A defence of the discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolators / by Ed. Stillingfleet ...

CHAP. I. T. G's notion of Idolatry examined and confuted.

TO make good the Charge of Ido∣latry against the Roman Church,* 1.1 which is my present business, there are two things necessary to be done,

1. To lay down the right notion of Ido∣latry.

2. To examine what T. G. and others have said, to justifie themselves, from the particulars of this Charge.

I begin with the consideration of the Nature of Idolatry, not only because my

Adversary calls me to it in these words,* 1.2 Here the Ax is laid to the root, and if ever the Dr. will speak home to the purpose, it must be upon this point. He must speak to the Nature of the thing, &c. But because the weight of the whole matter in debate depends upon it, and whosoever reads through T. G's answer to me, will find the only strength of it to lie in a very dif∣ferent notion of Idolatry which he sets up, which if it prove true, the main of my charge must fall to the ground; although however by his way of writing he can hardly answer the character I had given him, either of a Learned or ingenuous Ad∣versary.

The notion of Idolatry which T. G. lays down may be gathered from these asserti∣ons of his,* 1.3 That, God being the only su∣preme and superexcellent Being above all and over all, to him therefore Sovereign honour is only to be given, and to none be∣side him; That as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry which is so in the nature of the thing; so no prohibition (if there were any) could make that to be Idolatry, which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry; That, the worship of Images forbidden in the Com∣mandment,* 1.4 is the worshipping Images in∣stead

of God; and the reason of the Law was to keep the people in their duty of gi∣ving Sovereign worship to God alone,* 1.5 by restraining them from Idolatry.* 1.6 That this Law was made particularly to forbid So∣vereign worship to be given (as he saith, it was at that time given by the Heathen) to graven Images,* 1.7 i. e. representations of imaginary Beings; or to any similitude, i. e. the likeness of any thing, which al∣though it had a real being, yet was not God: That,* 1.8 the Image-worship condemned by S. Paul, was the worshipping Images for Gods, or as the Images of false Gods: That,* 1.9 evil Spirits or false Gods did reside in their Images by Magical incantation:* 1.10 That, the supreme God of the Heathens was not the true God but a Devil, and that the Poets who call him the Father of Gods and men,* 1.11 were those whom Ho∣race confesseth, that they took the privi∣ledge to dare to feign and say thing. From these assertions, it is no hard matter to form T. G's notion of Idolatry, viz. That it is, The giving the Soveraign wor∣ship of God to a creature, and among the Heathens to the Devil. And now who dares charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry? I do not wonder that he calls this so foul, so extravagant, so unjust a

charge; and parallels me with no meaner a person than Iulian the Apostate, saying, That surely a more injurious Calumny scarce ever dropt from the pen of the grea∣test enemy of Christianity,* 1.12 except that of Ju∣lian the Apostate. But I am so used to their hard words, that I can easily pass them over, and immediately apply my self to the debate of these things, which will tend very much to the clearing the true notion of Idolatry,

1. Whether Idolatry be not consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being?

2. Wherein the Nature of that Divine Worship lies, which being given to a Crea∣ture makes it Idolatry?

For if those who acknowledge one Su∣preme Being, the Creator and Governour of the world, were notwithstanding this, guilty of Idolatry, and that Idolatry be, as T. G. confesseth,* 1.13 the giving the wor∣ship due to God to a creature; then if we can prove, that the Church of Rome doth give any part of that worship which is due to God to any thing besides him, we may still justly charge them with Idolatry, although they believe one Supreme God, and reserve some worship which he calls So∣vereign to him.

1. Whether Idolatry be not consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme [unspec 1] Being, Creator,* 1.14 and Governour of the world? Whom I suppose T. G. will not deny to be the true God. It is agreed by him, that the whole Heathen world was guilty of Idolatry, without excepting the more intelligent and wiser persons among them; therefore our only business as to them is to enquire, whether they did ac∣knowledge this Supreme Being; and it is without dispute, that all Christians do acknowledge the True God; if I can then prove, that such have notwithstand∣ing been charged with Idolatry, by those whose judgement T. G. dares not refuse, I hope these two things being made out, will be sufficient to prove, that those may be guilty of Idolatry, who acknow∣ledge one Supreme God.

As to the Heathens, who are confes∣sed [unspec 1] to be Idolaters. I have such plenty and choice of evidence in this matter, that it is not easie to know which to leave out; for, if either the Testimony of the Heathens themselves may be taken; or the Testimony of the Writers of the Ro∣man Church concerning them; or the Testimonie of the Scriptures; or of those

Fathers who disputed against their Idola∣try, or of the Roman Church it self, I do not doubt, to make it evident, that those Heathens who are charged with Idolatry, did acknowledge one Supreme God. In so great store I have reason to consider the temper of the person I have to deal with; For, if I produce the Testimony of the Heathen Writers them∣selves, it may be he may suspect, that the Devil dwelt in their Books as well as in their Images; and being a very cun∣ning Sophister that he might perswade their Philosophers to write for one God, that he might have the worship belong∣ing to him: as O. C's Instruments were for a single Person, that the Govern∣ment might be put into his hands. But, I have a better reason than this, viz. that this Work is already undertaken, by a very learned Person of our Church.

The Testimony of Scripture is plain enough in this matter to any unbyassed mind; as appears by S. Pauls saying to the men of Athens when he saw the Altar to the un∣known God; Whom ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you;* 1.15 Did S. Paul mean the Devil by this? Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to the world? yet he preached

him whom they ignorantly worshipped, i. e. the Devil, saith T. G. Although S. Paul immediately saith,* 1.16 it was the God that made the World, and all things in it: and afterwards quotes one of their Poets for saying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For we are his offspring;* 1.17 and it is observable that the words immediately going before in Aratus are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and he useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 twice more in the verses before, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.18 which is the very word that T.G. saith doth signifie an Arch-Devil. Doth S. Paul then say, we are all the Devils off∣spring? and not an ordinary one neither, but the very Arch-Devils? Was this his way of perswading the Atheni∣ans to leave the worship of Devils, to tell them, that they were all the Devils off∣spring? No: it was far enough from him, for he infers from that saying of Aratus, that they were the offspring of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.19 So that if Saint Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Iupiter was so far from being the Arch-Devil, that he was the true God, blessed for evermore. And it is observa∣ble, that S. Paul quotes one of their Poets for this saying; notwithstanding T. G's sharp censure of them out of Horace;

with which, the force of S. Pauls testi∣mony is overthrown. But he was not alone in making this to be the Poets sense,* 1.20 for Aristobulus the Iewish Philo∣sopher produces it to the same purpose, and adds, that although he used the name of Jove, yet his design was to express the true God. Minucius Felix saith wisely in this case,* 1.21 They who make Jove the chief God, are only deceived in the name, but agree in the Power; so far was he from thinking their Iupiter Father of Gods and men, (which he applauds the Poets for saying) to have been the Arch-Devil.

But T. G. quotes Origen for saying,* 1.22 that the Christians would undergo any Torments rather than confess Jupiter to be God; for they did not believe Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, neither in∣deed to be any God at all, but a Devil, who is delighted with the name of Jupiter, an enemy to men and God. I grant, Origen doth say so; but suppose St. Paul and Origen contradict one another, I desire to know whom we are to follow? Yet if T. G. had considered Origen as he ought to have done, he would have seen how little had been gained by this saying of his. For when Celsus had said, it was

no great matter whether they called the Supreme God Jupiter, or Adonai, or Sa∣baoth, or Ammon as the Aegyptians did, or Pappai as the Scythians. Origen an∣swers. 1. That he had spoken already upon this subject, which he desires may be remembered; now in that place he saith, that by reason of the abundance of filthy and obscene fables which went of their Jupiter, the Christians would by no means endure to have the true God called by his name;* 1.23 having learnt from Pla∣to to be scrupulous about the very names of their Gods. 2. Origen hath a particu∣lar conceit about the power of the Hebrew names; and hath a very odd discourse, unbecoming a Philosopher and a Christian, about the power of words in enchantments, and that the same words had great force in their Originals,* 1.24 which they lost be∣ing translated into other Languages; and if it be thus, saith he, in other names, how much more ought we to think it so in the names of God? And therefore he would by no means have those powerful names of Adonai and Sabaoth to be chang∣ed for any other. By which for all that I can see, Origen would as much have scru∣pled calling the Divine Being God, as Iove, If Vossius his conjecture be true, that God

is the same with the old German Gode, or Godan,* 1.25 and according to the common per∣mutation of those letters, Wodan, who was the chief God among the Germans. 3. He saith, that it was no fault at all for any persons to call the Supreme God by the names used in their own language; as the Aegyptians might call him Ammon, and the Scythians Pappai: and then why not the Greeks 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? and I do not see he finds much fault with them for it; but he would not have those names brought into the Christian Religion, which had been defiled by such impure stories and representations among the Heathens: which is the best thing that he saith to this purpose: But we see that Origen himself doth not deny that either the Greeks, or Aegyptians, or Scythians did own a Supreme God, or that they had proper names to express him by: but he would not have the Christi∣ans bring those names into their Religi∣on; And that Origen grants that the Heathens did acknowledge the Supreme God, will be proved afterwards. But whatever his opinion was, we are sure S. Paul by the God that was known a∣mong the Heathens, did not mean the Devil: For was the believing the Devil

to be the Supreme God, that holding the truth in unrighteousness,* 1.26 which S. Paul charges the Heathens with? Was this indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That which is known of God, which he saith,* 1.27 not only was manifest in them, but, that God him∣self had revealed it to them? Was this that eternal Power and God-head which was to be seen by the things that were made, so as to leave them without excuse?* 1.28 Was this their knowing of God,* 1.29 and that incorruptible God whose glory they turned into the Image of a corruptible man, &c? Was all this,* 1.30 nothing but Iu∣piter of Crete, and the Arch-Devil un∣der his name? But what will not men say, rather than confess themselves Ido∣laters?

Although these Testimonies of Scri∣ture, be never so evident;* 1.31 yet I am not sure but T. G. may be the Polus mention∣ed in Erasmus now, (whom he mentions for my sake,* 1.32 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,* 1.33 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, happi∣ness, 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 Scri∣pture 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 participa∣tion. And did Aquinas, mean any other∣wise 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,* 1.34 gives this account of their Principles of Religion; that some of them held one God the first and uni∣versal principle of all things; but with∣all

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 substan∣ces 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 Ima∣ges, might have divine worship given to them, in as much as they did participate of a Superiour nature, either from the in∣fluence 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 princi∣ple did give divine worship to any other being: because it weakens the notion and esteem we ought to have of the Su∣preme 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 pro∣per only to him, and because he is pro∣perly 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 wor∣ship should be appropriated to God alone. But, saith he, although this opi∣nion which makes God a separate Being and the first Cause of all intellectual Be∣ings, be true: yet that which makes God the Soul of the World, though it be far∣ther 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 princi∣ple, the several parts of the world in re∣spect of God, are but as the several mem∣bers of a mans body in respect of his Soul. But the most unreasonable opinion,

he saith, is that of animated Images, be∣cause 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 be∣cause 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 there∣fore the Scripture saith, they worshipped Devils and not God. From which re∣markable Testimony we may take no∣tice of these things. 1. That he confes∣seth many of the Gentiles whom he char∣ges with Idolatry; did believe and wor∣ship the Supreme God as Creator and Go∣vernour 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 Sophi∣ster among them to shew me why a man may not as lawfully worship any part of the world with a relative Latria, sup∣posing 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 can∣not but wonder so great a judgement as Aquinas had,* 1.35 should not either have made him justifie the Heathens on this supposi∣tion, 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 Popes Toe is of the worship

that is given to him. Why should it be more unlawful to worship God, by wor∣shipping Fire or Water or the Earth, or any inferiour creature, supposing God to be the Soul of the World, than it is to shew Reverence to the Pope by kissing his Toe? which I suppose, can be upon no other reason, but because it is a part of his body, which is animated by the same Soul in all the members of it. 4. That Aqui∣nas doth not therefore say, that the Hea∣thens worshipped Devils, because the Su∣preme God whom they worshipped was an Arch-Devil, as T. G. saith, but because none but evil Spirits would draw men to give di∣vine worship to any thing but God himself; and then, that evil Spirits did appear to heighten and encourage this devotion, by acting and speaking in Images. The conse∣quence of which I desire T. G. to consider. And this testimony of Aquinas is the more considerable, not only for his great Au∣thority in the Roman Church; and be∣cause Pius 5. in the approbation of his Works A. D. 1567. very gravely menti∣ons Christs speaking to him from a Crucifix, when he was praying before it, that he had written well concerning him (it seems the Crucifix was anima∣ted too); but because I find this Book so

highly applauded by Possevin,* 1.36 and others for the best account of the Christi∣an Religion in opposition to Heathenism.

Card. Cajetan in his Commentaries on Aquinas speaking of the Images of God,* 1.37 he distinguishes them into 3. sorts. 1. Some that were to represent the Divinity, which he utterly condemns. 2. Some to set forth the appearances of God mentioned in Scripture. 3. Some by way of Ana∣logy, that by sensible things we may be brought to the veneration of insensible, as the Holy Ghost in the form of an old man holding a globe in his hand, &c; which last way, saith he, comes near to the custom of the Heathens who repre∣sented God diversly, as he is the cause of divers effects, as under the form of Mi∣nerva by reason of his Wisdom, and the like. Would Cajetan ever have paral∣lel'd the Custome of the Church of Rome, with that of the Heathens, if he had thought they had only pictured the Devil under these representations? In another place he puts this Question; how it could be said that all the Gods of the Heathens were Devils,* 1.38 since although they worshipped many Gods, yet withal they worshipped one Supreme God? To which he answers. 1. That the Devils were

the causes of Idolatry, and so they were Devils causally though not essentially. 2. That although those they worshipped were not in themselves Devils, as the heavenly intelligences; yet they were so as they were the Gods of the Heathens: i. e. as they had divine worship given to them. And the true God himself, he saith, was not worshipped according to what he was, but according to what they conceived of him. But he grants before that they conceived of him, as the Supreme God: which was a right conception of him; but if he means it was imperfect, is it not so in those who worship him most truly?

Martinus Peresius Ayala a learn∣ed Bishop in Spain,* 1.39 treating the Question of the worship of Images; saith expresly, That S. Augustine condemned all divine worship or Latria to be given to any kind of Images, not, saith he, in regard of their matter, for there was no need to give caution against that, but in regard of their representation, and he calls them Idolaters which give that worship to Images which is due to God (with T. G's leave I translate Simulachra Images, for so I am sure Peresius understands it) Neither saith he, was S. Augustine ignorant, that there were few or none among the Gen∣tiles

who thought the matter of their Idols so fashioned to be Gods or God: (let T. G. mark that) but on that account he seems to condemn them, that they gave divine honour to their Images, as they represented God: for there were many Idols among them in which there was no Devil who gave answers, but they only represented God as their benefactor: nei∣ther did all the things which the Gentiles worshipped signifie a false God. For there was an Altar at Athens to the unknown God. Ioh. Ferus saith,* 1.40 that the intenti∣on of the Heathens, was through their Idols to give worship to the true God Now T. G. knows that humane acts d•• certainly go whither they are intended▪ so that according to Ferus, these Hea¦thens did truly worship the true God Athan. Kircher layes it down as a certain principle,* 1.41 that there never was in any Age, any People so rude and barbarous which did not acknowledge and worship one Supreme Deity, the first principle and Governour of all things.* 1.42 But saith he that they might teach the people that the Supreme Being, whom we call God, w•••• present in all places, therefore they ma•••• abundance of Gods in all places and ov•••• all things. So that as Max. Tyrius saith

no place was left without a Deity. Pe∣tavius not only makes use of the ar∣guments produced by the Heathens to prove one Supreme God,* 1.43 and thinks them considerable: but saith that S. Paul demon∣strates (mark that) that the Gentile Philoso∣phers attained to the knowledge of God by the works of Creation: and quotes the saying of Max. Tyrius with approbation,* 1.44 that however the several Nations of the world differed from each other in customs and languages and modes of worship, yet they all agreed in this, that there was one God, Lord, and Father of all, and saith, that the Testimony of Orosius is most true,* 1.45 that both the Philosophers and common Heathens did believe one God the authour of all things,* 1.46 and to whom all things are referred: but that under this God they did worship many inferiour and subservient Gods: and he adds that pas∣sage of S. Augustin,* 1.47 that the Heathens supposed all their Gods to come at first out of one substance: but I wonder he omitted what is very observable in the same chapter, viz. that Faustus the Maniche∣an holding two first principles, saith, that the Christians joyned with the Hea∣thens in believing but one: and S. Au∣gustin confesseth, that the greatest part

of the Heathens did believe the same with the Christians in that point; but the dif∣ference, he saith, lay here, that they worshipped more Gods than one: and therein the Manichees agreed with them, and the Christians only with the Jews:* 1.48 but the Manichees in that were worse than the Heathens, that these wor∣shipped those things for Gods which were, but were not Gods; but they worshipped those things, which were so far from be∣in Gods that they were not at all. Fa∣ber Faventinus,* 1.49 in his discourse against Atheists,* 1.50 insists upon this as an argument of some weight to prove a Deity, be∣cause all mankind had so settled a notion of one first principle in their minds from which all things come, and by which they were governed, and however they differed in other conceptions about 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,* 1.51 Mutius Pansa,* 1.52 Li∣vius Galantes,* 1.53 Paulus Benius Eugubinus,* 1.54 but above all Augustinus Steuchus Eugu∣binus,* 1.55 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 Pro∣vidence 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,* 1.56 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 Ido∣latry, 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,* 1.57 and to de∣fend the Christian worship. In his Pa∣raenesis to the Greeks he takes notice, how hardly the wiser Gentiles thought themselves dealt with, when all the Po∣etical Fables about their Gods were obje∣cted 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 feign∣ing and saying any thing, as well as the Heathen Poets); but they appeal∣ed for the principles of their Religion to Plato and Aristotle: both whom he confesses,* 1.58 to have asserted one Supreme God; although they differed in their opi∣nions about the manner of the formati∣on of things by him. Afterwards he saith, That the first Authour of Poly∣theism among them, viz. Orpheus, did plainly assert one Supreme God,* 1.59 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 Ima∣ges of Gods, and when they had offered sacri∣fices and kept solemnities to these, they thought themselves Religious.* 1.60 He farther shews that Pythagoras delivered to his disciples the unity of God, and his be∣ing the cause of all things, and the foun∣tain of all good: that Plato being warn∣ed 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 concern∣ing the true God.* 1.61 That, Homer by his golden chain did attribute to the Supreme God a Power over all the rest;* 1.62 and, that the rest of the Deities were near as far di∣stant from the Supreme as men were: and that the Supreme was he whom Ho∣mer calls, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God himself, which signifies, saith Iustin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the truely existent Deity: and that in Achilles his Shield he makes Vulcan re∣present the Creation of the world.* 1.63 From these arguments he perswades the Greeks to hearken to the Revelation which the

true and Supreme God had made of him∣self to the world, and to worship him ac∣cording to his own Will. In his Apolo∣gies to the Roman Emperours, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, and the Ro∣man Senate and People (for so Baronius shews,* 1.64 that which is now called the first, was truely the second, and that not only written to the Senate, but to the Empe∣rour 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:* 1.65 that it was not whether there were one Supreme God or no: or whe∣ther he ought to have divine worship gi∣ven 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,* 1.66 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.* 1.67 In another place he saith, that they had no other crime to object against the Christians, but that they did not worship the same Gods with them; nor offer up libations and the smoak of sacrifices to dead men;* 1.68 Nor crown and worship Ima∣ges; 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 ma∣kers of them. And he wondered they could call them Gods,* 1.69 which they knew to be without soul, and dead, and to have no likeness to God: (it was not then up∣on the account of their being animated by evil Spirits, that the Christians re∣jected this worship, for then these reasons would not have held) All the resem∣blance they had, was to those evil Spirits that had appeared among men; for that was Iustins opinion of the beginning of

Idolatry,* 1.70 that God had committed the Government of all things under the hea∣vens to particular Angels, but these An∣gels prevaricating by the love of Women, did upon them beget Daemons, that these Daemons were the great corrupters of man∣kind; and partly by frightful appariti∣ons, and by instructing men in Idolatrous rites did by degrees draw men to give them divine worship, the people not ima∣gining them to be evil Spirits, and so were called by such names as they liked best themselves, as Neptune, Pluto,* 1.71 &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,* 1.72 is not a name, but a notion engraf∣ted in humane nature of an unex∣pressible Being. But, that God alone, is to be worshipped, appears by this, which is the great command given to Christians.* 1.73 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 argu∣ment used by Iustin in behalf of the Christians, lay in Gods peremptory pro∣hibition

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 Gover∣nour of all things; for which end he produces the sayings of Aeschylus, So∣phocles, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Philemon, Menander, and Euripides; all very con∣siderable 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 im∣possible,* 1.74 because all men naturally agree in the knowledge of God.

* 1.75But 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 Hea∣thens, 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, Iu∣stin Martyr did make his second Apo∣logy, 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,* 1.76 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 con∣fident 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.* 1.77 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 Wis∣dom. Reverence the Gods, saith he;

but withal,* 1.78 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, some∣times, 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.

* 1.79But the great objection against such Testimonies of Antoninus and others lies in this, that these only shew the particu∣lar opinions of some few men of Philoso∣phical 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 Dei∣ties; 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 pro¦duce 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 con¦sist, 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 there∣fore 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 be∣sides him.

