Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Part 2 · Chapter 1

Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Part 2 · Chapter 1

p. 349CHAP. I. The State of the Controversie about the Worship of Images, between Christians and Heathens.

HAving in the precedent Discourse given a general account of the Nature of Idolatry, §. 1.I now come to the particulars in dispute between us. The first whereof is, concerning the worship of Images; in which nothing is more necessary, than to give a true account of the State of the Controversie; p. 350which that I may do with the greatest clearness,

1. I shall consider wherein the State of this Controversie lay, as it was managed between the Christians and Heathens.

2. I shall give a just account of the Rise, and progress of this Controversie in the Christian Church. And when by this means, the State of the Controversie is well understood, the difficulty will not be great in giving answers to all the Sophistical Cavils of T. G.

1. For the State of the Controversie about the Worship of Images between the Christians and Heathens. To this purpose I had used these expressions in my former Discourse,Disc. of Idol. ch. 1. sect. 7. That S. Paul dealing with the Athenians, did prove the unreasonableness of their worshipping God by Images, because he was the God that made the world, Acts 17.24, 25, 29.Acts 17:24Acts 17:25Acts 17:29and is Lord of heaven and earth, and that we are his offspring, therefore we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone graven by art or mans device; where I observed, that the Apostle doth not speak meerly against their other objects of worship besides the true God, nor their supposing their Gods to be present in their Images, nor taking their Images for Gods, but against p. 351their supposition, that there was any resemblance between God and their Images, or that he was capable of receiving any honour by them. The same argument, I added, S. Paul useth to the Romans, Rom. 1.19Rom 1:19speaking of those in whom that which may be known of God is manifest, even his Eternal Power and Godhead, yet these persons who knew God, v. 21.did not glorifie him as God, but changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, &c. where changing his glory into Images, is, I said,v. 23. immediately opposed to the glorifying him as God, in respect of his Eternal Power and Godhead, so that these two are inconsistent with each other, to glorifie God by an Image, and to glorifie him as God. For here the Apostle doth not discourse against the most gross and sottish Idolaters of the Heathens, but as S. Chrysostom well observes, against the Philosophers, and the Wisest among them, who, although they differed in their opinions of Religion extreamly from the Vulgar, yet they concurred with them in all the external practices of Idolatry. And therefore the Apostle doth not charge them with false notions of a Deity, for he saith, that they held the Truth in unrighteousness, v. 18, 21.and that they p. 352did know God: but they shewed their vanity and folly in thinking they had found out subtiller wayes of defending the common Idolatries among them; and instead of opposing them, made use of their Wits to excuse them. To which I added this material observation, That the most intelligent Heathens did never look on their Images as any other, than Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine worship; for which purpose I produced several Testimonies of Celsus, Porphyrie, Athanasius, Arnobius, S. Augustin, Max. Tyrius, Iulian and Eusebius, from whence I desired to know whether these men, who worshipped Images on those grounds, did amiss or no in it? I do not ask, as my words are expresly, whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their worship; but on supposition they were not, whether they were to blame in the manner of serving God by Images, in such a way as they describe? if not, wherefore doth S. Paul pitch upon that, to condemn them for, which they were at not all to blame in? He ought, I said, to have done, as the Iesuits in China did, who never condemned the people for worshipping Images, Trigant. de Christ. Exped. apud Sinas l. 5. c. 16. p. 588but for worshipping false Gods by them, and perswaded them not p. 353to lay them aside, but to convert them to the honour of the true God; and so melted down their former Images, and made new ones of them. Can we imagine S. Paul meant the same thing, when he blames men, not for believing them to be Gods, but that God could be worshipped by the work of mens hands, and for changing thereby the glory due to God in regard of his infinite and incorruptible Being, into mean and unworthy Images, thinking thereby to give honour to him? And upon these grounds, I there shew, that the Primitive Fathers disputed against the Heathen Idolatry: Ch. 1. Sect. 8.for the making use of corporeal representations makes the Deity contemptible, saith Clemens of Alexandria. Clem. Strom. 5. p. 559.Origen saith,Orig. c. Cels. l. 7. p. 375. that Christians have nothing to do with Images, because of the second Commandment; and on that account will rather dye, than defile themselves with them; and that it is impossible any one that knows God, should pray to them: That it is no sufficient excuse to say, they do not take them for Gods, but only for Symbols or representations of them, for they must be ignorant, mean, and unlearned persons, who can imagine the work of an Artificer can be any representation of a Deity. I shewed further,Ch. 1. Sect. 6. that many of the p. 354wiser Heathens themselves condemned the worship of God by Images, as incongruous to a divine nature, and a disparagement to the Deity, as Zeno, Xenophanes, Antisthenes, Xenophon, Numa, Varro, and many others.

§. 2.Having thus laid down so much of my former Discourse together, as was necessary to understand the State of the Controversie, I come now to consider what T. G. doth answer to it.

1. To the places of S. Paul, Acts 17.24. and Rom. 1.19. he saith, that no one ever denyed the unsuitableness of the worship of such Images to the Divine Nature, T.G. p. 96.as are conceived to be proper likenesses, or representations of the Divinity, of which S. Paul speaks in the first place; or of the Images of the false Gods of the Heathens, of which he speaks in the latter.

