Of idolatry a discourse, in which is endeavoured a declaration of, its distinction from superstition, its notion, cause, commencement, and progress, its practice charged on Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Gnosticks, Manichees Arians, Socinians, Romanists : as also, of the means which God hath vouchsafed towards the cure of it by the Shechinah of His Son / by Tho. Tenison ...

PART 3. How far the Gentiles owned one true God.

BUT it is not fair to fight always on the blind∣side of Nature. I come therefore in the next place, to acknowledg, that some Gentiles used a Di∣viner Reason than others, and owned one supreme God, the King of the World, and a Being distinct from the Sun, or the Universe, or the Soul of it.

This appeareth from the Confession of many Chri∣stians; and from the words of the Gentiles them∣selves.

First, Divers of the Fathers, though they shew the generality of their gods to have been but creatures, yet they confess they had amongst them, some appre∣hension of one supreme, eternal Deity. S. Chrysostom, in a second Discourse in his sixth Tome concerning the Trinity b 1.1, doth charge upon the Arians and Ma∣cedonians the crime of renewing Gentilism, whilst they professed one great God, and another Deity which was less, and created. For it is Gentilism (said that Fa∣ther) which teacheth men to worship a creature, and to set up one Great[or greatest] God, and others of in∣feriour order. In this Discourse St. Chrysostom acknow∣ledgeth that the Gentiles adored the one Sovereign God (for him the Arians believed in, and were in that point good Theists, though no Orthodox Chri∣stians), notwithstanding he accuseth them of Subor∣dinate Polytheism. S. Cyril of Alexandria speaks the same thing, and in more plain and direct words c 1.2. It is manifest (said he) that they who Phylosophized

after the Greecian manner, believed and professed one God, the builder of all things, and by nature superiour to all other Deities.

And (to come to the second way of proof above mentioned) S. Cyril is very copious in the authorities which he produceth out of the Heathen Writers, in order to the strengthening of his Assertion, that they believed in one infinite God. He introduceth Orpheus a 1.3 speaking as Divinely as David himself. God is one, he is of himself, of him are all things born, and he ruleth over them all. He again, after he had cited ma∣ny Philosophers, bringeth in the Poet Sophocles, as one that professed the true God; and the words which he there calleth to mind, are worth the Transcri∣bing b 1.4. Of a truth, There is one God, who made the Heavens, and the spatious Earth, and the goodly swelling of the Sea, and the force of the Wind. But many of us mortals, erring in our hearts, have erected Images of gods made of Wood, or Stone, or Gold, or Ivory, as sup∣ports of our grief: And to these we have offered sacrifices and vain Panegyricks; conceiting in that manner that we exercised Piety. He forbeareth not, after this, to cite Orpheus again c 1.5, and the Verses have their weight, and contain this sense in them. I adjure thee, O Hea∣ven! Thou wise work of the great God! I adjure thee thou voice of the Father, which he first uttered, when he founded the whole World by his Counsels. The Father calls to mind, likewise, many sayings of Porphyry, and of the Author falsly called Trismegist. But they were too well acquainted with Christianity, to have Autho∣rity in this Argument of the one God of the Gentiles. Such a Gentile [one who dreamt not of any Gospel] was Anaxagoras, who (as Plutarch testifies) did set a pure and sincere mind over all things, instead of fate and fortune. In Laertius, we may hear him speaking in his