The Worship performed in their Temples, [unspec 1] was the most solemn and frequent among them; in so much that Tully saith, there∣in the people of Rome exceeded all Nati∣ons in the world;* 1.80 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 dedi∣cated to the Supreme God.* 1.81 The first Capitol was built at Rome by Numa Pompilius, and called by Varro the old Capitol,* 1.82 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 Nu∣ma as to the worship of the Deity: of which Plutarch gives this account;* 1.83 That he forbad the Romans making any Image of God, either like to men or beast; because the First Being is invisible, and incorruptible, and can only be apprehen∣ded by our minds. From hence, saith he, it was that the Romans, although they built Temples and holy places, yet for 160. years had no graven or painted Image of God; accounting it a prophane thing to represent the more excellent by what was below it; and because we cannot come near to God any other way than by our understanding. I do not de∣ny, that Numa did allow the worship of inferiour Deities, as of Iuno, Miner∣va, and of Deified men, as of Quirinus, as Dionysius Halicarnassaeus saith;* 1.84 but since it is plain from hence that he ac∣knowledged a First, invisible, incompre∣hensible Being, since he deduced the rea∣son of Divine worship from considerati∣ons proper to him, since he appointed a Flamen Dialis as the chief of all the rest,* 1.85 as Livy tells us, and erected a Capitol to Iove, it is incredible that he

should design it for any other than the Supreme Deity. What force was there in Numa's reason against Images, if the First, and invisible Being were not worshipped by him? to what end were reasons framed against a thing ne∣ver intended? and which would not hold against the worship of Deified men, unless the worship of them were supposed to be carried at last to the Supreme God? But not only Plutarch attested this,* 1.86 but Varro saith that for 170. years the Romans worshipped their Gods without Images: i. e. till the New Capitol were erected: which was vowed by Tarquinius Priscus in the Sabine War;* 1.87 but he was only able to prepare the place and lay the Foundations;* 1.88 Servius Tullius carried it on, Tarquinius Superbus was at vast charge upon it, designing, saith Livy,* 1.89 a Temple of such a capacity as might become the King of Gods and men;* 1.90 which was the common phrase whereby Ennius, Plautus and Virgil did set forth the Supreme Deity. This magnificent Tem∣ple which, according to Dionysius, stood upon 800. foot of ground, was not finished till after the expulsion of Tar∣quin, and was then dedicated with great solemnity by Horatius Pulvillus being

both Consul and Pontifex. And from that time this was accounted the great seat of God and Religion among them;* 1.91 it was sede•• Iovis, in Livy; Iovis Summi arx, in Ovid; terrestre domicilium Iovis, in Cicero; Se∣des Iovis Opt. Max. in Tacitus; which are all as plain Testimonies that this Temple was designed for the Supreme God among them, as can be desired; bu•• if any thing more can be added, it is only what Pliny saith in his Panegyrick that God was as present there as he w•••• in the heavens. To this Temple th•• greatest resort was made especially by the Magistrates on all solemn occasions hither the Consuls came and made thei•• vows and offered sacrifices before the•• went into their Provinces, on the ver•• day they entred upon their Office, sait•• Livy,* 1.92 for it was one of the charges again Flaminius, that he went away witho•••• doing it; hither those that triumphe•••• came and offered up their Laurels an•• laid them in the lap of Iupiter O. M. here the great Souldiers consecrated the•••• Arms,* 1.93 and hung up the Spoils of the Enemies, by which means it came to in¦credible riches;* 1.94 Here, the great Scip•••• was observed to be very often conver¦sant in the night in cella Iovis; an••

Alexander Severus never missed attend∣ing the service of the Capitol, if he were in the City, every seventh day, as Lampridius saith in his Life; by which we see in what extraordinary esteem the service of Iupiter O. M. in the Capitol was among the greatest persons in Rome: from whence, Lactantius saith,* 1.95 it was summum caput Religionum suarum publi∣carum; the very top of their Religion; and Isidore thinks it was called Capitoli∣um,* 1.96 because it was Romanae urbus & Reli∣gionis caput summum; so that it was not on∣ly the worship of the Supreme, but a higher degree of worship than was used at any other Temple in Rome. If any worship can be supposed more solemn than this, it was that of Iupiter Latialis upon the Mountain of Alba, whither the Roman Coss. went upon the Feriae Latinae, and there met the Ambassadours sent on pur∣pose from the whole Society of the La∣tins; where they all joyned together in a common sacrifice to the same Iove, as Dionysius, Strabo, and Livy relate.* 1.97

I con foresee but 2. Objections against this evidence for the worship of the Su∣preme God among the Romans. 1. That Jupiter was not worshipped alone in the

Capitol, but Juno and Minerva too. 2. That this Jupiter was not the Supreme God, but Jupiter of Crete. To these I answer. 1. I confess that Iuno and Mi∣nerva had their Images in the Capitol; but we are to consider that it was a rule in their Pontifical Law, that a Temple could be consecrated only to one God; and therefore M. Marcellus could not dedicate the same Temple to Honour and Vertue, because the Pontifices, saith Livy,* 1.98 told him, unum Templum, duobus numinibus non rectè dedicari. But there might be Images or little cells, of other Gods be∣sides; as T. G. knows, in a Church dedi∣cated to God or the B. Virgin, there may be Chappels to Saints, which do not hinder the main design of the worship being to God: and so it was in this (and many other things among the old Romans;) as Diana and the Muses were in the Temple of Apollo; and the Graces of Phidias in the Temple of Iupi∣ter Olympius; but Livy particularly saith, as to this Temple of the Capitol, that they cleared the ground as much as they could of all worships besides,* 1.99 ut area esset tota Jovis, that it might wholly be∣long to Iove.

The only question then is, whether [unspec 2] by this Jove they meant the Supreme God, or Jupiter of Crete? For which we are to observe, 1. That the Poetical Fables were rejected at Rome. 2. That the character given of Jupiter by the Ro∣mans can belong only to the Supreme God.

That the Poetical Fables were rejected [unspec 1] at Rome. I do not mean only that they were rejected by their Wisemen as Var∣ro, Seneca, and others, but by their most an∣cient Laws about Religion. Marlianus mentions a Table of the Laws of Ro∣mulus preserved in the Capitol, among which this is one, DEORUM FABU∣LAS NE CREDUNTO.* 1.100 And that this was no invention of his own, appears by what Dionysius Halicarnassaeus at large discourseth on this subject:* 1.101 where he shews, that although the customes and rites of Religion instituted by Ro∣mulus were agreeable to the best among the Greeks;* 1.102 yet he utterly rejected all their Fables concerning their Gods (which are indeed so many blasphemies and re∣proaches of them) as wicked, unprofita∣ble and indecent, and not becoming good men, much less those which were wor∣shipped for Gods: And that he disposed

the minds of men to speak and think things worthy of that blessed nature they sup∣posed them to have. And he particular∣ly instances in the Fables of Saturn and Iupiter, and the Mysteries of Ceres and Bacchus, and the madnesses and wicked∣ness of the Greeks in celebrating their Religious mysteries; but, he saith, all things that concerned Religion were said and done among the Romans, with greater gravity than among the Greeks or Bar∣barians. By this he would not have any think him ignorant, that some of the Greek Fables might be useful to some persons, either for natural or moral Philosophy or other purposes; but upon the whole matter he did much more ap∣prove the Roman Theology, because the benefit of those Fables was very little to any, and those very few; but the com∣mon people who are not versed in Philoso∣phy, are apt to take these things in the worst sense, either from thence to learn to contemn their Gods, or to follow their examples. I do not undertake to defend all the Roman Theology, nor can it be said that the Romans did in all things maintain that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or decency of wor∣ship which Dionysius magnifies them for, as appears by the many indecencies which

the Fathers charge the practice of their Religion with; but as they were not to be excused in other things, so we ought not to charge them with more than they were guilty of; I mean when all the Poetical Fables of Iupiter are applyed to Iupiter O. M. that was worshipped in the Capitol at Rome. But some Writers are to be excused, who having been bred up in the Schools of Rhetoricians, and practising that art so long before, when they came to be Christians, they could not easily forbear giving a cast of their former employment. As when Arnobius had been proving the natural notion of one Supreme God in the minds of men, he brings in the Romans an∣swering,* 1.103 that if this were intended against them, it was a meer calumny, for they be∣lieved him and called him Jupiter O. M. and built a most magnificent Temple to him in the Capitol; which he endea∣vours to disprove because God is eternal, and their Jupiter was born and had a Father and Mother and Uncles and Aunts, as other mortals have. Which indeed was an infallible argument, that Iupi∣ter of Crete could not be the Supreme God; but for all that, might not the Ro∣mans call the Supreme God by the name

of Iupiter O. M? The Question is not, whether they did wisely to make use of a name so corrupted and abused by abominable Fables; but whether un∣der this name they meant the Supreme Being or no? and they thought it a suffici∣ent distinction of him from that infamous Iupiter of the Poets, that they called him Optimus Maximus: which Lactanti∣us confesseth,* 1.104 were the titles the Romans alwaies gave him in their prayers; Quid horum omnium Pater Iupiter, qui in so∣lenni precatione Opt. Max. nominatur? Which not only shews the titles they gave him, but the supplications they made to him, and the believing him to be the Father of Gods and Men: and yet after this, Lactantius rips up all the extra∣vagancies of the Poets; as though the Romans at the same time believed him to have done all those things, and to have been the Supreme Governour of the world, as he confesses they did.* 1.105 Regnare in coelo Io∣vem vulgus existimat, id & doctis pariter & indoctis per suasum est; quod & Religio ipsa & precationes, & hymni & delubra & simulacra demonstrant; Which words are a very plain testimony, that they not only believed him to be Governour of the world, but that they did intend to

give solemn worship to him by prayers and hymns and sacrifices. But when he im∣mediately adds, that they confess the same Jupiter to have been born of Saturn and Rhea; he might have done well to have explained himself a little more, for not long after he acknowledges, that many did reject the Poets in these matters, as guilty not only of lying but of sacriledge; and besides these, the Philosophers he saith, did make two Ioves, the one natural, the other fabulous, i. e. in truth, they made but one, rejecting the other as a figment of the Poets. But he saith, they were to blame in calling him Iove; and what then? this is only a dispute about the name, whereas the question is, whom they un∣derstood by that name; and some think it was the most proper name they could have used, Iove being only a little vari∣ed from the name the Supreme God was called by in the Scripture. And La∣ctantius himself confesses, they had the knowledge of the Supreme God among them, and what other name had they to call him by? especially when they joyn∣ed those two attributes of Power and Good∣ness, as sufficient to prevent any mistake of him.

[unspec 2] That the character given of this Iu∣piter O. M. by the Romans can belong only to the Supreme God, S. Augustin confesses, that they believed him, whom they worshipped in the Capitol, to be the King of the Gods as well as men;* 1.106 and to represent this, they placed a Scepter in his hand, and built his Temple upon a high hill; and that it is he of whom Virgil saith, Iovis omnia plena; and the same in Varro's opinion that was worshipped by some without any Image, by whom he means the Iews, saith S. Augustin. Luc. Balbus in Cicero saith,* 1.107 by Iove they under∣stood Dominatorem rerum & omnia nutu regentem, & praesentem ac praepotentem Deum: which are a full description of Gods infinite power and presence and Government of the world. When we call Iupiter Opt. Max. and Salutaris, and Hospitalis and Stator,* 1.108 we mean, saith Tul∣ly, that the safety of men depends upon his protection. And that they gave him the titles of Opt. Max. to express his Power and Goodness;* 1.109 but first Opt. then Max. because it is a greater thing to do good,* 1.110 than to exercise power. You may safe∣ly, saith Seneca, call God by the titles of Jupiter Opt. Max. and Tonans and Sta∣tor,* 1.111 not from stopping the Roman army,

but because all things do stand by him. And you may give him what names you please, while you thereby express his di∣vine power and efficacy, as Liber Parens because he is the Authour of all things, Hercules because of his irresistible force, Mercury for his Wisdom. If you had re∣ceived a kindness from Seneca, and you should say you owed it to Annaeus, or Lu∣cius, you would not change the person but his name: for what name soever you call him by, he is the same person still; you may use what name you please, while you mean the same thing. And lest we should think this only a Philosophical sub∣tilty in Seneca ,* 1.112 he tells us elsewhere, that their Ancestors were not such Fools to imagine that Jove, as they worshipped him in the Capitol and elsewhere, did send forth thunderbolts from his hand, (as his Image was there placed sitting in a chair of State with sometimes a Scep∣ter, sometimes a Globe in one hand, and a Thunderbolt in the other) but by Jove they meant the same that we do, the pre∣server and Governour of the Universe, the Soul and Spirit, and Lord and Ma∣ker of the world: which is as full a testimony as can be wished for, to our purpose. The title of Iupiter Omnipo∣tens

is so frequent in Virgil,* 1.113 that it is needless to cite any places for it; and he was particularly observed by the an∣cient Criticks,* 1.114 to be so nice and exact in all matters that concerned their Religion, as if he had been Pontifex Max. as Macrobius observes:* 1.115 He is called in the known verses of Valerius Soranus produced by Varro

Iupiter omnipotens Regum Rex ipse, Deusque Progenitor, genitrixque Deum, Deus unus & omnis.

* 1.116And this man was accounted the most learned among the Romans before Varro; on which account his testimony is the more considerable. But besides the Po∣ets, we find others attributing omnipo∣tency to their Iove; Tacitus disputing what God Serapis was,* 1.117 says, some called him Iove, ut rerum omnium potentem; whereby it appears that they looked on omnipotency as proper to him: So in the speech of young Manlius in Livy to Geminius, when he asked him, when the Roman Army would come out, he said,* 1.118 very speedily, and Iupiter would come with them, as witness of their False∣ness,

Iupiter qui plus potest polletque: which signifies no less than an Almighty power. When the miraculous victory was obtained by M. Antoninus over the Marcomanni by the prayers of the Chri∣stians (as Tertullian and Apollinaris say upon good grounds, although the Heathen historians attribute it to the vertue of Antoninus, or to some Magicians with him) the whole Army made this excla∣mation, saith Tertullian,* 1.119 Deo Deorum & qui solus Potens, whereby they did, saith he, in Iovis nomine Deo nostro testimoni∣um reddere: by which it is evident they intended this honour to their own Iove; for in the whole Army only the Legio Ful∣minatrix are supposed to have been Christians; and besides this upon An∣toninus his Column at Rome, Baronius tells us there is still to be seen the Effigies of Iupiter Pluvius;* 1.120 destroying men and horses with thunder and lightning. Dio Chrysostome who lived in Trajans time,* 1.121 saith that by Jupiter whom the Poets call the Father of Gods and men, was meant the first and greatest God, the Supreme Governour of the world, and King over all rational Beings; and that the world is Jupiters house, or rather his City, be∣ing under his care and government;

and that in their prayers to him they cal∣led him Father: which shews not only their esteem of him, but the particular worship they gave to him as Supreme God.

[unspec 2] Besides the worship of him in the Temple, they made solemn addresses, and prayers, and vows to him on special occasions. Livy mentions Romulus his prayer to Iove with his Arms lifted up to Heaven,* 1.122 when his Army was flying, Iupiter tuis jussus avibus, &c. At •••• Pater Deûm hominumque hinc saltem arc•••• hostes; and then makes a vow to him of building a Temple in that place Sta∣tori Iovi: and presently he speaks to his Souldiers, as if he were sure his prayers were heard, Iupiter Opt. Max. resistere at{que} iterare pugnam jubet: upon which Livy saith, they stopped as if they had heard a voice from heaven. Dionys Halicarnassaeus mentions his prayer he made when the people chose him King 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.123 to King Iu∣piter and the other Gods: as Iulius Cae∣sar when M. Antony would have pu•• the Diadem on his head, sent it to th•• Capitol to the Statue of Iupiter O. M with this saying,* 1.124 solum Iovem Regem Ro∣manorum esse. When Numa Pompilius

was to be inaugurated, the Augur made this prayer in Livy, Iupiter Pater,* 1.125 si est fas hunc Numam, &c. When some were applauding the felicity of P. Camil∣lus upon the taking of Veii, Plutarch saith,* 1.126 he made this appeal to heaven, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. O mighty Jove, and ye Gods that behold the good and evil actions of men, &c. When Manlius Torquatus found Annius,* 1.127 after his insolent speech against the Ro∣mans in the Senate, lying dead at the foot of the steps of the Temple of Iupi∣ter Capitolinus; he cryed out, Est coeleste Numen, Es Magne Iupiter; haud fru∣strate Patrem Deum hominumque hac sede sacravimus. There is a God in heaven, Thou art O mighty Jove. It is not in vain that we have consecrated this Tem∣ple to thee the Father of Gods and Men. Plautus affords us many instances of prayers to the Supreme God; so Hanno the Carthaginian in his Poenulus,* 1.128 Mag∣ne Iupiter restitue certas mihi ex in∣certis opes: and the Punick Nurse cryes out at the sight of him, Proh Supreme Iupiter! and more fully Hanno in the following Scene,* 1.129

Iupiter qui genus colis alisque hominum, per quem vivimus, Vitale aevum: quem penès spes, vitae∣que sunt hominum omnium: Da diem hunc sospitem quaeso rebus meis agundis.

And in his Capteivi,* 1.130

Iupiter Supreme servas me.

and again,

* 1.131Serva Iupiter Supreme & me & meum gnatum mihi.

It was a custome among the Romans, as Turnebus observes,* 1.132 to lift up their eyes to heaven, and by way of amplification to cry ille Iupiter. So Plautus in Amphi∣tryo,* 1.133 Quod ille faciat Iupiter; and in his Mostellaria,* 1.134 Ita ille faxit Iupiter: in his Curculio,* 1.135 nec me ille sirit Iupiter Virgil likewise hath many prayers to the Supreme God with the acknowledgement of his Almighty Power; as in the prayer of Anchises,

Iupiter omnipotens, precibus si flecteris ullis,* 1.136 Aspice nos, hoc tantum: & si pietate meremur, Da deinde auxilium Pater, atque haec omina firma.

And in the prayer of Aeneas,

Iupiter omnipotens, si nondum exosus ad ununo* 1.137 Trojanos, si quid pietas antiqua la∣bores Respicit humanos, da flammam evadere classi Nunc Pater, & tenues Teucrûm res eripe letho.

So in the prayer of Ascanius,

Constitit ante Iovem, supplex per vota precatus;* 1.138 Iupiter omnipotens audacibus annue coeptis.

In the prayer of Venus,* 1.139

O Pater, ô hominum Divúmque aeter∣na Potestas, (Namque aliud quid sit quod jam implo∣rare queamus?)

Which is after explained in these words

[unspec 100] Tum Pater omnipotens rerum cui sum∣ma Potestas Infit.

And in the prayer of Turnus,

[unspec 669] Omnipotens genitor tantón me crimin•• dignum Duxisti?

But besides Virgil (who was so Cri∣tical in the rites of Religion that he would never have brought in such pray∣ers as these, if they had not been agree∣able to the Roman customs) we have the like instances in others, as in Silius It••∣licus,

* 1.140— Nosco te summe Deorum, Adsis ô firmesque tuae Pater aliti∣omen.

And in Persius,

* 1.141Magne Pater Divûm, saevos punire Ty∣rannos Haud aliâ ratione velis—

But this was not only the custom of their Poets, whom T. G. may imagine to have been as extravagant in their prayers as in their Fables (although the Theatre and Poets have seldom erred on the right side in Religion), yet it will ap∣pear to have been the practice of their Oratours upon solemn occasions to make a particular address to Iupiter O. M. espe∣cially in the beginning; as not only ap∣pears by Pliny's Panegyrick, but by the Testimony of Valerius Maximus,* 1.142 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 pra∣ctises in his Oration pro Rabirio;* 1.143 but in other places reserves it for an extraordi∣nary occasion. Quo circa te Capitoline Iupiter,* 1.144 quem propter beneficia P. R. Optimum, propter vim Maximum no∣minavit; and at the conclusion of his Orations against Verres, Nunc Te Iupiter Optime Maxime, &c. but most emphati∣cally pro Milone,* 1.145 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 con∣cludes 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 Panegy∣rick. 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.* 1.146 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 ere∣cted Altars to him, as in that inscri∣ption which Manutius transcribed from the Marble.

HANC. TIBI. ARAM. JUP∣PITER. OPT. MAX. DI∣CO. DEDICO QUE. UTI. SIS. VOLENS. PROPITI∣US. MIHI. COLLEGIS∣QUE MEIS. &c.* 1.147

As King Antiochus in Cicero dedicated his rich Candlestick made with admira∣ble workmanship of Gold and Jewels in these words,* 1.148 Dare, donare, dicare, consecrare Iovi Opt. Max. testemque ip∣sum Iovem suae voluntatis ac Religionis adhibere. In the old Roman inscripti∣ons we find several vows made to Iupiter O. M. for the safety of the Emperours, as in these:

I. O. M.* 1.149 PRO. SALUTE. IMP. &c.

Sometimes they made vows for the re∣turn of the Emperours, as in those of the Coss. Cl. Nero, and Quintilius Varus for Augustus:

* 1.150LUDOS. VOTIVOS. PRO. REDITU. IMP. CAESA∣RIS. DIVI. AUGUSTI. PONTIFICIS. MAXIMI. JOVI. OPTIMO. MAXI∣MO. 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,* 1.151 saith Horace. Thence in the inscriptions,

JUPPITER.

CUSTOS.

* 1.152DOMUS. AUG.

And,

* 1.153NUMINI. DEORUM. AUG. JOVI. OPT. MAX. AEDEM. VOTO. SUSCEPTO. Q. LE∣PIDUS.

It were endless to repeat the Inscri∣ptions that were made to him alone; or to him under his several attributes that were peculiar to him, as

DEO. QUI. EST. MAXI∣MUS.* 1.154 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Or his other titles, as

CONSVERATOR, CUSTOS. STATOR. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.155

Or to him, where he is distingui∣shed from the rest of the Gods: as in this,

I. O. M.

ET. CONSESSUI. DEO∣RUM. DEARUMQUE. PRO. SALUTE. IMPERII. RO∣MANI.* 1.156

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.

[unspec 3] Of which there is but one part re∣maining, viz. in the way of enquiring into the mind of God, which they sup∣posed 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.* 1.157 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,* 1.158 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;* 1.159 thence they are said by Tully, to be interpretes, internuntiique Iovis Opt. Max. and Iovis consiliarii & admi∣nistri; and the birds were said to be aves internuntiae Iovis;* 1.160 and they who refused to hearken to them,* 1.161 nolle moneri à Iove▪

So that this sort of Priesthood was peculiar among them, to him whom they belie∣ved to be the Supreme God. And from hence we may understand the passage in Arrian,* 1.162 where he blames the persons that came to the Augury with so much sollicitude of mind, which he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, coming to God to know his pleasure as to particular events; which they did, saith he, observing the Augury trembling, and crying 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lord have mercy upon me: which is so plain a form of supplication to the Su∣preme God,* 1.163 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 Hea∣then Idolaters.