In reply to this, I begin with the first place, Acts 17.24. where, he saith, it is plain from S. Pauls words, that they thought the Divinity to be like to the Images they made of gold and silver: and this was a mighty argument from the mouth of S. Paul to drive that erroneous conceit out of the minds of the Athenians, who believed the Divinity to be like the p. 355Images they made; but none at all from my pen against Catholicks, who detest the thoughts of having or making any such Image. This then is the question between us, whether S. Paul's discourse against the Athenians did proceed only on the supposition of the Divinity being like to their Images, or whether the dissimilitude between them be not made use of by the Apostle as an argument to shew that Images are not a proper suitable means whereby to worship God? For which we are to consider the Apostles scope and design; which certainly was to convince them of their Idolatry. For it is said, ver. 16. that his Spirit was stirred within him, when he saw the City wholly given to Idolatry; and in the beginning of his speech he takes notice of their Bigoterie in the Heathen worship, ver. 22. & 23. that among their foreign, i. e. Idols, saith Theophylact, he had espied an Altar with this Inscription, To the unknown God: and upon this he takes an occasion more fully to discover him whom they ignorantly worshipped, and withal to shew the unreasonableness of their worshipping God at all by Images. If the Apostles design had been, as T. G. imagines, to drive that erroneous conceit out of the minds of the Athenians, p. 356that the Divinity was like to their Images; his Spirit should not have been moved, at the sight of their Images, but at their discourses about them when he heard them own the Divinity to be like them. For, in case they only looked on their Images as helps to their devotion; or as Analogical representations of some divine perfections, although they did worship God by them, T. G. must think then S. Paul a little too hasty to be so soon angry at the sight of them; for upon this ground his Spirit might be stirred within him, at the sight of the Altars and devotions in Rome, as well as Athens. But S. Paul did not wait for any decree of the Areopagus in this matter; he saw enough to inflame his zeal, in their practices, and publick worship, without looking after any distinctions of their Sophisters and School-Divines; although there were many upon the place ready to justifie every rite of their worship, and that would not let go one tittle of their grossest superstitions for all the truth and Reason in the world. They could find out as many Analogies and Metaphorical significations as other men; and thought it as little disparagement to the Deity to worship him under the several representations of Minerva, Ceres or Bacchus, p. 357when by these they understood the several effects of Gods Wisdom and Goodness in giving the fruits of the earth, as others can in representing him as an Old man with a Popes Crown on his head; or with one Head and three Faces, as some that are no Athenians have done. For Gods sake, which of the two are more apt to beget in mens minds such apprehensions of God, that he is like to men; those who make and expose such Images of the God they worship, or such who made an Inscription upon an Altar to the Unknown God? And if he were Unknown, how came they to know him to be so like themselves? What need S. Paul take such pains to drive a conceit out of their heads, which for all that we see, never entered into them? If indeed S. Paul had seen over that Altar a grave Image of a man in Pontifical Robes, with an hoary head, a long beard, and a Triple Crown; he would probably have asked them, how the Athenians, that were witty men, could be guilty of such an absurdity, to call that an Altar to the Unknown God, when they were so familiarly acquainted with him as to know the very cut of his beard, and fashion of his Crown? But, as Superstitious as the Athenians were, they were not p. 358so ridiculous; but yet because they supposed this God might be pleased with the worship of the Idols, that were not only in the Temples, but in the Streets and Forum of Athens (where Thucydides saith,Thucydid. l. 6. there were twelve Altars) therefore S. Paul discourseth of this God after such a manner, as to shew how unsuitable such a way of worship was to his Nature, and Perfections,

1. From his Infinite Power, v. 24, 25. God that made the world and all things in it, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, neither is worshipped with mens hands. Can any thing be plainer, than that here S. Paul disputes against their worship, and not their opinion? He finds no fault with their opinion about the true God, but only that it was not clear and distinct enough, in that he was too much the Unknown God among them; he takes it for granted, that one Supream God, Creator of the world was acknowledged by them; and from the consideration of that Infinite Power of his, he shews how unreasonable it was for them to circumscribe him within their Temples, or to worship him by their Images: For what are all these Images of yours, which you are p. 359so fond of, and so unwilling to part with? although they were the Statues of Phidias or Polycletus, or the Pictures of Xeuxes, or Apelles, yet still they are but the Work of mens Hands: and what are these to the Heavens and the Earth, which he hath made? If any Image deserve worship, it is one of Gods making, and not of your own; but since no Image can represent the infinite Perfections of the great Creator, never think to honour him by your foolish Puppets, and Babies of Dirt and Clay. This is the design of the Apostles argument; but what doth this signifie to their thinking the Divinity to be like themselves? For whether God were like or unlike to their Images, yet still they were the work of mens hands: as a picture is still the work of the Painter, although never so unlike the person for whom it is intended; but S. Paul condemns them for worshipping God with the work of mens hands, i. e. with Images and Statues; as being infinitely below the greatness of that Divine Power, for the sake of which we give divine worship to him.

2. From his infinite perfection; manifested by his Self-sufficiency, Needing nothing, v. 25. and from his communicating p. 360to his creatures what is needful for them, Seeing he giveth to all life and breath and all things. Now what can there be more unsuitable to the honour of such a Being, than to be worshipped by such dull, senseless, contemptible pieces of earth, which have not in them the perfection of the meanest animal, to whom God hath given life and breath; that are so far from representing the perfection and self-sufficiency of the Divine Nature, that they are not in the least able to help themselves? But when by the help of Wedges and Beetles an Image is cleft out of the Trunk of some well grown Tree, (that little dreamt of the honour which was like to come to the dullest part about it, after it should pass through the several refinings of the Carpenters Ax, whose blows it endured with admirable patience, and of the Painters Pencil, whose Miniature adds much beauty and glory to it) yet after all the skill of Artificers to set forth such a Divine Block, it cannot one moment secure it self from being eaten by Worms, or defiled by Birds, or cut in pieces by Axes; or, if any of these sail, from decaying through meer standing. Or suppose, this Worshipful Idol be made of a harder substance, and after its being digged out of p. 361the earth, and sawed, and carved, and polished, and with much ado brought into the resemblance of a man, and a rude symbol of the Deity, and set up for the adoration of mankind; yet still it wants the things which are above the utmost power of man, but are given to the least mite, viz. life, and sense, and motion, and an admirable contrivance of the instruments of these; yet such mean and pittiful things as these, will the folly of mankind find out to represent the greatest and the most perfect Being in the world. Judge now whether things that want life, and breath, and all things, are fit means whereby to worship him who giveth all these things to his creatures? or whether those things, which need the art of man to make them, and his continual care to preserve them, are fit to represent that Being, which stands in need of nothing?

3. From his Infinite Presence, v. 27, 28. That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live and move and have our Being. One of the most plausible arguments of Idolaters in all Ages was, that by the help of Images they did represent the object of their worship as present to them, p. 362so as thereby to be put more in mind of him, and to excite their reverence and Devotion; but S. Paul tells the Athenians, there was no need of any such representations of Gods presence, for he is not far from every one of us, for in him we live and move and have our beings: and that man who will not find God in those admirable effects of his Power, Wisdom, and Goodness we carry continually about us, will hardly find him in the senseless representations of Wood and Stone: and he that will not stand in awe of him, as he governs the World, will hardly fear him, when he is set forth in shape of a man, although he have a Thunderbolt in his hand.

