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 ...

CHAP. V. Of those who are charged with Idolatry; and of the conformity or inconformity of their worship to the Nature of Idolatry. Of Gen∣tiles, Jews, Mahometans, Christians. A∣mongst them who have professed Christianity, of the Gnosticks, Manichees, Arrians, So∣cinians, Roman-Catholicks, the real Catho∣licks of the Communion of the Church of England. And first of the Idolatry charged on the Gentiles. (Book 5)

PART 1. How far the Gentiles were Ignorant of one Supreme God.

I Have insisted hitherto, on the Nature, Occasions, and Commencement of Idolatry. The next consi∣deration shall extend to the persons charged with it, and in the first place, to them who have first and most generally transgressed; that is to say, the Gentiles.

Concerning their worship, it is here proper for me to attempt the resolution of three Questions.

First, Whether the Gentiles acknowledged one Su∣preme God.

Secondly, Whether they made Religious Application to him.

Thirdly, Whether upon the concession of such ac∣knowledgment and Application, they may be, and re∣ally are chargeable with Idolatry.

First, then, I enquire how far the Gentiles owned one supreme God. This enquiry is not capable of any nice and accurate resolution. For there is no one Systeme of the Gentile Theology; as there is of Judaism, Mahometanism, and the Christian Religion. Divers persons, in divers places, had divers apprehensions concerning a Deity; and divers Rites of worship. And those distinct Rites, by the commerce of Nations, were often so mixed together, that they made a new kind of Religion.

It is not unlikely, that the dregs of the people a∣mong the Gentiles, whom God had given up to bru∣tishness of mind, did rise little higher than Objects of sense. They worshipped many of them together; each as supreme in its kind, or no otherwise unequal than the Sun and the Moon, or the other coelestial bo∣dies, by the adoration of which, the ancient Idolaters, as Job a 1.1 intimateth, denied [or excluded] the God that is above. Porphyry himself, one of the most plausible Apologists for the Religion of the Gentiles, doth own in some, the most gross and blockish Idoli∣zing of mean Objects. He telleth us b 1.2 that it is not a matter at which we should be amaz'd, if most ignorant men esteemed wood and stones Divine Sta∣tues, seeing they who are unlearned, look upon Mo∣numents which have inscriptions on them, as ordinary Stones; and esteem valuable Tables as pieces of com∣mon wood; and regard Books no otherwise than as so many bundles of Paper. Sensible objects arrested the stupid and unactive minds of the vulgar, who (like those indevout c 1.3 Idolaters of Japan) reason'd no further concerning the original, or Government of the

World. For few Heads are exercised by Philosophy; and we meet not with one Peasant of a Thousand a∣mong our selves, who asks how the Sun enlightens this Globe, though he believes the body of it no bigger than his Bushel. Such Heads are inclined to turn the Truth of God into a Lie; to exchange the Sovereign Deity for that which is esteemed a God, but is not; and to multiply the kinds of it, according to the va∣riety of considerable effects and appearances whose Causes are only known to the Secretaries of Nature.

It is more probable still, that many Gentiles reached no higher in their devotion than to Demons. Saint Paul taxeth them a 1.4 with offering to Devils and not to God. The same Apostle inform'd the Lycaoni∣ans b 1.5, that the design of his Preaching, was the converting of men from vanities [that is, from their many Idols which were not what they were judged to be: which being no Deities, were in that respect no∣thing, and vanity] unto one God, the true and li∣ving God; from whom therefore, these many Idols had withdrawn many of the Heathen. The Inferiour objects had thrust the Superiour out of possession, as in the Case of that woman under the Papacy, who is said to have forsaken God for the Virgin; and the Virgin in Heaven, for that Lady (as she called her) which she saw before her eyes in the Church c 1.6. Divers Idols (I say) might crowd the Sovereign God out of their minds, Jehovah might be banished whilst their imaginations were filled with many hundreds of Jupiters; with no fewer than Thirty thousand in the account of Hesiod, if he swelleth not the reckoning with Names, and Sir-names, instead of distinct Gods.

Some of the Gentiles who knew God [that is, had means by the things that are seen d 1.7 of ascending to the knowledg of the invisible Creator] did not∣withstanding

not truly know him; nor reach him by that wisdom or vain sort of Philosophy a 1.8 which did not edifie them, though it puffed them up.

PART 2. Of their worship of Universal Nature, &c. as God.

THis is the common oppinion, concerning many of the Gentiles; but there is not sufficient reason to believe the same thing concerning them all. For it is evident from the History of ancient and modern Idolatry, and from the Writings of some of the Gen∣tiles; that the acknowledgment of one supreme Dei∣ty was not wholly banished from all parts of the Pa∣gan World. But herein, likewise, some of them great∣ly erred.

For, first, There were those amongst them who ac∣knowledged Universal Nature, as that one supreme Deity. This Deity the Egyptians vailed, sometimes under the names of Minerva and Isis, before whose Temple Sai, as Plutarch witnesseth, this Inscription was to be read: I am all that which was, and is, and will be hereafter. And in her Image were placed the emblems of all the kinds of things with which Nature is furnished b 1.9. Such a Deity the Arcadians wor∣shipped under the proper Title of Pan, who as Por∣nutus contendeth c 1.10, is the same with the Universe. The same Pornutus proceedeth, in shewing, that his lower part was shaggy, and after the fashion of a Goat; and that by it, was meant the asperity of the Earth. Bardesanes Syrus d 1.11 describeth at large the Statue of the Universe, by which the Brachmans wor∣shipped Nature. It was an Image of Ten or Twelve Cubits in heighth: It had its hands extended in the form of a Cross. It had a face Masculine on the one

side, and Feminine on the other. It had the Sun on one of its breasts, and on the other the Moon: And on the Arms were to be seen a very great number of Angels, together with the Heavens, Mountains, Seas, Rivers, the Ocean, Plants and Animals; and such o∣ther parts in Nature as make up the Universe. Yet I cannot say that this was the Statue of their supreme Deity: For they tell us, concerning it, that this was the Image which God set before his Son when he made the World, as a pattern by which he should form his Work. But I may say it more truly, of some wor∣shippers of Isis, that they supposed her supreme, and did adore her, not, with others, as the inferiour Earth, but in the quality (as I just now noted) of universal Nature. So Pignorius hath taught us a 1.12, and before him, Servius and Macrobius. Hence was it that the Infcription on an Antient Marble at Capua, owneth Isis as all things b 1.13. A like opinion may be, with ground, entertained concerning Vesta, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fire, or Sun, in the midst of her Temple; as Plu∣tarch in Numa hath suggested. Wherefore no Image was consecrated to her besides that of her Temple, which by its roundness, denoted the World, and by its sempiternal fire, the Sun in it. That fire was re∣newed, each year, on the first of March c 1.14, in allu∣sion, sure, to the vigour of that Planet which then beginneth, in especial manner, to comfort those parts of the Earth. Others again, amongst the Gentiles, ador'd the Sun, as the one Sovereign Deity. Such were they in Julius Firmicus, who expressed their de∣votion in this form. O Sol! Thou best and greatest of things! Thou mind of the Universe▪ Thou Guide and Prince of all d 1.15. A like Egyptian form, translated out of that language, by Euphantus, is remembred by Porphyrie; and thus it beginneth e 1.16. O Sun thou

Lord of all, and ye the rest of the Gods! There Eu∣phantus (as may be probably imagined) found Baal, or some such word, in the original Egyptian; and gave us instead of it, the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Such honour of the Sun we find on the Antient Egyptian Obelisk in∣terpreted by Hermapion a 1.17, and restored to its antient beauty, by Sixtus Quintus. On it the Sun is set forth as God; as the Sovereign disposer of the World which, it seems, he committed to the Govern∣ment of King Ramestes.

Others there were who mistook for the one supreme God, the Soul of the World, and, it may be, thought the Sun the Head in that great animated Body, or the place of that Souls principal residence. On this fashi∣on, Osiris, in Macrobius b 1.18, describeth his Godhead. The Heavenly world is my head; my belly the Sea; my feet the Earth: In Heaven are my Ears, and for my all∣seeing Eye, it is the glorious Lamp of the Sun. Pornu∣tus likewise, reciting the Dogmata of the Heathen Theology, discourseth c 1.19 to this effect. As we [men] are governed by a Soul, so the world hath its Soul also, by which it is kept in frame: And this soul of the World is called Jupiter. Aristotle himself doth some∣where stile God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a mighty Animal: So apt are the highest Aspirers in Philosophy to fall, some∣times into wild and desperate errors. Amongst the Romans who excelled Varro in knowledg? And yet S. Austin saith of him, that he believed no higher God than the Soul of the World d 1.20, but that by dis∣gusting Images, as debasers of Religion, he approach∣ed nigh to the true God. Others, both in Egypt and Persia, worshipped for the true God, a part only of his Idea; whilst they removed from it, the justice and mercy of sending, preventing, or taking away, any temporal evils in which they thought the supreme

Deity not concerned; whilst they believed certain Demons to be the chastizers of those who had not purged themselves sufficiently from matter a 1.21.

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 1.22, 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 1.23. 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 1.24 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 1.25. 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 1.26, 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 1.27. 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 1.28, 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 1.29, 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 1.30 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 1.31 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 1.32 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 1.33 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 1.34, 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 1.35 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 1.36, 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 1.37, 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 1.38, 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 1.39 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 1.40, 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 1.41 set foot there. It was not pure Religion; for he introduced the worship of the immortal Gods, d 1.42 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 1.43 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 1.44 by any Figure. And Tertullian b 1.45 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 1.46, 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 1.47, 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 1.48, though he denies the honour to the Cretians; and is

confident that, though he was born, he never dyed. Jupiter, saith Arnobius a 1.49, 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 1.50. 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 1.51, 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 1.52. Nay, of Jove Plato himself saith e 1.53, 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 1.54: 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.

PART 4. What Applications they made to one God.

THis being confessed, There is a Second inquiry to be made, whether such Gentiles worshipped him, or made Religious Application to him? And it is evident they did so, both by Prayers, Sacrifices, and Images.