own words; and they admit of this interpretation a 1.6. All things were together [or in a Chaos]: Then came the Mind and disposed them into order. But on this declaration of Anaxagoras I will not depend; because his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or mind, might be such as the Platonick 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Soul of the World. I like better the words of Architas the Pythagorean b 1.7, who speaks of God in the singular, and says he is supreme, and governs the World. But nothing is more close to the purpose than that which hath so often been said by Plato. It is his opinion recited in Timaeus Locrus c 1.8, That God is the Principal Author and Parent of all things. And this he adds, after an enumeration of the several Beings of which the Universe consisteth. He affirmeth in his Politicus, “That God d 1.9 made the great Animal of the World, and that he directeth all the motions of it: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that there are not two Gods governing the World with differing Counsels. In his Sophista e 1.10 he determineth that God was the ma∣ker of things, which were not [that is, as such] be∣fore he framed them. In his Timaeus f 1.11 he calleth God 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Maker and Father of every being: Adding, that it is difficult to find out this Father of the Universe; and that when he is found out, it is not fit to declare him to the vulgar. He was, it seems, a Jehovah not ordinarily to be named. They who have read his works with care, know what distinction he maketh betwixt g 1.12 God and the gods: And how he extolleth the Divine goodness, and maketh it the very Essence of the supreme God. It is, indeed, to be acknowledged, that he set up o∣ther gods, in his Scheme of the Universe: Nay, that he owned a second, or third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Artist of that great and noble frame of the visible World. But both he and his Disciples, what other Principle

soever they taught or believed, They still maintained it to be distinct from the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the one supreme uncompounded Good. Plato, in his Timaeus a 1.13, teacheth expresly that the Soul of the World, which he calleth a blessed God, was made by the God who is eternal. Timaeus Locrus b 1.14 supposeth the World to be framed by the supreme God, and the Soul to be put into the middle of it by him that framed it: As if God made the World after the manner in which he made Adam. And Sallustius the Platonist, in his Book of God and the World c 1.15, treateth professedly of the first Cause; concludeth a necessity of its Oneness; and celebrateth its virtue as so eminent, that it can scarce be expressed by any words. The truth is, those Gentiles who, with Sallust, admired God as the first and incomprehensible Cause; and with Mercurius in Stobaeus d 1.16, declared him to be a Being abstruse to the Mind, and impossible to the Tongue; such Gen∣tiles, I say, would have erred less, had they stopped there, and not gone about to explane the mode of his Essence and Operation, whereby they have fallen into many false Idea's, and particularly into that of the Soul of the World. But makers of Hypotheses, espe∣cially in Subjects of such extent, do commonly lose themselves in their own Labyrinths. That Hypothesis of the Soul of the World is frequent, at this day, amongst the Philosophers of India: And yet that Sect of the Benians which is called Samarath a 1.17, main∣taineth the notion of a superior God. They call him Permiseer, and believe Him to be the first Cause which created the World, and which governeth and preserveth the Universe, with a sovereign and unchangeable Power. Change here but names, and the matter may be apply∣ed to the Philosophy of Plato, who believed in one God, though he idoliz'd his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Universal Soul,

and too many other Deities of inferiour rank.

This, in brief, was the state of the Greeks, in re∣lation to the knowledg of God. Like to it was that of the Romans; and of them also, whence the Greeks and Romans borrowed some valuable notions, together with much dross, that is, the Egyptians. a 1.18 And they doubtless were beholding to Abraham, to Joseph, to Moses, to the Jews, who both before and after the Captivity came amongst them. By such means, and by the study of Nature, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Jove of the Greeks and Romans came nigh, as well in sense, as in simili∣tude of Letters, to the Mosaic Jehovah. Numa Pom∣pilius, whose Religion inclin'd the people to chuse him King after the death of Romulus, to the end that the Empire which was obtained by force, might be governed by Piety and Justice b 1.19, as the Historian telleth us, it was in his Reign; Numa, I say, had stu∣died in Egypt, and he brought some of its Religion into Italy some Ages before Pythagoras c 1.20 set foot there. It was not pure Religion; for he introduced the worship of the immortal Gods, d 1.21 and the su∣perstition of Augury. He, in the worship of Vesta, offered to them Universal Nature as the great Deity; but cannot be thought to have been ignorant himself of a Deity greater still, having learned the same Ca∣bala with Pythagoras, though according to the reser∣vedness e 1.22 which he saw practiced by the Egyptian Priests, he did not divulge the mystery to the multi∣tude. And manifest it is, that the Religion of the Romans, was in less measure adulterated in the age from Numa to Tarquinius Priscus, than after those times. For he corrupted the Religion of Numa with the vanity of the Greeks and Ethruscans: And he e∣rected Images which Numa would not admit of. For Numa believed (saith Dionysius Halicarnassaeus) that