4. From the disparity between God and Images, v. 29. For as much then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone graven by art or mans device. Upon which words, Lorinus a Iesuit makes this paraphrase, forasmuch as the Athenians following their own Poets, do confess, that we are the living Image of God, they ought to think that material Idols made by the art of men, Ioh. Lorin. in Act. Ap. c. 17. v. 29.which fall far short of the perfection of Nature, are infinitely distant from the Divine Power, by which we obtain a dignity far above p. 363these material things; and since we cannot express this Image of God in us by any lines, much less can we the Divine Original, so that it is the grossest ignorance to affirm, that God can dwell, or be included or worshipped in or by their Altars, or Images, (for so delubra must be understood by him if he speaks pertinently, for although sometime it signifies a Temple with more Images than one, yet Servius withal saith,Serv. in 4. Aen. it signifies a wooden Image, and so Festus understands it; which things I am forced to explain, to prevent cavilling; for otherwise T. G. would have complained of my perverting the sense of Authors, as he hath done very unjustly, as will appear in this Chapter.) But Lorinus, after having brought the several places of Scripture against making any Image of God, thinks to salve all by saying, they are to be understood of such Images, as represent him to the life, (as though it were possible for any to do it) or such which they worshipped for Gods, which the Heathens utterly denyed, that they did. Cornelius à Lapide, Corn. à Lap. in loc.after several vain attempts, to make out the force of the Apostles argument, at last concludes this to be it; that since our Soul according to which we are the offspring of God, cannot p. 364be painted, or represented in gold, silver, or stone, being incorporeal and spiritual; much less can the Divinity be painted or represented by them, being a pure Spirit, and the fountain of Spirits. Estius agrees,Est. in difficil. loc. ad loc. that this is the force of the Apostles argument, from whence, he saith, he doth not infer, that we ought not to think gold, silver, or stone, to be God; although he might have done it (but to little purpose) because, saith he, he spake to the Athenians, among whom were many Philosophers, learned and wise men, who did not with the Vulgar, think their Images to be Gods, although they worshipped them together with them; but they believed their Gods to be represented by them, as by their Images. If he speaks of the Epicureans, there is some ground for it; for what Deity they acknowledged, they supposed to be as-if-coporeal, and of humane shape; but he is much mistaken, that doth not account them rather Atheists than Idolaters; Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. Lactant. de Ira Dei, c. 4.and as to the other Athenian Philosophers, I shall make it appear to be a gross mistake, to suppose that they thought their Gods to be of humane shape; but of that hereafter.

The thing I now insist upon is, that the Apostle's shewing the disparity between p. 365God and Images, is not meerly to drive out the opinion of Anthropomorphitism, but from hence to shew farther the folly of Idolatry; for if Images fall so much short of the infinite perfections of God, there can be but this plea left, that they are like to him, and therefore we may worship God by them, for the sake of their resemblance of him; now this the Apostle shews to be as vain and idle a pretence as any of the rest, there being no manner of resemblance between the workmanship of gold, silver, and stone, and an Infinite and Spiritual Being.

5. From the necessity of repentance, and the consideration of a future judgement, v. 30, 31. If all the Apostle had aimed at, was only to rectifie an erroneous conceit of the Athenians about the Divinity being like to their Images, he had taken away the force of his exhortation to repentance, from the consideration of a judgement to come: because such an erroneous conceit may possess men of innocent minds and free from Idolatry, as it was the case of the Monks in Aegypt, of whom Epiphanius, Epiph. haet. 70.and S. Austin speak;Aug. de haet. c. 50. and whom Epiphanius supposeth to have been very harmless men, saving only their separation from the Church: nay, he doth not seem p. 366to apprehend any dangerous consequence of their opinion: which we need not wonder at, if that which Nicephorus saith be true,Neceph. hist. l. 13. c. 12. viz. that Epiphanius was an Anthropomorphite himself. And yet Epiphanius is well known to have been as great an enemy to Image-worship, and all kind of Idolatry, as any Person that lived in his Age. The same is observable of Tertullian and Lactantius, whereof the one attributed corporeity to God, and the other shape and figure, Pamel. de Paradox. Tertull. c. 15. Petav. dogm. Theol. To. 1. l. 2. c. 1. sect. 7.as our Adversaries confess; and yet both these were vehement disputers against the Heathen Idolatry. From whence we see, that there is no necessary connexion between this opinion, and the practice of Idolatry, or the worship of Images: and yet there is altogether as good reason why God should be worshipped by an Image, on that supposition, as why Christ should be by a Crucifix since his Incarnation; which is T. G's great argument on all occasions. But those who supposed God to be like to men, might yet think it unreasonable to worship God by the work of mens hands; and if arbitrary representation be a sufficient ground of worship, then natural would be much more so, and consequently it would be more reasonable for men to worship one p. 367another, than to worship Images: and all the same distinctions and pleasant evasions would serve for one, as well as they do for the other.

I desire now to know of T. G. whether the Athenians were to blame only for this erroneous conceit of theirs, §. 3.in thinking the Divinity to be like their Images? If this were all their fault, (1.) I dare undertake to prove, that many among them were wholly innocent, viz. those who followed the Schools of Plato and Zeno, besides those of the people who took their Images for Symbols of the Divinity. (2.) S. Paul takes very needless pains to make use of such arguments against Image-worship, which do not suppose any opinion of similitude between God and the Image; as the incongruity of Images to the Divine Power, Perfection, and Presence. (3.) Why doth he call upon them so earnestly to repent? was it only of an erroneus conceit? and that of such a nature, that the argument made use of by him, to move them to repentance, was rather apt to confirm them in that opinion, viz. that God would judge the world by that Man whom he hath appointed. If a Man be appointed to judge the world, the management p. 368of which must imply infinite Wisdom and Power, what absurdity, might they say, is it in us to suppose the Images of men to represent God, as he is the object of worship? For if the humane nature be capable of union to the Divinity, why might it not be so united alwayes, as well as at the end of the world? and if it be united, then that humane nature might be represented in an Image, and the Divine Nature honoured by worshipping that representation. Which being supposed to be lawful, the Apostles argument loses its force; for the subtile Athenians might easily have answered S. Paul, that there was no more repugnancy in supposing God to have assumed a humane body from eternity, than that he should do it so lately in Iudea; which being supposed, their defence naturally follows, for they could not be so foolish to imagine their Images to be like the Divine Nature in it self, but to that humane body which was assumed by the Divine Nature. And that this is no extravagant supposition, will appear by this, that several of the antient Christian Writers had an opinion very like this, viz. that when God is said to have made man after his own Image, it is to be understood of that humane figure p. 369and shape, which God had then assumed, which was the exemplar according to which man was created: thus Prudentius and the Audiani are understood by Petavius;Petav. i…. sect. 9. and some passages of Tertullian look much this way:Tertull. de resur. carn. c. 6. and Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus a learned but zealous Papist, Aug. Steuc. Eugub. Cosmop. p. 46.contends for the necessity of this opinion, because man saw God walking, and heard him speaking in Paradise, and because of the frequent appearances of God in humane shape, mentioned in the old Testament. And to confirm this, he brings that Verse of Ovid, Et Deus humana lustro sub imagine terras. and those of Catullus,