Prayer to him was consequent to their Apprehensi∣ons of him as the Allsufficient and bountiful Governour of Mankind. And sometimes they prayed to him in the very form of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or] Lord have mercy, which the Ancient Christians used. Ennius, in Cicero,

b 1.55 declareth that Jove was invoked by All. He calleth him [Sublime Candens] not meaning the Sun, but the Power that causeth Lightning, and the Jove who, in Euripides (there also cited by Tully), is owned as [Summus divns] the supreme God. Sim∣plicius, in the conclusion of his Notes on Epictetus c 1.56, useth this excellent form: I address my self humbly to thee, O Lord, thou Father and guide of our Reason, that we may be mindful of that nobility with which thou hast adorn'd us:—That we may be purged from the contagion of the body, and bruitish affections; governing them as becometh us, and using them as Instruments.—If Simplicius be said to learn this under Christianity, that cannot be objected against Socrates and Plato. Socrates prayeth d 1.57

* 1.58, not only to the gods, but to the supreme God, under the Title of Pan, in the first place.

And he prayeth that he may be beautiful within; and that he may esteem the wise-man only to be the man truly wealthy: referring to the things before dis∣coursed of in the Phaedrus of Plato.

The same Plato begins his second Dialogue called Alcibiades (e) by this question (put to that Philosopher, by Socrates, who apprehended him to be in a deep contemplation); Whether he were going about to call on God? And thence occasion is taken of saying many wise things, on that Subject, in the sequel of that Dialogue. And about the middle of that Discourse, he repeateth a very pru∣dent form of Prayer used by a Poet f 1.59, who

be∣seecheth his God to give him the things which were good for him, though he should happen not to pray for them; and to keep from him such things as were hurtful, though through error he should make sup∣plication for them. Again, in Timaeus, Plato ob∣serveth g 1.60 that those who have any share of under∣standing, when they undertake any thing, be it of

smaller or of greater concernment, do always in∣voke God.

To such Invocation he exhorteth a 1.61 at the constitution of any City or civil Body. And he urgeth Prayer in so many places, that I have not room for the repetition of them, in that compass to which I have design'd to confine my Discourse.

For Sacrifice, That also the Gentiles offered to God. Plato joyneth both together in the conclusion of his Theages. There b 1.62 Theages exhorteth to an appeasing of the Numen worshipped by Socrates, by Prayer and Sacrifice; and Demodocus and Socrates are consenting to it. And Porphyry supposeth some Gen∣tiles to have offered Sacrifice to the supreme God, whilst he taxeth them for offering to him Animals, as unmeet oblations, or indeed, any thing besides a pure Mind. Martinius in the Fourth Book of his Hi∣story of China c 1.63, thinketh that people to have worshipped the true supreme God under the name of Xangti: And he further observeth, that they of∣fered Prayers and Sacrifices to him, though they used no Images in his worship.

For Images, The Gentiles used them in the worship of the one God, and not only whilst they Religiously observed their Demons. Origen supposeth Statues of both kinds in use amongst them, where he saith d 1.64, that Those Heathens expose themselves to the derision of all men of sound mind, who, after their Philosophical disputations [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] of God or gods, respect Statues, and either pray to them, or endeavour, by the contemplation of them, as by conspicuous signs, to raise their minds [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to the Intelligible Deity. In the mean time (as he continueth his Discourse) the meanest Christian is effectually perswaded that all the World is the Temple of God: And he prayeth to him, in all places, with closed eyes, but with the Lights of his

Mind erected towards Heaven. This had been no re∣futation of Celsus, if the Gentiles had not worshipped the God that is every where, without Images, by Prayer and a pure intention. Origen, in the same Book a 1.65, in answer to Celsus, who had denied Ima∣ges to be worshipped as Gods, and affirmed them to be Divine Statues only; replyeth in this manner. We cannot think these Images to be so much as Divine Sta∣tues; seeing we circumscribe not the incorporeal and invi∣sible God, with any figure. He supposeth the Heathen had done so; else he had in vain contended against their Statues by such an Argument, fetched from the spirituality and ubiquity, not of Demons, but of the true and Sovereign God. To him it appeareth, that some Gentiles did apply themselves in the three ways abovementioned, of Prayer, Sacrifice, and Image∣worship.

PART 5. Whether they worshipping one God, could be guilty of that sin.

NOW that being proved, a third Question comes to be resolved; Whether the acknowledgment of one God by the Gentiles, and their Application to him, being granted, they are yet liable to the charge of Idolatry?

In answer to this enquiry, I purpose to shew, that they are still charged; that they might be guilty not∣withstanding that concession of owning one God; and that in divers respects, that guilt was actually contract∣ed by them. They are charged with this high offence, by Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Minucius Faelix, Origen against Celsus, S. Cyprian de vanitate Idolorum, Arnobius, Lactantius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, and

a long order of others: And to cite them in all the places which are pertinent to this matter, were to re∣peat a great part of their works. The matter is so notorious, that I will illustrate it only by a single in∣stance. Let that instance be made in Julian the Apo∣state [if he were ever a Christian, in whom the tares of Gentilism were sown so very early by Libanius; and appeared ripe so soon as ever the Glory of the Empire shone upon him]: This man hath been con∣demned by the common consent of the Christian Church in being since his time, as a manifest and infa∣mous Idolater, and a very Bigot in Heathenism; and yet he acknowledged one God, and him who is truly the Lord of Lords. He declared this to be the opi∣nion of his Sect a 1.66, That there was a common Pa∣rent and King of Men. He worshipped that Jupiter b 1.67 who is the giver of all kinds of good; who is c 1.68 the greatest and most powerful Being. He worship∣ped (though not without the intermixture of a false Religion) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He says so much in Terms, in one place d 1.69 and upon his Oath. He says the same elsewhere e 1.70 in effect, whilst he reports the pains he took (though perfectly in vain) to raise the Temple of Jerusalem out of its ruines; and thereby, as he pretended, to erect a Mo∣nument to him, to whom it was sacred. It is true, that S. Cyril doth bring his sincerity under question f 1.71, and believes that, in his heart, he placed the God of Abraham amongst his Topical deities: Yet, for Jupiter Ithometes g 1.72 worshipped by Julian, S. Cyril grant∣eth him to be esteemed the Prince of the Gods. And why he should think that Julian believed not the God of Abraham to be the true Jehovah, I cannot readily conjecture; seeing that Emperor had perufed the Old Testament, which declares him to be the Creator and

Governour of all things, and not meerly, as the Na∣tions transplanted into Samaria, grosly imagined, The God of the Land a 1.73. If now Julian and some other Heathens entertained so worthy a notion of God, they are, so far, acquitted of that sort of Idolatry which establisheth the Polytheism of some or many eoequal Gods; but still they might be, in other re∣gards, the worshippers of Idols.

That they might be so, appeareth from the definiti∣on of Idolatry, in which it is shewed that the giving away the honour of God to another Object is a de∣gree of that crime, though it be not his supreme ho∣nour: Though we do not take the Crown of incom∣municable honour from him, and, by our fancy, place it on a creature. It appeareth again from the practice of the Jews, who are by God himself accused of Ido∣latry, even when they in part owned and worshipped him, and before they were wholly led into captivity, and mingled again among the Heathen. They had not forgotten, perfectly, the God of Israel in whose Law they read; though like Adulteresses, they shared their Love with Idols. Wherefore God Almighty required Hosea, not (as I think) in a literal sense, but ac∣cording to the way of a Prophetical Scene, to take unto him an Adulteress b 1.74; thereby personating the state betwixt himself and the Children of Israel, who, though they had not rejected him as their true and su∣preme Husband, yet they had gone a whoring after the inventions of the Gentiles, and provoked God to give them a Bill of Divorce.

Whilst I am here affirming, that a people who own one God, may yet commit Idolatry, I mean not this meerly of such who judge him to be, Nature, the Sun, or the Soul of the World, all which are finite or imaginary Objects, and by consequence, Idols, as often as they

are adored in the place of God: But I speak even of the Gentiles who own'd one true incomprehensible Creator; who with Callicratidas the Pythagorean a 1.75, acknowledged [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] one best Being, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] and such as was the Beginning and Cause of all things. Some of these did actually commit Ido∣latry, in their worship of the Statues of God, of Demons, and of the Images of those subordinate Dei∣ties.

PART 6. Of their Idolatry in worshipping the Statues of God.

FIrst, their Idolatry consisted in the worship of the Statues of God. This, indeed, was not the highest degree of that false Religion, for they did not, hereby, dethrone God, and give to the creature his most essential perfections; but yet they gave away such honour as he had not bestowed who was the pro∣prietor of it. They did so, in the worship, both of the natural, and of the artificial Statues of God. The Principal natural Statue was the Sun. For some of the Philosophical Gentiles made not the Sun it self the ultimate Object of their worship, but they adored God in it. Hence they gave to Vulcan [that is, the Sun] the Name, sometimes of God, and sometimes of Fire, as Plutarch (c) instructeth us out of Archilo∣chus. * 1.76 And Maximus Tyrius, being one of more re∣fined Reason than the generality of the Heathens, would not confess that the Sun and the Fire were any further deified, than as they were c 1.77 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Statues or Images of God. The same excellent Philo∣sopher upbraideth the Persians for neglecting the Sta∣tues of the fruitful Earth, and the glorious Sun, and the great path of Commerce, the Sea; and chusing

the devouring Fire as their Statue and their God. In which words, he supposeth the presence of a Deity in the Fire, and the Fire to be only the Statue or Image of it, according to the Persian Theology.

Now, in Two things, consisted the Idolatry of the Heathens, whilst they worshipped the natural Statues of God.

First, They were Idolatrous in setting up those na∣tural Statues, as the places of Gods peculiar Residence. And this the Fathers objected to the Heathens; shew∣ing them, that Christianity represented God, as one that filled the World, and not as one that dwelt (like a Star) in some coelestial Sphear; and taught them in their Prayers to him, to exalt their thoughts above all material Heavens: Or (as Origen a 1.78 is pleased to express it) above even supercoelestial Places. And for this they had Reason: For the Gentiles, by worshipping creatures as Gods Statues, gave Gods re∣lative honour to them, whilst he owned them only as his workmanship, and not as his especial Images or Temples. Thereby, likewise, they bred in their minds a dishonourable Idea of God, as of one who, like a finite Being, dwelt in certain places. This was not the notion of him amongst all, but the worship of him by natural Statues made all of them prone to it. Plato himself was under the Temptation. He was not come to any determinate belief concerning the Stars, whether they were Gods, or only the Statues of them. But, upon supposition that they were Statues (the part to which he is most inclined) he would have them honoured beyond all Statues on earth, as being made such by a Divine Power b 1.79.