Athenagoras made an address to the same Emperour M. Aurelius Antoninus in the behalf of the Christians,* 1.164* 1.165 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, So∣phocles, Philolaus, and other Pythagore∣ans; and from Plato and Aristotle, and the Stoicks; concerning whom he adds, that although they seemed to make many Gods,* 1.166 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 generali∣ty of mankind, were agreed in this whether they would or no, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that there was but one God. But then to the question why the Christians did refuse to worship Images? He gives this conside∣rable answer; If God and matter were but several names for the same thing,* 1.167 we might be charged with impiety, if we did not believe stone, and wood, and silver and Gold to be Gods; and consequently give divine worship to them; but if these are infinitely distant from each other; as far as the clay is from the Potter which forms and fashions it, why are we charg∣ed with impiety for not giving the same honour to the Clay that we do to the infinite∣ly wise Framer of these things? And if the artificer shews his skill in the vessels he makes, the honour is given to him and not to the vessels; so it is here, the honour and

glory is not to be given to the matter, but to the wise contriver, who is God himself: therefore if we look upon any of the several parts of matter as Gods, we shall thereby discover how little sense we have of the true God, by making things corruptible equal to him that is eternal. But wherein could they make them equal? not believing them to be equal in Power and Wisdom, for he supposed before, that one Supreme God was allowed on both sides; it could be therefore no otherwise than by giving divine honour to the creature as well as to the Creator: and that not for their own sakes, for he still supposeth them to be thought the Works of God; but al∣though it were designed to give honour to the Supreme Architect by falling down before any parts of matter, he thought it as senseless and unreasonable a thing, as for a man to honour an artificer by falling down before his Work. It was not then we see the supposing evil Spi∣rits to dwell in Images, which made the Christians so peremptorily deny divine worship to them; but because in so do∣ing they should make the creature equal to the Creator. Although, saith he, the beauty, and greatness, and capacity,

and figure and order of the world, de∣serve our admiration; yet we ought not to worship the world but only the Maker of it. As when any of your Subjects make their addresses to you, would it be well taken for them to pass you by, and turn themselves to your Palaces? but men are not so foolish as to do so, but they admire the beauty and excellency of them in passing by, and pay their whole respect and service to your selves. If we look upon the World as a Musical instrument, well tu∣ned and harmoniously struck, we ought not therefore to worship the instrument, but him that makes the Musick: and those who are the Iudges at the Musick exer∣cises, do not crown the Vial, but him that plaid upon it. If it be said, that all this proceeds upon the supposition, that the Supreme God is passed by and hath no peculiar honour given to him. I an∣swer, 1. The contrary appears, by what I have already said; for they did give particular honour to the Supreme Dei∣ty as such. 2. It is unreasonable to suppose that those who believe one Supreme God to be the Maker of all things, should in their inward intention wholly pass him by in the worship they give to his creatures.* 1.168 Mr. Thorndike indeed saith, suposing in a man as

uncorrupted opinion of the incomparable di∣stance that indeed is found between God and the most excellent of his creatures, it is impossible for him to attribute the honour due to God alone to that which he concei∣veth to be a meer creature: Which would be true, if all the honour due to God, did lie only in the inward esteem of our minds; but as Card. Tolet well observes,* 1.169 although Idolatry do suppose an errour in the mind, yet that errour lies in judging that to deserve divine honour which doth not: which may be consi∣stent with the belief of the Supreme ex∣cellency of God. And I do not deny that those who acknowledge one Supreme God, may have their minds so corrupted as to judge it fit to give that divine worship to a Creature which is only due to the Creator; but I say, it is unrea∣sonable to suppose that as long as they acknowledge them to be creatures, they should not give at least that relative La∣tria to them, which T. G. saith, is car∣ried to the Creator at last. But of these things afterwards. 3. The reasons which Athenagoras gives do equally hold, supposing the true God not to be wholly passed by: for the creatures are still at as great a distance from the Crea∣tor; which is the main reason he gives

against the the worship of them. 4. It is possible to suppose, that those who be∣lieve a Supreme excellent Being may yet give him no eternal adoration at all not out of any disrespect to him, but out of the great esteem they have of his ex∣cellency; looking upon him, as far above all our service and adoration. And that this is not a bare supposition of a thing only possible, appears by that testimo∣ny of Porphyrius produced by S. Cyril against Iulian;* 1.170 Let us sacrifice, but a•• becomes us, to the God over all, i. e. as a Wise man said, by offering up no sensible thing to him. For every material thing is impure when compared with an im∣material: Therefore the best sacrifice to God is to offer up our Lives to him (for even our words and thoughts are be∣low him) which is the most proper Hymn to him, and the most beneficial to our∣selves. And the same S. Cyril observes out of Dionysius Halicarnasseus,* 1.171 that a•• Numa would allow no Image of God in the Temples, because unsuitable to his na∣ture; so he would not have any mate∣rial sacrifices to be offered up to him on the same reason: and some of the Pla∣tonists are quoted by him, saying, tha•• the Supreme God being incorporeal,* 1.172 stand in need of nothing without him; but the

other Gods, especially those that are visible, ought to be pleased with inanimate sa∣crifices. Therefore we ought not to conclude, that the Heathens did not be∣lieve one Supreme God, if we do not find any peculiar and external sacrifices that were offered to him; for we see they might forbear them out of the opi∣nion they had of his supereminent excellen∣cy. Aquinas supposeth this to have been one of the principles of the Heathens,* 1.173 that only visible sacrifices belonged to other Gods, and internal acts of the mind as being better, to the Supreme God; And the Supreme and Invisible God's be∣ing so far above any need of our service, was the reason given by the Mandarins in China, and the Ynca's of Peru, why they shewed so little outward Reverence towards him whom they believed to be the Supreme God. Were these persons Idolaters for the worship they did not give to the Creator, or for the worship they did give to his Creatures? and it is plain by Athenagoras the latter was the matter of their dispute: for they did not quarrel with the Christians about the worship of the Supreme God; but for not worshipping those things they look∣ed on as his Creatures; and if their fault

only had been, that they wholly passed by the Creator, this would have been no reason against the Christians, who might have worshipped the Creator and the creatures together, and consequently have freed themselves from the force of the Laws, which required no more but giving divine worship to the Deities publickly worshipped, without any decla∣ration of their minds concerning them. For they might understand them as they pleased; as we see the wise men among them did, without any censure or re∣proach from others. If it were lawful then for Christians to give a relative La∣tria to any creatures with an intention to honour God thereby, I cannot see how the Christians were excusable in their sufferings; for all that was required from them was only, to obey their Laws and offer incense to their Gods. No∣thing being expressed by the Laws as to the disowning the true God, nor as to declaring in what sense they did intend to worship them; the Emperour declared, he was for the Laws being observed, and him∣self in his own writings had expressed his mind as to one God; what was it then made the Christians refuse obeying the Laws, when so many Philosophers had said,

that these Gods were only parts of the Universe, and deserved divine worship because of Gods presence in them? If they had not thought it Idolatry to give divine worship to any creature, it is ve∣ry hard to make out their title to Mar∣tyrdom. For if we look over the Acts of the Martyrs, we shall find it came to this pinch with them; will you obey the Laws in offering incense, or will you not? When Iustin Martyr was summoned before Rusticus the Prae∣fect of the City, after some previous di∣scourses, Let us come, saith he, to the bu∣siness in hand;* 1.174 Come you Christians hi∣ther and sacrifice with one consent to the Gods; Iustin answers, No true Christian will forsake his Religion, and return to errors and impiety: and the rest agree∣ing with him; the Judge pronounced their sentence, that because they would not sacrifice to the Gods and obey the Empe∣rours Edict, they should be scourged, and have the punishment of death inflicted up∣on them: which was accordingly exe∣cuted. When Dionysius Bishop of Alex∣andria was summoned before Aemilia∣nus,* 1.175 he gives this account himself of the passages between them; that he told Aemilianus plainly, that he would wor∣ship

none but the true God, and that he would never depart from this resolution; the Governour dismisses him for that time; the next time he lets him know the Emperour had so great a re∣gard to their safety, that if they would but act according to reason, and worship the Gods that preserved the Empire, they might be safe. Dionysius answers, We, saith he, worship the one true God the Maker of all things, who hath bestow∣ed the Empire on Valerianus and Galli∣enus; and to him we pray continually for the safety of the Empire. But, saith Aemilianus again, who forbids you, to worship that God you speak of, and the other Gods too? Dionysius then gave that as his final answer, we worship none else besides him. I might bring multi∣tudes of instances to the same purpose, but I instance in these two, because they were men of eminency for their learning as well as piety. Now I appeal to the con∣science of T. G. whether upon the prin∣ciples of worship which he delivers, these men could have suffered for con∣science sake any otherwise than as weak Brethren that wanted good information. For they might have reserved the Sove∣reign worship due only to God, on the

account of his Supreme excellency, and have given only a Relative Latria to those whom they called Gods, but in truth were on∣ly Gods creatures and Subjects; and what harm was there in all this? O, but, saith T. G. they were called Gods, but in truth were Devils whom they were to worship; how doth that appear to have been the cause, when they say no such thing, and give no such reason of their refusals? besides they might make them Gods by giving them absolute Latria, for that is due only to God himself; but no more was required of them, than to sacrifice to them, and they never debarred them of the freedom of directing their intention to the Su∣preme God; and T. G. knows, acts go whither they are intended, and those whom they called Gods, they might un∣derstand them only by way of participa∣tion, or as some Analogical representati∣ons of the true God. O but sacrifice was required of them, and that is the wor∣ship peculiar to God: but how comes sa∣crifice alone to belong to God? and what sacrifice? burning of Incense: and that T. G. knows, is allowed to be done to creatures with a respect to God, by the Rules of their Church. So that for all that I can see, if relative Latria may

be allowed to creatures, the Primitive Christians were not so wise, as they might have been; and the Modern doctrines of worship in the Roman Church, would have saved the lives of thousands of the Primitive Martyrs, and not only of the common sort but of the best, and wisest of them; Who sacrificed their lives on this principle, that, Divine worship (and not meerly Sovereign worship) is to be given to none, but to the Supreme God. But if that pass for good Divini∣ty, that they who believe one Supreme God, cannot possibly give the honour due to him to any creature: I do not see why the Christians needed to have been so afraid of giving divine worship to any thing besides God, for upon this princi∣ple they were afraid of impossibilities: For as long as they preserved in their minds a just esteem of the incomparable excellency of God above his creatures, they were uncapable of any real Idolatry. But I think it is hard to pitch upon a principle more repugnant to the sense of the Primitive Church than this is; as I hope to make it clear before I have done with this argument.

Athenagoras proceeds to dispute a∣gainst the worshipping any of the parts

of the Universe, how beautiful or useful soever they be;* 1.176 for why should we seek that from matter which it self hath not, and can do nothing but in obedience to a higher Cause? And let the things be never so beautiful, yet they retain the nature of matter still; for Plato confes∣ses that the heavens and the Frame of the world are corporeal, and therefore subject to mutability. But, saith he, if I refuse to worship the Heavens and Ele∣ments as Gods whose workmanship I so much admire, because I know them to be corruptible; how can I be perswaded to do it to those things, which I know to be made by men? and thence shews not only the novelty of the Poetical Gods, but of the art of framing Images;* 1.177 which was so late, he saith, that they were able yet to name the first makers of them. But, Because it was pleaded by some among them, that all the worship they gave to their Images was only a relative worship, and that they looked on them only as re∣presentations of their Deities; therefore he begs leave of the Emperours, to search into the Nature of their Poetick Theology, which he derives from Orpheus, as the rest do; and overthrows the worship of the Poetical Gods upon this principle, because

they were not eternal, and were confes∣sed to be at first made out of matter;* 1.178 and why should we worship them which are material,* 1.179 and generated, and lyable to all sorts of passions, according to the Poets description of them? But, it may be, this was nothing but Poetical figments, and they ought all to be understood of the natures of things, as Empedocles ex∣plains them,* 1.180 why then, saith he, should we attribute the same honour to matter which is subject to corruption and mutati∣on,* 1.181 as to the eternal, unbegotten, and im∣mutable God? Jupiter according to the Stoicks was the most active and fiery principle of matter, Juno the air, Ne∣ptune the water; but they all agreed that by their Deities were understood the several parts of the Universe, al∣though with different manners of expli∣cation. Now, saith he, against the Sto∣icks I thus argue, (and here Athenagoras knew, that the Emperour M. Aurelius would think himself particularly concern∣ed) If you own one Supreme God, eter∣nal and unbegotten, and all other things to be made up of matter, and the Spirit of God to receive different names as it passes through the various changes of mat∣ter; then these several kinds of matter

will make up one body, whereof God is the soul, and consequently upon the general conflagration, (which the Stoicks acknow∣ledged) all the several names of matter will be lost by the corruptions of the kinds, and nothing will be then left but the Di∣vine Spirit; why should we therefore look on those as gods, that are lyable to such a change? And so he proceeds to argue against the other hypotheses, as the Egyptians and others, whereby all their Deities were reduced to the principles of nature too, from the same principle, viz. that because these things were made and corruptible,* 1.182 they were not capable of re∣ceiving divine honour from us. By all which we see, that the fundamental prin∣ciple which Athenagoras went upon in this elaborate discourse of his to one of the Wisest Emperours Rome ever had, was this, that nothing but the eternal God ought to receive Divine Worship from men; whether they called it Soveraign or Relative, or what name soever they gave it; nay, although they did acknow∣ledge one supreme God, yet if they gave divine worship to his Creatures, as the Stoicks did, the Christians thought it so unlawful, that they would rather die than comply with them in it. And here

I appeal again to T. G's conscience (for since he hath shewed me the way, I hope I may follow him in it) whether he think so Wise and Vertuous an Emperour as Antoninus was, would not have pre∣served the Christians from suffering per∣secution, (as they did very smartly in his days) if they would have declared them∣selves to have understood the principles of the Roman Religion, after the Empe∣rours own way, viz. by believing one Supreme God; and worshipping the seve∣ral parts of the Universe under the names of those Deities, that were commonly re∣ceived: and they might have directed this worship as they had thought fit, and have disowned all the ridiculous and pro∣phane stories of their Poetical Gods, as the Stoicks did; and what principle then could hinder the Christians from com∣plying with the Laws but this, that they accounted it Idolatry to give divine wor∣ship to any created Being?

* 1.183From Athenagoras I proceed to Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, who understood the principles of the Heathen Theology as well as any; and exposes all their Poetical Fables and Greek Mysteries with as much advantage as any Christian Writer, in

his Admonition to the Greeks. After he hath sufficiently derided the Poetical Theo∣logy and the Vulgar Idolatry, he comes to the Philosophers who did he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.184 make an Idol of mat∣ter, (the Images whereof were not sure∣ly the representation of a thing not ex∣istent, as a Centaur, or Sphinx, and yet called an Idol) and after reckoning up Thales, Anaximenes, Parmenides, Hip∣pasus, Heraclitus and Empedocles, he calls them all Atheists, because with a foolish kind of Wisdom they did worship Matter; and scorning to worship Wood and Stones did Deifie the Mother of them. And so runs out, after his way, into a dis∣course about the several Nations that despised Images and worshipped the seve∣ral parts of the Universe and the sym∣bols of them, as the Scythians, Sarmati∣ans, Persians and Macedonians, who, he saith, were the Philosophers Masters in the worship of these inferiour Elements which were made to be serviceable to men. Then he reckons up other Philoso∣phers that worshipped the Stars, as ani∣mated beings; others, the Planets and the World, and the Stoicks who said, God passed through the meanest parts of mat∣ter: yet after all this, he confesseth,

that there is a certain divine influence di∣stilled upon all men,* 1.185 especially on those who apply themselves to learning; by vertue of which they are forced to acknowledge one God, incorruptible and unbegotten; who is the only true Being, and abides for ever above the highest Heavens, from whence he beholds all the things that are done in Heaven and Earth: who, accord∣ing to Euripides sees all things without be∣ing visible himself. And for the proof of this, he brings the Testimonies of Plato, Antisthenes and Xenophon, who all acknowledge Gods incomparable ex∣cellency,* 1.186 as well as unity; and then adds the Testimonies of Cleanthes, and the Pythagoreans; and not contented with the Philosophers he heaps the testi∣monies of the Poets to the same pur∣pose, as Aratus, Hesiod, Orpheus, So∣phocles, Menander, Homer and Euripides, In the fifth Book of his Miscellanies (for so his Stromata truely are) he falls up∣on this subject again;* 1.187 and then saith to the same purpose, that there is a natural knowledge of one omnipotent God,* 1.188 among all considering men:* 1.189 he grants, the Stoicks opinion about God to be agreeable to the Scriptures; and shews, that Thales con∣fessed Gods eternity and omnisciency;

that Epicharmus attributed omnipotency to him; and Homer the creation of the world, which he described in the shield of Achilles;* 1.190 and then makes this obser∣vation (as though it were purposely in∣tended for T. G.) he that is called both in Verse and Prose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Iupiter,* 1.191 car∣ries our apprehension to God, (not to the Arch Devil as T. G. saith) and there∣fore he is said to be all things, and to know all things, and to give and take away all things, and to be King over all: that Pindar the Baeotian being a Pythago∣rean, said, there was one maker of all things whom he called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Wise Artificer, and then he repeats several of the Testimonies which he had produced before;* 1.192 to which he adds that of Xenopha∣nes Colophonius proving God to be one and incorporeal; and of Cleanthes, repro∣ving the opinion of the vulgar about the Deity; and of Euphorion,* 1.193 and Aeschilus about Iupiter, which for T. G's better information I shall set down,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Iupiter is aether and Earth and Heaven and all things, and if there be any thing

above all, Jupiter is it; and Clemens is so far from thinking this an improper speech, that he saith it was spoken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God. By this it appears, that they who boast so much of the Fathers, are not over con∣versant with them: but Father Bellar∣mine, or Father Coccius, serves them, for a whole Iury of them. But I com∣mend T. G. for his modesty, for when he had said, this was the sense of the Fa∣thers, he produces no more but good Fa∣ther Origen; and he is so kind hearted to him, that though I believe he hath heard how he hath been condemned for a Heretick, yet he with great judgement supposes, that what he said was the com∣mon sense of the Fathers. But besides this,* 1.194 Clemens quotes a saying of Hera∣clitus approved by Plato, wherein the on∣ly Wise Being is called by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Iove. And to shew that one Supreme Being was received among the Greeks, he cites farther an express testi∣mony of Timaeus Locrus, wherein he saith, there is one unbegotten principle of all things; for if it were begotten it were no first principle, but that out of which it were begotten would be that principle:

which Clemens parallels with that saying of Scripture, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, and him only shalt thou serve. I omit the testimonies of Authors cited before, but to them he adds Diphilus the Comaedian, who was a little younger than Menander, and lived in the time of the first Ptolemy; who speaks plainly concerning the omniscience, pro∣vidence and justice of God in the verses cited out of him; and calls God the Lord of all, whose very name is dreadful: and whose words afterwards are so full of Emphasis, that I cannot forbear setting them down; (although I beg par∣don for mixing so much of a foreign lan∣guage in an English discourse) he bids those men look to it, who presume upon Gods patience because he doth not at pre∣sent punish them.* 1.195

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Look to it, you that think there is no God. There is, there is; if any man do ill, Let him think time is gain; For certainly, Suffer he shall for what he hath done

amiss. But withal he quotes a saying of Xenocrates Chalcedonius, wherein he calls God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Supreme Iove, and another of Archilochus Parius a very an∣cient Poet,* 1.196 (in the 23 Olympiad saith S. Cyril of Alexandria) wherein he be∣gins 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O Iove,* 1.197 thy Power is in Hea∣ven, and thou seest all that is done there, whether good or evil; and Menander saith, that God is in all things good: and Aeschylus celebrates the mighty power of God to this purpose.* 1.198 Think not that God is like to what thou seest; Thou knowest him not, for he is like to that which cannot be touched or seen. He makes the mountains tremble, and the Sea to rage, when his commanding eye doth on them look, For the great God can do what he thinks fit: But Diphilus saith yet farther, Honour him alone that is the Father of all good things. From all which Clemens concludes,* 1.199 that the East and West, the North and South have one and the same anticipation concerning the Go∣vernment of one Supreme Disposer of things;* 1.200 because the knowledge of his most common operations have equally reached to all; but especially to the inquisitive Philosophers of Greece, who have attri∣buted a wise Providence to the invisible,

and only, and most powerful, and most skilful contriver of all things.

Although these things might be suffi∣cient to convince a modest man,* 1.201 that the Gentiles who were charged with Idolatry by the Primitive Fathers, did agree in the acknowledgement of one Supreme Deity, and were so thought to do, by those who managed that charge against them; yet I shall proceed from Clemens to Origen his disciple: and see if the state of the Controversie were altered in his time. The dispute between Celsus and him did not at all depend on this, whether there were one Supreme God or no, or whether Soveraign worship did be∣long to him; for Celsus freely acknow∣ledged both these. I know Origen seve∣ral times charges him with being an Epi∣curean, but whatever his private opinion was, he owns none of the Epicurean principles about Religion in his Book against the Christians, wherein he de∣clares himself to be both for God and Providence. He calls God the univer∣sael Reason, he acknowledges him to be the maker of all immortal beings, and that all things are from him,* 1.202 and saith, that God is common to all, good, and stand∣ing

in need of nothing, and without envy: nay he calls him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the great God:* 1.203 and saith, that men ought to undergo any torments rather than to think or speak any thing unworthy of him,* 1.204* 1.205 that he is at no time to be forsaken by us, nei∣ther night nor day, in publick or private, in our thoughts or actions; but our soul ought always to be intent upon him. Thus far Celsus seems a good Christian; what is the matter then between Origen and him, that they could not agree about Di∣vine Worship, since Celsus doth acknow∣ledge the supreme excellency of God, and consequently that Soveraign Worship is on∣ly due to him? Why, the dispute lay in this point, Celsus contended with great vehemency, that since God made use of in∣feriour spirits to govern the World, that those ought to have divine honours given to them, according to the customs of their several Countries; that this tended more to the honour of the supreme Deity: for that devotion,* 1.206 saith he, is more perfect which passeth through all to him; that it was not to be conceived that God should envy the honour of his own Ministers; but we ought rather to suppose that the Great God is better pleased with it.* 1.207 So that all that Celsus pleaded for, was ei∣ther

an inferiour service of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or at the utmost but a Relative Latria, a di∣vine worship which was to fall after an inferiour manner upon the lower Gods, but to be finally terminated upon the su∣preme. To this Origen answers two ways. 1. By shewing that these inferi∣our Deities were not good Angels, but Daemons, i. e. evil Spirits; which he proves many ways, but chiefly by this, that they seemed so covetous of divine worship from men. 2. By insisting on this as the fundamental principle of wor∣ship in the Christian Religion, that di∣vine worship is to be given only to God himself; and to his Son Christ Iesus. This he inculcates upon all occasions; this he lays down in the beginning of his Book, that God alone is to be worshipped, all other things whether they have beings or have not, are to be passed by,* 1.208 and al∣though some of them may deserve honour, yet none of them do worship or adoration: and elsewhere,* 1.209 that only the Maker of all things ought to be worshipped, admired and adored by us, that neither the work of mens hands, nor those assumed to the honour of Gods can be decently worshipped by us, either without the Supreme God, ••r together with him: where the Latine

Interpreter hath apparently shuffled, ren∣dring that place only thus, nihilque prae∣ter eum aut pari honore cum eo; as though all that Origen condemned were only giving equal divine worship to other things besides God. Whereas Celsus ne∣ver pleaded for that, but that men should give 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. in the very terms of the Council of Trent,* 1.210 due ve∣neration: To which Origen answers, we desire only to be followers of Christ who hath said, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. It is true,* 1.211 saith he, several Nations have avoided the worship of Images, some for one reason and some for another; but the Christians and Iews do it because of that Law, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve,* 1.212 and seve∣ral places to the same purpose, so that we ought rather to die than to defile our selves with these impieties. And they who did forbear Images, did worship the Sun or Gods Creatures which we are for∣bidden to do. This he so frequently in∣sists upon throughout his Books, that it would be to no purpose to bring all the places; these being sufficient to shew that the state of the Controversie abou•• Idolatry, did not depend upon their gi∣ving

soveraign worship to any thing be∣sides God, but any divine worship although they did acknowledge the Supreme God. As Origen himself doth very often de∣clare, that the Heathens did. S. Paul, he saith,* 1.213 spake truly of some of the Wise-men of Greece, that they knew God, and that God was manifested to them; and else∣where,* 1.214 we testifie truly concerning them that they knew God; but their fault was, that after their grave disputations they wor∣shipped Idols and Daemons as the rest did. We cannot but assent, saith he, to what Plato hath said concerning the chief Good;* 1.215 for God hath manifested this to them and whatever else they have said well:* 1.216 but therefore they deserved punishment, be∣cause when they had a right apprehension of God, they did not give him the wor∣ship which was worthy of him: and he quotes a little after Plato's epistle to Her∣mias and Coriscus,* 1.217 wherein he appeals to God as the Lord of all things: and se∣veral other passages, wherein his Govern∣ment, and Power, and Iustice, and Ex∣cellency are truly set forth:* 1.218 and after se∣veral other passages of Plato and Celsus about the ways of knowing God,* 1.219 which he allows, he concludes with this, that God is so great a lover of mankind that* 1.220

he made known his Truth and the know∣ledge of himself not only to his own peo∣ple, but to those who were strangers to the sincere worship and service of him. Judge now Reader, whether Origen him∣self, T. G.'s single witness, doth make the Supreme God of the Heathens an Arch-Devil; and what reason he had upon so slender a Testimony to cry out, The Fa∣thers, the Fathers?