Praesentes namque ante, domos invisere castas

Saepius & sese mortali ostendere coetu,

Coelicolae, nondum spreta pietate solebant.

and he shews that the Fictions of Homer and the rest of the Poets, as to the Appearances of the Gods in humane shape, had their true Original from hence, that God did at first assume the Nature of p. 370Man, according to which man was said to be framed after the Image and Similitude of God. But S. Paul, although he asserts the Incarnation of Christ, yet deriving the argument against the worship of God by Images, from the consideration proper to the Divinity, we ought not to think, that the Godhead is like to gold, &c. doth thereby teach us, that that which is disagreeing to the divine nature which is the proper object of worship, cannot be a proper means for us to worship God by: so that although the Images made by men only represent the humane nature assumed by the Divine, yet because the Godhead is not like unto them, we ought not to worship God by them. For otherwise the Athenians were meer Blockheads (if it were lawful to worship the divine nature of Christ before an Image of his humane, and to give the same worship to one which belongs to the other) that they did not deny S. Pauls consequence; For what if the Godhead be not like to our Images, it doth not follow, that we may not give them divine worship as long as God hath often appeared in humane shape among us, and we may give worship to the representation of that Nature wherein he appeared, and the same that belongs to p. 371the Divine Nature, which did assume it. And I confess, I cannot see how T. G. could have defended S. Paul upon his supposition; for according to T. G.'s principles,T. G. p. 75. although before the Incarnation of Christ, the worship which people gave to the Images of Gold, was incongruous to the Divine Nature, and a Disparagement to the Deity; yet to those to whom the Mysterie of God made man is revealed, it is no disparagement to him to be represented in the likeness of man, and to be worshipped by such an Image. Very well; say the Athenians, and so say we too. To worship God by any Image, as representing his infinite and invisible Nature is folly and madness; but to make Images of him according to his several appearances for the good of mankind in the likeness of men, is no disparagement to the Deity; nor to be worshipped by such an Image. Let T.G. therefore either say, that S. Paul argues inconsequently, or acknowledge that the force of his argument doth hold against the worship of any representations of God. For it is plain to any man that hath any use of his senses, that S. Paul doth not argue against any meer erroneous conceit of the Athenians, but against their Idolatrous worship, which p. 372he first shews to be unreasonable by many arguments, and then tells them, God now commanded them to repent, and adds the most forcible motive to perswade them to it, from the proceedings of the future judgement.

But I have not yet done with T.G. about this place.T.G. p. 348. Is it not T. G. that, when he fixed his foot, as he saith, and deliberately enquired what the Supream God of the Heathens was, tells us in plain terms it was the Devil, p. 390.and an Arch-Devil; and this he doth, he saith, for Gods sake? saith he so indeed? And was this unknown God at Athens whom they ignorantly worshipped, and S. Paul declared, the Devil and an Arch-Devil? No: for here he grants, that the Athenians thought the Divinity to be like their Images; what Divinity doth he mean? Surely, not the Divinity of an Arch-Devil. But I see, those that believe Transubstantiation, are capable of speaking as well as believing contradictions. Yet, it is possible T. G. may imagine that the Athenians meant one Divinity, and S. Paul another. So some say S. Paul plaid the Sophister with the Athenians, and when the true inscription was to the Unknown Gods; he, because it served better to his purpose, reads it in the singular number, to p. 373the Unknown God. But as Cajetan wisely answers,Cajet. in loc. the Authority of S. Paul affirming there was such an Inscription, ought to be valued above those who deny it; and saith he, if there had not been any such, the Athenians who were by, might presently have charged S. Paul with falshood, in saying he met with an Inscription to the Unknown God, when there was none such among them. Lorinus shews from several Testimonies of S. Austin that the Athenians did worship the true God: and that in case the inscription had run only in the plural number S. Paul had drawn a conclusion out of false premises, whereas Isidore Pelusiota admires the irresistible force of S. Pauls reasoning,Lorin. in loc. Aug. 1. c. Cresc. c. 29. in ep. ad Rom. c. 1. Isid. Pelus. l. 3. ep. 346.Rom 1 being built upon premises, which are confessed by the Adversaries; as he disputed with the Iews out of the Scriptures, so he did with the men of Athens from the inscription on one of their own Altars. This being then taken for granted by S. Paul, that the Athenians did acknowledge and worship the true God, how come they to be charged with Idolatry in worshipping Images, if it be lawful to worship the true God ▪ by an Image? especially since their intention was, as Ferus saith expresly,Ioh. Ferus in Act. 17. p. 203.Acts 17 by their Idols to worship the true God. I p. 374beseech T. G. to reconcile this, if he can, with making Idolatry to consist in taking Images for Gods, or for the representations of false Gods; for here was neither, and yet the Athenians were condemned for Idolatry; and Ferus confesses, that those were Idols, whereby they designed to worship the true God; how can that be, if actions pass whither they are intended; for how can that worship be terminated on an Image, according to T. G's Divinity, which is designed to pass through it to God? And that the true God was meant by the Athenians, Corn. à Lapide saith,Corn. à Lap. in Act. 17.23.Acts 17:23 is manifest from hence, that S. Paul was otherwise bound to shew, that it was not the true God which they worshipped, and to tell them who was the true; whereas here S. Paul saith, he declared to them the same God whom they ignorantly worshipped; which had been very unbecoming the sincerity and faithfulness of so great an Apostle, in case he knew, they did not worship the true God when he told them they did: for this was at once to deceive, to flatter, to betray them; and that in a matter, upon which the salvation of their souls did depend: which of all persons was most unworthy of the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose business p. 375it was to turn men from Idols to God, to serve the true and living God.1 Thess. 1.9.1 Thess 1:9