Secondly, The Gentiles were guilty of Idolatrous Worship, in making some, at least, of the natural Statues of God, voluntary and authoritative disposers

of good and evil, under God, in the World; though not as the supreme dispensers of them. They believed the Stars to be animated [at least with an assistant form] and as Maimonides reporteth of them a 1.80, created by God for the Government of the World. And we receive it upon the valuable Authority of Garcilasso de la Vega b 1.81 that the Ynca's of Peru adored the Sun as the visible Deity, by which the greater God, who was invisible, ruled this World.

A due confideration of this Fancy amongst the Gen∣tiles, leadeth us to the true Original of Astrology, and to a right account of Talismanick Statues. The pre∣sent Astrology pretendeth to be Natural and Philoso∣phical, and to solve the effects it foretelleth (if any it doth, besides those of Light and Shadow, as in Eclip∣ses) by the mechanical influence of the Stars, which variously combine their light and heat. But the E∣gyptian, Chaldean, and Grecian Astrology was, in truth, an Astrological Magick, built upon the hypo∣thesis of their Demons, and the Heavens which they governed. And they did not think that the Stars wrought a mighty effect, or impregnated a Talisman, by their proper virtue, but as they were either Intel∣ligences themselves, or divinely influenced and di∣rected by the Demons which resided in them, and governed part of this lower World. The Chaldeans c 1.82 assigned Twelve Gods as Governours of the year, and apportioned to each of them one sign in the Zo∣diack. To these they added Thirty Auxiliary Gods in Thirty Stars, of which Fifteen were to have inspection on things below the earth; and Fifteen above it. And in the Kalendar of Julius Caesar d 1.83, each God had a Month under him, and in it, the several Constellations. Juno governed January, Neptune February, Minerva March, Venus April, Apollo May, Mercury June, Ju∣piter

Quintilis or July, Ceres Sextilis or August, Vul∣can September, Mars October, Diana November, Vesta December. At this day the Astrological Judgments refer to demonology. Thus Saturn the severe Demon, is made to signifie malicious persons; Mars the Bloody Demon, furious, proud, valiant persons; and by their Influence to dispose to such Qualities. The Horoscope or Ascendant is made the principal of all Angles, or if not that, then the Culmen Coeli by Ptolomy; and this judgment at first came from the worship of the Sun the principal Demon, and most reverenced in those Angles.

In this worship then, although subordinate, The Gentiles placed Gods Authority where God himself had not done it; and their Hopes, and Fears, and Thanks, respected certain Creatures, when they were due to God, dispensing good and evil immediately by himself; or if by them, doing it by them as ministe∣rial Causes, not as sharers in his Government. But of this, more, when I come to consider their worship of Demons; of which, the Stars themselves were one sort to some of them, whilst they ascribed to them a high degree of perception and voluntary Power. They thought of the Sun as of an Archangel; though the Disciples of the Philolaick Systeme called it only the Organ of God a 1.84, and the Divine Harp, by rea∣son of the Harmony which its motion gave to the rest of the coelestial Bodies.

Again, they erred in their worship, about the arti∣ficial and instituted Statues of God.

Some of these Statues were, possibly, at first, no more than monumental Pillars, and Records of some extraordinary work of God, discerned to be the effect of his finger, by proof of sufficient Reason: And so far the Gentiles were commendable, as well as Jacob

of the Line of Abraham. For it is the nature of true and grateful devotion, to retain, and propagate the memory of Gods Acts, which by the eminent Wisdom, Mercy, Power and Justice of them, are proper for the exciting of admiration.

But I cannot go on in praising them, for the honour they gave to other kinds of Statues, which their fancy erected to the supreme God.

Of these, some had less Art bestowed on them, be∣ing great pieces of Wood or Stone, without any Ima∣gery of Man or Beast, of Fish or Fowl, carved or painted on them. Some regular figure they sometimes had, as that of an Egg which they supposed in many things, and particularly in its figure, to resemble the World a 1.85. Such Statues they worshipped two ways, first, as the Symbols of Gods especial presence: Second∣ly, as pledges of his favour to them, wheresoever he was, so long as they held them in possession; and both ways they egregiously offended. They offended by worshipping such Statues as the Symbols of Gods espe∣cial presence. For thereby they ascribed the relative honour, due to Gods true Shechinah, to an Object which was exalted to that Divine condition, not by his approbation, but by their fancy. And if their fancy was moved to this false estimation, by some a∣mazing effects wrought before them, upon the per∣formance of their Religious Rites, they were Idolatrous in that case, by honouring the power of Demons asGods Omnipotence. For God permitted evil Spirits to se∣duce those Pagans, by strange and uncommon opera∣tions, wrought at their Statues, who refused to live in the use of their Reason. Further, They transgressed in using Statues as the pledges to assure them of Gods favour, so long as they remained with them. Such were the Ancilia, and the Palladium introduced by

Numa, amongst the Romans. He did not celebrate them as Statues in which God dwelt, but as secret pledges of Empire a 1.86. And this conceit, also, be∣gat Idolatry amongst them; for they gave that ho∣nourable trust due to God and his Shechinah, and the pledges of his favour, to things devised by politick men, and such as God neither formed, nor sent, nor appointed as Instruments of defence amongst any peo∣ple.

Other Statues they used as Images and representa∣tions of the supreme God. This practice Macrobius doth not deny, but he denieth it to be Antient b 1.87. And it is plain, by his Context, that he referreth to Plato, and to the Platonick notions which exalted God above all the parts of Nature. And for Plato, it was agreeable to his principles, to abstain from all representations of God, whom he believed to be in∣comprehensible. Viretus saith of him, c 1.88 that seeking after some matter fit for the Image of God, he could find none proper for that Divine purpose. But he here committeth a double mistake: For in the place which he meaneth, Plato speaketh not of any matter for the Image of God, but for the Statues of the Gods; and at last he pitcheth upon certain materials for that use. The Philosopher d 1.89 thought Gold and Silver unfit, because they were invidious things; and Brass and Iron, because they were instruments of War; and Ivory, be∣cause it was the Tooth of an Elephant, dead already, or obnoxious to death. But at last he concludeth (from what reason I know not), that an entire Tree or Stone might make a Mercury, or an Image of a Demon. [For the Europeans were not so costly and pompous in their Images e 1.90 till the Conquest of Asia, the Foun∣tain of Luxuries.] But though Platonists contented themselves with inward Ideas, yet all the Gentile

World did not; but divers of them made and wor∣shipped external representations of God the Creator. So did the Egyptians who represented their supreme Cneph, though diversly; as appears from the descrip∣tion of him in Porphyry a 1.91, and his Image in Car∣tari b 1.92. So did the Greeks; Porphyry himself con∣fessing that they worshipped God in the Image of a man, but making an excuse which Statuaries and Wor∣shippers seldom thought of. By God he means the su∣preme Deity, and not some one only of the Divine Powers; for he mentions [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c 1.93 as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] God himself, and not only Divine Virtues, in offering his reason for their worship by Images. He, there, alloweth the Deity to be invisible, and he yet thinks him well represented in the form of a Man; not because he is like him in external shape, but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] because that which is Divine is Rational. That was not the common Cause, but an inclination to a sensible Object, and an apprehen∣sion of humane Figure as that which was most excel∣lent, and which belongeth to a King and Governour; under which notion, in the grosser Idea of it, their reverence of earthly Potentates had pictured God in their heads. When Origen objected to Celsus d 1.94 the vanity of worshipping the invisible God in the vi∣sible form of man, Celsus neither denieth the matter of fact, nor apologizeth after the manner of Porphyry, but retorteth the objection on the Christians, who professed that man was made after the Image of God. And Origen observeth, that Celsus did not understand how to distinguish, here, betwixt being the Image of God, and being made after it: And, that, he ignorant∣ly cited the Christians, as saying, “That God made Man his Image, and an appearance like himself e 1.95. And, at this day, Pagans, when they entertain a Phan∣tasm

of God, they are, most commonly, Anthropo∣morphites. A very late and principal Actor, in the ruine of the Town of Sacoe in New-England, was an Enthusiastick Indian called Squango a 1.96, who, some years before, pretended that God appeared to him in the form of a tall Man in Black Clothes. Now the Gentiles worshipping such Ideas or external Images, as forms of God, do misplace his Honour, by paying their relative veneration to Objects which were not like him, but infinitely unworthy of him. They turned the Glory of Gods Essence into vile and despi∣cable similitudes.

A worse sort of Idolatry still (if worse can be) were those Gentiles guilty of, who, by Images (such as those of Baal and Pan) adored Nature, or the Sun, as the supreme God. The very Prototypes, here, were Idols. So that, in this kind of worship, both the ultimate and intermediate, the direct and the relative Honour of God, was devolved on the crea∣ture.

PART 7. Of the Idolatry of the Gentiles in their worship of De∣mons.

A Second branch of the Idolatry of the Gentiles, even of their Philosophers, and men of deep disputation, was the worship of Demons.

In this worship they were Idolatrous four ways.

First, By worshipping Demons as Powers which, under God, had a considerable share of the Govern∣ment of the World, by Commission from him.

Secondly, By worshipping Demons which were De∣vils, or wicked and accursed Spirits.

Thirdly, By worshipping the Images of such Demons.

Fourthly, By their immoderate officiousness towards these inferior Deities, which left them little leisure for attendance on the supreme God.