God could not be represented a 1.23 by any Figure. And Tertullian b 1.24 speaking of the debasement of Religion under Tarquinius Priscus, sheweth Numa to have been more chast in his Rites, and to have belie∣ved in a God to whom Ubiquity belonged. Plutarch also reporteth it concerning that wise Prince, that he forbade the People to think that God had the form of Man or Beast. And the notion of Numa, though much stifled, was not quite destroyed by the multitude of Gods and Statues. There were those, in the days of Cicero c 1.25, who recounting many Deities held by the Philosophy of Anaximander, professed themselves unable to understand any other than one eternal God.

This God was sometimes owned under the name of Jupiter, though that name was ambiguously applicable, to Him, to the Sun, to many Demons or Heroes. We may infer the eminency of the Deity, called by that name, from the Attributes given to him by sober and Philosophical men, when they argue about his Na∣ture. Such a one was Diotogenes the Pythagorean d 1.26, who speaketh of God in the singular number; saith of him, that he is a King whose City is the World; calleth him by the name of Jupiter; and affirmeth that Jupi∣ter is the supreme of all Powers, a God of Excellence, Goodness, Power, Justice; dispensing benefits to the World, and in that sense, the Father of Gods and Men.

It is true that the Fathers, and many others do e∣steem generally, of the Grecian and Roman Jupiter as of an Arch-Devil, and a Topical-god. And they deride his worship, as the adoration of a man, who was born and buried in Crete; at least born some∣where on earth, as Callimachus himself confesseth e 1.27, though he denies the honour to the Cretians; and is

confident that, though he was born, he never dyed. Jupiter, saith Arnobius a 1.28, hath Father, and Mother, how can he then be a God? Tertullian also had no other thoughts of Jupiter than of an Idol: For thus he dis∣courseth b 1.29. I know one (whom God forgive) who when another, in the quarrel managed betwixt them, used this imprecation, let Jupiter be angry with you, an∣swered again; nay, let him be avenged on you. What could have an Heathen man done more, who believed Ju∣piter to be a God? The Senate and People of Rome do in a late Inscription in the Capitol, give notice c 1.30, that the place was once dedicated unto Jove; but that they had made it sacred to the True God, to Jesus Christ the Author of all good things. And this opini∣on might well be entertained concerning Jupiter, for many Reasons: First, because the multitude, both in Greece, and Italy, did worship him in the quality of a Demon. The Poets of Greece set him forth as a De∣mon, though the Superior of them; and (as we read in the first Iliad of Homer) as a Power not perfectly Omnipotent, but subject to be bound by the rest of the Gods. And the Law of the Twelve Tables, be∣fore-cited, representeth him only as the President of the College of the sempiternal Demons, or Dii Consent∣es d 1.31. Nay, of Jove Plato himself saith e 1.32, that men esteemed him the best and most just of the Gods, and one who held his father in Chains for his unnatu∣ral cruelty to his Children. Secondly, Because the worship of Jupiter, in how high a notion soever he was sometimes taken, was not looked upon only by it felf, but as the principal worship in the Religion of the Gentiles, giving denomination to the other parts of it. For the worship of Jupiter was, in effect, an acknowledgment of the whole Gentilism of Rome Pa∣gan: And he that had adored Jupiter, would by that

have been judged, to have been likewise a devout Servant of Juno and Venus, and the rest of that Socie∣ty of Grecian and Roman Idols. However, under this name, some of the wise Gentiles did mean the supreme Deity, distinct from their College of Demons: and I suppose Marcus Antoninus, that Philosophical Prince, to have been one of them. He says, indeed, concern∣ing the thundering Legion, That they prayed to a God which himself knew not a 1.33: Not that he owned not one supreme God, but that he understood him not in the subsistences of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in which quality the Christians applyed themselves to him. Thirdly, Jupiter, when thought of under the notion of one highest God, whatsoever he was in spe∣culation, he was actually but an evil Demon. For the Persons and things which he countenanced could never be approved of by the true and righteous God.