But T. G. asks,T. G. p. 97. to what purpose this place was brought by me? (if he did not understand it before, I hope, he will do it now:) Except I intended, he saith, the Reader to believe the Papists to be no wiser than the Athenians. I wish in this matter they were as wise; for it were better for them to erect Altars to an Unknown God, than to make those absurd, scandalous, and horrible representations of the Mysterie of the Trinity: from whence some of the Antitrinitarians have taken occasion to expose that sacred Mysterie to scorn and contempt, and have published a Book on purpose, to set forth the Images of the Trinity, which are publickly seen and allowed in the Roman Church. But the Athenians, he tells us from S. Chrysostom, were so possessed with a wrong apprehension of the Nature of God, that when they heard S. Paul speak of Anastasis, they thought her to be some new Goddess. If they had gone much farther, and worshipped this Anastasis, I think the Athenians had done no worse, than those who worship with solemn devotion Saints that never were in the world; and after so long a time of worship of p. 376S. Christopher, and S. George, the wisest among them cannot to this day tell, whether they were Saints, or Allegories: and if T. G. please, he shall take Baronius his Saint Synoris, to joyn with the Athenian Goddess Anastasis; or if this will not content him, let him take other three Saints which he may find in some old Litanies, Horae secundum usum Roman. in Litaniis.of their Church, as I have done, viz. S. Faith, S. Hope, and S. Charity; all three daughters of a grave Matron, called S. Sapientia; but which far outgoes the Athenian devotion, every one of these hath an Ora pro nobis added to it; but what work would T. G. have made with the poor Athenians, if they had cryed Sancta Anastasis ora pro nobis? yet he may find as gross absurdities nearer home.

§. 4.I now come to the second place, Rom. 1.21, 23. in which T. G. saith, nothing can be more clear, than that the Apostle speaketh there of the Idols or Images of the Heathens; for after he had laid down the matter of fact which he condemned, viz. that although they knew God, yet they did not glorifie him as God, but changed the Glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, he adds also, And to Birds, and fourfooted p. 377Beasts, and creeping things, (which words, he saith, were clapt under deck by me with an &c. because they plainly declare what kind of Images the Apostle meant) and then v. 25. tells us, that by so doing, they changed the Truth of God into a lye, and worshipped and served the Creature rather than the Creator: which words, he saith, are so plain, that I had no way to evade them, but by saying that the Apostle discoursed against the Philosophers, and the Wiser Heathens: whom he proves from S. Chrysostom, to have been guilty of the same Idolatry with the people; and instances in the Aegyptians, and Plato, and Socrates, who commanded a Cock to be offered to Aesculapius. For the clearing the sense of this place, we are to consider, 1. Who the persons were that S. Paul speaks off. 2. What he affirms concerning them.

1. T. G. saith, the words are so plain, that I could find no evasion, but to say. that the Apostle doth not discourse against the most gross and sottish Idolaters, but the Philosophers and the wisest among them; but doth T. G. in good earnest call this an evasion? Was it an evasion in Cajetan, Cajet. in loc.when he saith, S. Paul here reproved the sin of the Philosophers; and that the p. 378Philosophers were they who detained the truth in unrighteousness: that the Philosophers did either make, or worship Images, therefore they changed the glory due to God? Was it nothing but meer evasion in Vasquez, Vasquez in loc.when he saith, the Apostle designs to prove, that the Philosophers, both had the true knowledge of God, and held it in unrighteousness? or in Estius, Esti. in loc.when he saith in plain terms, the Apostle speaks of the Philosophers? and instanceth in Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Trismegist, and Seneca, who although they did know the true God, yet none of them worshipped him as they ought to do. I need not mention S. Austin, who in many places applyes this to the Philosophers, as appears by Beda's Commentary,Bed. in loc. when even the words of S. Chrysostom shew this to be far enough from an evasion; what is that to the Philosophers? Marry, I answer, as T.G. translates him, that what hath been said most of all concerns them; but this doth not fully express his meaning, for his words are, foreign, or as some Copies read it foreign, all that hath been said doth most of all concern them, or altogether; and the Greek Scholiast, saith, that it is plain S. Paul strikes at the Wise men among the Greeks, p. 379and those who were like them. Origen saith, he speaks of some of the Wise men of Greece. By these and many more Testimonies, if it were needful to heap them in so clear a case, it appears sufficiently, that this was no evasion of mine, but the natural sense, which their own Commentators, and the Fathers agree in.

2. As to what the Apostle affirms of them, viz. that they held the truth in unrighteousness, v. 18. i. e. saith the Greek Scholiast, that they gave the worship of God to Idols; for the knowledge of God is truth, and the deceitfulness of Idols is unrighteousness. Hear, saith Theophylact, what it is to detain the truth in unrighteousness, The Truth or the Knowledge of God is naturally put into all mens minds from the beginning; this knowledge or truth the Greeks held in unrighteousness, i. e. they did all the injury to it they could, by giving the glory of God to Idols; and both herein follow S. Chrysostom, who saith, they did it, by giving the glory of God to Wood and Stone. This the Apostle afterwards inlarges upon, when he saith, that knowing God they did not glorifie him as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imagination, and their foolish heart was darkned. Professing themselves p. 380to be wise, they became Fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible man, and to Birds and fourfooted Beasts, and creeping things. And for the sense of this charge I am content to appeal to the judgements of the most allowed Interpreters on both sides, that hat have not been parties in the quarrel. They thought themselves wise, saith S. Hierom or the Author of the Commentaries under his name, as those that had found out, quomodo invisibilis Deus, per simulachrum visibile coleretur; how an invisible God might be worshipped by a visible representation: which is the sense of simulachrum there; for he supposes the worship to be directed to the invisible God through the Image, and therefore the Image could not be taken either for God, or a representation of a false God; so that nothing can be more clear (to use T. G's words) according to S. Hierom, than that T. G. professing to be wise, doth thereby discover his folly, when he saith, that S. Paul speaks of those who took the Images themselves for Gods; or worshipped the Images of false Gods. And the Philosophers professing to be Wise, did become Fools, because saith S. Hierom, they did not understand that what is mortal p. 381and corruptible, could have no resemblance to what is immortal and eternal. The Greek Scholiast saith, they became vain in their imaginations, when they would represent him in a Figure that had none, and comprehend him in corporeal Images, that was wholly spiritual; not as though they were such Fools to think to shut up Infinity within the bounds of an Image; but to comprehend, there is taken with relation to that representation which conveys a thing to the mind; and so he useth it a little after, they thought themselves wise, because they thought they could comprehend every thing: and so the Image was supposed to be such a species as did convey an intellectual Being to the mind. The same words are used by Theophylact; which they both borrowed from S. Chrysostom, who condemns the Greeks for their folly, not for comprehending, but for seeking a spiritual and incorporeal Being, in corporeal Images. And what can be more foolish, saith the Scholiast and Theophylact, than to fall down before Stocks and Stones? And Origen doth express the meaning of the Apostle in this place as fully as I can desire, when he applyes all these expressions to those that had a right notion and conception of God in their minds, but gave p. 382divine worship to all sorts of Images, as well of beasts, Orig. c. Cels. l. 6. p. 277.as of men, foreign for the honour of the Deity. And in truth, the Apostles supposition being allowed, that these Philosophers did know the true God, and his Eternal Power and Godhead, we must suppose them to be turned stark staring Fools, that should take the Images either of men or beasts to be Gods: but it is very agreeable to the Philosophers practice and opinions to give external worship to these Images, when they in the mean time did direct that external worship to the honour of the invisible Deity.