First, The Gentiles committed Idolatry by wor∣shipping Demons, as Powers which, with subordina∣tion to God, did, by his allowance, manage a great part of the Government of the World. They did not deny the supremacy of God, but they imagined that he ruled not the World by his immediate Providence, but by several Orders of Demons and Heroes, as his Substitutes and Lieutenants. Such as these were the Twelve Angels or Presidents, which the Egyptians be∣lieved a 1.97 to govern, by Ternaries, the four Quar∣ters of the World. In the Flaminian Obelisk b 1.98 the supreme Momphta, or supramundane Osiris, is re∣presented, as ruling the Twelve parts of the World, by Tw•…•…lve Solar Demons in the form of Twelve Hawks [that is, of Eagles, for of that kind were the sacred Accipitres of that Country]. There, as like∣wise in Greece and Italy, several inferiour Deities were appointed over several places, persons and things. He that is not otherwise furnished, may read in Kir∣cher, of the Genius of Fire c 1.99, Air d 1.100, Water e 1.101, the Earth f 1.102, Agriculture g 1.103, of the Clouds h 1.104, the Sun and Moon i 1.105, of Heat and Moisture k 1.106; and of Fourty eight Asterisms as the stations of Fourty eight Deities l 1.107. Pythagoras and Plato themselves, m 1.108 were, in this point, Authors of egregious Ido∣latry. Pythagoras, invented, or rather learned, from Egyptians, Chaldeans, Thracians, Persians, his two De∣mons or Principles; the one good, the Parent of Uni∣ty, Rest, Equality, Splendor; the other evil, the cause of Division, Motion, Inequality, Darkness; for such were the Terms which his School used in repre∣senting their nature. And these became Objects of

much hope and fear, which ought to have been moved, not by mens devices, but by considerations taken from the Almighty Power, Justice and Goodness of God who is one. Plato seemeth to have ascribed much both of the frame and of the government of the World to the Genii next to God: By Principles whom he estee∣med highly divine, but not by such as he judged three Subsistences of the same supreme numerical Substance. If that had been his Creed (as some would have it, who can find in him the mysteries of the Athanasian Articles), the earliest Hereticks, who denied the co∣equal Divinity of the Son of God, and therefore be∣lieved in another kind of Logos, had never come in such numbers out of his school; the place from whence the Fathers fetch them. a 1.109 With them agreeth Peta∣vius that learned Jesuit, and in this Argument as lear∣ned as in any other. He saith it is most evident con∣cerning Arius b 1.110, that he was a very genuine Platonist. Plato's principal Idea or Logos, was distinct in num∣ber and nature from his supreme Cause, or God. And those who follow the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, rea∣son not with consistence, whilst they suppose this Idea to be the second Person, and yet find in Plato, such distinctness of Being, and (which to me seems very re∣markable) a plain denial of his Generation. It is true, that Plato, cited by Porphyry c 1.111, does call the second Principle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Word which is the Work∣man; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first Power after the supreme God; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the genuine or only Son of God; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Intellectual Word. And yet he says of the same Power, which he calls, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an eternal and imperceptible Mind, that it is d 1.112 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, unbegotten, and Pa∣rent to it self: He likewise calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Mind subsisting by it self. And St. Cyril, who

citeth Plato out of Porphyry, and is willing to make the Platonick Triad the same in effect with the Chri∣stian Trinity a 1.113, confesseth the third Principle, which should answer to the Holy Ghost, to be no other than the Soul of the World, which all Platonists under∣stand to be a distinct substance from the first Cause. Nay, Porphyry himself, in the place which St. Cyril would serve his purpose on, calleth Plato's three Principles, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, b 1.114] not three Hypostases but three Gods. c 1.115 Of his other Idea's I have little to say, I mean of those properly so called before the formation of the World. Parmenides is a Book, either so muddy, or so pro∣foundly deep, that I cannot see to the bottom of it. Therein he discourseth of these matters with infinite subtlety, or rather perplexity of notion. One would imagin a man of his wit not so absurd as to think them eternal Substances, and models quite separated from the mind of God, but rather divine thoughts con∣cerning the fashion of the World which he decreed to make. Yet Ammonius the Scholar of Proclus ascribeth to him that opinion, and followeth him in it: though herein Aristotle deserted his Master, and not without reason. And he sure, knew his meaning, and had a Key to his Mysteries. Other Idea's there were which Plato owned, and they were such as are more intelli∣gible, and more proper for me to speak of in this Ar∣gument; they being Angels or Daemons. The uncer∣tain Greek Author d 1.116 of the Life of Pythagoras, joined to that of Porphyry, discoursing of the World as con∣sisting of twelve distinct Orbs, placeth in the first Sphere, God Almighty. After Him he rangeth the In∣ferior Deities, which from Plato he calleth Idea's, and from Aristotle, Intellectual Gods. He means the Intelli∣gences of that Philosopher, though he made them to be but seven according to the number of the Planets

which he set them to move. Of Plato Tertullian saith, a 1.117

That he held certain invisible, incorporeal, super∣mundial, divine, eternal, substances to which he gave the name of Idea's, as the causes of visible things.

For his Archetypal Idea, it is manifest to the Reader of his Works, and particularly of his Timaeus, that he supposed him to be a Being as subsistent by it self as Matter, and distinct from the supreme Divinity. He speaks of it as a Thing, Being, or Person, not as a meer pattern of Things; and his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or Plat∣form, is held by him to be but the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or Image of his principal Idea b 1.118. The next Power to his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or God the pure and unmixed Good, was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] or In∣tellect, or [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] Existence compounded of Intellect and Unity, and distinct in substance from the first Cause according to Plato; though [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was the first accor∣ding to Anaxagoras (called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 himself for this his Dog∣ma) whom Plato outshot by one Principle. The third Platonick Power was distinct from both the former, and it was [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or] the Soul of the World. Nous, Psyche, Logos, and the like Mystical terms, were but the names of certain eminent Demons placed by his Fancy at the right hand of God, and used in the works of Creation and Providence as Authorative Agents, and not as meer Instruments of the first Cause. They were therefore set up and reverenced with prejudice to the honour of the true God, who is the only Creator and Preserver of all things. By Creation the Platonists meant only the disposal of the Chaos into order: for their Philosophy supposed Matter c 1.119 to have been as Coeternal with God, as Light is coeval with the Sun. By Plato God is called [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the Ma∣ker and Father of All that is d 1.120. But he means not this of Him as of the immediate Cause, but as the Cause of the higher Principles, Causes, or Powers, which,

with subordination to him, produced in order such as are inferior to themselves. Sallust the Platonist openly confesseth it, and out of him I will transcribe the sense of part of a Chapter, concerning the modelling and governing of the visible World, by the power of De∣mons. He had in his first Chapter concerning the Gods and the World, discoursed about God, or the first Cause of all things. A while after in his sixth Chapter, a 1.121 [which according to its Title, treateth of the Cos∣mical and Encosmical, or of the Celestial and Worldly Gods;] he thus pursueth his Divine Subject.

Of the Gods, some are Worldly, and others Heavenly. I call those Worldly who make the World. For the Hea∣venly, some of them make the substances of the gods, [or Inferior Demons], some, the Mind; some, the Souls b 1.122. Wherefore, of these there are three Or∣ders, and they may easily be found in the discourses which are made of them. For the Worldly gods, some make the World [or visible frame of things]; some animate it; some adjust the parts of it; and some govern or preserve it so composed. Here then being four things, and each of them consisting of first, mid∣dle and extreme; it is necessary that they who dis∣pose them, be twelve in number. They therefore that make th•…•… World are Jupiter, Neptune, and Vul∣can. They who animate it, are Juno, Ceres, Diana. They who adjust the parts of it, are Apollo, Venus, and Mercury. They who preserve it, are Vesta, Pallas, and Mars.—These first possessing the World before others, [That is, the Pagan Heroes;] we may imagin the others in them: To wit, Bacchus in Jupiter; AEsculapius in Apollo; the Graces in Venus. We may also contemplate their [several] Spheres: The Earth, the Orb of Vesta; the Water, that of Nep∣tune; the Air, that of Juno;

the Fire, that of Vulcan.

Plato himself, as he is cited by St. Cyril, a 1.123 supposeth God to have quitted, as it were, the care of things on Earth, and to have committed it to the Inferior gods for their diversion b 1.124. It is true, that in four places Plato asserteth a divine Providence, taking care of the things on Earth, even of the least things; and doing it with ease, and being no way prevented by sloth. He doth this in his Tenth Book of Laws c 1.125; in his Poli∣ticus d 1.126; in his Epinomis e 1.127; and in his Phaedo f 1.128: But where he asserteth this, he speaketh it as much of the gods, as of God. And in his Phaedo, after Cebes had affirmed in the singular of God, that he consulted better for man, than man could for himself, and was an excellent Lord; Simmias and Socrates in some sort consenting to him, turn his sentence into the plural of Lords and Gods g 1.129. Julian likewise, though he pro∣fessed the belief of one true God, yet he assigned se∣veral Countries and Cities to the care of several Tute∣lar Gods h 1.130. So we find in Porphyry i 1.131 certain [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or] Gods that were conceived to be Pre∣sidents of Regions; such amongst whom the Govern∣ment of the lower World was parted. The Gentiles in∣deed did not wholly exclude the supreme God, but they worshipped him as one who had not reserved un∣to himself the greatest share of the Government. Hence is it that we find among their ancient Inscriptions, many such as that remembred by Elmenhorstius k 1.132; TO JUPITER THE BEST AND GREATEST [Deity], AND TO THE GENIUS [or Demon] OF THE PLACE. They thought of the supreme Jove, but they seldom thought of him without his Deputy.

Such Philosophy concerning the Lieutenancy of De∣mons is at this day on foot in China. There the Litte∣rati, or those of the Sect of Confusio, own one God l 1.133; and though they do not reverence him with any so∣lemn

worship, (as if he were a kind of unconcerned, Epicurean Deity), yet they have Temples for Tutelar Spirits. The Sect of the Tausi also acknowledg one Great God, and other lesser Ones, that is, Vicege∣rent Demons. The same sort of Philosophy is found amongst the Benjans, in the Eastern India. The Sect of them called Samarath, though it believeth one first Cause a 1.134, which created the World, yet it assigneth to him Three Subftitutes, Brama, Buffiuna, and Mais.