But I have not yet done with him; for if we come down lower into the times of the Christian Church when this controversie of Idolatry was again revi∣ved in the days of Iulian the Apostate,* 1.221 we shall find the very same acknowledge∣ments made by the most learned and ju∣dicious Fathers of the Christian Church S. Cyril of Alexandria who undertook to answer the three Books of Iulian agains•• Christianity,* 1.222 saith, that the Greeks di•• speak admirable things concerning God and that they did exceed themselves in those discourses; and that they could not have attained to such a knowledge of God without some particular manifestation of himself unto them. And afterwards h•• produces the Testimonies of Orpheus, and Homer, and Sophocles concerning him

Thales, he saith, made God the Soul of the World;* 1.223 Democritus, an active mind within a sphere of fire; Aristotle, a sepa∣rate form resting upon the sphere of the World; the Stoicks, an active fire passing through the parts of the world. Of these things, he saith, Plutarch and Porphyri∣us speak, but above all he commends what Pythagoras and Plato and Hermes have said of God:* 1.224 with several of the Testi∣monies before mentioned; some of which are repeated by Theodoret to the same purpose.* 1.225 But these things will be made more clear by considering the state of the Controversie between Iulian and S. Cyrill about Idolatry.* 1.226 Iulian confesseth, that there is a natural knowledge of God in the minds of men, from whence comes that common inclination of all mankind towards a Deity; and that supposition among all men, that he who is the King over all hath his Throne in Heaven: He acknowledgeth with Plato,* 1.227 that God is the maker of all things, that he is the Father of the Gods too; (and S. Cyril never quar∣rels with him for giving the title of Gods to those Superiour and Intelligent Beings: for, saith he,* 1.228 we grant that there are some in Heaven that are called both Gods and Lords; nay men are called Gods in

Scripture) Of these Gods' according to Plato,* 1.229 Iulian saith, some are visible, as the Sun, and Moon, and Stars, and the Heavens, but these are only images of the invisible, and therefore Plato calls these later 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being invisible Dei∣ties represented by visible: but one God is the Maker of them all. But Iulian utterly rejected the Poetical Fables con∣cerning the Gods, and that for T. G's rea∣son,* 1.230 because the Poets took the liberty to feign and say any thing; nay he calls them incredible and monstrous Fables; and this was the Scheme of his Theology,* 1.231 That there was one Supreme God the com∣mon Father and Lord over all, who had distributed the several Nations and Cities of the World to particular Gods as Gover∣nours over them: but although all perfecti∣ons were in the Supreme God, yet they were scattered and divided among the in∣feriour Deities: and so Mars had the care of Wars, and Minerva of Counsels, and Mercury of things that required cunning more than courage: and every particular Nation followed the humour of the Gods that were set over them; as he goes about to prove by the different tempers of Na∣tions. To which Cyril answers. That great* 1.232 Princes do choose some of the Wisest

of their Subjects to be Governours of Pro∣vinces, but they who are so imployed do not Govern them by their own Laws, but by their Princes, and on all occasions set forth their greatness, and pay all duties to them; but these Deities assume those ho∣nours to themselves which are due only to God; and by bringing in Images into Temples of several forms and figures they endeavour to cast dishonour upon God; and by degrees draw men to the neglect of him. Either then, God despises the ser∣vice of men, or these are not faithful servants to him; by bringing in visible objects of worship by setting up Images, and perswading men to make oblations, and offer sacrifices to them. And because it was so hard a matter to choke those na∣tural motions of mens minds towards the Supreme God and Father of all,* 1.233 therefore they endeavour'd to draw men farther from him, by tempting them to all manner of impiety. Whereas the good Angels we read of in Scripture, always directed men to pay their honours and adoration, not to themselves, but only to the Supreme God: and teach men that it is not fit to give them to any of his Ministers and Ser∣vants:* 1.234 but these Deities of Iulian are willing to receive worship from men, and

their prayers, and acknowledgements, and praises, and gifts, and sacrifices; (where we see he joyns them all together as parts of that divine worship which is proper only to God:) But Iulian is very much displeased at the Second Commandment, and would have been glad to have seen it struck out of the number of ten (as some in the World have done) because God therein expresses so much jealousie for his own honour;* 1.235 Cyril in answer to him shews that this is no way unbecoming God to be so much concerned for his honour, because mens greatest happiness, (as Alexander Aphrodisiensis said in his Book of Providence) lies in the due apprehensi∣on and service of God. By which we see, that the controversie about Idolatry, as it was hitherto managed between Christians and Heathens, did suppose the belief of one Supreme God in those who were char∣ged with the practise of it.

After these, it may not be amiss to consider, what the ancient Author of the Recognitions under Clemens his name saith upon this subject of the Heathen Idolatry; he lived, saith Cotelerius, in the Second Century; if that be true, his Authority is the more considerable; however it is certain Ruffinus translated this Book, and th••••

makes it ancient enough to our purpose. He brings in the Heathen Idolaters plead∣ing thus for themselves,* 1.236 We likewise ac∣knowledge one God who is Lord over all, but yet the other are Gods too; as there is but one Caesar who hath many Officers under him, as Praefects, Consuls, Tribunes and other Magistrates; after the same manner we suppose, when there is but one Supreme God, he hath many other inferi∣our Gods, as so many Officers under him, who are all subject to him, but yet over us. To this, he brings in S. Peter an∣swering, that he desires them to keep to their own similitude; for as they who attri∣bute the name of Caesar to any inferiour Officers, deserve to be punished; so will those more severely, who give the name of God to any of his Creatures. Where the name is not to be taken alone, but as it implies the dignity and Authority going along with it, and the professing of that subjection which is only due to that Authority; for what injury were it to Caesar for a man only to have the name of Caesar? but the injury lies in usurping the Authority under that name; so the nature of Idolatry could not lie in giving the name of Gods to any Creatures, but in giving that worship which that name

calls for; and yet this worship here is supposed to be consistent with the acknow∣ledgement of the supreme excellency of God.

If we now look into the sense of the Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathen Idolaters,* 1.237 we shall find them agreeing with the other. Tertullian ap∣peals to the consciences of men for the clearest evidence of one true and Supreme God;* 1.238 for in the midst of all their Idola∣tries, they are apt upon any great occa∣sion to lift up their hands and eyes to Heaven,* 1.239 where the only true, and great, and good God is; and he mentions their common phrases, God gives, and God sees, and I commend you to God, and God will restore; all which do shew the natural Testimony of conscience, as to the unity and supreme excellency of God: and in his Book ad Scapulam,* 1.240 God shewed him∣self to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Iove. Minucius Felix makes use of the same arguments, and saith, they were clear arguments of their consent with the Christians in the belief of one God, and makes it no great matter what name they called him by,* 1.241 as I have observed al∣ready,

and afterwards produces many Testimonies of the Philosophers, almost all, he saith, that they acknowledged one God, although under several names.* 1.242 Arnobius takes it for granted,* 1.243 that on both sides they were agreed, that there was one Su∣preme God, eternal and invisible and Fa∣ther of all things, from whom all the Hea∣then Deities had their beginning: but all the dispute was about giving divine worship to any else besides him. Lactantius saith, there was no wise man ever questioned the being of one God,* 1.244 who made and go∣verned all things; yet because he knew the World was full of Fools, he goes about to prove it at large from the testi∣monies of Poets and Philosophers, as so ma∣ny had done before him: and for T. G's satisfaction, he saith,* 1.245 that Orpheus (al∣though as good at feigning as any of the Poets) could not by the Father of the Gods mean Jupiter the Son of Saturn; yet who can tell, but such a Magician as Orpheus is said to have been, might mean an Arch-Devil by him? But I am sure neither Lactantius, nor any of the Fa∣thers ever thought so; for if they had, they would not so often have produced his Testimony to so little purpose. And to the Greek Testimonies mentioned be∣fore

by others, Lactantius adds those of Cicero, and Seneca, who calls the inferi∣riour Gods the children of the Supreme, and the Ministers of his Kingdom. Thus far we have the unanimous consent of all the Writers of the Christian Church against the Heathen Idolatry, that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God. S. Augustin tells us,* 1.246 that Varro thought, that those who worshipped one God without images, did mean the same by him that they did by their Jove, but only called him by another name; by those,* 1.247 S. Austin saith, Varro meant the Iews, and he thought it no matter what name God is called by, so the same thing be meant. It is true S. Augustin argues against it from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno; but withal he confes∣ses, that they thought it very unreasona∣ble,* 1.248 for their Religion to be charged with those Fables which themselves disowned: and therefore at last he could not de∣ny, that they believed themselves, that by the Jove in the Capitol they under∣stood and worshipped the Spirit that quickens and fills the world, of which Virgil spake in those words, Iovis omnia plena. But he wonders that since they acknowledged this to be the Supreme if

not only Deity, the Romans did not rather content themselves with the worship of him alone, than run about and make so many addresses to the petty and Inferiour Deities? This indeed was a thing to be wondred at; and yet no doubt, they thought they had as good reasons for it, as T. G. gives why incontinent persons should rather make their addresses to S. Mary Magdalen in Heaven, than to her Sister Martha, or to God himself.* 1.249 So the Roman women thought Lucina and Opis better for a good hour, than Ceres or Minerva; and Levana and Cunina for new born Children,* 1.250 than Vulcan or Apol∣lo; and yet S. Augustin tells us, many of them did not esteem these, as any distinct Deities, but only as representations of the several powers of the same God suitable to the conditions of persons: but T. G. will not say, that by S. Mary Magdalen, he only understood the power of Gods Grace in converting incontinent persons; but if he had, he had given a much bet∣ter reason of their praying to her: yet even in such a case S. Austin thinks it were better to pray directly to God him∣self. And the old Roman Matrons would have thought they could have directed such persons to Temples proper for them, viz.

those of Virtue and Chastity, the one of which stood ad Portam Capenam, the other in vico longo. But I need not give such particular directions, for I am afraid their Ruines are scarce left in Rome: for neither Marlianus, nor Alexander Dona∣tus in their accurate descriptions of Rome can tell where to find them.

For our better understanding the con∣troversie about Idolatry as it is represent∣ed by S. Augustin,* 1.251 we are to consider that not only Scaevola and Balbus in Cicero, but Varro and Seneca, and the rest of their wiser men, did with great indignation re∣ject the Poetical Theology as they called it;* 1.252 and wished several things reformed in the popular Religion; and thought them∣selves as unjustly charged with the pra∣ctises of the People, as T. G. doth for their Church to be charged with all the ridiculous addresses that some make to Saints among them;* 1.253 for Varro confesses that the People were too apt to follow the Poets,* 1.254 (as in the Church of Rome they are to pray by their Legends) but they thought the people were better let alone in their fopperies, than to be suffered to break loose from that subjection which their Superstition kept them in; and with these S. Austin reckons the Philosophers;* 1.255

with whom, he saith, the Question to be debated was this, whether we are bound only to worship one Supreme God the Ma∣ker of all things? or whether it be not lawful to worship many Gods, who are sup∣posed to be made by him? And after he hath discoursed against Varro and those of his opinion, who reduced all their Theology to Nature, and made God to be the Soul of the World, and the several parts of the world capable of divine Wor∣ship on that account; in his eighth Book, he undertakes those who asserted one Su∣preme Deity above Nature and the Cause of all things, and yet pleaded for the wor∣ship of inferiour Deities; he confesses, that they had the knowledge of the true God,* 1.256 and brings the several places of S. Paul mentioned in the entrance of this discourse to prove it: and enquiring how the Philosophers came to such knowledge of him, he first propounds the common opinion of the Fathers that they learnt it in Egypt, meeting with the Books of Scri∣pture there, but he rather (and with good reason) resolves it into the natural knowledge of God; for, saith he, that which was known of God was manifest to them, for God had revealed it to them.

But it seems by S. Augustin, that there were two opinions among them at that time about divine worship; for some, of whom he reckons Apuleius the chief,* 1.257 were for the worship of Daemons, although they acknowledged them to be subject to evil passions; yet they looked on them as in∣tercessors between men and the Gods, and therefore to be worshipped; but others who kept closer to the doctrine of Plato, believed none to be Gods but such as were certainly good;* 1.258 but were shy of declaring their opinion against the wor∣ship of Daemons for fear of displeasing the people by it:* 1.259 and with these S. Augustin declares he would have no controversie about the name of Gods, as long as they believed them to be created,* 1.260 immortal, good and happy not by themselves, but by adhering to God; which, he saith, was the opinion either of all, or, at least, the best of the Platonists.

And now we are come to the true state of the Controversie, as it is managed by S. Augustin in his tenth Book: which is, whether those rites of Religious worship which are used in the service of the Su∣preme God,* 1.261 may be likewise used toward any created Being, though supposed to be

of the highest excellency, and as near to God as we can suppose any creature to be? And that this, and this only is the state of the Controversie, I appeal to his own words, which I shall set down in the lan∣guage he writ them, that I be not bla∣med with artificial turning them to my own sense: Hoc est, ut apertius dicam, utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, placeat eis ut sacra fa∣ciamus, & sacrificemus; vel aliqua no∣stra seu nos ipsos Religionis ritibus conse∣cremus? i. e. That I may speak plainly, whether it be pleasing to them, viz. good spirits, that we offer divine worship and sacrifice to them; or that we consecrate our selves, or any thing of ours to them by Religious rites? And this, saith he, is that worship which is due to the Deity, which because we cannot find one conveni∣ent word in Latin to express it by, I would call Latria, as that service which is due to men is called by another name, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and he gives this rea∣son why he made choice of Latria to sig∣nifie divine worship in the Latine Tongue, because the Latine word colere is so very ambiguous, it being applied to the tilling of land, inhabiting of places, and there∣fore

cultus could not so properly be ap∣plied only to divine worship; nor yet Religiō, because that according to the cu∣stom of the Latins is applyed to other senses; and the same reason he gives as to other names. For my part, I quar∣rel not at all with S. Augustins use of the word, and think it proper enough to ap∣ply it in his sense: which comprehends in it, not meerly sacrifice, but all those Re∣ligious Rites, whereby we give Worship to God. And nothing can to me appear more senseless than to imagine that S. Augusti•••• should here speak only of Soveraig•• Worship proper to God in regard of his Su∣preme Excellency, distinguishing that from an inferior kind of Religious Worship due t•• created Excellency, when it was agreed on both sides, that there was one Suprem•• Excellency, which was incommunicable to any creatures, so that the dispute abou•• Worship must suppose those to be created and dependent Beings; which being suppo∣sed, it was impossible for them to believe they had supreme Excellency in them. B•••• if it be said that the dispute was, whethe•• Sacrifice did not belong only to God? •• shall hereafter shew, that there is no reason in the world to appropriate divine wor∣ship

only to sacrifice; my present business is only to prove, that the Controversie of Idolatry did on both sides suppose one Su∣preme God, which I think is manifest from S. Augustin, if any thing can be made so. But if this be not full enough to our purpose, we may add the plain te∣stimony of Maximus Madaurensis to S. Austin, who saith, that none but mad∣men could deny that there was one su∣preme and eternal God who was the great Father of nature,* 1.262 whose influences diffu∣sed through the world, they worshipped under different names. This man seems to have been of Varro's way, and not of the Platonists, for he makes God sine pro∣le; and so understood all the Heathen Deities but as several titles of the same God.

In the same time with S. Augustin Oro∣sius lived,* 1.263 who saith, that not only the Philosophers found out one God the maker of all things, to whom all things ought to be referred; but that the Pagans of their times, without distinction, when they were disputed with by Christians, did confess that there was but one Great God, who had several Ministers under him.

* 1.264After so full and clear evidence of the consent of all the Fathers in this matter, not taken from any single or incoherent pas∣sages, but from the series and design of their discourses, I can foresee but one ob∣jection against it out of Antiquity, which I shall endeavour to remove. And that is from the testimony of Sanchoniathon mentioned by Eusebius and S. Cyrill con∣cerning the Phoenicians,* 1.265* 1.266 that they wor∣shipped the Sun, Moon and Stars as the only immortal Gods, among which the Sun was chief, whom they called Beelsamen Lord of Heaven; and their mortal Gods were men Deified for the kindness they had done to the world. To the same purpose Maimonides speaks of the Zabii,* 1.267 whose sect, he saith, did overrun the earth, that they had no other Gods but the Stars. But although this take not off the force of our former evidence, which lay in this, that those Fathers who did charge the Hea∣thens with Idolatry, did at the same time confess, that they owned one Supreme God; yet I shall endeavour to prove, that even the Eastern Idolaters did acknowledge one Supreme Deity. Gregorius Abulfarajus, and Sharestanius,* 1.268 both cited by our Learn∣ed Doct. Pocock, do expresly contradict

Maimonides, for one of them saith, that they have very strong arguments to prove the unity of God; and the other, that al∣though they call Planets Gods, yet they look on them only as Mediators between the Supreme God and men; and that Learned and Iudicious Person thinks that we have more reason to believe Gregorius Abulfarajus, because he conversed with many of their writings in their own lan∣guage, whereas Maimonides only saw the translations of some of them. Sharesta∣nius makes this their great principle,* 1.269 that between the Supreme God and us, there must be some Mediators, which say they, are pure spiritual substances, which because we cannot immediately converse with, therefore we have need of some means of communication with them; which some make to be the coelestial Houses, and others Images. Those who are for the coelestial Houses, worship the Bodies of the Planets as the habitations of the living, rational and intellectual substances which they sup∣pose to animate them; and therefore they are very punctual in the observations of them, and accordingly they make their Ta∣lismans; and if they have these about them, and the proper garments on for the Planet, and the day and hour peculiar to

him, and say the Forms of prayer fitted for him, they do not question, but they shall be heard in the things which depend upon his influence. And these are the on∣ly persons I have heard of, that have di∣scovered the invention of making Astro∣logical Prayers; which seem to me to be built on as good Reason, as the Predicti∣ons are; and I doubt not, but they were able to produce as many experiments for the hearing of those prayers, as others do to justifie their predictions. But there were others among them, that thought the Planets at too g••eat a distance, and too often out of sight, and therefore they would have more constant and visible Mediators; for which purpose they made them Images, but they must be sure to be of a Figure and Metal, proper to the Planet, with a due observation of days, hours, degrees, minutes, habits, prayers, and whatever else they knew to be most pleasing to the Wise and Intelligent Pla∣net. Now by the help of these, they ho∣ped to get the favour of the Houses, and by the favour of the Houses they ho∣ped for that of the Intelligencies, and by their favour they hoped for that of the Supreme God. But it seems there were some amongst them who are called

Harbanistae, who supposed God to be one in essence, but to be many in regard of the different manifestations of himself to the Planets and other visible beings; and that he committed the care of this lower world to the celestial bodies whom they called Fathers, the elements Mothers, and all compounds Children. If the former representation of their worship be true, and that they thought there was no ap∣proach to the Supreme Deity, but by Mediators (as it seems to be) that might give the occasion to Maimonides and others, to say, that they worshipped only the Sun, Moon and Stars, and accounted them for their Gods; because it seems they gave no immediate worship to the Supreme Deity, but what honour they gave him was by passing through so ma∣ny to him. And this may be a very probable reason why the Sun in the Phoe∣nician and Chaldean Theology was looked on as the Supreme Deity, i. e. visible, and the highest Mediator to whom any worship was offered: and therefore cal∣led by the Chaldeans Baal, by the Phoe∣nicians Beel Samen, by the Ammonites Mo∣loch, by the Persians Mithras; and by the Moabites Baal Peor and Chemosh: so the Moon was called Astaroth or

Astarte, and Malcha, or the Queen of Heaven: and Saturn worshipped under the name of Ciun, or Cevan; the Pleiades of Succoth Benoth: and it is not impro∣bable, that from worshipping the Host of Heaven this Sect of Idolaters might have their name from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Saba, rather than from Sabius a fabulous son of Seth. Greg. Abulfarajus describes the Religion of the old Arabs much after the same manner, that they all worshipped the Stars, although some Tribes one more than another: and it is an ingenious con∣jecture of Doct. Pocock's, that whereas Herodotus saith that the Arabians only worshipped 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as it is read in the Bodley MSS. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.270 this latter Alilahat 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 Ecchel∣lensis speaking of the Religion of the old Arabians, saith, that those who were of the Sect of Chaled,* 1.271 went upon this prin∣ciple, that there was one Creator and Go∣vernor of all things, most Powerful and most Wise: Besides these, there were those who worshipped Intelligences, or Celesti∣al 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 Ima∣ges, 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,* 1.272 their particular history of it. But Ecchel∣lensis was aware of the parallel between the worship practised in the Church of Rome, and that among the Arabians sup∣posing they acknowledged one true God, and therefore puts the Qustion, whether they did worship their Idols for Gods with∣out 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 Su∣preme God, and called all the lesser Dei∣ties his Daughters! Although all of them, a very few excepted, believed the creati∣on 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 Phoe∣nicians and Chaldeans as well as Ara∣bians; 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 Di∣vine Honours to Beings created by him.

The like is suggested by some concern∣ing the Persians, as though they attribu∣ted omnipotency and divine worship only

to the Sun; and those who take all things of this nature upon trust meerly from He∣rodotus, or Iustin, or other Greek and Latin writers, may think they have rea∣son to believe it; but if we look into those who have been most conversant in the Persian writings, we shall find a dif∣ferent account of them. Iac. Golius in his Notes on Alferganus saith,* 1.273 that the Persians gave the names of their Gods to their Months and Days; according to the ancient Religion of the Persians and Ma∣gi, whereby they did believe their Gods to preside over them; for it was a prin∣ciple among them as well as other Nati∣ons 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 se∣veral 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,* 1.274 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;* 1.275 and the Persian Writers say, that Zoroaster appointed six great Festivals in the year, in remembrance of the six days creation.* 1.276 And to this is very agreeable what the Persees in Indosthan do to this day deli∣ver of the principles of their Religion; for,* 1.277 they affirm God to be the maker of all things; but that he committed the Go∣vernment 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;* 1.278 and the description of them in Varenius fully accords with this, that they acknowledged one Supreme God, eve∣ry where present,* 1.279 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 ac∣count to the Supreme God of their admi∣nistration.

