into the Body of Christ: so that the Ob∣ject of their worship, that is, what they haue in their minds and purposes to give divine worship to, being no other than

the one only true God they can never be justly charged with Idolatry, as T. G. hath f••lly and cleerly shown, Cath. no Idol. p. 327. &c. As for the Hea∣thens, if at any time they worshipped God under the general notion of a Power Superiour to the Universe, or as Maker and Governour of the world, without placing it vpon any creature, to make that the Object of their wor∣ship, as it is likely they did not, when they used those expressions, God sees,, and I commend it to God, and God will restore, and the like: for t••e•• as Ter∣tullian * 1.48 saith, they lifted vp their Eyes to Heaven, and not to the Capitol, and so calls it the Testimony of a Soul naturally Christian, I do not find they were charged with Idolat••y by the Fathers in this precise consideration, Nor do I see any reason why they should, if they joyned nothing to that notion which was destructive of it. And thus much I hope may suffice to re∣moue the prejudice you had taken against those of the Church of Rome, from the imaginary Parallel of their worship with that of the Vulgar Hea∣thens. I know you haue a mind to be

doing also with the Philosophers, but I shall begg you will let them alone till to morrow.

The End of the Fourth Dialogue.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Part. 1. p. 33. 34.
• * 1.2

  Part. 3. p. 330. &c
• * 1.3

  Li. 6. de Civ. Dei c. 1.
• * 1.4

  Def. p. 12.
• * 1.5

  Des. p. 18.
• * 1.6

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.7

  Tlo••. A∣quin. ••i. 1. cont. Gent. c. 42.
• * 1.8

  Hac ve∣ritate ••e∣pelluntur Gentiles Deorum multitu∣diuem confiten∣tes; quā∣vis plures eorum unum Deum Sum mum esse dice••ent, a quo omnes a∣lios, quos Deos nuncu∣pabant, creatos esse asserebant, omnibus substantiis Sempiternis Divini∣tatis nomen ascriben••es & e. Quae quidem consuetudo loquendi etiam in S. Scriptura invenitur, dum Sancti Angeli, ••ut etiam homines vel Judices Dij nominantur.
• * 1.9

  Deo prae∣termisso, Elemen∣torum m••tatio∣nes dei∣ficant; perinde ac si Na∣vigium aliquis quo ve∣ctus sit, guberna∣toris loco haberet. Athenag. p. 61. 68. Def. p. 69. 62.
• * 1.10

  Athena∣goras le∣gat. pro Christ. p. ••3.
• * 1.11

  De civ. Dei. li. ••. c. 22. & li. 10. c. 1.
• * 1.12

  S. Aug. ••bid. li. 8. c. 12.
• * 1.13

  Li. b. c. 2.
• * 1.14

  Li. b. c. 10.
• * 1.15

  Li. 4. c. 17.
• * 1.16

  Li. 2. c. ••. n. 3.
• * 1.17

  Ps. ••••. Exod. 22. 28.
• * 1.18

  S. Hi••ron ••n Dan. 2. Error. Genti∣lium om∣ne quod supra se est, Deos putant. S. Aug. li. 1. de Cons. E∣vang. c. 27. Ma∣jores & Minores Deos co∣lun•• quos Deos pu∣••••••••.
• * 1.19

  Oratcon•• Gentil.
• * 1.20

  De civ. Dei li. 6. c. 1.
• * 1.21

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Leg••••. pro C••r. p. 61.
• * 1.22

  Of Idola∣try p. 42.
• * 1.23

  Dr. St. ••n his Pr••f. to Rom. I∣dol.
• * 1.24

  Def. p. 70.
• * 1.25

  Def. p. 5.
• * 1.26

  p. 4.
• * 1.27

  •• Def. p. ••19.
• 1 1.28

  Ter∣tull. li. de spect. non pe∣nitus Deum norunt, nifi de longin∣quo, non de proxi∣mo.
• 3 1.29

  La∣ctant. li. 2. c. 1. A∣deo ipsa veritas, cogente natura, ab invitis pe••toribus erumpit. Clem. Alex. in Protr. vel inviti fatentur. Athenag. p. 15. vel inviti consentiunt.
• * 1.30

  2. S. Aug. Ep. 120. ad Honor. sicut nec ilia lux videtur, oculis praesen∣tata coe∣corum.
• 4 1.31

  Tertull. ubi supra. Deum non penitus no••unt. S. Aug. Tract. 106. in ••o. Non omni modo esse potuit hoc nomen (Deus) ignotum, non omnino ac penitus possit abscondi Lactant. li. 2. c. 1. Quem p••o••••us igno••ari ab homine fas non est.
• 5 1.32

  Tertull. li. de Test. Animae. E•• voce (s••il, Deus) & aliquem esse significas, & omnem ilii confite••is potestatem. Clem. Alex. in strom. propefinem. Potestate quidem Dominus & Deus om∣nium, cogniti••ne autem non omnium, neque enim id quod est, neque quo modo Dominus & Pater & creato••, no••unt, nisi ab ipsa veritate didicerint. vid. S. Aug. li. 1. de Cons. Evang. ••. 25.
• * 1.33

  Li. 1. de Idol. c. 2. & 4.
• * 1.34

  C••gnitus confuse & poten∣tiá, Igno∣tus di∣stinctè & actu, &c.
• * 1.35

  Li. 14. de civ. Dei c. 13.
• * 1.36

  Gal. 4. 8. 2. Thess. 4. 7.
• * 1.37

  I i. 2. Sect. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.38

  Li. 1. c. 3
• * 1.39

  ••. 11.
• * 1.40

  Id. cap. 7.
• * 1.41

  p. 51. 52.
• * 1.42

  Tu in cae∣lo sum∣mam po∣testatem dividi credas & scindi ve••i illius ac divini Imperij totam potesta∣tem?
• * 1.43

  p. 29.
• * 1.44

  S. Aug. li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. ••.
• * 1.45

  Id ibid. c. 22.
• * 1.46

  Sess. 25••
• * 1.47

  Mani∣chaei So∣lem istum oculis carneis visibilem exposi∣tum & though they professed to believe and worship Christ, yet for giving that worship to the Sun, whom they believed to be him, were charged with Idolatry:

  

  View Page 432

  publicum non tan∣••um ho∣minibus sed etiam pecoribus ad viden∣dum, Christum Domi∣num esse putave∣runt. S. Aug. Tract. 24. in Io.
• * 1.48

  O Testi∣monium animae naturali∣ter Chri∣stianae. Tertull. Apol. c. 17.