Brama (they fay) hath the disposal of Souls, which he sends into such Bodies as Permiseer [or the su∣preme God,] appointeth for them; whether they be the Bodies of Men or Beasts. Buffiuna teacheth the World the Laws of its God: He hath also the oversight of Provisions for common life, and advan∣ceth the growth of Wheat, Herbs and Pulse, after Brama hath indu'd each of them with Souls. Mais ex∣erciseth its power over the dead.

This looks to me like a Tale of Jupiter, Ceres and Pluto.

This Opinion of the Gentiles, which ascribeth so much of the Government of this World to Demons, as Gods Commissioners in certain Precincts, and as Super∣intendents over Places, Persons, and Things, is mani∣festly contrary to the tenor of the Scriptures. They teach, b 1.135 That God is the great disposer of Good and Evil in all Cities and Places; and that his Providence extendeth to the fall of a little Sparrow, and of a lesser thing than that, an hair of our head. That sheweth us how he used great importunity for the turning of Jew and Gentile from the confidence which they placed in their Genii. This, saith St. Cyril c 1.136, he would never have attempted, if they had been Presi∣dents of his own appointment. His Angels minister before him, but they do not properly govern under him, much less is that true of Superexisting Souls. The

Angels of Graecia and Persia were such Spirits, as did at that time serve his will in that particular employ∣ment. But we have no cogent reason (I think) to perswade us, that they always enjoyed a setled Lieu∣tenancy over those Countries. It was a rash conclusi∣on which Vatablus drew from those Visions of Daniel a 1.137, to wit, that to every Nation was assigned an An∣gel as President over it. The whole of that Discourse in Daniel is a Vision, and a representation of Heaven∣ly things in a Scene upon Earth. And they who make particular application of every circumstance, without due attention to the main design of it, forget that they confound Earthly and Heavenly things, and lay their gross absurdities of fancy at the door of the Spi∣rit of God. Such (for instance sake) would they be who should think from this Vision, that an Angel tou∣cheth Gods Prophets with an hand at what time he in∣spireth them, because Daniel b 1.138 so expresseth him∣self as if it were so done to him; or who should be∣lieve that a good Angel ordained by God to comfort his Prophet, could be detained by an evil one for one and twenty days c 1.139, until he prevailed against him by the assistance of Michael; because the Scripture useth such an •…•…umane Image, and alludeth to the impedi∣ments of good men on earth, who are not equal in power and motion to the ministring Angels, who are quick and vigorous as Spirits or Winds, and flames of Fire.

On such quickness and vigor God serveth his Pur∣poses by the temporary Ministry of Angels; but by Himself still, and not by them as setled Delegates, He dispenseth favours and severities. Accordingly God in∣viting the Jews to renounce their Genii, or inferior Deities and Patrons, [and not meerly to turn from evil Angels, and to apply themselves to good ones;]

promiseth by himself to send them that worldly plen∣ty which they had sacrilegiously ascribed to their Idols. And St. Paul endeavouring to draw the Lycaonians from their Vanities, remindeth them a 1.140 of the testi∣mony which God had given them, of his Providence in sending them fruitful seasons. This if it had been done by Commissioned Demons, the Gentiles might have abated the force of the Apostles argument, which proveth the care of the supreme God by the supplies of outward blessings. The same St. Paul hath left us another Text, most worthy of our attention, in which he confirmeth the Government and the Providence of the supreme God; rejecteth the Lieutenancy of De∣mons, and owneth Christ alone as the Substitute of the Father. Though there be, said he b 1.141, such as are called Gods; though there be many [Superior, and many Inferior Baalim] Gods or Lords; yet to us [Christians] there is but one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ. He is the true God, and Eternal life: He is Gods Vice∣gerent, who is the Everlasting 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Father; and not the Platonick Demon called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or that of the Va∣lentinians c 1.142, which together with their Logos made the second Conjugation of their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the first whence they came, being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Mind and Truth d 1.143.

If then God by his Providence dispenseth immedi∣ately Good and Evil; if his care reacheth to things below the Moon (whose Orb some made the limits of it, with equal vanity and boldness; whilst others, with Maimonides e 1.144 allowed a Providence over man, but not over beasts:) If he useth his Angels as ministring, not governing spirits; as messengers of several kinds, and not as Commission-Officers of his Court, and ad∣ministrators of the Affairs of his Kingdom; as the At∣tendants ordinary or extraordinary of his Substitute Jesus Christ, but not as fellow-Viceroys: if he thus far

only useth his Angels, and it may be useth not departed Souls so far as this amounts to; it is plain Idolatry to worship Demons, as did the Gentiles, in that quality of divine Lieutenants. For from them they expect good and evil; them they fear, them they thank. When God sendeth fruitful Seasons, and by them Plenty, they send up their acknowledgments to the Queen of Hea∣ven. When God healeth them, they sacrifice to AEscu∣lapius, as to him that removed their distemper from them. This is a very great Iniquity, and the common grounds or occasions of it are highly unworthy of the true God. For most of them who believe not his im∣mediate Providence, do measure his actions by those of worldly Potentates. They conceive him out of state, to do little by his own person; or out of ease and soft∣ness, to commit the management of his affairs to others, both by temporary command, and by standing Com∣mission. As if the greatest variety of business could di∣stract or weary him, who is Infinite in Knowledg, and Greatness, and Power. Thus St. Cyril a 1.145 judged of

them who substituted lesser Deities under him that was supreme. He thought that they impeached God of Arrogance or floth, or want of Goodness, which envieth none the good it can do.

And Isaiah tacitly upbraideth those who distrusted his Providence, of the like vile opinion concerning him, whilst he saith of the Creator b 1.146, that He fainteth not, neither is weary.

Secondly, The Gentiles were Idolaters through the worship they gave to such Demons as were evil spirits. It is true, that Plato owned no inferior Deities but such as were [by him esteemed] good. He maintaineth this in his Tenth Book of Laws, and St. Austin confesseth it to be his judgment c 1.147. He saith in his Phaedo d 1.148, That none were to be registred among the gods but such who had studied Philosophy and departed pure

out of this life. When he speaketh of Demons who af∣flict men, he is to be interpreted rather of good Spi∣rits executing Justice, than of evil Angels venting their malice. But, whatsoever his opinion was, it is most evident that the generality of the Heathens wor∣shipped such Demons as were morally malignant. And such Porphyry a 1.149 esteemed those Genii who had bloo∣dy Sacrifices offered to them. The Gentiles sacrificed to Devils, to the Powers of the Kingdom of Darkness, which were not only not God, but enemies and pro∣fessed Rebels against him b 1.150. They were in Porphy∣ry's account, Terrestrial Demons; such who had gross Vehicles, and consequently were of the meaner and viler sort of their Genii, and (as they love to speak) sunk deepest into matter. Psellus and Porphyry repre∣sent them as united to a body of so gross contexture, c 1.151 that they could smell the Odors of the Sacrifices, and be fat with the steam of human blood. Lucian in his Book de Sacrificiis, abounds with pleasant [or ra∣ther to them who pity the decays of human nature, with very sad] stories of the Revels of Demons. Whether they were Terrestrial ones or not, I here for∣bear to dispute: but I conclude concerning them, that they were evil. Their nature shews it self by the ser∣vices which they accepted, by the persons whom they have favoured, and by the appearances and wonders with which they sometimes encouraged them. The Rites with which they were worshipped were bloo∣dy, rude, unclean; such as an honest man would be ashamed to observe d 1.152. Porphyry, though a Gentile, hath recorded many of the bloody Sacrifices e 1.153 offer∣ed by the Rhodians, Phoenicians, and Graecians; and he telleth of a man in his time sacrificed in Rome, at the Feast of Jupiter Latialis. The like barbarity was commonly used in the worship of Moloch, and Bellona.

And he must have such a measure of Assurance as will suffer him no more to blush than his Ink, who writes down all the Obscenities used in her worship, whom they usually called the Mother of the Gods. Origen telleth Celsus concerning the Christians a 1.154,

That they had learned to judg of all the Gods of the Heathen as of Devils, by their greediness of the blood of their Sacrifices, and by their presence amidst the Ni∣dors of them, by which they deceived those who made not God their refuge.

And in another place, b 1.155 he proveth this truth out of their own Histories: and he instanceth particularly in their Deity Hercules; and he objecteth against him his immoral love, and that vile effeminacy which their own Authors record. I will not tell over again their foolish stories so very of∣ten told already; but offer to the Reader a Relation of fresher date, out of Idolatrous America.

In Mexico (saith an Author c 1.156 who had sojourned in that City), the Heathens had dark houses, full of Idols, great and small, and wrought of sundry Metals: these were all bathed and washed with blood,—the blood of men;—the walls of the houses were an inch thick with blood, and the floor a foot.—The Priests went daily into those Oratories, and suf∣fered none other but great Personages to enter with them. And when any of such condition went in, they were bound to offer some man as a Sacrifice, that the Priests might wash their hands, and sprinkle the house with the blood of the Victim.

With such Sacrifices no good Angel could be pleased: wherefore the worship of such being an honour done not to God, or his Ministers, but to the Devil and his Angels, who live in perfect defiance of true Religion, is an Idola∣try so detestable, that I have not at hand a name of sufficient infamy to bestow upon it.

PART 8. Of their Idolatry in worshipping the Images of Demons.

THirdly, The Gentiles were Idolaters in worship∣ping the Statues or Images of Demons or He∣roe's, either as those Powers were reputed the Depu∣ties of God; or as they were really evil spirits. The Religious Honour given to the Prototype was Idola∣trous, and therefore the Honour done to the Image respecting the Prototype, was such also. So he that bows towards the Chair of an Usurper, does give a∣way the honour of the true Soveraign; because the external sign of his submission is ultimately referred to the Usurper himself.