With this account agrees the relation of Mandelslo concerning them,* 1.280 who saith, that the Parsis believe that there is but one God preserver of the Uni∣verse; that he acts alone and immediate∣ly in all things, and that the seven ser∣vants 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 se∣veral 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 in∣trusted them with the administration. Whence it comes, that they make no dif∣ficulty to worship them, and to invocate them in their extremities, out of a per∣swasion that God will not deny them any thing they desire on their intercession. Schickard relates a particular story of the Persian King Firutz,* 1.281 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 grana∣ries

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 be∣sought 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 after a publick and solemn repentance. But that this Prince was yet a worshipper of the Sun, appears by what follows, when the Emperor Zen•• had him at his mercy, and made him pro∣mise fidelity to him, by bowing of him∣self to him; he to avoid the reproach of it among his People, carried himself so, that he seemed only to them to make his Reverence to the Sun according to the custom of his Country.

* 1.282But it will add yet more to the con∣viction of T. G. and to the discovery of the Nature of Idolatry, to shew that those Nations, which are at this day charged with Idolatry by the Church of Rome, have acknowledged one Supreme God. And I shall now shew that those Idolaters who have understood their own Religion, have gone upon one of these three principles, either

(1.) that God hath committed the Go∣vernment of the world under him to some inferiour Deities, which was the principle of the Platonists, and of the Arabians, and Persians. Or, (2.) that God is the Soul of the world, and there∣fore the parts of it deserve divine honour, which was the principle of Varro and the Stoicks. Or, (3.) That God is of so great perfection and excellency, that he is above our service, and therefore what ex∣ternal adoration we pay, ought to be to something below him: which I shall shew to have been the principle of those who have given the least external adoration to the Supreme God.

These things I shall make appear, by gi∣ving a brief account of the Idolatry of those parts of the world, which the Emissaries of the Church of Rome have shewed their greatest zeal in endeavouring to convert from their Idolatries.

There are two Sects in the East-Indies (if I may call them so) from whom the several Nations which inhabit there have received what principles of Religion they have; and those are the Brachmans and the Chineses; and the giving account of these two, will take in the ways of wor∣ship that are generally known among them:

For the Brachmans, I shall take my account chiefly from those who have been conversant among them, and had the best reason to understand their Religion. Fran∣cis Xaverius, who went first upon that commendable imployment of converting the Indians,* 1.283 saith, that the Brachmans told him they knew very well there was but one God: and one of the learned Brach∣mans in his discourse with him not only confessed the same, but added, that on Sundays, which their Teachers kept very exactly, they used only this prayer, I adore thee O God with thy Grace and Help for ever. Tursellinus saith,* 1.284 that he con∣fessed this to be one of their great my∣steries, that there was one God maker of the world, who reigns in Heaven and ought to be worshipped by men, and so doth Iarricus. Bartoli not only relates the same passages,* 1.285 but gives this account of their Theology; that they call the Su∣preme God Parabrama, which in their lan∣guage signifies absolutely perfect, being the Fountain of all things, existing from him∣self, and free from all composition: that he committed to Brama the care of all things about Religion; to Wistnow, ano∣ther of his Sons, the care of mens rights and relieving them in their necessities;

to a third, the power over the elements and over humane bodies: These three they represent by an Image with three Heads rising all out of the same trunk; these are highly esteemed and prayed to; for they suppose Parabrama to be at per∣fect ease, and to have committed the care of all to them. But the Brachman Pad∣manaba gave a more particular account of the management of all things to Abra∣ham Rogers who was well acquainted with him, and was fifteen years in those parts.* 1.286 Next to Brama, they make one Dewen∣dre to be the Superintendent Deity,* 1.287 who hath many more under him; and besides these, they have particular Deities, over the several parts of the world, as the Persians had. They believe both good and evil Spirits, and call them by seve∣ral names: the former they call Deütas and the other Ratsjaies, and the Father of both sorts to be Brachman the son of Brama. In particular cases, they have some, saith Mr. Lord (who conversed among them and to whom Mons. Berni∣er refers us to one who gave a faithful account of them) whom they honour as Saints and make their addresses to;* 1.288* 1.289 as for Marriage they invocate Hurmount, for Health Vagenaught, for success in Wars

Bimohem, for Relief Syer, &c. and I sup∣pose incontinent persons may have some∣one instead of S. Mary Magdalen to pray to. The custom of their daily de∣votion as the Brachman Padmanaba said, was first to meditate of God before they rise,* 1.290 then after they have washed them∣selves they repeat 24 names of God and touch 24 parts of their bodies; upon Su•• rising they say prayers and pour down wa∣ter in honour of the Sun, and then 〈◊〉〈◊〉 down upon their knees and worship him and after perform some ceremonies 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Idols, which they repeat in the even∣ing. The particular devotion which the•• have to their Saints, and Images, a•••• Reliques is fully described by Boullaye-le-Gouz in his late Travels into those parts Mandelslo saith,* 1.291* 1.292 that in the time of the publick devotions, they have long Less•••• about the Lives and Miracles of the Saints, which the Bramans make use 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to perswade the people to worship them, Intercessors with God for them. Amo•••• their Saints Ram is in very great estim••¦tion, being the restorer of their Religi•••• and a great Patron of their Braman Kircher supposeth him to be the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with him whom the Iaponese call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the Chinese Ken Kian 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Kircher, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kia saith Marini, and those of Tunquin Chiaga, or as Marini Thic-Ca,* 1.293 in all which parts he is in very great ve∣neration; him they look on as the great propagator of their Religion in the Ea∣stern parts,* 1.294 and they say he had 80000 disciples, but he chose ten out of them, all to disperse his opinions. From whence it is supposed that the Religion of the Brachmans hath spread it self not only over Indosthan, but Camboia, Tunquin,* 1.295 Cochinchina, nay China it self, and Iapan too; where it is an usual thing for per∣sons to drown, burn or famish themselves for the honour of Xaca. This Sect was brought into China 65 years after Christ from Indosthan, as Trigautius, (or rather Matthaeus Riccius tells us, for Bartoli as∣sures us,* 1.296 that Trigautius only published Riccius his papers in his own name) which he supposes, was brought in by a mistake for the Christian Religion, (and surely it was a very great mistake) but for all that, Trigautius hath found a ••trange resemblance between the Roman Religion and theirs. For, saith he, they worship the Trinity after a certain manner, with an image having three Heads and one Body; they extol coelibate 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a high degree so as to seem to condemn

marriage; they forsake their Families, and go up and down begging, (i. e. the Order of Friers among them,) their ve∣ry rites and customs are like ours; they have Images in their Temples, and their very habits agree with ours. I desire T. G. once more to make use of his Friends kindness for Trigautius, that he may see, whether I have translated him right or no. In all this, he mentions no∣thing of the Christian Religion, but on∣ly the rewards and punishments of ano∣ther world; which most Nations of the world have believed; and for their other resemblances much good may they do themselves with such parts of Christiani∣ty.* 1.297 To these Bartoli adds, the worship∣ping the Mother of God with a Child in her Arms, their Penances, Monasteries, Nunneries, nay their very Beads and In∣dulgencies; And Semedo saith of their Priests,* 1.298 that they wear their Head and Beards shaved, they worship Idols; they marry not; they live in Convents 4 or 500 together, they beg, mutter prayers; they sing; they have several offices and prayers against fire, tempests, misfortunes, and especially for the dead; in which functi∣ons they use sacerdotal garments; their Caps are like ours, and their sprinkling

brushes without any difference at all; they eat neither flesh, nor fish, nor eggs, nei∣ther do they drink wine. But for this last cause of Fish and Wine, I might have imagined he had been describing a sort of men much nearer home. The same resemblances Bartoli finds,* 1.299 and stands amazed at in Iapan; here again, he finds one Image with three Heads for the Trinity, and forty hands to denote his power, which they call Denix; (but he saith, their Philosophers interpret it of the Sun, Moon, Elements and first Matter,) here they cross themselves, but with a S. Andrewes cross; and say their prayers exactly with their Beads, of which they have 180 on a string; and which is yet more observable, they understand not one word of their prayers, and yet they hope for forgiveness of their sins for saying them. They have a kind of Ave-Mary Bell for the times of their prayers: have pilgrimages to certain places, and have great indulgences promised them for visi∣ting them every year: they have a Tri∣bunal of general confession; and Troops of persons who carry their Images in proces∣sion, and have great honour to Reliques; especially to a Tooth of Xaca at Meaco, which they look upon as of mighty vertue,

being brought forth, either to obtain Rain or Fair weather: and which adds yet more cause of admiration, they have a Pope too, the Dairo, whom he calls Zazzus, who hath the chief care of Religion, and of Canonizing whom he thinks fit, and thence have the honour of Cami's or Saints; he consecrates Patriarchs and Pre∣lates, who make Priests with a power of sacrificing with odors, and of disposing the merits of Xaca and Amida for the benefit of the living and the dead. Besides, saith he, they have multitudes of Religious Or∣ders, Black and Grey, Eremitical and Coenobitical; and Nuns which are very serviceable and kind to the Bonzii, who shave their Heads, profess coelibate, ab∣stain from flesh and fish, and observe their hours of devotion to Xaca. These things, Bartoli saith, he had from those who were eye-witnesses, and had been long conver∣sant among them. But to increase the ad∣miration yet more, Greuber in his late ac∣count of his return from China, A. D. 1661. by the way of Lassa, or Baranto∣la, as Kircher calls it,* 1.300 but Greuber him∣self Baranateka (where,* 1.301 he saith, no Chri∣stian had ever been) yet there he found Extreme Unction, Solemn Processions, wor∣shipping of Reliques, Monasteries of men

and women, bare-footed Missionaries, and several other things, which caused amaze∣ment in him; but above all he wondred at their Pope, to whom they give divine honours, and worship his very excrements, and put them up in Golden boxes, as a most excellent Remedy against all mis∣chiefs; and to him all the Kings of Tar∣tary make their solemn addresses, and re∣ceive their Crowns from him; and those that come near him, kiss his Toe, as Kircher saith,* 1.302 and give the same adora∣tion that they do to the Pope at Rome; and, saith he, is only due to him: which he looks on, as a notable trick of the De∣vil, to steal these customs from Rome, and to carry them into such a remote part of the world, where he little dreamed of be∣ing found out in his villany, had not Greuber chanced to have passed that way from China. I find these Authours very much puzzled, what account to give of all these customs and ceremonies of theirs among Infidels and Idolaters: Kircher runs back to Presbyter Iohn, others to S. Thomas; when alas! they all came from the very same fountain, from whence they came into the Roman Church, viz. folly and Superstition.

And they do not want wit to defend themselves upon the very same grounds,* 1.303 that they do: as for instance, in their worship of Images, and Saints, (as they esteem them) as most proper to our pur∣pose. Nicolaus Pimenta in his epistle to Claudius Aquaviva General of the Iesu∣its from God, A. D. 1600. saith, that when they disputed with the Brachmans,* 1.304 about their worship, they told them; And we likewise worship one God as well as you, and refer all the honour to him which we give to other things. I would he had told us what answer he gave them; but I find not a word of that: neither can I see what it was capable of, unless he told them, that they lied. And we have a considerable Testimony of an understand∣ing Gentleman of Rome, who had the cu∣riosity to enquire strictly into the worship the Gentiles in India gave to their Deities; that they have no other name to express their Deity but Deu or Deurù,* 1.305 which are likewise given to Princes; from whence he infers that the Gods of the Gentiles al∣though adored and worshipped both in an∣cient and modern times, were never look∣ed on in the same degree with God the Creator of the Universe, and wherein al∣most

all Nations of the World have and do hold him, some calling him the First Cause, others the Soul of the World, others Pera∣brahmi as the Gentiles at this day in In∣dia: but the other Gods are and were al∣ways with them, as Saints are with us: of the truth whereof I have great argu∣ments at least among the Indian Gentiles; or at the highest they esteemed them only as men Deified by the Favour of God, as Hercules, Romulus, Augustus, &c. Mons. Bernier when he was at the University of the Brachmans in Benares upon Ganges, discoursing with one of the most learned men among them, he proposed to him the Question,* 1.306 about the adoration of their Idols, and reproaching them with it, as a thing very unreasonable; they gave him this remarkable answer, We have indeed in our Temples store of divers Statues, as those of Brahma, Mahadeu, Genich and Gavani, who are some of the chief and most perfect Deutas; and we have also many others of less perfection, to whom we pay great honour, prostrating our selves before them and presenting them Flowers, Rice, Oyles, Saffron and such things with much ceremony; but we do not believe these Statues to be Brahma or Bechen, &c. themselves, but only their Images and Re∣presentations,

and we do not give them that honour but upon the account of what they represent. They are in our Temples, because it is necessary for praying well, to have something before our eyes that may fix the mind; and when we pray, it is not the Statue we pray to, but he that is represented by it. For the rest we ac∣knowledge, that 'tis God that is absolute, and the only omnipotent Lord and Master. This, saith he, was his answer without adding or substracting any thing. And I desire to be resolved by T. G. whether upon these principles they were guilty of Idolatry, or no? I am sure their Church accounts them so; and yet they neither believe their Images to be Gods, nor ter∣minate their worship upon them; and if they be guilty upon these principles, T.G. can never clear the Church of Rome.

But besides, they have another way of defending themselves, which the same Author gives this account of, viz. that God or that Soveraign being whom they call Achar (immutable) hath produced or drawn out of his own substance, not on∣ly souls,* 1.307 but also whatever is material and corporeal in the Universe, so that all the things in the world are but one and the same thing which is God himself; as

all numbers are but one and the same uni∣ty repeated. If this principle of theirs were true, I hope they might stand upon even terms with T. G. as to the adorati∣on of the Host. For if the belief on one side will justifie his Church from Idola∣try, a sufficient object of adoration being supposed to be present, I hope the same supposition on their side may do it too; so that if men can be but foolish and ex∣travagant enough in their opinion about a thing, they need not doubt the lawful∣ness of the worship they pay to it. And that this is not a meer supposition not on∣ly appears by the Testimony of this in∣quisitive Person, but by what Trigautius saith of the Chineses,* 1.308 that this opinion is very prevalent among the Learned men there, that makes the world and God to be one substance, of which all particular things are members; and by what Alexan∣der Valignanus,* 1.309 Provincial of the Iesuits in the Indies for thirty years, hath said upon this subject. In his discourse about the best means of converting the Iaponese, printed by Possevine, he tells us of a Sect among them, who hold but one principle, which they call the first reason, and the true opinion, and the divine truth, and that this principle is all things, and all

things are nothing but it extended now and do return into it again upon their dis∣solution, that the soul of man is the same with it, that men by inward contempla∣tion may now attain to a knowledge of and union with this first principle; and as one of the Iaponese converts said, after a man hath spent thirty years in this con∣templation, he is then fit to be Canoni∣zed, and to be worshipped among their Ca∣mi's and Fotoques. This first principle they grant to be one, absolutely Perfect and Wise, but not thoughtful, but living in perfect ease and happiness. This, saith Bernier, is the great Cabala of the Brach∣mans and Persians; and if Valignanus may be credited, is so of the Iaponeses too: and it seems to be the very same which Orpheus had from the Egyptians, and con∣tains in it the most plausible Reason of giving divine worship to any thing, which is proposed for adoration. Valignanus of∣fers a great many arguments against this opinion, but I dare say not one of them stronger or plainer than those which are daily brought against transubstantiation: and yet T. G. will by no means allow any Idolatry therein, because the object supposed to be present, deserves our ado∣ration. But the generality of the people

Valignanus confesses did acknowledge a Supreme Being whom they called Tento, and believed him to be the Governour of the World, and to him in their great di∣stresses they made supplications, believing that all things are well known by him; but under him they suppose many Cami's and Fotoques to be, whom they acknow∣ledge to have had a beginning, such as Xaca, and Amida, and Canon, and To∣ranga and many others, to whom they make their daily addresses in their Tem∣ples. And the Reasons which Valignanus gives against this way of worship among them deserve our consideration. 1. Be∣cause God only hath the power of confer∣ring the blessings of this life or another upon us;* 1.310 and his argument must hold as to both, or else it doth not reach home; for the Iaponeses are observed more to pray to their Saints or Deities for riches, and health and honour, than for what be∣longs to another life. 2. Because Xaca and Amida and the rest of the Cami and Fotoque were once men, and there∣fore the administration of the world can∣not be committed to them, being a thing above humane understanding. Very well again: and if▪ this argument signifie any thing, it must extend to their incapacity

of receiving their addresses for want of divine knowledge; otherwise they might pray to Amida and Xaca still, as Medi∣ators at least between God and them. 3. Because the world was, before they had a being, and consequently was governed by that Wise Being which made it; and he that disposed of things then, doth so still; therefore it is an absurd thing to pray to and adore such beings which did not make the world. All which I grant to be reasonably, and truly said, and on∣ly desire they may be remembred against another day: and what he adds about the great affront which is offered to God, when the honour which belongs to him is given to any creatures,* 1.311 either dead men, or Ima∣ges, or Devils; and yet he makes no scru∣ple notwithstanding the former preten∣ces, to charge these Gentiles with Ido∣latry.

* 1.312It remains now, that I consider the Religion of the Chineses; that I mean, which is properly theirs, and is by Wri∣ters commonly called the First Sect among them, and by Martinius the Philosophical Sect.* 1.313 Although he admires them for their morality; yet, he saith, although anciently they did believe and worship one

God, yet that now they have left off to worship him because they do not know how to do it: but Greuber,* 1.314 who came later from thence saith, that they do pro∣fess to worship one Supreme Being which they call Sciax-Ti, and adore him by cer∣tain sacrifices of paper and incense. They worship no Pagod or Idol, saith Semedo,* 1.315 but acknowledge a Superiority or Deity, who is able to chastise or reward: but they have no Churches wherein they wor∣ship him, nor any divine service which they celebrate, nor any prayers that they rehearse, nor any Priests or Ministers which officiate at his service. Yet they speak and write very honourably of him, neither do they attribute any undecent thing to him, as our Ancestors did to their Gods: but they have Temples for Heaven and Earth in Nankin and Pekim, in which the King himself offers the sacri∣fice; and in the Cities they have Temples for Tutelar Spirits, to which the Man∣darins 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 Benefa∣ctors to the publick, and therein are pla∣ced their Images. Trigautius saith,* 1.316 that he finds in their ancient Books that the

Chineses did of old time worship one Su∣preme 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 Seme∣do: 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 eve∣ry 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 Tri∣bunal; where they make oblations, and burn perfumes, acknowledging these to have power to reward and punish. Bar∣toli saith,* 1.317 it is not out of any contempt of Religion, but out of reverence to the Dei∣ty because of the excellency of his Ma∣jesty, that they suffer none but the King to offer Sacrifice to him: and according∣ly the larger Power the Tutelar Spirits

are supposed to have, the greater Magi∣strates are to attend their service: and the lesser those of Cities, and Mountains, and Rivers. But that which is more ma∣terial to our present business, is, to con∣sider the Resolution of a case of Conscience not long since given at Rome by the Con∣gregation 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 obser∣vation 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 un∣derstanding the Notion of Idolatry accord∣ing to the sense of the Church of Rome.

The case was this; The Missionaries of the Society of Iesuits, having had a plen∣tiful harvest in China, and many of the Great men embracing the Christian Reli∣gion 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 Con∣fession, receiving the Sacrament at Easter, Fasting at the solemn times, and Tenths and First-fruits: besides, they did for∣bear 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 in∣ward intention of their minds. 2. To go to the Temple of Keum-Fucu, or Confu∣cius, twice a year, and to perform all the

solemnities there, that the rest did: and the same as to the Temples of their An∣cestors 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 al∣lowance they gave, as to the Images of their Ancestors, about which many Cere∣monies were used by them. The Missio∣naries of S. Francis order, being well in∣formed 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 Car∣dinals was called, and after great delibe∣ration and advising with the Pope about it, they made their Decree, wherein, they by several resolutions, declare it unlaw∣ful 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 scan∣dal, which they stood upon (as T. G. doth,* 1.318 about worshipping towards the Sun) they make use of several expressions, on purpose to exclude this, for so they re∣solve the seventh Quere, nullatenus licere, it is by no means lawful; and the eighth, nullo praetextu, under no pretence whatsoe∣ver, and to the ninth expresly, that it could not be salved propter absentiam gen∣tilium, if there were no gentiles present: from this Resolution we may observe seve∣ral things to our purpose.

[unspec 1] 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 (especi∣ally the Christians) did never intend to give to the Tutelar Spirit the honour pro∣per to the Supreme Deity: And Bartoli hath at large proved,* 1.319 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 signi∣fies 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 An∣gels, and say that the power of forgiving sins belongs only to God and not to them; that, upon a debate among the Missio∣naries about the use of these words for the true God, and some scruples raised from some misinterpretations of it by an Atheistical Sect among them, they were satisfied by plain and perspicuous testimo∣nies out of their Books, that they could mean no other than the true God: and that he to whom the King every year of∣fers sacrifice is a pure Mind, free from all mixture, governing all things, and therefore to him all the acts of soveraign worship are performed; such as Sacri∣fices, Vows, Prayers and thanksgivings. Therefore the worship they give to the Tutelar Spirits or Guardian Angels, (as they suppose them) must be of an inferi∣our nature, and yet the Congregation of the Cardinals by the direction of the Pope, condemn this for Idolatry.

That giving an Inferiour Worship on the [unspec 2] account of created excellency, when it appears to be Religious, is utterly unlaw∣ful among Christians. For this is the on∣ly imaginable reason why the Congrega∣tion

did so absolutely condemn the wor∣ship of Confutius and their Ancestors; and Hurtado in the explication of this de∣cree,* 1.320 confesses, that the Chineses did not esteem Confutius, as a God, but only look∣ed on him as a holy and vertuous Philoso∣pher; yet, saith he, because they did those acts to him which are only proper to God, they commit manifest Idolatry in it. For, saith he, they who give to a creature the worship due only to God, do commit Idola∣try; and from hence the Gentiles who ac∣knowledged one God were Idolaters, be∣cause they gave to the creatures the ho∣nour due to him, in the doing of which they made an acknowledgement of divine excellency in the things they gave it to. By which it appears, that there are some external acts of worship so proper to God, that although a man hath never so clear apprehension in his mind of the Supreme excellency of God above the creatures he worships, yet the giving that worship to them makes his act Idolatry. The Iesu∣its to excuse these things, speak very high things of Confutius, and of his admirable Life and doctrine, and surely not with∣out great reason, if their relations hold true, as I see no reason to suspect them: but the more Confutius is extolled, the

worse they make their own case, for all these acts of external worship towards him, are condemned for Idolatry: and how then comes the worship of Ignatius Loyola to be otherwise, who, I dare say, never was so great a Philosopher, nor did so much good in the world, as the Iesu∣its say Confutius did? But at last, they would have all these honours to Confutius to be only civil honours; although Tri∣gautius confesses,* 1.321 that he hath a Temple in every City, that his Image with that of his Disciples, is set up in it; that these Disciples are looked on as a sort of Divi, i. e. as Canonized Saints;* 1.322 that bere they make use of all the rites of ado∣ration, genuflections, wax-candles, in∣cense, oblations, prayers only excepted: but we see, notwithstanding all their pretences, the Pope and Congregation of Cardinals have condemned them as guilty of Idolatry.