But the sense of this and the former place will be made more evident by a diligent enquiry into the State of the Controversie about the worship of Images between the Christians and Heathens. §. 5.(1.) Whether it was that the Heathens took their Images for proper likenesses of the Deity? Or, (2.) That they worshipped only the Images of false Gods, or that they took their Images themselves for Gods? And if the Controversie did not wholly relate to these things, then it will follow, that it was of the same nature with that between us and the Church p. 383of Rome. I shall therefore shew,

1. That the Wiser Heathens concerning whom the dispute is, did not suppose their Images to be proper likenesses of their Gods. Which I prove, 1. From the nature and kinds of their Images. 2. From the notions they had of their Gods.

1. From the nature and kinds of their Images. There are three sorts of Images which were worshipped among the Heathens, 1. Such as had no artificial shape or figure. 2. Such as had an artificial shape, but it was of no real being. 3. Such as had the shape either of men or beasts. Of the two first, and those of Beasts, I suppose, no man professing himself to be wise, will shew himself such a Fool to say, that the Heathens thought their Gods to be like them. My business therefore as to them, is to shew that there were such among them to which they did give divine worship.

1. For Images without any artificial shape, or figure. By Images here I mean some external visible things which are designed to represent some other thing to our minds. So Tully calls characters, verborum Imagines, and the countenance, Imaginem animi; in which no exact resemblance can be understood, but some thing p. 384which is intended to represent another thing to us, which doth not depend on the nature of things, but the arbitrary institution of men; as may be seen by the notes and characters of Tyro and Seneca; of which no account can be given, why they represent one thing rather than another, but only the Will of the Maker of them. Thus if men agreed that a Spear, a Cymiter, a Trunk, a Mountain, a rude Stone, or a Pyramid should be set up to represent the Deity to them which they worshipped, every one of these did thereby become the Image of that Deity. Herodotus, Solinus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Arnobius, and Ammianus Marcellinus, Herod. Melp. p. 276 Solin. Polyhist. Clem. Alex. in Prot. p. 29, 43. Arnob. l. 6. Am. Marcell. l. 31.all agree that the antient Scythians had no other Image of a Deity among them, but only a Scythian Sword, which Herodotus calls the Image of Mars, and he saith, they sprinkled the blood of the Sacrifice upon it. Clemens Alexandrinus and Arnobius tell us from Varro, that the antient Romans worshipped a Spear for Mars, which is also affirmed by Iustin;Iust. l. 43. and the Thespians a Bough for Cinxia or Iuno; the Icarians an unhewn piece of Wood for Diana; the Samii a frame of Wood for Iuno; the Pessinuntii a Flint for the Mother of the Gods; which was carried by the Roman p. 385Ambassadours from Phrygia to Rome, saith Livy; called Religiosa silex by Claudian. Liv. l. 29. Claud. de Raptu Proserp.The Arabians, an unpolished stone; which was square, saith Maximus Tyrius, Max Tyr. diss. 38.of a black colour, saith Suidas, Suid. in ver. foreignwithout any shape or figure upon it, four foot high and two broad, to which they sacrifice, and sprinkle the blood upon it. Euthymius charges the Mahumetans with Idolatry for kissing the stone Bracthan; Euthym. in Saracen. Sylburgii, p. 15.concerning which, they have several fabulous traditions, of its being one of the stones of Paradise, and coming down from thence with Adam, &c. which is placed in one of the corners of the Caaba, or Temple at Mecca, above two cubits above ground, and was stolen from thence by the Karmatiani, hoping to draw away the Pilgrims; but finding it would not do, they restored it to the inhabitants of Mecca twenty years after, who knew it to be the genuine stone, as they said, by its swimming above water; which our learned Dr. Pocock conjectures to have been one of the Idols of the old Arabs, Pocock not. ad spec. Histor. Arab. p. 119.as the Temple at Mecca was one of their Idol-Temples; but the Mahumetans say they worship it out of a respect to Abraham; as they do another stone, wherein they say are the footsteps of Abraham to be seen, at which they say their prayers; as others p. 386do at Loretto, before a Madonna of the same complexion with the stone Bracthan; of which colour I suppose the same reason may be given which the Mahumetans do of the stone Bracthan, viz. that it came purely white out of heaven, but was turned black by the sins of the people. Such another Idol was Manah or Meneth, which was of old worshipped between Mecca and Medina; which the Arabick Writers call a rock or a stone;p. 9…, 92. and was probably as the same Author conjectures, the Meni mentioned Isa. 65.11. and Saad, which he describes to be an oblong stone lying on the shore. p. 99.The Paphians, Max. Tyrius saith,Max. Tyr. ib. worshipped Venus under the representation of a white Pyramid: and the Lacedaemonians saith Pausanias, Paus. Laconic. p. 103. ed. Sylburg. Achaic. p. 228.erected after the ancient custome, seven pillars to the seven planets; and the same Author affirms it to have been the ancient custome of all the Greeks to set up unpolished stones instead of Images, to the honour of the Gods; which Testimony is very considerable, not only because it makes it the most ancient, but an Universal Custome among the Greeks; and near the Statue of Mercury, he saith, there were thirty square stones, which the Pharii worshipped, and gave to every one the name of a God. Pausanias p. 387mentions many other such Images remaining in Greece after the ancient Mode, Paus. Boeot.as of Hercules in Boeotia, p. 300.of Cupid among the Thespienses, p. 302.of the Graces among the Orchomenii, where he saith,p. 311. the people worship the stones which they believed to have dropt down from heaven. They were wont, saith Hesychius, Hesych. v. foreignto have Altars before the Doors in the fashion of a pillar, which was called foreign; some, saith Harpocration, Harpocr. p. 5.make these proper to Apollo, others to Bacchus, others to both; these were common at Athens, as appears by the Testimonies of Cratinus, Menander and Sophocles quoted by Harpocration; and Sophocles, he saith, applyed that Athenian custome to Troy, in his Laocoon, foreign &c. whom Suidas follows.Suid. in v. Stephanus Byzant. saith,Steph. v. foreign the foreign were Obelisks erected to the honour of the Gods; for which he quotes Eupolis. It seems both Pyramids and Altars were called by this name among them, being both designed for the worship of their Gods: and it is not improbable those rude Pyramids in Yorkshire, mentioned by Cambden, Cambden in Brit. p. 570.called the Devils bolts, and many such in Denmark, by Olaus Wormius, Ola. Worm. Monum. Danic.might be first erected for the same purpose, this custome having been so general. Peter della Valle, p. 388in his late Travels in the Indies, saith, that at Ahmedabad, there was a famous Temple of Mahadeù, wherein there was no other Image but a little column of Stone, after a Pyramidal form, Viaggi. p. 3. Lett. 1. s. 15. p. 107.but ending at the top in a round figure; which Mahadeù, he saith, in their language signifies the great God, and after this fashion, he saith, it is the custom of the Brachmans to represent Mahadeù;p. 116. the like he observes at Manèl. lett. 6. n. 17. p. 382.Although that Author takes the liberty to call this an Idol, I do not see with what conscience T. G. could do it;T.G. p. 48, 49. for an Idol according to him doth signifie either a representation of some imaginary being, or in the utmost sense, something which is falsely esteemed and worshipped as God; but this Pyramid to represent Mahadeù or the great God, was neither a representation of an imaginary Being, nor was it self taken for God, and therefore was no Idol, nor the worship given to God by it Idolatry: and upon his principles, the worship of the Gioghi is very justifiable by the Law of God, p. 61.for this is not a representation by which men are in danger of being Anthropomorphites; but only hath some analogical and metaphorical signification; and therefore it is no disparagement to the Deity to be thus represented. Thus it falls p. 389out, as I foresaw, that T. G. could not justifie the practice of their own Church, but he must unavoidably justifie that which is condemned by it, viz. the Heathen Idolatry. But to proceed, Herodian describing the Worship of Alagabalus at Emesa in Phoenicia, Herod. l. 5. p. 563.saith, that he had no kind of Image after the Greek, or Roman fashion made by mens hands; but a great stone round at the bottom, lessening by degrees, after the fashion of a Cone; and of a black Colour, (like the stone Bracthan,) which they say, was not made by mens hands, but fell down from heaven. It is great pity Gretser had not put it into his Book, de Imaginibus non manufactis; together with that of the Pessinuntii in Herodian;Herod. l. 1. sect. 35. and of Diana of Ephesus; and of the Graces among the Orchomenii; which were all believed to have come from heaven, as well as those mentioned by Gretser; and the evidence is much alike for them all; and for the miracles wrought by them, Peter della Valle saith, that the Image of Mahadeù was in great reputation among the Indians for working miracles; and in another place he saith,Viaggi p. 108. there were persons who believed themselves cured of sore eyes by the Idols, and made their presents of silver and golden eyes, p. 46.and some Iewels (as p. 390they do in other places on occasion of the like miracles) And notwithstanding what Della Valle intimates