The Honour which the Gentiles did to their Sta∣tues, redounded generally to their Demons; for their Theology did not set up such Images (whatsoever vul∣gar fancy or practice did) as final objects of worship, or Gods in themselves. It set them up as places of Di∣vine Residence, wherein the Genii were thought to dwell, or to afford their especial presence in Ora∣cles, and other Supernatural aids; as the true God was said to dwell amidst the Cherubims. The Egypti∣ans (as Ruffinus a 1.157 storieth) entertained this supersti∣tious perswasion, amongst a multitude of others, That if any man had laid violent hands on the Statue of Serapis, the Heavens and the Earth would have been mixed together in a new Chaos. Olympius the Sophist b 1.158 exhorteth the Gentiles still to adhere to the Reli∣gion of their Gods, notwithstanding the Christians defaced their Statues. And he gave them this as the reason of his counsel, Because (said he) though the Images be corruptible things, yet in them did dwell c 1.159 Virtues [or Demons] which from the ruins of

their Statues, took their flight to Heaven. This Opi∣nion Arnobius a 1.160 and Lactantius b 1.161 acknowledg to have been common among the Gentiles: and we may still read it in the writings of the wiser (shall I say, or the subtler and less excusable) sort of them. Of that number were Celsus and Julian. Celsus demandeth c 1.162, Whether any man, besides a sottish Ideot who has not a grain of salt in his mind, can believe Stone, Wood, Brass, or Gold, formed by an Artificer, to be a God, and not rather a Statue sacred to the Gods? The Ex∣cuse of Julian is not unlike to that of Celsus.

We worship Images (said that d 1.163 Apostate Emperour), not that we think them to be very Gods themselves, but that by them [as Symbols] we may worship the Gods.

This Petavius the Jesuit in his Note on the Margent, calleth a frigid Evasion. I grant it is so; but is not the like Apology used in justification of Image∣worship, by that Society of which Petavius was a a Brother? So goes the world, even the Learned world: the same reason is by factious Partiality called a piller in one mans Cause, and a straw in anothers.

But let us return to our Argument from this short digression. In pursuit of it, it ought to be taken no∣tice of, that the Writers of the Old Testament seem to speak very differently from Celsus and Julian, in this matter of the Worship of Images and Statues. They seem to upbraid the Gentiles as the Worshippers of the very Statues themselves, without further reference un∣to God or Demons. There stood in Zion, then a Fort of the Jebusites, certain brazen Images, as Talismanical Protectors of it e 1.164; in them the people trusted, be∣lieving that David f 1.165 could not take that Fort till he had removed those divine Guards. With these Da∣vid reproached the people, calling them the Blind and the Lame, which his soul abhorred; that is, such

Idols as had eyes and saw not; feet, and walked not. Other Prophets argue with Idolaters from their own experience; and appeal to them, whether their Idols could hear, or see, or help them? and whether they were not the works of mens hands which they ado∣red a 1.166? They mock them as such who prayed for a prosperous Journey, to an Idol that could not move; and who worshipped one part of a dead Tree, which by the other part of it, served for fuel; for fuel, not for their Altars but for the ordinary fires of their Kit∣chin. They do not deride them as vain men who trust∣ed in a creature which had no power or virtue in it but what it derived from God, as a late French Au∣thor seems to suggest b 1.167; but as such who depended on an Idol; on a thing which neither in it self, nor from any foreign cause, supreme or subordinate, con∣tained or dispensed the virtue they ascribed to it. One would be apt to conclude from such scoffs of the Pro∣phets, that the Gentiles made their very Images their ultimate Gods.

They did so by interpretation, but not by direct in∣tention of mind, unless they were the very scum of the scum of the world. Those who had any measure of understanding discoursed after the manner of Clinia in Plato's Eleventh Book of Laws c 1.168.

Of the Gods (said Clinia) some are seen; to others, which we see not, we erect Images and Statues. And though these Statues be in themselves without life; yet we esteem them animated Deities, and believe whilst we worship them, that they are very favourable to us.

The barbarous Americans made the same distinction with the Philosophical Clinia. They were upbraided by Frier Gage d 1.169 for worshipping an Idol of black wood which they had placed in a Cave of the Earth. But instead of putting them to silence, he received this

answer from them. They told him that themselves be∣lieved the Image to be but wood of it self; but that they knew also by their own ears, that it had spoken to them: they thence concluded that a God was in it, and that on such a miraculous voice, they rightly foun∣ded their devotion. This excuse then was common, but so was not such extraordinary operation as the Ameri∣cans spake of. If it had been vulgarly notorious among the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians, the Prophets would scarce have appealed to them, whilst they dis∣coursed of the nullity and vanity of their Images; for then the people might have refuted their Argument by professing their experience of signs and wonders. But nothing was done Supernaturally by many of their Statues. Their Priests and Statesmen deluded them fre∣quently with their Tales and Arts; and they sacrificed many of the Provisions for their BELS, to their own stomack. Haly speaketh a 1.170 of Images in Egypt known to himself, which could move very strangely, as did the Dove of Archytas. Ruffinus mentioneth an Iron-Image of Serapis at Alexandria; and Pliny one of the same metal in the Temple of Arsinoe, sustained by Magnets b 1.171; to the intent that the people might be∣hold them with admiration, as supported in the air by nothing but Miracles. Dionysius Halicarnassensis c 1.172 tell∣eth of the Mother of Marcius Coriolanus, and of other Women sent in Embassy to him by the Senate, when he had made defect to the Volsci; that prevailing with him to restrain his Forces, the Senate out of the pub∣lick Treasury built to Fortune a Temple and an Image, and the Women erected a second Image at their pri∣vate charge. Of this second Image he reporteth out of the Pontifical Records (Registers of their own cheats under better names and colours); that it spake Latine in the audience of many. What it spake was it seems

to this sense, O ye Matrons! ye, by the Holy Law of the Commonwealth, have made this dedication of me.

Where there was not this deeper art, much was contributed towards the delusion of the people, by the solemn worship, the costly and pompous dress, the stately Processions, the secret Repositories of the Idols of the Heathen. Distance procured reverence, and the splendor of Gold (of which some consisted, and the gilding by which others a 1.173 were made very glorious) created amusement b 1.174 in the eyes and fancies of the Vulgar, who have scarce reason enough to correct their senses. The Statuaries were not masters of much true Art: we see little of proportion in their Images, or of Ordonance in their Tables. That of Isis shews an ill hand, and a worse judgment. But of such Art as might amuse and astonish, either with pleasant or frightful magnificence, there was enough among the rudest Gentiles. In Goa the Heathens of East-India c 1.175 built a Temple of black stone, and shaped their Pa∣gods, or Idols, in figures of horror. In Pegu d 1.176 they abounded with Idols of pure gold, whose Crowns were enriched with valuable Jewels. One of these was of a prodigious heighth, and they called him Apalita, and supposed him to be a Guide to Pilgrims. They had also a statue of silver in the proportion of a Giant; and he was such a Patron among them as Mars was a∣mong the Greeks and Romans. Peter Della Valle e 1.177 speaks of an Image in Ahineli in the same India, called Virena. It stood (as he describes it) at the upper-end of a Temple upon a Tribunal, in a dark and solemn place. It had many Candles set before it in the time of its worship. They carried it sometimes in Procession, under a rich Canopy, with noises of Musick, with Perfumes, and lighted Tapers. There were other infe∣rior Idols serving as his Attendants. And they had Dia∣dems

like to those of the Images of Saints at Rome, or like to the Regno or Pontifical Crown of the Pope. He said it, who was both a Roman, and a Roman Catho∣lick. And his description of Virena puts me in mind of that of the Virgin of Halla made by Lipsius a 1.178: It stands aloft, it is lighted with Tapers, it is of silver; the Image of Christ and of the Twelve Apostles are nigh it; an Angel stands on either side, a silver Lamp hangs by. This pomp amuseth; it is well if it hath not a more Idolatrous effect. The forecited Della Valle de∣scribes a Carr in Ikkeri b 1.179, in which the Idols were carried in pompous Procession; the Carr was excee∣ding high, and so very great that scarce any but one of the widest Streets of Rome would (he saith) have been capable of receiving it, and giving it passage. Arnobius observeth concerning the Gentiles c 1.180, That they designed to create Fear by the manner in which they framed the Statues of the Gods. Hence (as he no∣teth) Sythes and Clubs, and Thunder-bolts were ap∣pendages to their Idols. I will end these Instances with a Discourse of St. Austin's in his fourth Epistle.

For Idols, who is there that doubts whether they be void of all perception? But when they are by an honourable sublimeness, placed on their Thrones, and observed by them who pray and offer Sacrifice; those Idols by the likeness of animated members, and of organs of sense (though indeed there be no life in them) do so affect the minds of vveak people, that they appear to them to live and to breathe: They do so especially through the veneration of the multitude, vvhilst so pompous and so divine a wor∣ship is bestovved on them.

There being then in most of such Idols, no divine virtue, but an artificial form and motion; they vvho worshipped them, whatsoever they intended to wor∣ship

in them, were truly said to worship them them∣selves. This I may illustrate by the confession of Ar∣nobius who was once himself a Pagan Infidel a 1.181.

I worshipped (said he), Oh my blindness! such Gods as came out of the Smith's Furnace, and such as were fashioned by the Hammer and Anvil. I worshipped the bones of Elephants:

[for they, as Peireskius b 1.182 noteth, were honoured by mistake, for those of Gi∣ants.]

I adored a smooth stone, and a Wooden sta∣tue. I flattered the Image, as if there were a Deity present there: I spake to it, I asked benefits of it, though it perceived nothing.

The Prophets therefore used an Argument most ac∣commodable to the Gentiles, and tending the most ready way to their conviction. For if they vvould not have been most sottishly credulous c 1.183, if they would not have permitted their fancies to have imposed upon their understandings; if they would but have exami∣ned matters of fact with any degree of diligence and impartiality, the generality of them might have known concerning their Images, that they had usually no more of Inspiration or Divinity in them, than the stones of their streets, or the posts of their doors d 1.184. The Fathers in their Disputations with the Heathens, do frequently use this Argument against their Images, and deride them for worshipping things which can neither help men nor themselves e 1.185. And thence by the way, I take leave to observe that if they believ'd the Bread to be Christs real natural body, they argued with Inconsistence. For then it would have been an obvious retort, that the object which they themselves worshipped in the Sacrament could not deliver it self from a contemptible Mouse.