Let it then be granted (for why should men oppose the evidence of plain words?) that some Gentiles en∣tertained a notion of that God who is one and su∣preme.

Notes

• b 1.1

  S. Chrys. op, vol. 6. de Trin. p. 189. B. C.
• c 1.2

  Cyr. Alex. contra Julian. l. 1. p. 23. A.
• a 1.3

  Cyr. ibid. p 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• b 1.4

  Cyr. Ib. p. 32.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.—
• c 1.5

  Cyr. Ib. p. 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• a 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.7

  Arch. Pytbag, ap. Stobaeum, in Serm. 1. p. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• c 1.8

  Tim. Locr. de An. Mundi. In∣ter op. Plat. v. 3. p. 96—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.9

  Plat. Polit. Vol. 2. p. 269. C. E. and p. 270. A.
• e 1.10

  Plat. in Soph. vol. 1. p. 265. C.
• f 1.11

  Plato in Ti∣mae•…•…. vol. 3. p. 28.
• g 1.12

  Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 2. p. 68. Plato ille divi∣nus multa de Deo digna, nec communia sen∣tiens multitudi∣ni,—Deos dicit—cor∣ruptibiles esse naturâ, sed vo∣luntate Dei—vinctione in perpetuâ conti∣neri.
• a 1.13

  Plato ibid. p. 34. B.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.14

  Tim. Locr. de An: Mun•…•…i, in∣ter Opufc. Graec. p. 6.
• c 1.15

  Sallust. de Diis & mundo, c. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.16

  Stobae. Serm. 78. de Diis. p. 466. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.17

  Mandesto's Travels into the Indies. l. 1. p. 55.
• a 1.18

  Also of the Arabians. See Abul Farajius and Sharestani∣us in not. Po∣cock. p. 143. and of the Gaurs or anti∣ent Persians, see the Trav. of Tavernier. l. 4. c. 8. p. 167.
• b 1.19

  L. Ann. Flo∣rus. l. 1. c. 2. p. 4, 5. And Dion. Halicarn. l. 2, Sect. 78. p. 186, 187, 188, &c.
• c 1.20

  Dion. Hal. ibid. p. 183.
• d 1.21

  Flor. ibid. Ille sacra, & ceremonias, om∣nem{que} cultum deorum immor∣talium docuit: Ille Pontifices, Augures, &c.
• e 1.22

  See Dion. Halicarn. l. 2. p. 191, 192. of the un∣known myst. of Numa.
• a 1.23

  See Lud. Viv. in S. Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 4. c. 31. p. 273.
• b 1.24

  Tertul. Apolo. get. Sect. 25. p. 25.—ni∣dor exilis, & Deus ipse nus∣quam.
• c 1.25

  Cicero de nat. Deor. l. 1. Op. p. 1113.—fed nos deum, nisi sempiter∣num, Iutelligere quî possumus?
• d 1.26

  Ap. Stobae. Serm. 46. de Regno. p. 330, 331, 332.
• e 1.27

  Callim. ap. Orig. Cont. Cels. l. 3. p. 137.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—See Tertul. Apol. Sect. 25. p. 25. sed non •…•…tatim & Jupi∣ter Cretam su∣am, &c.
• a 1.28

  Arnob. l. 1. p. 19.
• b 1.29

  Tertul. de I∣dol. Sect. 21. p. 98.
• c 1.30

  Chytr. Mon. Roman. A. 1568. p. 2.
• d 1.31

  See the In∣ser. ap. Saubert. de Sacrific. c. 5. p. 101. I. O. M. caeteris{que} Dis consentib.
• e 1.32

  Plato in Eu∣thy. p. 5. Vol. 1.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• a 1.33

  Marc. Anton. ap. Just. Mart. In sine Apol. 2. p. 102.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—