That the Pope and Congregation of Car∣dinals [unspec 3] were not of T. G's mind, that acts do certainly go whither they are intend∣ed; For all these acts of worship were di∣rected by the intention of the persons to the secret Crucifix, which lay among the flowers upon the Altar; but notwith∣standing, this in their opinion were a fit object of worship, yet other circum∣stances

did so much alter the nature of it, that they declare these acts to be in them∣selves unlawful. By actions going whi∣ther they are intended, I do not mean, as T. G. suggests, that the Physical act of the mind doth not pass to the object whi∣ther the act is directed, i. e. that I do not think of that which I do think of; but my meaning is, that such a directing the intention of the mind doth not give a moral denomination to the nature of the action, viz. that it becomes lawful or un∣lawful, by vertue of such an intention of the mind, but that the Law of God may so determine the nature of our acts of worship, as to make them unlawful, what∣ever the intention of the mind be. And thus the Congregation of Cardinals here resolves the case; the Persons used only those acts of adoration that may be direct∣ed to God, by a secret intention of the mind; they suppose a Crucifix a fit ob∣ject for divine worship, and going toge∣ther into an Idolatrous Temple, and using all the external equivocal acts (as T. G. calls them) which the rest did, they di∣rect their acts by vertue of this intention to the Crucifix; yet although the Con∣gregation thought this intention rightly directed, they condemn the acts as in

themselves unlawful. But of these things hereafter; the first observation being suf∣ficient to my present purpose, viz. to shew that according to the present sense of the Roman Church the practice of Idolatry is consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme God.

From the Idolatry of the East-Indies,* 1.323 I proceed to that of the Tartars, whose Dominion hath extended it self over that vast Continent from the utmost North-East parts, to the borders of Europe that way; and this acount I shall give from the least suspected witnesses in this matter, viz. the Emissaries of the Roman Church, who had conversed most among them, and made it their design to understand their Religion. In A. D. 1246. after the horrible devasta∣tions made by the Tartars in Poland and Hungary, Pope Innocent 4. sent Iohannes de Plano Carpini as his Legat, or Nuncio to them:* 1.324 and after a year and four months stay among them he gives this account of their Religion, unum Deum credunt, quem credunt esse factorem omnium visi∣bilium, & invisibilium; & credunt eum tam bonorum in hoc mundo quam poena∣rum esse factorem; non tamen orationi∣bus, vel laudibus aut ritu aliquo ipsum

colunt. They believe one God, whom they believe to be the maker of all things visi∣ble and invisible; and to be the Author of all worldly goods and punishments; and yet he saith, they had no manner of wor∣hip of him: but their worship they gave to Images, which he there at large de∣cribes. But there is an inferior Deity, whom he calls Itoga, Paulus Venetus Na∣tagay which they believe to be the God of the earth,* 1.325 and him they worship with great superstition; and besides they worship the Sun, Moon and Fire, and make oblations to the Image of their first Emperour; and the same thing is affirmed by Vincentius Bellovacensis.* 1.326 After him, Lewis the ninth of France sent William de Rubruquis, a Franciscan, A. D. 1253. who passed through the several Courts of the Tartarian Princes, and gave an exact account to his Prince of the Religion he found among them. In the conference he had with Mangu-Chan (who was then Empe∣rour) about Religion; the Emperour told him,* 1.327 We Moals (which is the name they call themselves by, that being the name of the Tribe from whence Iingiz-chan came, the Tartars being another Tribe, but bet∣ter known to the Europeans,) We, (saith he,) believe that that there is but one

God, through whom we live and die; and we have an upright heart towards him: and he added, that as God had given to the hand five fingers, so he hath given many ways to men. But there was a Sect of Idolaters among them, whom he calls Tuinians, who held two first Principles, and many Gods; but it seems by their dis∣course, that they acknowledged the Superio∣rity of one above all the rest. For when the Frier said there was but one God; the Tuinian who disputed with him before Mangu-Chan, said, Fools say there is but one God, but wisemen day there are many; are there not great Lords in your Coun∣try? and here is a greater Lord Mangu-Chan. So is it of the Gods, because in divers countries there are divers. And afterwards he acknowledged, that there is one Highest God in the Heavens, whose Generation we know not yet, and ten are under him, and under them there is one Inferiour: and in the earth there are infinite. And of another Sect, called Iugurs, he confes∣ses, that they believe on God,* 1.328 and yet make Idols; from whom the Tartars had their letters; and he affirms the same of the Moals or Tartars in general,* 1.329 and yet they make and worship many Images: and their Priests pray by their Beads, ha∣ving

a string with a hundred or two of Nutshels upon it; and the repeating of certain words with them, they account me∣ritorious at Gods hand. Haithon, the Armenian,* 1.330 agrees with the former, say∣ing of the Tartars, that they confess one immortal God. Gregorius Abul-pharajius brings several examples of Iingiz-Chans acknowledging one Supreme and omnipo∣tent God,* 1.331 (who laid the foundation of the Tartarian Empire) as, when he made his prayers to him upon the injury of Gayer-Chan: when he owned his Power to be given him from the God that is King over all and omnipotent; and therefore, Haithon makes that the first command of Jingiz-Chan to his followers, that they ought to believe and obey the immortal God,* 1.332 by whom he obtained his Empire. And that the Tartars, who have not em∣braced Mohometism, did still acknowledge and worship one Supreme God maker of Heaven and Earth, is confessed by Iacobus Navarchus among the Indian Epistles;* 1.333 and the same, Nicephorus Callistus affirms,* 1.334 of the ancient Turks, who were a race of Tartars living beyond the Bactrian Mountains.

The like might be easily discovered of the most considerable Nations of the West-Indies,

if it would not have swelled this discourse into too great a Bulk; in gene∣ral we take this remarkable Testimony of Iosephus Acosta,* 1.335 a learned Spanish Iesuit, who lived seventeen years in those parts. They, (saith he, speaking of the Indians) do commonly acknowledge a Supreme Lord and Author of all things, which they of Peru call Viracocha, and gave him names of great excellence, as Pachacamac, or Pachaiackachic, which is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and Usapu which is admirable, and such like. Him they did worship as the chiefest of all, whom they did honour in beholding the Heaven. The like we see amongst them of Mexico, and China, and all other Infidels. Which ac∣cordeth well with what is said by S. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, where he did see the inscription of an Altar Ignota Deo, To the unknown God: whereupon the Apostle took occasion to preach unto them, saying, Him whom you worship without knowing him, do I preach unto you. In like sort those which at this day do preach the Gospel to the Indians, find no great difficulty to perswade them that there is a high God and Lord over all, and that this is the Christians God, and the true God. As it is therefore a truth conformable to

reason, that there is a Soveraign Lord and King of Heaven, whom the Gentiles with all their Infidelities and Idolatries have not denied, as we see in the Philosophy of Timaeus in Plat. in the Metaphysicks of Aristotle, and in the Asclepius of Trisme∣gist, as also in the Poesies of Homer and Virgil: So the Preachers of the Gospel have no great difficulty to plant and per∣swade this truth of a Supreme God, be the Nations to whom they preach never so bar∣barous, and bruitish. But it is hard to root out of their minds that there is no other God, nor any other Deity than one: and that all other things of themselves have no power, being, nor working pro∣per to themselves, but what this great and only Lord doth give and impart to them. To conclude, It is necessary to per∣swade them by all means, in reproving their errours, as well in that wherein they generally fail, in worshipping more than one God, as in particular, which is much more to hold for Gods, and to de∣mand favours and help of those things which are not Gods, nor have any power, but what the true God their Lord and Creator hath given.* 1.336 And in another place he saith, Hoc enim commune apud omnes pene barbaros est, ut Deum quidem

omnium rerum Supremum & summe bonum fateantur. This is common among almost all the barbarous nations, to acknowledge one Supreme God, infinitely good. But there is so pregnant a Testimony concern∣ing the acknowledgement of a Supreme Deity among the Yncas of Peru, that it ought not to be slightly passed over. The thing it self is confessed not only by Aco∣sta, but by Eusebius Nierembergius,* 1.337 Au∣gustinus de Zarate, Antonius de Calan∣cha who was himself a Peruan born, and afterwards an Augustinian:* 1.338 and these two mention the conference between Atahuall∣pa the last of the Yncas, and Vincentius de Valverde, about Religion, wherein, the Ynca told the Spanish Priest,* 1.339 that they believed in Pachacamac the Creator of the World, and after him they worshipped the Sun and Moon for their universal in∣fluence on the World. But the most per∣fect account of their way of worship is delivered by Garcilasso de la Vega, who was himself of the blood of Yncas by the Mother, and he corrects several mi∣stakes of Acosta and other Spanish Au∣thors, which were occasioned by their ig∣norance of the Peruvian language and Customs. He saith, that Manco Capac,* 1.340 (who was the founder of the Empire of

the Yncas,) did reduce the barbarous In∣dians from the promiscuous Idolatry of al∣most all sorts of creatures before, to the worship of the Sun, as the great instru∣ment of Pachacamac in the Government of the World; but although they had a great veneration for the Moon, as Wife and Sister of the Sun, yet he cannot find that they did ever worship her as a Goddess; or offer Sacrifices, and build Tem∣ples to her. Thunder and Lightning they called, the Executioners of the Iustice of the Sun; and did not look on them as Deities, as the Spaniards imagined. But the main thing he discovers as to their Religion is,* 1.341 that they had only two Dei∣ties, the one visible, the Sun; the other invisible, the Creator of the World, whom they called Pachacamac, from Pacha which signifies the World, and Camac from the verb Camar to enliven, and that from Cama the Soul; so that Pachacamac is as much as, the Soul of the World: which word they had in so great veneration that they durst not pronounce it but with a great deal of ceremonie, and with the most humble posture of adoration: which was the external soveraign worship which they gave to the Supreme Deity, and above what they gave to the Sun, whose name

they did usually pronounce: from whence he infers, that although the external wor∣ship of Sacrifices was performed to the Sun, yet they had in their Soul a greater ado∣ration to Pachacamac, as an invisible Dei∣ty, that gave being and life to the World. He saith, that without all question the Yncas and their Amautas or Philosophers, did intend no other by this word, but the true Soveraign Creator of the World; how∣ever the Spaniards thought some Devil was understood by it: but, saith he, the Indi∣ans when they meant the Devil they cal∣led him Cupay; and at the naming him did spit on the ground in token of execra∣tion; but when they mentioned Pachaca∣mac, they did it with all the Reverence and Devotion imaginable. And withall he adds, that whatever Acosta and others say, this is the proper name for God in the Peruvian Language; and they do not know how to express him otherwise; and that all other names given by the Spani∣ards, as Tici Viracocha, Pachaia Chacher, Pacharurac, do not set forth the unex∣pressible Majesty of God in their Tongue, as Pachacamac doth. He tells us, that it was an inviolable Law of the Yncas, throughout their Empire,* 1.342 that Divine Worship should be given only to Pachacamac

as the Soveraign Deity, and to the Sun for the great benefit the world received by him: and that it was held a very re∣proachful thing among them to attribute the Name, Honour, Authority, Power of God or any other Divine perfections to any sublunary things: but they had an inferiour reverence for the Moon as Wife and Sister of the Sun, and for the Stars, which they called her Daughters and Ser∣vants of her House; and so they had for their Yncas too, whose bodies were set up in the Temple of the Sun in Cozco, on either side his Golden Image;* 1.343 and in the Chappel of the Moon were the bodies of the Empresses after the same manner: in which he observes, that the Yncas were wont to make their vows to the Moon,* 1.344 and recommend themselves to her as their Mother; but they offered no sacrifices to her, as they did to the Sun. They have likewise great respect for the Stars, and especially for the Planet Venus, which they call the Page of the Sun; as they have for the Thunder, and Lightning, and Thunderbolt, which he saith again, they did not hold to be Gods, but to be his domestick Servants; which the Spaniards, because they represented them as three in one, mistook for the Trinity worshipped

among them, which Eusebius Nierember∣gius from Acosta calls Tangatanga: Gar∣cilasso knew nothing of it, but saith, that they called them Yllapa. They have like∣wise a great veneration for the Rainbow as the production of the Sun; and for the City of Cozco; but as to all these, they give only an inferiour and honorary worship to them; but they reserve the Soveraign internal worship for Pachacamac, and ex∣ternal by sacrifice for the Sun. This Pachacamac, although he had no Temple erected by the Yncas, yet the same Au∣thor tells us,* 1.345 that under the power of Cuysmancu, King of the Yuncas, there was a Valley, called the Valley of Pachacamac, where was a Temple erected to his wor∣ship; and when the Ynca of Peru demand∣ed subjection to him, and to joyn in the worship of the Sun; he said, Pachaca∣mac was Creator and preserver of all,* 1.346 and therefore greater than the Sun, whom they worshipped, with the utmost expres∣sions of adoration; the King himself not daring to enter the Temple with his face towards his Image: and besides Him they only worshipped the Oracle of Rimac, and Mamacohca i. e. the Sea; But for the Sun, they found too great inconvenience by his heat for them to worship him.

The Ynca replyed, that they did not on∣ly worship the Sun, but Pachacamac too; but because he was an invisible and incom∣prehensible Deity, they offered him no sa∣crifices, nor built him any Temple: but they had the greatest inward veneration towards him, which they expressed by all possible demonstrations as oft as they men∣tioned his name. At last the difference was composed on these terms, the Yuncas were to retain the Temple of Pachacamac, but to forbear any Image of him, as un∣worthy of him, and humane sacrifices, and to receive the worship of the Sun; and the Yncas to admit the Oracle of Ri∣mac. Huayna Capac, one of the Yncas, made use of this argument to the High-Priest his Uncle, that the Sun could not be the Supreme God:* 1.347 who dares, said he, command me to go a long journey and ne∣ver rest? But if I command any Officer I have to go to Chili, he dares not disobey: surely then, saith he, our Father the Sun (so the Yncas still called him) must needs have a greater Lord than himself, which commands him to take such a journey eve∣ry day. By these things, it fully appears, that the mighty Empire of Peru, while it was under the Power of the Yncas, did acknowledge one Supreme God, to whom

they gave internal worship as most pro∣per for him; and external adoration at the mention of his name, although they of∣fered their Sacrifices to the Sun. And it is observable what the same excellent Au∣thor farther adds,* 1.348 that the Indians wor∣shipped Pachacamac, under the very title of the Unknown God: which was the in∣scription on the Altar at Athens, from whence S. Paul said, whom ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.

Acosta saith,* 1.349 that the Supreme God was worshipped in Mexico with a very magni∣ficent Temple, and after him the Sun; in Virginia, one that had it from intimate familiarity with the Priests declares,* 1.350 that they believe there are many Gods, which they call Mantoac, but of different sorts and degrees, one only chief and great God, which hath been from all eternity. Who, as they affirm, when he purposed to make the world, made first other Gods of a prin∣cipal order, to be as means and instru∣ments to be used in the creation and go∣vernment to follow, and after, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, as petty Gods, and in∣struments of the other order more princi∣pal. And when Tomocomo a principal person of Virginia was here in England,* 1.351 he averred, that they worshipped the God

that made Heaven and Earth: who was the Author of all good to them. Creuxi∣us the Iesuit,* 1.352 in his late History of Cana∣da, saith, that when Paulus Juvenaeus discoursed with the Inhabitants about God, and describing him to be of infinite power, and that made Heaven and Earth, they cried out to each other Atoachan, Atoa∣chan, intimating that all things were made by that God whom they worshipped under that name: but they believe the seasons of the year, and the affairs of hu∣mane life to be managed by certain Spi∣rits under him,* 1.353 whom they endeavour to propitiate by certain rites of worship.

Leo Africanus,* 1.354 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 Pro∣phet or Teacher, but was inspired into them by God himself. Varenius takes no∣tice of the false and imperfect description which is commonly given of the Religion of the Negroes,* 1.355 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,* 1.356 of the Inhabitants of Ma∣dagascar, that he was informed, that they believe there is one God who made Heaven and Earth; and will one day pu∣nish bad actions and reward the good. Ioh. de Barros saith,* 1.357 that the Inhabitants of Monomotapa, believe in one God whom they call Mozimo; and if we believe him, they worship nothing else besides him:* 1.358 the same others say of the Mordui, a people that inhabit the farther parts of Musco∣vy, who declare,* 1.359 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,* 1.360 they worship Idols, or are Mahumetans. Texeira and Pimenta say that the Sect of the Baneans called Lon Kah,* 1.361 worship on∣ly 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,* 1.362 under the form of a Statue with three faces, and his hands folded, whom they called Tam∣bram:

and he saith, the King of Calecut is of the same Religion with them of Cran∣ganor: and Ludovicus Vartomannus saith,* 1.363 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 wor∣ship, having on his head, saith Vartoman∣nus, just such a Crown as the Popes of Rome have, only it hath three horns upon it: and the same is confessed by Iarricus.* 1.364 The people of Narsinga likewise believe one Supreme God, but worship Idols as the rest of the Indians do. Linschoten,* 1.365 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 wor∣ship Idols called Pagodes, after such a ter∣rible representation as we make of De∣vils, whom they assert to have lived for∣merly upon earth, and to have been fa∣mous for sanctity and miracles, and to whom they address themselves, as Media∣tors 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,* 1.366 who li∣ved long among them, saith, that the common perswasion of the Gentiles, al∣though 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 Ce∣remonies of their worship, the nature of their Images, the manner of their Obla∣tions, 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,* 1.367 who hath given an account of the late French Mission in∣to those parts, confesses, that their ex∣ternal devotion to their Images is extra∣ordinary,

that they offer no bloody sacrifi∣ces, 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 Me∣mories of their Saints, that by the sight of them the people might be excited to imi∣tate 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 up∣on their Idols, and ask of them those things, which God alone can give. As to the former, we have seen the general con∣sent 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 pro∣per to him; and for the latter, if they suppose those Deities to be so by partici∣pation,

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 there∣fore Campanella very wisely confesses upon these principles,* 1.368 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 like∣wise 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 Go∣thick 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 Snor∣ro Sturleson which contains the ancient Religion of the Goths;* 1.369 the first Question proposed is, who was the Supreme, and the most ancient of the Gods? To which the Answer is, that the most-ancient of the Gods is called Alfader, the Father of all: and he had twelve names which are there enumerated: and after it is said of him, that This God lives for ever, and go∣verns all things,* 1.370 that he made the Hea∣ven, and Earth, and Air, and all things in them; and which is the greatest of all, he made Man and gave him a Soul that should live for ever, although the body be destroyed; and that those who were good should be with him in a place called Gimle or Wingulf, but those that were bad to Hela, and from thence to Niflheim. Which Niflheim, they add, was made ma∣ny ages before the Earth; and then they proceed to the creation of things, which is there reported after a fabulous manner. It is true, this Tradition came to be cor∣rupted among them, when the attributes and worship belonging to this God were given to that Prince who conducted the Goths from their former Seat about the Palus Maeotis into the Northern Regions, who was called Odin, or Woden; and so

there came in such a confusion in their Idolatry as was among the Greeks be∣tween Iupiter Olympius, and him of Creet. But since they do mention this Odin as chief of the Asae, and tell the circumstan∣ces of his leading the people first to one place, then to another, they cannot mean by him, the same God whom they assert to have been from eternity, and to have created all things: but all this confusion did arise among them and other Nations, when vain and ambitious men did take upon them the names of the Deity on pur∣pose, that they might have worship given to them; and such a one this Odin is de∣scribed to have been by all the Northern Historians; and from hence likewise the names of Deified men, have been given to him whom they worshipped for the Supreme God. Thus also Thor was the Son of Odin; yet in some of the Northern parts, they worshipped the Supreme Dei∣ty under his name, attributing the power over all things, even the inferiour Deities to him. And accordingly he was wor∣shipped with a Crown on his Head, a Scepter in his hand, and twelve Stars about him; as he is described by Olaus Magnus and others;* 1.371 and Ioh. Magnus saith, that Thor was worshipped in the

Golden Temple at Upsalia, tanquam poten∣tissimus & summus omnium Deorum;* 1.372 and to this day among the most barbarous Laplanders the Supreme God is worship∣ped under the same representation of Thor,* 1.373 (as we are informed by a late credible Writer) and to him they give besides, the name of Iumala: under him they wor∣ship a Deity, whom they call Storjunkare, or Vice-Roy, like the Tartars Natagay; under whose care they suppose all inferi∣our creatures to man to be, and therefore they living much by hunting, make many supplications to him, and worship him un∣der the representation of a rough hollow stone, which as rude and barbarous as they are, they are far enough from think∣ing to be the Deity it self, but only a Sym∣bol to represent him. And the Idolatrous inhabitants of Samogitia, although they worship a multitude of Gods under seve∣ral names, and as having a particular care over some things, and a sort of Serpents as Ministers of their Gods, yet they con∣fess a Supreme God: so Lasicius saith,* 1.374 they have one omnipotent God, but many Zemopacii, or terrestrial Gods; which he there at large enumerates; and the same is acknowledged by Ioh. Meletius,* 1.375 who lived among them and describes their Ido∣latrous

customs in an Epistle to Georg. Sabinus, A. D. 1553. who saith, that in the first place they invocate Occopirnus, the God of Heaven and Earth; and then the inferiour Deities who are set over the Sea, Air, Spring, Woods, &c. Thus far I have clearly proved, that the acknow∣ledged Idolatry of the present world, doth not exclude a Supreme God, but either the Idolaters suppose him to be above their worship, or think it not unlawful to worship inferiour Deities with the same external acts of worship which they per∣form to the Supreme God.

The last thing I shall prove the con∣sistency of Idolatry with giving Soveraign Worship to the Supreme God by is,* 1.376 from the Testimony of those Fathers who have charged such Christians with Idolatry, con∣cerning whom there could be no dispute whether they believed and worshipped a Supreme God.