of the honesty of Roman Priests in comparison of the Gioghi, in this matter of miracles, a man might venture a great deal on their heads, that they come behind none of them in any thing that tends to deceive the people. And I do not at all wonder, that this Gentleman seeing their solemn processions in mighty numbers, in pilgrimage to certain places of devotion, should so naturally think of the carrying of the Images of Saints by a Fraternity in procession to Loretto or Rome in the Holy year;Id. p. 242. any more than that seeing the tricks of Hamant or the holy Apes in the Indies, should bring to his mind those he had seen plaid by some creatures much of the same kind in Europe. But leaving the consideration of Gretsers divine Images to another place, I return to the stone of Alagabalus, whereof there were more than one according to Lampridius, Lamprid. vit. Anton. Heliogab.who saith, Lapides qui Divi dicuntur ex proprio Templo, &c. he took out of the Temple of Alagabalus the stones which were called Gods: where the great Criticks are strangely confounded by joyning this clause with that which follows of the Image of Diana from Laodicea, and are p. 391very hard put to it, to tell what Image, and what Laodicea this was; Caroli Putini Numismata p. 331.a late Author supposes them to be the same with those stones mentioned in Pausanias, and that it was Laodicea of Achaia which he meant; but Tristan hath shewn the true sense by dividing the clauses;Tristan Comment. histor. p. 324. for the stones mentioned before, had no relation to Laodicea, but to the proper Temple of the Deity from whom Heliogabalus took his name. Salmasius instead of the lapides qui Divi dicuntur, Salmas. in Histor. Aug. Script. p. 181. Euseb. Praep. Ev. l. 1. c. 10.would have it read lapides qui vivi dicuntur, alluding to the Boetulia, which Philo Byblius calls foreign, the animated stones, of which he speaks in his translation of Sanchoniathons account of the Phoenician Idolatry: and the place agrees well enough with it; and they did suppose a more than ordinary presence of God in those stones, Pocock. not. ad Specim. p. 89.for which reason they attributed Life to them; and the Arabians called them the Daughters of God, being as it were inspired with life by him, and believed that they could intercede with God for them; and therefore they gave them Divine Honour; of which sort, Allat, Alozza, and Manah, are mentioned in the Alcoran; although some think Alozza to have been the Trunk of a Tree, which was worshipped among the p. 392Arabians. Hotting. hist. Orient. l. 1. c. 7. p. 231, 232, 233.Bern. de Breitenbach saith, that they had two stones, one black which they called Camos, and the other white which they called Mercury; which two they went twice a year to worship; and the proper rites of their worship, were for the first, the casting of stones behind them, and for the other, burning incense, naked and shaven; and not only the Arabs, but the Ammonites and Moabites joyned in this worship. Afterwards Mahomet finding this worship among them, which was before designed to the Honour of Saturn and Mars, continues the customes but turns the worship another way, and placed one of the stones in the Corner of the Temple, and the other he pitched in the ground in the middle, and required of all persons that came to Mecca to kiss these stones, with their heads shaven and their backs naked, casting stones backward. Petrus Alphonsus translated out of Arabick a Conference between a Christian and a Saracen; which is extant in Vincentius Bellovacensis, Vinc. Bellovac. spec. Histor. l. 23. c. 60.wherein we have the same account of the worship of the two stones; but, he saith, the custome came first from the Nations of the Indies which were called Xechiam, and Albarachuma, i.e. saith Scaliger, Scal. de Emend. Temp. l. 5. …. 519.Brachmani, who were wont to worship their p. 393Gods after that manner, by kissing the corners of stones, and casting them behind them. Maimonides saith,Maim. de Idol. c. 3. sect. 7. Pocock. Not. p. 316. that Markolis was worshipped by the casting of stones, and Cemosh by shaving the head, &c. By Markolis many understand Mercury, but Elias Levita saith,Elias in Thisbi p. 106. he could find no such worship of him among the Romans, but, he saith, it was the name of an Idol whose peculiar worship that was, and was believed to be an intercessour between them, and the Planet Mercury from whom the name was derived. Buxtorf gives this account of the figure of Markolis, Buxtorf. Lex. Talmud. in v. Markolis.that it was after this fashion; viz. two huge stones standing one against another; and a third lying cross over them, covering the other two with one half of his bigness; which, he saith, the Rabbins called foreign domum Kolis; thence, he saith, that the Rabbins in Avoda Zara say, that three stones being placed after that manner are forbidden, because that was the figure of the Idol Markolis. (What if our Stonehenge were some such thing? for the stones lye transversely upon each other after this figure, which neither belonged to a Roman Temple, nor the Danish Monuments?) Towards these stones they were wont to cast stones, which was the proper p. 394rite of worship belonging to Markolis; and is still performed by the Pilgrims to Mecca, but directing their intention another way. This is done, saith Scaliger on the Mount Arraphoth without Mecca;Scalig. de Emend. Templ. l. 2. & 5. they cast them into the Valley of Mena, or Akabah, saith Dr. Pocock from the Arabick Writers;Pocock. not. in spec. p. 315. but they pretend to do it upon quite other grounds than the ancient Idolaters did; viz. in imitation of Abraham, who they say, in that place sent the Devil packing with a stone in his forehead when he came to interrupt him in the sacrificing of his Jon; others say, they do it out of opposition to Idolatry, and in contempt of the Idols formerly worshipped there. But the Iews say, that he that useth a rite proper to Idolatrous worship, Maim. de Idol. c. 3. sect. 7.though by way of contempt, is guilty; and they instance particularly in this very thing; however the Mahumetans, having looked over Aristotle's threshold, do know that acts go whither they are intended, and for their parts, since they intend to knock the Devil in the head with the stones they cast backward, the Devil is like to suffer most by this custome; especially, if it be true which some of the Arabick Writers say, that those stones do break the Devils back. And what harm can there be in kissing and p. 395worshipping the stone Bracthan, as long as they pretend to honour Abraham by doing it? For this is their pretence for it in Damascen;Damasc. de haeres. p. 941. if relative worship be lawful, I do not see, why the Mahumetans directing their intention to the God of Abraham, are in any greater fault, than those who worshipping an Image, direct their worship finally to God, but after a relative and inferiour manner, suffer it to fall upon the Image for his sake. But Damascen saith something farther, viz. that they who look more narrowly into this stone (as some may see farther into a stone than others) do find the Image of Venus,p. 942. which they called Chabar in it; to which Dr. Pocock answers from the Arabick Writers, Pocock. not. in spec. p. 120.that this is both a mistake of one stone for another; and that all the impression in that stone is as like the face of Venus, as a mans heels are like his head; unless, saith he, the Mahumetans be so blind with superstition, as not to be able to distinguish the head and feet from each other; for so Abulfeda saith, it hath only the impression of Abrahams feet; but granting they were mistaken, and that they could not tell Abrahams footstep from an ordinary Pilgrims, yet methinks they should know some difference between the foot of a man, p. 396and the face of Venus. And what reason is there to search for the figure of a face upon a stone, when I have already so fully proved it was the custome to worship rude and unpolished stones; especially in those Eastern parts, where the Boetulia were in so much request,Scallg. not. in Fragm. Vet. p. 39. Id. in Euseb. Chron. n. 2050. Grot. in Gen. 2818. Vossius, Selden. aliíque. Bochart. Canaan. l. 2. c. 2. which many learned men do suppose to have come at first from the stone, which Iacob anointed in Bethel, and set up for a pillar there, to which the Jews say, the Canaanites afterwards gave divine worship; and that from hence came the custome of worshipping such stones, and the name of them. Which makes the conjecture of Bochartus very probable, that Sanchoniathon had written foreign, which the interpreter mistaking but one letter read foreign, and so rendered it foreign animated stones, which was no more than anointed stones: which custome of anointing stones for worship, among the Heathens, is mentioned by Clemens Alexandrinus, Minutius, Apuleius and others.Clem. Alex. Str. l. 7. Minut. Felix. p. 2. Arnob. l. 1. p. 22. Apul. Florid. l. 1. Theophrast. char. de Superstit. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 16. c. 38. S. Augustin hath a passage very observable to our purpose concerning Iacob, viz. that he did not anoint the stone at Bethel after the custome of Idolaters, as if he made it a God; for, saith he, he did not worship the stone nor sacrifice to it; where we not only find this custome of Idolaters, p. 397but the meaning of that phrase in the Fathers of taking their Images for Gods, by which they meant no more than what S. Augustin here explains it by, viz. giving divine worship to them. Damascius in Photius, Phot. Cod. 242. p. 1047.mentions many of these Boetulia, that were seen by Asclepiades on Mount Libanus near Heliopolis in Syria; of which, he saith, some were consecrated to Saturn, others to Jupiter, others to the Sun.