From the importance of this Discourse, some an∣swer may be returned to an Argument used by the

Learned Mr. Thorndike a 1.186, who supposed Idolatry to consist in Polytheism. He would prove the Calf or Idol of Samaria to have been the ultimate object of them who adored it; because in Amos b 1.187 it is objected to them, That the Workman made it, and therefore it was not God. Here the Prophet only useth an Argument which appealeth to their own reason, and which they might have used themselves, but did not. Judg among your selves (said he in effect) whether this Statue thus framed can be a God, what divine power soever you think to reside in it; yet you do by interpretation, make it your God, because you worship that which is before you, and there is nothing but the Image it self; nothing in it, no virtue issuing from it. Wherefore, notwithstanding your imagination, which your com∣mon reason might correct, the thing it self is your Deity or your Idol. And the Prophet does not only ar∣gue against an Idol as against a thing made with hands, but also as a Statue which contained in it no more of Coelestial influence than a common Image. For he fore∣telleth in the sixth verse, that it was to be broken; and in the fifth, seventh, and eighth verses, he obser∣veth, that it could not save them from Captivity, but on the other hand, exposed them to it.

PART 9. Of their Worshipping Daemons more than God.

LAst of all, the Gentiles were Idolaters by justling out the Worship of the Supreme God, or very much of it, through their officiousness in the service of Inferior Deities. They could not but be guilty if they gave away Gods honour, in whole, or in part. And in part at least, it is certain that they converted it to the use of Creatures. God who governeth the World

ought to have received the honour of their devout Prayers, and becoming Sacrifices; and the greatest part of these, and sometimes the whole of them was offered to Daemons. For who esteemeth that Tenant faithful to the honour and interest of his Lord, who payeth the greatest rent to another, and offereth him a pepper-corn, though he hath reserved the whole pro∣priety, and the very reception to himself. Divers Ma∣sters cannot be at the same time observed with equal duty: and Devotion cannot flow in the same plenty, in divers streams, as in one. Therefore when Tarquinius Priscus multiplied Deities, and introduced Statues a∣mong the Romans, their Religion was immediately much debased: when they had many Jupiters, and a great croud of other Deities, and every Deity had its Statue, its Altar, its Sacrifice, its Temple; little time was left, and as little zeal for the Worship of the God of Heaven and Earth. To him some of them scarce ever said a Prayer, or offered a Sacrifice. Porphyry thought not such services to be agreeable to the Su∣preme God a 1.188, but he concluded that men were to adore him,

Without words, without Sacrifices, in silence, with a pure mind. But this was a Worship so abstracted,

that few other Heathens either performed it, or so much as understood it. Yet some might do both. For Confusio the famed Philosopher of China b 1.189, acknowledg'd one Supreme God; but he did not serve him with Temples, Altars, Priests, or Prayers; though by such worship he Idolized the Heavens, the Earth, and Man.

Let this then from the Premises be the conclusion of the present Chapter, that the Gods of the Heathen are Idols and Vanities, and unworthy the submission of any reasonable creature c 1.190.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Job 31. 28.
• b 1.2

  Porphyr. ap Euseb. de prae∣par. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. p. 98.
• c 1.3

  Mandeslo in his Trav. p. 154. They have no knowledg of the worlds creation, &c.
• a 1.4

  1 Cor. 10. 20.
• b 1.5

  Acts 14. 15.
• c 1.6

  D. M. Antid. ag. Idol. and Reply. p. 258. See Spal. de Rep. •…•…ccl. l. 7. c. 12. p. 287.
• d 1.7

  Rom; 1. 20, 21.
• a 1.8

  1 Cor. 1. 21. Psal. 79. 6. Jer. 10. 25. 1 Thes. 4. 5.
• b 1.9

  See the Sta∣tue of Ifis in Kirch. Oedip. Synt. 3. c. 4. p. 189.
• c 1.10

  Pornutus de Nat. Deor. c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, p. 69.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.11

  Bardes. Syr. ap. Porphyr. Fragm. at Styge, p. 283, 284.
• a 1.12

  Pignor. de Mensâ Isiacâ. p. 2, 3.
• b 1.13

  T•…•…. Tibi una. Quae es. omnia. dea. Isis. Arri∣us Babi•…•…us V. C;
• c 1.14

  Macrob. Sa∣turn. l. 1. c. 12. p. 242.
• d 1.15

  Sol. Opt. Max.—Mens mundi. Dux om∣nium Princepsq•…•….
• e 1.16

  Porphyr. de Abstinen. l. 4. p. 157. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• a 1.17

  See Marsh. Cron. Can. p. 433, 434.
• b 1.18

  Macrob. Sa∣turn. l. 1. c. 20. p. 299. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• c 1.19

  Pornut. de Nat. deor. p. 4. de Jove.
• d 1.20

  S. Aug. de Ci•…•…. Dei. l. 4, c. 31. p. 272, 273.
• a 1.21

  See Porphyr. de Abstin.
• b 1.22

  S. Chrys. op, vol. 6. de Trin. p. 189. B. C.
• c 1.23

  Cyr. Alex. contra Julian. l. 1. p. 23. A.
• a 1.24

  Cyr. ibid. p 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• b 1.25

  Cyr. Ib. p. 32.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.—
• c 1.26

  Cyr. Ib. p. 33. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• a 1.27

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.28

  Arch. Pytbag, ap. Stobaeum, in Serm. 1. p. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• c 1.29

  Tim. Locr. de An. Mundi. In∣ter op. Plat. v. 3. p. 96—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.30

  Plat. Polit. Vol. 2. p. 269. C. E. and p. 270. A.
• e 1.31

  Plat. in Soph. vol. 1. p. 265. C.
• f 1.32

  Plato in Ti∣mae•…•…. vol. 3. p. 28.
• g 1.33

  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 1.34

  Plato ibid. p. 34. B.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.35

  Tim. Locr. de An: Mun•…•…i, in∣ter Opufc. Graec. p. 6.
• c 1.36

  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 1.37

  Stobae. Serm. 78. de Diis. p. 466. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.38

  Mandesto's Travels into the Indies. l. 1. p. 55.
• a 1.39

  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 1.40

  L. Ann. Flo∣rus. l. 1. c. 2. p. 4, 5. And Dion. Halicarn. l. 2, Sect. 78. p. 186, 187, 188, &c.
• c 1.41

  Dion. Hal. ibid. p. 183.
• d 1.42

  Flor. ibid. Ille sacra, & ceremonias, om∣nem{que} cultum deorum immor∣talium docuit: Ille Pontifices, Augures, &c.
• e 1.43

  See Dion. Halicarn. l. 2. p. 191, 192. of the un∣known myst. of Numa.
• a 1.44

  See Lud. Viv. in S. Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 4. c. 31. p. 273.
• b 1.45

  Tertul. Apolo. get. Sect. 25. p. 25.—ni∣dor exilis, & Deus ipse nus∣quam.
• c 1.46

  Cicero de nat. Deor. l. 1. Op. p. 1113.—fed nos deum, nisi sempiter∣num, Iutelligere quî possumus?
• d 1.47

  Ap. Stobae. Serm. 46. de Regno. p. 330, 331, 332.
• e 1.48

  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 1.49

  Arnob. l. 1. p. 19.
• b 1.50

  Tertul. de I∣dol. Sect. 21. p. 98.
• c 1.51

  Chytr. Mon. Roman. A. 1568. p. 2.
• d 1.52

  See the In∣ser. ap. Saubert. de Sacrific. c. 5. p. 101. I. O. M. caeteris{que} Dis consentib.
• e 1.53

  Plato in Eu∣thy. p. 5. Vol. 1.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• a 1.54

  Marc. Anton. ap. Just. Mart. In sine Apol. 2. p. 102.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.—
• b 1.55

  Cic. de nat. deor. l. 2. p. 1129, Adspice boc sublime Can∣dens, Quem in∣vocant omnes Jovem.
• c 1.56

  Simplic. in Epict. Enchir. p. 331. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.57

  Socr. ap. Pla∣ton. Phaedr. in fine. p. 279. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.
• * 1.58

  d Plat. Alcib. 2. p. 138. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• f 1.59

  p. 143. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• g 1.60

  Plato in Tim∣maeo. Vol. 3. p. 27.
• a 1.61

  Plato de Le∣gibus. l. 4. vol. 2. p. 712. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.62

  Plato in The∣•…•…g. Vol. 1. p. 131.
• c 1.63

  Mart. Hist. Sin. l. 4. p. 149.
• d 1.64

  Orig. contr. Ce•…•…s. l. 7. p. 362.
• a 1.65

  Orig. contr. Cels. l. 7. p. 376.
• a 1.66

  Julian Apost. ap. S. Cyril. A∣lex. l. 4. ad Init. p. 115.
• b 1.67

  Julian in Fragm. p. 534. Oper.
• c 1.68

  Jul. ap. Cyr. Al. l. 10. cont. Jul. p. 354.
• d 1.69

  Ap. Cyr. Al. l. 10. p. 354. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.70

  Jul. in Frag. Epist. p. 541. op.
• f 1.71

  S. Cyr. l. 10. p. 355, 356.
• g 1.72

  Id. l 4. contr. Jul. p. 128. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.73

  2 Kings 17. 26, 27.
• b 1.74

  Hosea 3. 1. 2, 3.
• a 1.75

  Callicr. ap. Stob. Serm. 83. p. 486. 20.
• * 1.76

  b Plutarch. de audiend. Poet. p. 23.
• c 1.77

  Max. Tyr: Dissert. 38. utrum diis sint dicandae statuae. p. 371.
• a 1.78

  Orig. contr. Cels. l. 7. p. 362. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• b 1.79

  Plato in Epi∣nom. p. 983, 984.
• a 1.80

  Maimon. de Idol. l. 1. c. 1. p. 3.
• b 1.81

  L. 2. c. 1:
• c 1.82

  Diod. Sic. Bi∣bl. Hift. l. 2. c. 30. p. 113.
• d 1.83

  Ap. Gassen∣dum, in vol. 5. Op. l. 4. p. 560. & in Marm. Farnes. ap. Stew. Elect. p. 120.
• a 1.84