Athanasius frequently lays this to the charge of the Arians,* 1.377 that by giving ado∣ration to the Son of God, supposing him to be a Creature, they did bring in the Hea∣then Idolatry among Christians: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

which words are the more remarkable, because he accuses them of doing the same thing, which S. Paul charges the Gentiles with; which therefore doth not imply, the passing by the worship of the Creator, but giving the same divine worship to a creature, which they do to the Supreme God. The same words he repeats after∣wards in the same Oration, and desires the Arians to shew the difference between the Greeks and them,* 1.378 if they believed Christ not to be the true God, but only by participation, as the Greeks supposed their Gods to be. The force of this argument were wholly lost, if either the Greeks supposed many independent Deities, or Idolatry were inconsistent with the ac∣knowledgement of one True God; for the Arians might upon either of those grounds have shewed the disparity between them and the Greeks. Afterwards he saith expresly, they fell into the Polytheism of the Greeks;* 1.379 from whence it unavoidably follows, that their Polytheism did not sup∣pose several Deities of necessary and eter∣nal existence; but one Original and Su∣preme God, and the others only made so by participation from him. If it be im∣possible for a man who hath a right opi∣nion of Gods incomparable excellency

above the most noble creatures, to attri∣bute the honour due to God alone, to that which he conceiveth to be a mere crea∣ture; then the Arians were unjustly charged with Idolatry; for they were sup∣posed to do that, which it seems is im∣possible to be done: for they asserted, Christ to be a mere creature, and yet Athanasius saith, they were therein guil∣ty of Idolatry, although they believed God to be incomparably above his creatures, in as much as all creatures, and Christ himself had what he had by participation from him: and whatever excellencies are attributed to a mere creature, as to Power, or Wisdom or Goodness, supposing them to be derivative from a Superior Being, they do still suppose an incomparable di∣stance between the Creator and the crea∣ture. And it is farther observable in Athanasius, that he doth not lay the force of his argument in any distinction of the degrees of the divine worship, but useth promiscuously the terms of Latria and Du∣lia, as to the worship given to a creature; for where he speaks afterwards of the Arians and Gentiles agreeing in giving divine worship to a creature,* 1.380 he thus ex∣presses it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, giving the worship of Du∣lia

to a creature as well as to the Creator; not as though he looked on the worship of Dulia as distinct from Latria, but by using these words promiscuously he shews, that he understood by both of them that divine worship which is alone proper to God, and which being given to a crea∣ture makes it Idolatry. He farther saith, that supposing what excellencies we please in Christ,* 1.381 although derived from God, yet if we withal suppose him to be a mere man, if we give divine worship to him, we shall be found 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 worship∣pers of man, i. e. such kind of Idolaters as the Heathen were in the worship of Deified men: from which nothing can be more evident, than that the supposing the most real excellencies in a creature to have been by participation from God, doth not take off from the guilt of Idola∣try, when that worship is given to the creature, which belongs only to God. S. Athanasius farther argues, that nothing but the divine nature is capable of adora∣tion, and not any created excellency how great soever it be.* 1.382 For saith he, if the height of glory did deserve adoration, then every inferiour creature ought to worship the Superior; but it is no such matter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for one crea∣ture

is not to worship another, but a ser∣vant his Lord, and the creature God. From hence Peter forbad Cornelius who would have worshipped him saying, For I also am a Man. And the Angel S. John saying, See thou do it not, for I am also thy fellow servant; worship God. Whence he infers, nor that the Angel complement∣ed S. Iohn, not that S. Peter only did it to shew his humility, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it is proper only to God to be worshipped, without any distinction of the nature, kinds, or degrees of worship. But how many distinctions would T. G. and his Brethren make before they would grant that proposition? It is true, say they, of Latria, soveraign and absolute worship, which is proper only to God; but not of an inferiour kind of divine wor∣ship, which may be given to a creature on the account of divine excellencies commu∣nicated to it by God: This we may sup∣pose was the Answer of the Arians; but S. Athanasius was not certainly so weak a man to argue at this rate, if he had sup∣posed this a sufficient answer; for he could not but foresee it; and a man of so much understanding, as it is evident he was, would have prevented this answer if he had thought it to the purpose; but in∣stead

of that, he sets himself to prove, that the Angels, knowing themselves to be creatures, have on that account rejected all divine worship; on the other side the An∣gels are commanded to worship Christ, and Christ did receive divine worship; there∣fore, saith he, let the Arians burst them∣selves they can never make it appear that Christ would have been worshipped, if he had been a creature. And to prevent all subterfuges in this matter, in his fourth Oration,* 1.383 he argues against joyning Christ together with God in our prayers to him, if he were a creature, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. No man would ever pray to receive any thing from God and Angels; or from God and any crea∣ture. Little did Athanasius think of mens joyning God and the Saints, or God and the B. Virgin in their prayers or praises: little did he imagine, that ever it would have been received in the Christian Church, to conclude their Books with a Doxology to God and the B. Virgin, Laus Deo & B. Virgini, as many of the greatest reputation in the Church of Rome have done: and as Baronius hath done it very solemnly at the end of every Tome of his Annals: as at the conclusion of the First,

after the mention of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, he adds,* 1.384 Nec non & sanctissi∣mae virgini Dei Genitrici Mariae, ut con∣ciliatrici Divini Numinis; ipsi namque si∣cut haec omnia nostra accepta ferimus, ita pariter & offerimus; ut ipsa eadem qua∣liacunque sint dilecto filio suo porrigut, &c. And in the end of the second he hath these words,* 1.385 Et beneficii memor actura gratias (oratio) ex more ad sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Mariae pedes prona se ster∣nat; ut Cui accepta fert Omnia, dono of∣ferat quicquid à Deo se ejus precìbus in∣telligit consecutam. Is not this joyning God and the creature together, which Athanasius supposes no Christian would ever do? but supposing they did it, he doth not at all suppose them to be excu∣sed from Idolatry in so doing. But Atha∣nasius goes on shewing,* 1.386 that if the Ari∣ans confess Christ to be God, and to be of a distinct substance from his Father, they must bring in Polytheism; or at least wor∣ship two Gods, the one uncreated and unbe∣gotten, the other created and begotten: and in so doing they must oppose one to the other. For, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we cannot see one in the other, because of their different na∣tures

and operations. Which is an argu∣ment I desire T. G. to consider the weight of. He is proving, that supposing Christ to be of a different nature from God, al∣though he had all imaginable excellencies in him communicated from the Father, yet God could not be worshipped in the worshipping of the Son; but these two worships must be opposite to each other, because the one is the worship of a crea∣ted, the other of an increated Being. How far was Athanasius then from sup∣posing, that the worship given to any crea∣ted Being on the account of communica∣ted excellencies, is at last carried to the Supreme, and terminated only upon him? For, he saith, that these two worships do 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 fight one against the other: and therefore who ever do give such diffe∣rent worships, they must bring in more Gods than one, which is an Apostasie from one God: where we still observe that Poly∣theism is consistent as well as Idolatry, with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being: and that they are said to worship other Gods, who do believe the true, but give divine worship to a Creature. And therefore he would have the Arians to reckon themselves together with the Gen∣tiles: and although they shun the reproach

of the name, yet they hold the same opini∣on with them: And it is to no purpose for them to say that they do not worship Two uncreated Beings, for this is only to de∣ceive the simple: for although they do not worship two uncreated, yet they worship Two Gods of a different nature, the one created, the other uncreated. For, saith he in these remarkable words,* 1.387 if the Hea∣thens worshipped one uncreated and many created; and they worship one uncreated, and one created, what difference is there between them and the Gentiles? for that one whom they worship is but as the many which the Gentiles, being of the same created nature together with them: therefore, he saith, they deny Christ and joyn with the Gentiles, giving the same worship to several Gods. I do not think any proposition in Euclid can be made more clear, than it is from these expressi∣ons of Athanasius, that he believed Idola∣try to be consistent with the belief and worship of one God.* 1.388 The same thing he urges in other places, but if this be not proof enough, I know not what will be.

S. Gregory Nazianzen parallels those who worshipped the Son or Holy Ghost,* 1.389 sup∣posing them to be creatures, with those who worshipped Astaroth or Chemosh or Rem∣phan,

because they were creatures too: For whatever difference of honour or glory there be, all creatures are our fellow ser∣vants, and therefore not to be worshipped by us. Might not the Arians have char∣ed Gregory Nazianzen to have imitated Iulian the Apostate upon as good reason as T. G. doth me? For however in words they professed to abhor the worship of Ashtoreth, or Chemosh, or Remphan, as much as he did; yet he did not regard their professions, but thought it reasona∣ble to judge by the nature of their acti∣ons. And what profaneness would T. G. have accounted this, to parallel the wor∣ship of the Son and Holy Ghost with that of Chemosh and Ashtoreth? Yet we see Gregory doth not forbear making use of the similitude of the worship, although there were so great a disparity in the ob∣jects. Gregory Nyssen saith,* 1.390 that the De∣vil by the means of Arianism brought Ido∣latry again insensibly into the world, per∣swading men to return to the worship of the creature by his sophistry, and that Arius, Eunomius, Eudoxius and Aetius were his instruments in restoring Idolatry under a pretence of Christianity. In ano∣ther place,* 1.391 he hath this considerable pas∣sage. God commands by the Prophet,

that we should have no new God, nor wor∣ship any strange God; but that is a new God which was not for ever; and that is a strange God which is different from our God. Who is our God? the true God; who is a strange God? he that hath a different nature from the true God. He that makes the Son a creature, makes him of a diffe∣rent nature. And they who make him a creature, do they worship him or no? if not, they joyn with the Iews, if they do worship him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they commit Ido∣latry. Therefore we must believe him to be the true Son of the true Father, that we may worship him, and doing so, that we be not condemned as worshipping a strange God. To the same purpose he ar∣gues against Eunomius;* 1.392 that it is the pro∣perty of Idolaters to worship the creature, or any new or strange God; and that they who divide the Father and the Son, must either wholly take away the worship of the Son, or they must worship an Idol (the very word used by S. Gregory) making a creature and not God the object of their worship, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, placing the name of Christ upon an Idol: that this was the fault of the Heathen Idolaters that they did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.393 worship those which were not Gods

by nature, and therefore could not worship the true God: where it is observable that he uses the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both for the wor∣ship given to Idols by the Heathens, and for that which is proper to God: from which it is evident that these Fathers knew of no such distinction of the na∣ture of divine worship, as is understood in the Roman Church under the terms of Latria and Dulia: for if they had, ha∣ving to deal with subtile adversaries, they would not have failed to have ex∣plained themselves in the matter; which had been absolutely necessary to the force of their own arguments, if any such di∣stinction had been known or allowed in the Christian Church. Again he saith, that he that puts the name of Son to a creature 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be reckoned among Idolaters;* 1.394 for they, saith he, called Dagon, and Bel, and the Dra∣gon God: but for all that they did not worship God; and therefore he still urgeth against Eunomius, that either with the Iews he must deny the worship of Christ, or he must joyn with the Gentiles in the worship of the creature.* 1.395

S. Basil charges the Arians and Euno∣mians with bringing in the Polytheism and Idolatry of the Greeks;* 1.396 for they who say,

that the Son of God is a creature, and yet worship him as God, do worship a creature and not the Creator, and so introduce Gen∣tilism again. And against Eunomius,* 1.397 he urges the same places and reasons, which I have already mentioned out of Nys∣sen, viz. that if Christ be not the eter∣nal God, he must be a new and strange God; and to worship that which by nature is not God, is the fault S. Paul charges the Heathen Idolaters with.

Epiphanius proves,* 1.398 that Christs being a creature, and having divine worship gi∣ven him, are inconsistent according to the Scriptures: and that those who worship a creature, fall under S. Pauls reprehension of the Heathen Idolaters, who did call the creatures God: but true faith teaches us to worship the Creator and not the crea∣ture. He thinks this Rule sufficient against all the arts and sophistry of men, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that no creature ought to be worshipped. For, saith he, upon the same reason we worship one, we may worship all together with their creator, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: where we see he doth not speak of such worship as doth exclude the Creator, but of that which is suppo∣sed to be joyned together with his; nor of a Soveraign Worship to be given to them,

but of such as doth suppose the distance between the Creator and his Creatures. Upon this principle,* 1.399 he saith, the Arians made the Son of God like to the Idols of the Heathens: for if he be not the true God, he is not to be worshipped; nay, he adds, that those who said Christ was to be worshipped although a creature, did build up Babylon again, and set up the image of Nebuchadnezzar, and by their words as by Musical instruments draw men to the worship of an Image rather than of the true God.* 1.400 Is it credible, saith he, that God should make a creature to be wor∣shipped, when he hath forbidden men to make any likeness of things in Heaven or Earth, and to fall down and worship it? when the Apostle makes this the Idolatry of the Heathen that they worshipped the creature as well as the Creator: wherein they became Fools: for it is a foolish thing to attribute divinity to a creature, and to break the first Commandment of the Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Therefore, saith he, the holy Church of God doth not worship any creature, but the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, together with the Holy Ghost. To the very same purpose, he speaks in his

Ancoratus.* 1.401 If the Son of God be a crea∣ture, he is not to be worshipped; for it is folly and wickedness to worship a crea∣ture. But these are not the only persons whom Epiphanius charges with such Ido∣latry as is consistent with the belief of one True God: for he charges those with Idolatry who gave Divine Worship to the B. Virgin; and saith,* 1.402 that this was that very Idolatry which God condemned in the people of Israel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there shall be worshippers of the dead: which worship of the B. Virgin, was of∣fering up a Cake to her (which surely is not so much as mens offering up them∣selves to be her slaves, and offering up their devotions and services to her) yet this Epiphanius cryes out upon as rank Ido∣latry,* 1.403 and destructive to their Souls who did it, and the device of the Devil; who always brought in Idolatry, saith he,* 1.404 un∣der fair pretences. Which of all the Pro∣phets ever suffered a man to be worship∣ped, not to speak of a woman? And al∣though she have never so great excellen∣cies, yet her nature remains the same with others: But neither is Elias to be worshipped, although still alive; nor S. John, although he received extraordinary favour from Christ; nor Thecla, nor any other

of the Saints. For, saith he, the old de∣ceit shall not prevail over us, to leave the living God, and to worship the things that are made by him: for they, saith S. Paul, served and worshipped the crea∣ture more than the Creator, and therein became Fools. But if it be not lawful to worship Angels, how much less to worship the Daughter of Anna? Of whom our Sa∣viour said on purpose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;* 1.405 what have I to do with thee? Lest any should think more than was fitting of her, he calls her Woman, as foreseeing the Schisms and Heresies that would come into the world on her account. We are not to imagine that these people were so silly to take the B. Virgin for the Great God, nor that they did forsake the worship of God and Christ for that of the B. Virgin; but all that Epiphanius saith of them is, that they brought her in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 instead of a Dei∣ty, i. e. that they gave divine honour to her; and whosoever did give this to a creature, they looked on them as guilty of forsaking the true God, however they might in words still profess and acknowledge him; So he charges those with Idolatry who wor∣shipped Iephthas daughter,* 1.406 and Thermutis the daughter of Pharaoh; but it were madness to think that either of these were

esteemed by their worshippers, the Su∣preme Deity. But Epiphanius fully ex∣plains himself,* 1.407 when he saith that Idola∣try comes into the world through an adul∣terous inclination of the mind, which can∣not be contented with one God alone; like an adulterous woman that is not satisfied with the chast embraces of one Husband, and wanders in her lust after many Lo∣vers. Therefore as adultery is consistent with the owning of one lawful Husband, so is Idolatry with the profession of one true God. Therefore Epiphanius bids men, have a care of too great an admiration of the Saints, lest it should lead them into this dangerous error;* 1.408 that the safest way is to honour their Lord; that those are equally to blame who too much extol the B. Virgin, as those who depress and vilifie her;* 1.409 too great praises being apt to become an occasion of others falling:* 1.410 and there∣fore he repeats it twice as the saying he would have all Christians remember, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Honour the Virgin, but worship God;* 1.411 and lest any should think worship were a part of that honour which was due to her, he saith expresly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Let no man worship the B. Virgin: for that be∣longs neither to the Woman, nor to her

Husband, nor to Angels, but to God alone. How punctually hath the Church of Rome followed the Counsel of Epiphanius! But of this at large hereafter.

S. Cyril of Alexandria likewise makes those guilty of Heathen Idolatry,* 1.412 of wor∣shipping the creature rather than the crea∣tor, who give adoration to Christ suppo∣sing him to be a creature: and he under∣takes to demonstrate out of Scripture, that no creature ought to be worshipped as God; and that nothing which doth give adoration to God, ought to receive it from others: which he proves, from the exam∣ples of Peter to Cornelius, the Angels to S. Iohn, and Manoe; and that whatever excellency we suppose in creatures, it doth not make them capable of divine worship; but although they have different excellen∣cies, yet one sort is not to worship another, but all of them are to worship God alone, and his Son Christ Iesus. Again, if Christ be not God,* 1.413 and we give him worship, we shall be found 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator; (where we are to observe that S. Cyril applies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to proper divine worship.) Again, it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,* 1.414 and him only shalt thou serve; how then, if he be a

creature, can he be worshipped by us? And elsewhere,* 1.415 the question being propo∣sed, whether we may worship Christ as man? he answers, God forbid: for, saith he, this would be vanity,* 1.416 errour and de∣ceit; and we should differ nothing from those who worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, and be liable to the same charge S. Paul draws up against the Heathen Idolaters, viz. that they changed the Truth of God into a lie, &c. and at large there shews, that this would be re∣lapsing into the old Idolatry. In his Com∣mentaries on S. Iohn he shews,* 1.417 that al∣though Christ had never so divine excel∣lencies communicated to him, yet he was not a fit object for our worship if he were not the true God; because we are bound to serve and worship God alone: and that if he be not so, not only mankind but the Angels will be guilty of Idolatry in gi∣ving him adoration.* 1.418 In his Dialogues about the Trinity,* 1.419 he saith, it is one of the great blessings we have by Christ, to be delivered from the worship of the Crea∣ture; but in case we return to that, the institution of Moses will be found better than that of Christianity; for that did strictly forbid all worship of creatures, and

called men from them to the worship of God alone; that this was the reproach of the Gentiles,* 1.420 that they worshipped Creatures, and that the Christians returned to Gen∣tilism, if they worshipped a Creature to∣gether with God; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and afterwards, he calls this a falling from Christ;* 1.421 all which doth fully discover S. Cyrils judgement that Idolatry is consistent with the acknowledge∣ment and worship of one Supreme God.

Theodoret saith,* 1.422 he that came to take away the worship of the creature, would never set it up again: for this would be a most absurd thing,* 1.423 to bring them back again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the worship of creatures, where he uses dulia likewise for the adoration that is due to the Son and Holy Ghost.

S. Chrysostom saith,* 1.424 that the Arians and Macedonians making one Great God, and another less and created God, did bring in Gentilism again. For it is that which teacheth men to worship a Crea∣ture, and to make one great God, and others inferiour. Such as these S. Paul condemns, for giving worship to a crea∣ture: and they are accursed according to the Law of Moses: which saith, Cursed

is every one who worships a creature, or any thing that is made.

S. Ambrose goes farther and saith,* 1.425 S. Paul foresaw that Christians would be brought to the worship of Creatures, and therefore not only condemns the Gen∣tiles, but warns the Christians by say∣ing, that God would damn those who worship the creature rather than the Creator. Either therefore let the Arians cease to worship him whom they call a creature;* 1.426 or cease to call him a creature whom they worship; lest under the name of worshippers they be found to commit the greater sacriledge.

S. Augustin saith,* 1.427 that the Arians by giving worship to Christ as God, whom they believed to be a creature, did make more Gods than one, and break the Law of God which did forbid the worship of more than one God; and set up Idols to themselves,* 1.428 although they acknowledged one Great God, and made the Son and Holy Ghost lesser and inferiour Gods.

From this unanimous consent of the Fathers in charging the Arrians with Idolatry, it most evidently follows, that according to them Idolatry is consistent with the belief and worship of one Su∣preme

God; which is not, the only con∣siderable advantage we gain by those Te∣stimonies, but from them it likewise ap∣pears, 1. That it is Idolatry to give di∣vine worship to any creature, how great soever the excellencies of that creature be; for none can be imagined greater, than those which the Arians attributed to the Son of God. 2. That the Fathers looked on the worship of Dulia as di∣vine worship; as appears by their apply∣ing that term to the worship which was gi∣ven to Christ. 3. That the name of an Idol doth belong to the most real and excellènt being, when divine worship is given to it; for they give this name to Christ himself, when he is worshipped as a Creature. 4. That relative Latria is Idolatry, when given to any Creature. For this was all the Arians subterfuge, that it could not be Idolatry to worship Christ as a Creature, because they wor∣shipped him only as the Image of God, and relatively terminating their worship on God the Father through him: not∣withstanding which answer of theirs, the Fathers with one consent, declare such worship to be Idolatry; and that it would make way for the worship of any crea∣ture,

and was the introducing of Hea∣then Idolatry under a pretence of Chri∣stianity. These things which are here only observed in passage, will be of great use in the following Discourses.

Notes

• * 1.1

  §. 1.
• * 1.2

  T. G. p. 203.
• * 1.3

  p. 64.
• * 1.4

  p. 203.
• * 1.5

  P. 39
• * 1.6

  p. 63.
• * 1.7

  p. 67.
• * 1.8

  p. 99.
• * 1.9

  p. 103.
• * 1.10

  p. 349.
• * 1.11

  p. 348.
• * 1.12

  p. 350.
• * 1.13

  p. 27.
• * 1.14

  §. 2.
• * 1.15

  Act. 17.23.
• * 1.16

  v. 24.
• * 1.17

  v. 28.
• * 1.18

  p. 348.349.352.
• * 1.19

  v. 29.
• * 1.20

  Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 13. c. 12.
• * 1.21

  Minuc. Fe∣lix in Octav. p. 19.
• * 1.22

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 5.
• * 1.23

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 4. p. 196. ed. Cant.
• * 1.24

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 1. p. 19. &c.
• * 1.25

  Voss. de Idolol. l. 1. c. 37.
• * 1.26

  Rom. 1.18.
• * 1.27

  v. 19.
• * 1.28

  v. 20.
• * 1.29

  v. 21.
• * 1.30

  v. 23.
• * 1.31

  §. 3.
• * 1.32

  p. 37.203.
• * 1.33

  Th. Aquin. c. Gent. l. 1. c. 42. in fin.
• * 1.34

  Id. l. 3. c. 120.
• * 1.35

  Aquin. Sum. p. 3. q. 25. art. 3.
• * 1.36

  Possev. Biblioth. l. 9. c. 25. Thom. à Ie∣su de Con∣vers. gent. l. 11. c. 2.
• * 1.37

  Cajet. in Th. p. 3. q. 25. art 3.
• * 1.38

  In Aq. 2.2. q. 94. art. 4.
• * 1.39

  Mart. Pe∣res. de di∣vin. trad. part. 3. p. 120.
• * 1.40

  Ferus in Act. 17.
• * 1.41

  Kirch. Oe∣dip. Aegy. synt. 3. c. 1.
• * 1.42

  c. 2.
• * 1.43

  Petav. dogm. The. To. 1. c. 1. §. 9.
• * 1.44

  Max. Tyr. dissert. 1▪
• * 1.45

  Oros. l. 6. c. 1.
• * 1.46

  Petav. l. 1. c. 3. §. 3.
• * 1.47

  Aug. c. Faust. l. 20 c. 10.
• * 1.48

  c. 9.
• * 1.49

  Ph. Faber Faven. advers.
• * 1.50

  Atheos disp. 1. c. 2. n. 27.
• * 1.51

  Raim. Bre∣gan. Theo∣log. Gentil.
• * 1.52

  Mutius Pansa de Osculo Ethnicae & Christianae Philoso.
• * 1.53

  Liv. Ga∣lant. Chri∣stianae phi∣losoph. cum Platon. comparat.
• * 1.54

  Paul. Benii Eugub. Pla∣ton. & Ari∣stot. Theo∣log.
• * 1.55

  Aug. Steuch. Eugub. de peren∣ni Philo.
• * 1.56

  §. 4. T. G. p. 350.
• * 1.57

  Iustin. Martyr. paraen. p. 4. ed. Paris.
• * 1.58

  p. 6.
• * 1.59

  p. 16.
• * 1.60

  p. 18.
• * 1.61

  p. 19.
• * 1.62

  p. 22.
• * 1.63

  p. 27.
• * 1.64

  Baron. A. 164. n. 14.
• * 1.65

  Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 17
• * 1.66

  p. 44.
• * 1.67

  p. 68.
• * 1.68

  p. 66.
• * 1.69

  p. 57.
• * 1.70

  p. 44.
• * 1.71

  p. 55.
• * 1.72

  p. 44.
• * 1.73

  p. 65.
• * 1.74

  p. 160.
• * 1.75

  §. 5.
• * 1.76

  Iul. Capit. vit. Anton.
• * 1.77

  Baron. A. 164. n. 7, 8, 9.
• * 1.78

  Anton. l. 6. §. 30. l. 2, 3. l. 5.33. l. 5.21. l. 6.5.42. l. 5.32. l. 4.40. l. 7.9. l. 9.4.
• * 1.79

  §. 6.
• * 1.80

  De Arus∣pic. Resp. c. 9.
• * 1.81

  Euseb. Chronic. p. 118.
• * 1.82

  Varro de Ling. Lat. l. 4.
• * 1.83

  Plutarch. in Numa.
• * 1.84

  Dionys. Halicarn. Antiq. Rom. l. 2.
• * 1.85

  Liv. hist. l. 1. c. 19.
• * 1.86

  Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 4. c. 31.
• * 1.87

  Dionys. l. 3.
• * 1.88

  Tacit. hist. l. 3. c. 72.
• * 1.89

  Liv. l. 1. c. 53.
• * 1.90

  Varro de Ling. lat. l. 5.