  Dorylaits, ap. Censor. de die nat. c. 13. p. 57.
• a 1.85

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Por∣phyr. de Thebai∣dos Incolis. Coelum est Testa; item Vitellùm, Terra; inter illa duo humor quasi in sinum clusus aeri, in quo ca∣lor. Varro. See Voss. de Theol. Gentil. l. 1. c. 5. p. 17.
• a 1.86

  L. A. Flor. l. 1. c. 2. de Numâ, P. p. 4. Ille Ancilia, at{que} Palladium, secreta quaedam ImperiiPignora, &c.
• b 1.87

  Macr. in som•…•… Scipion. l. 1. c. 2. p. 9. nullum ejus [h. e. summi dei] si∣mulachrum, quod cum Dis aliis constitue∣retur, finxit Antiquitas.
• c 1.88

  Viret. de O∣rig. vet. & no∣vae Idol. l. 3. c. 9. p. 84.
• d 1.89

  Plato de Le∣gibus. l. 12. p. 955, 956.
• e 1.90

  Pl•…•…n. nat. Hist. l. 34. c. 7. p. 870.—lig∣nea, &c. deor∣simul.—us{que} ad devictam Asiam.—
• a 1.91

  Porphyr. ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 11. p. 115. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• b 1.92

  Cartari Imag. Par. 1. p. 81, Imagine del dio creatore degli Egittii, &c.
• c 1.93

  Porph. ap. Eus. de praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. p. 97, 98.
• d 1.94

  Orig. Contr, Cels. l. 7. p. 376.
• e 1.95

  Cels. ap. Orig. ibid.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.96

  J. Mather in Hist. of the War in New-England with the Indians. p. 13.
• a 1.97

  Kirch. Oed. Synt. 1. c. 5. p. 118.
• b 1.98

  Ap. Kirch. Ibid. Synt. 3. c. 2. p. 218.
• c 1.99

  Id. ibid. Tom. 3. p. 277.
• d 1.100

  p. 279.
• e 1.101

  p. 2•…•…0.
• f 1.102

  p. 281.
• g 1.103

  p. 282.
• h 1.104

  p. 292.
• i 1.105

  p. 295.
• k 1.106

  p. 344.
• l 1.107

  p. 300.
• m 1.108

  S. Aug. de Civ. De•…•…. l. 8. c. 12. Quod •…•…tiam Platonici, licet de uno ve. ro Deo bene senserint, multis tamen Diis sa∣•…•…ra facienda censuerunt.
• a 1.109

  Tertull. de Animâ. c. 23. p. 280. Doleo bonâ fide Pla∣tonem omnium haereticorum condimentari∣um sactum.
• b 1.110

  Petav. de Trin. l. 1. c. 8. Sect. 2.
• c 1.111

  Porphyr. ap. S. Cyr. contr. Jul. l. 1. p. 32.
• d 1.112

  Id. ib. p. 31. D. E. in l. 4. Philos. Hist.
• a 1.113

  Cyril. Ibid. p. 34. B. C.
• b 1.114

  Porph. Ib. p. 34. C. D.
• c 1.115

  Plato in Parmen. p. 141. Vol. 3.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Et ap. Cyy. l. 1. cont. Jul. p. 32. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.116

  Anon. de Vitâ Pythag. p. 213.
• a 1.117

  Tertull. de Animâ, c. 18. p. 276.
• b 1.118

  See Ser∣ran. in Arg. Timael Platon. pag. 6.
• c 1.119

  See Sallust. de Diis & Mundo. c. 7. p. 15.
• d 1.120

  See Serran. in Arg. Timaei, p. 5.
• a 1.121

  Sallust. de Diis & Mundo. c. 6. p. 13, 14.
• b 1.122

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• a 1.123

  Plato ap. S. Cyr. Alex. cont. Julian. l. 2. p. 61.
• b 1.124

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c 1.125

  Plato de Leg. lib. 10. Vol. 2. p. 899, 900, 901, 902, 903. 904.
• d 1.126

  Id. p. 273▪
• e 1.127

  Id. p. 980.
• f 1.128

  Id. in Phaed. Vol. 1. p. 62, 63.
• g 1.129

  Id. ibid. p. 63. A.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h 1.130

  Jul. ap. S. Cyr. l. 4. p. 115.
• i 1.131

  Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 1. sect. 57. p. 49.
• k 1.132

  Elm. in Not. in Arnob. l. 1. p. 23. Jovi Opt. Max. & Geni•…•… Loci.
• l 1.133

  Alv. Simed•…•… in Hist. Sin. part. 1. c. 18. p. 86, 87.
• a 1.134

  Mandesto's Travels, l. 1. p. 55.
• b 1.135

  See Isai. 41. 22, 23. c. 43. 11, 12, 13. c. 45. 5, 6, 7.
• c 1.136

  S. Cyr. Alex. cont. Jul. l. 4. p: 124.
• a 1.137

  Vatabl. in Dan. 10. 13. singulae Regi•…•…∣nes habent Pre∣sides singulos.
• b 1.138

  Dan. 10. 10.
• c 1.139

  Vers. 1•…•…
• a 1.140

  Act. 14. 15, 16, 17.
• b 1.141

  1 Cor. 8. 5.
• c 1.142

  See Iren. l. 1. c. 12. p. 86, 87.
• d 1.143

  Vide Iren. passim, & S. Aug. de Haer. in Haer. Val. c. 11. p. 33, 34.
• e 1.144

  Maimon. More Neb. part. 3. c. 17. p. 381, 382, 383.
• a 1.145

  S. Cyril. Al. cont. Jul. l. 2. p. 60.
• b 1.146

  Isa. 40. 28.
• c 1.147

  Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 8. p. 464. c. 13. de senten∣tiâ Platonis quâ definivit Deos non esse nisi Bonos ami∣cosque virtu∣tum.
• d 1.148

  Plato in Phaedon. Vol. 1. p. 82. B. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• a 1.149

  Porphyr. l. 2. de Abstin. Sect. 58. p. 96.
• b 1.150

  1 Cor. 10. 20.
• c 1.151

  A p. S. Cyril. Al. cont. Jul. l. 4. p. 124. See Porph. in l. 2. de Abstin. Sect. 42. p. 85, 86. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [vehiculum aereum, ra∣ther than, pars spiritalis, used by the Translator,] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• d 1.152

  See S. Cyril. contr. Jul. l 4. p. 129.
• e 1.153

  Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 2. p. 93, 94, 95, &c.
• a 1.154

  Orig. cont. cels. l. 3. p. 133.
• b 1.155

  Id. ibid. p. 123.
• c 1.156

  Gage in his Survey of the West-Ind. c. 12. p. 115.
• a 1.157

  Ruffin. Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 23.
• b 1.158

  Olymp. Soph. ap. Soz. Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 15. p. 724. Ed. •…•…ales.
• c 1.159

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• a 1.160

  Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 6. p. 203, &c.
• b 1.161

  Lact. l. 2. de Orig. Err. Sect. 2. p. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145.
• c 1.162

  Cels. ap. Orig. l. 7. p. 373. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;
• d 1.163

  Julian. in Fragm. inter Op. p. 537. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e 1.164

  See Mr. Greg. Notes on the place.
• f 1.165

  2 Sam. 5. 6, 7, 8.
• a 1.166

  Isa. 41. 7, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29. & 44. 9, to 20. & 45. 20. & 46. 6, 7. Hab. 2. 18, 19, 20. Zach. 10. 1, 2.
• b 1.167

  De la Recher∣che de la verite. Tom. 2. liv. 6. c. 8. p. 327, 328.
• c 1.168

  Plato de Le∣gibus, l. 11. p. 930, 931.
• d 1.169

  Gage in Sur∣vey of west-Ind. c. 20. p. 391, to p. 398.
• a 1.170

  Apud Reichel∣tum de Amule∣tis. p. 36.
• b 1.171

  See Pincieri AEnigm. l. 1. AEnig. 7. p. 17, 18.
• c 1.172

  Dion. Hali∣carn. Rom. Ant. l. 8. sect. 10. p. 784, 785.
• a 1.173

  Tertull. de Idol. p. 89. Soccus & Baxa deaurantur, &c. See Isai. 40. 19.
• b 1.174

  Porphyr. de Stat. Brachman. ap. Bardes. Syr. p. 283. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.
• c 1.175

  Vincent le Blanc in his Travels, p. 50.
• d 1.176

  Le Blanc, p. 125.
• e 1.177

  Della Valle in his Travels, p. 114, 115.
• a 1.178

  Lips. Oper. Tom. 3. pag. 1250, 1251. Ed. Vesal. 1675.
• b 1.179

  P. D. Valle, p. 129.
• c 1.180

  Arnob. contr. Gent. l. 6. p. 209.
• a 1.181

  Arnob. l. 1. p. 22, 23.
• b 1.182

  Gass. in vitâ Peiresk. l. 2. p. 90. l. 4. p. 151, 152.
• c 1.183

  See Isa. 46. 8. Remember this [viz. v. 7. that Idols can't move, or an∣swer,] and shew your selves men, Isa. 44. 19. There is no un∣derstanding to say, I have burnt part of it in the fire.
• d 1.184

  See Isa. 46. 1, 2.
• e 1.185

  Arnob. l. 1. p. 22, 23. Bene∣ficia poscebam nihil sentiente de Trunco. L. 6. p. 200. Amen∣tia Deum crede∣re, quem tute ip∣se formaris? supplicare tre∣mebundum fa∣bricatae abs te rei? p. 202. Non videtis' sub istorum simula∣chrorum cavis—mures—babitare?—in ore—ab Araneis ordiri retia?
• a 1.186

  Mr. Thorn∣dike's Epilogue, part 3. p. 298.
• b 1.187

  Amos 8. 6.
• a 1.188

  See Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 1. Sect. 57. p. 49. & l. 2. Sect. 34. p. 78. And see upon his words there, S. Cyr. Alex. cont. Jul. l. 2. p. 60, 61.
• b 1.189

  Alvarez Si∣medo in Hist. Sin. Par. 1. c. 18. p. 86.
• c 1.190

  Jer. 10. 8. They are alto∣gether brutish, the stock is a doctrine of Va∣nities.