  Plaut. Capt. Act. 3. sc. 4.
• * 1.91

  Liv. l. 2. Senec. Con∣sol. ad Mar∣ciam.

  Liv. l. 5. c. 50.

  Ovid. Fast. l. 2.

  Cic. in Verr. 4. c. 58.

  Tacit. hist. 3.72.

  Plin. Pane∣gyr.
• * 1.92

  Liv. l. 4. c. 32. l. 21. c. 63.
• * 1.93

  Plin. hist. l. 15.30. Sen. ad Helv. c. 10.
• * 1.94

  A. Gel. l. 7. c. 1.
• * 1.95

  Lactant. l. 1. c. 11.
• * 1.96

  Isidor. Ori∣gin. l. 15. c. 2.
• * 1.97

  Dionys. hist. l. 4.

  Strabo. l. 5.

  Liv. l. 21. c. 63.22. c. 1.38. c. 44.41. c. 16.42. c. 35.45. c. 3.44. c. 19.
• * 1.98

  Liv. l. 7.
• * 1.99

  Liv. l. 1. c. 55.
• * 1.100

  Marlian. Topogr.

  Romae, l. 2. c. 8.
• * 1.101

  Dionys. Ha∣licarn.
• * 1.102

  Antiq. Rom. l. 2. p. 90.
• * 1.103

  Arnob. c. gent. l. 1. p. 19.
• * 1.104

  Lact. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.105

  c. 11.
• * 1.106

  Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 4. c. 9.
• * 1.107

  Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.108

  De Finib. Bon. & Mal. l. 3. c. 20.
• * 1.109

  Pro Domo sua. c. 57.
• * 1.110

  De Nat. Deor. l. 2. c. 25.
• * 1.111

  Seneca de Benefic. l. 4. c. 7.
• * 1.112

  Senec. Na∣tur. Quaest. l. 2. c. 45.
• * 1.113

  Virg. Georg. 2.325.
• * 1.114

  Aen. 1.64.2.689.3.251.4.25.6.592.7.141.770. &c.
• * 1.115

  Macrob. Saturn. l. 7. c. 1.
• * 1.116

  Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 7. c. 9. c. 11.
• * 1.117

  Tacit. hist. l. 4. c. 84.
• * 1.118

  Liv. l. 8. c. 6.
• * 1.119

  Tertul. ad••. Scap. c. 4.
• * 1.120

  Baron. An. 176. n. 24.
• * 1.121

  Dio Chry∣sostom. orat. 36. p. 447.
• * 1.122

  Liv. l. 1. c. 12.
• * 1.123

  Dionys. Halic. l. 2.
• * 1.124

  Su••ton. Cae∣sar. c 79.
• * 1.125

  Plutarch. in Caes. Dio. l. 44.
• * 1.126

  Plut. in Camill.
• * 1.127

  Liv. l. 8. c 6.
• * 1.128

  Plaut. Poe∣nul, Act. 5. sc. 3.
• * 1.129

  sc. 4.
• * 1.130

  Capt. Act. 4. sc. 1.
• * 1.131

  Act. 5. sc. 2.
• * 1.132

  Turneb. Ad∣vers. l. 11. c. 17.
• * 1.133

  Amphit. sc. 1.
• * 1.134

  Mostel. Act. 2. sc. 1.
• * 1.135

  Curcul. c. 1.
• * 1.136

  Virgil- Aen. 2.689.
• * 1.137

  Aen. 5.687.
• * 1.138

  Aen. 9.625.
• * 1.139

  Aen. 10.18.
• * 1.140

  Sili. Ital. l. 4.
• * 1.141

  Pers. Satyr. 3.
• * 1.142

  Valer. Max. Praef.
• * 1.143

  Cic. Divin. in Q. Caecil.
• * 1.144

  Pro domo sua c. 57.
• * 1.145

  Pro Milon. c. 31.
• * 1.146

  Tacit. hist. l. 4. c. 58.
• * 1.147

  Inscript. Antiq. 23.12.
• * 1.148

  Cicer. in Verr. l. 4. c. 29.
• * 1.149

  Inscrip Ant. 11.3, 4, 5.
• * 1.150

  11.1, 2.
• * 1.151

  Horat. Od. 1. l. 3.
• * 1.152

  20.1.
• * 1.153

  10.6.
• * 1.154

  17.9.
• * 1.155

  1064.11.
• * 1.156

  2.11.
• * 1.157

  De Nat. De∣or. l. 3. c. 2.
• * 1.158

  De Leg. l. 2. c. 12.

  De Arusp. Res. c. 9. Plin. ep. l. 9. c. 8.
• * 1.159

  Philip. 13.5.

  de Div. l. 1. c. 34.
• * 1.160

  2. c. 34.
• * 1.161

  c. 37.
• * 1.162

  Arrian. l. 2. c. 7.
• * 1.163

  Card. Bona. Rerum Li∣turgic. l. 2. c. 4.
• * 1.164

  §. 7.
• * 1.165

  Athenag. legat. pro Christ. p. 6. ed. Iustin.
• * 1.166

  p. 7.
• * 1.167

  p. 14.
• * 1.168

  Of the Laws of the Church, ch. 25.
• * 1.169

  Tolet. Sum. Casuum. l. 4 c. 14. n 2.
• * 1.170

  Cyril. c. Iul. l. 2. p. 60.
• * 1.171

  Cyril. c. Iu∣lian. l. 6. p. 193.
• * 1.172

  l. 9. p. 311.
• * 1.173

  Aquin. 2.2. qu. 94. art. 2.
• * 1.174

  Baron. A, 165. n. 5.
• * 1.175

  Euseb. l. 7. c. 11.
• * 1.176

  p. 15.
• * 1.177

  p. 17.
• * 1.178

  p. 18.
• * 1.179

  p. 20.
• * 1.180

  p. 22.
• * 1.181

  p. 23.
• * 1.182

  p. 24.
• * 1.183

  §. 8.
• * 1.184

  Protrept. p. 42. Ed. Pa∣ris.
• * 1.185

  p. 45.
• * 1.186

  p. 46.
• * 1.187

  p. 590.
• * 1.188

  p. 591.
• * 1.189

  p. 597.
• * 1.190

  p. 597.
• * 1.191

  p. 598.
• * 1.192

  p. 601.
• * 1.193

  p. 603.
• * 1.194

  p. 604.
• * 1.195

  p. 606.
• * 1.196

  p. 604.
• * 1.197

  Cyril. c. Iul. l. 1.
• * 1.198

  p. 609.
• * 1.199

  p. 611.
• * 1.200

  p. 612.
• * 1.201

  §. 9.
• * 1.202

  Orig. c. Cels. l. 5. p. 247.
• * 1.203

  l. 6. p. 320. l. 4. p. 200.
• * 1.204

  l. 8. p. 392.
• * 1.205

  p. 421. p. 419.
• * 1.206

  p. 421.
• * 1.207

  p. 381.
• * 1.208

  l. 1. p. 10.
• * 1.209

  l. 3. p. 158.
• * 1.210

  l. 8. p. 414.
• * 1.211

  p. 415.
• * 1.212

  l. 7. p. 275.
• * 1.213

  l. 3. p. 140.
• * 1.214

  l. 4. p. 181.
• * 1.215

  l. 5. p. 260.
• * 1.216

  l. 6. p. 276.
• * 1.217

  p. 280.
• * 1.218

  p. 285.
• * 1.219

  p. 287.
• * 1.220

  l. 7. p. 360. p. 363.
• * 1.221

  §. 10.
• * 1.222

  S. Cyril. Alex. c. Iul. l. 1. p. 16.
• * 1.223

  p. 26. p. 28.
• * 1.224

  p. 30.
• * 1.225

  Theod. de cur. Graec. serm. 2.
• * 1.226

  Cyril. l. 2. p. 52.
• * 1.227

  p. 58.
• * 1.228

  p. 59.
• * 1.229

  p. 65.
• * 1.230

  Cyril. l. 2. p. 44.
• * 1.231

  l. 4. p. 115.
• * 1.232

  p. 121.
• * 1.233

  p. 122.
• * 1.234

  p. 123.
• * 1.235

  l. 5. p. 155.
• * 1.236

  Clem. Re∣cogn. l. 5. n. 19.
• * 1.237

  §. 11.
• * 1.238

  Tertul. Apo∣log. c. 17.
• * 1.239

  De Testim. animae.
• * 1.240

  Ad Scap. c. 4.
• * 1.241

  Minut. Fel. in Octav. p. 19.
• * 1.242

  p. 21.
• * 1.243

  Arnob. c. gent. l. 2. p. 67. l. 3. p. 101.
• * 1.244

  Lact. l. 1. §. 3.
• * 1.245

  c. 5, 6, &c.
• * 1.246

  S. Aug. de liv. Dei. l. 4. c. 9.
• * 1.247

  De Consens. Evang. l. 1. c. 22.
• * 1.248

  c. 23. De Civ. Dei l. 7. c. 9. c. 11. c. 13.
• * 1.249

  T. G. p. 369.
• * 1.250

  De Civ. Dei. l. 4. c. 11. c. 24.
• * 1.251

  De Civ. Dei l. 4. c. 27, 30, 31.
• * 1.252

  l. 6. c. 5, 6, 7. c. 10.
• * 1.253

  T.G. p. 368.
• * 1.254

  De Civ. Dei l. 4. c. 32.
• * 1.255

  l. 6. c. 1.
• * 1.256

  l. 8. c. 9. c. 10. c. 11.
• * 1.257

  c. 22.
• * 1.258

  c. 13, 22.
• * 1.259

  l. 9. c. 1.
• * 1.260

  c. 23.
• * 1.261

  l. 10. c. 1.
• * 1.262

  S. Aug. ep. 43.
• * 1.263

  Paul. Oros. hist. l. 6. c. 1.
• * 1.264

  §. 12.
• * 1.265

  Euseb. Praep. E∣vang. l. 1. c. 6. c. 9. c. 10.
• * 1.266

  S. Cyrill. c. Iulian. l. 6. p. 205.
• * 1.267

  Maimon. More Ne∣voch. l. 3. c. 29.
• * 1.268

  Not. in Spe∣cim. Histor. Arab. p. 143.
• * 1.269

  p. 140.
• * 1.270

  Not. in Spec. p. 107.
• * 1.271

  Abr. Ec∣chellens. Histor. Arab. c. 6. in Chron. Ori∣ent.
• * 1.272

  c. 9.
• * 1.273

  Gol. not. in Alferg. p. 20.
• * 1.274

  p. 21.
• * 1.275

  p. 40.
• * 1.276

  p. 24.
• * 1.277

  Lords descript. of the Per∣sees, p. 5.
• * 1.278

  p. 8. p. 44.
• * 1.279

  Varen. de divers. gent. Re∣lig. p. 269.
• * 1.280

  Voyage des Indes du Sr. Man∣delslo. l. 1. p. 215.
• * 1.281

  Schickard. Tarich. p. 130.
• * 1.282

  §. 13.
• * 1.283

  Xaver. epist. Indic. p. 11.
• * 1.284

  Tursell. vit. Xaver. l. 2.6.9.
• * 1.285

  Iarric. Rer. Indic. c. 81.

  Bartoli de vitâ & gest. Xave∣rii. l. 1. n. 30, 31.
• * 1.286

  Linda de∣script. Or∣bis, p. 1 110.
• * 1.287

  Voyage des Indes du Sr. Mandelslo, l. 1. p. 201.
• * 1.288

  Lords de∣script. of the Banian Religion, p. 60.
• * 1.289

  Berniers Memoires Tom. 3. p. 157.
• * 1.290

  Linda, p. 1108.
• * 1.291

  Les voyages & obser∣vat. du Sieur de la Boullaye-le-Gouz, c. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.
• * 1.292

  Voyage des Indes du Sr. Man∣delslo, l. 1. p. 202, 204.
• * 1.293

  Lords de∣script. of Banyans, c. 14.
• * 1.294

  Kirch. Chi∣na illustr. l. 3. c. 4.
• * 1.295

  Marini Ro∣lat. du Royaume de Tunquin. c. 9. p. 194.
• * 1.296

  Bartoli de vit. Xaver. l. 3. n. 5. Trigaut. de exped. Chri∣stianâ apud Si∣nas, l. 1. c. 10. Bartoli Hi∣stor. Asiat. l. 1. n. 55.
• * 1.297

  Histor. Asi∣atic. l. 1. n. 75.
• * 1.298

  Semedo Hist. of China, p. 1. c. 18.
• * 1.299

  Bartoli de vita & gestis Fran. Xaverii, l. 3. n. 5, 6.
• * 1.300

  Kircher. China il∣lustr. part. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.301

  Voyage du Greuber. p. 18.
• * 1.302

  Kirch. Chi∣na, p. 2. c. 4.
• * 1.303

  §. 14.
• * 1.304

  Epistolae Indic. Antw. 1605. p. 839.
• * 1.305

  Viaggi di Pietro Del∣la Valle parte 3. Letter 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 10.
• * 1.306

  Bernier Memoires, Tom. 3. p. 171.
• * 1.307

  p. 178.
• * 1.308

  Trigaut. de exp. apud Si∣nas, l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.309

  Possevine Biblioth. l. 10. c. 2.
• * 1.310

  c. 5.
• * 1.311

  ••. 6.
• * 1.312

  §. 15.
• * 1.313

  Martin. praefat. At∣lant. Sinic. p. 7.
• * 1.314

  Voyage du Greuber, p. 6.
• * 1.315

  Semedo hist. of Chinach. 18.
• * 1.316

  Trigaut. de Christ. ex∣ped. apud Sinas, l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.317

  Bartoli Asiat. hist. l. 1. n. 73.
• * 1.318

  T. G. p. 92.
• * 1.319

  Bartoli hist. Asi. l. 1. n. 70.
• * 1.320

  Thom. Hur∣tado Reso∣lutiones de vero Mar∣tyrio Fi∣dei, p. 487.
• * 1.321

  Martin. hist. Sinic. l. 4. p. 151.
• * 1.322

  Bartoli hist. Asiat. l. 1. n. 54. Trigaut. l. 1. c. 10.
• * 1.323

  §. 16.
• * 1.324

  Ioh. à Pla∣no Carpini Libellus historicus de Tartaris, c. 3.
• * 1.325

  Paul. Ve∣nel. de Reg. orient.l. 1. c. 58. l. 3. c. 47.
• * 1.326

  Specul. hist. l. 29. c. 72, 74.
• * 1.327

  Gul. de Ru∣bruquis Iti∣ner. c. 43.
• * 1.328

  c. 42.
• * 1.329

  c. 27.
• * 1.330

  Haithon. Armen. hist. Orient. c. 48.
• * 1.331

  Greg. Abul∣pharai. hist. Dynast. p. 285. p. 290.
• * 1.332

  Haithon. hist. Orient. c. 16.
• * 1.333

  Iac. Navarch. Epist. Asiatic. p. 344.
• * 1.334

  Niceph. Callisth. l. 18. c. 30.
• * 1.335

  Ioseph. Acosta Na∣tural and Moral Hi∣story of the In∣dies, l. 5. c. 8.
• * 1.336

  De procu∣randa In∣dorum salu∣te, l. 5. c. 10.
• * 1.337

  Euseb. Nie∣remb. hist. Natur. l. 8. c. 13.
• * 1.338

  August. de Zárate, l. 2.
• * 1.339

  Anton. de Calancha apud Io∣ach. Brul. hist. Per••••an. l. 2. c. 9.
• * 1.340

  Le Commen∣taire Royal Des Ynca's liv. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.341

  c. 2.
• * 1.342

  c. 3. p. 146.
• * 1.343

  l. 3. c. 20.
• * 1.344

  c. 21.
• * 1.345

  l. 6. c. 30.
• * 1.346

  c. 3.
• * 1.347

  l. 9. c. 9.
• * 1.348

  l. 9. c. 4.
• * 1.349

  Acosta l. 5. c. 4.
• * 1.350

  Hariots descript. of Virgin.
• * 1.351

  Purchas Pilgr. l. 8. c. 6.
• * 1.352

  Creux. hist. Canad. l. 1. p. 78.
• * 1.353

  p. 86.
• * 1.354

  Leo Afric. descrip. Afric. l. 1.
• * 1.355

  Varen. de divers. gent. Relig. p. 304.
• * 1.356

  Mandelslo Voyage l. 3.
• * 1.357

  Barros Dec. 1. l. 10. c. 1.
• * 1.358

  Linda de∣script. Or∣bis, p. 1149.
• * 1.359

  Archonto∣log. Cosmic. de Mosco. §. 44.
• * 1.360

  Briet. Geog. To. 2. l. 6. c. 2.
• * 1.361

  Indiae vera descript. p. 118.
• * 1.362

  Piment. in Ep. Ind. Ioseph. In∣di Navig. c. 3.
• * 1.363

  Lud. Var∣tom. Navig. l. 5. c. 21.
• * 1.364

  Iarric. Rerum In∣dic. l. 1. c. 4.
• * 1.365

  Linda. p. 1145. Linschot. Navig. c. 33.
• * 1.366

  Schoutens descript. of Siam. p. 141.
• * 1.367

  Relation du voyage de Mons. l' Eveque de Beryte, c. 13. p. 170.
• * 1.368

  Campanel. Atheism. triumph. c. 11. p. 155.
• * 1.369

  Edda Islan∣dorum edi∣ta à Rese∣nio Hau∣niae. A. D. 1665.
• * 1.370

  Mytholog. 304.
• * 1.371

  Olai Mag∣ni hist. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.372

  Steph. Ste∣phan. Com∣ment. in Sax. Gr. l. 6.
• * 1.373

  Ola. Worm. Mon. Dan. l. 1. c. 4.

  Alb. Crant. Vandal. l. 1.

  Ioh. Magn. hist. Goth. l. 1. c. 8.

  Schesser. Lappon. c. 7. p. 61. c. 10.
• * 1.374

  Ioh. Lasi∣cius de Sa∣mogit. p. 46.
• * 1.375

  Ioh. Mele∣tii ep. de Relig. Bo∣russ.
• * 1.376

  §. 17.
• * 1.377

  Athanas. c. Arian. orat. 1. p. 286. ed. Par.
• * 1.378

  p. 296.
• * 1.379

  p. 297.
• * 1.380

  Orat. 3. p. 385.
• * 1.381

  p. 387.
• * 1.382

  p. 394.
• * 1.383

  Orat. 4. p. ••64.
• * 1.384

  Baron. Ann. To. 1. in Fine.
• * 1.385

  Tom. 2. A▪ 306. in Fin.
• * 1.386

  Athan. or. 4. p. 468.
• * 1.387

  p. 469.
• * 1.388

  Epist. ad Adelph. p. 157, 158, 160, 161.
• * 1.389

  Greg. Na∣zian. orat. 40. p. 669.
• * 1.390

  Greg. Nys∣sen. in laud. Basil. Tom. 3. p. 484.
• * 1.391

  De Fide ad simpl. Tom. 3. p. 38.
• * 1.392

  Greg. Nys∣sen. c. Eu∣nom. orat. 2. p. 450.
• * 1.393

  p. 437.453.
• * 1.394

  Orat. 4. p. 563.
• * 1.395

  p. 443.
• * 1.396

  S. Basil. ho∣mil. 27. Sabel. & Ari.
• * 1.397

  C. Eunom. l. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.398

  Epiph. hae∣res. 64. n. 8.
• * 1.399

  Haeres. 69. n. 31.
• * 1.400

  n. 36.
• * 1.401

  Ancor. n. 50.
• * 1.402

  Haeres. 78. n. 23.
• * 1.403

  Haeres. 79. n. 4.

  78. n. 23.
• * 1.404

  79. n. 5.
• * 1.405

  n. 4.
• * 1.406

  78. n. 24.
• * 1.407

  79. n. 4.
• * 1.408

  78. n. 23.
• * 1.409

  79. n. 1.
• * 1.410

  78. n. 23.
• * 1.411

  79. n. 7, 9.
• * 1.412

  S. Cyril. Alex. The∣saur. assert. 15. p. 149.
• * 1.413

  Assert. 32. p. 307.
• * 1.414

  p. 314.
• * 1.415

  De Incarn. unigenit. p. 700.
• * 1.416

  Concil. Ephes. Cy∣ril. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 §. 31.
• * 1.417

  Comment. in Evang. Ioh. l. 2. p. 217.
• * 1.418

  l. 10. p. 850.
• * 1.419

  Dialog. 4. de Trinit. p. 512.
• * 1.420

  p. 528, 529.
• * 1.421

  Dial. 5. p. 566.
• * 1.422

  Theodor. de haeret. fab. l. 5. c. 3.
• * 1.423

  v. Theod. in Exod. q. 37. in Rom. 1.24.
• * 1.424

  S. Chrysost. Tom. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 955.
• * 1.425

  S. Ambros. de Fide, l. 1. c. 7. ad Grat. De Fide c. Arian. c. 2.
• * 1.426

  De Incarn. Sacr. c. 8.
• * 1.427

  S. Aug. c. Sermon. Arian. c. 29. c. Max. l. 1.
• * 1.428

  l. 3. c. 4. Ep. 66.