Maximus Tyrius shews at large,Max. Tyr. diss. 38. that similitude to the Deity was not regarded in the things they gave divine worship to, and looked on as symbols of the God they worshipped; thus they gave divine honour to fountains, trees, tops of Mountains, and Mountains themselves; Tristan. Comment. histor. Tom. 2. p. 316.as the inhabitants of West-Barbary worshipped Mount Atlas; and the Cappadocians the Mount Argaeus, and others Mount Casius; and so Carmel is called in Suetonius the God Carmel: Sueton. in Vespas. c. 9.and that Philosopher makes it an arbitrary thing, what kind of representations of the Deity men make use of, as long as they are designed to put them in mind of God, and are worshipped with a respect to him. The ancient Celtae, he saith, had no other Image of Jupiter but a great Oak. The Lacedemoans had some ancient Images of the Dioscuri, which they called foreign, which, p. 398saith Plutarch, Plut. de frat. amore p. 478.were nothing else, but two pieces of timber lying at an equal distance, with two others laid cross over them; from whom Eustathius repeats it.Eustath. ad Iliad. …. And Tacitus saith,Tacit. de Morib. Germ. c. 9. the old Germans had no Images of their Deities of any humane figure; and that they attributed the names of their Gods to their Groves: for they had as Claudian expresses it Robora, numinis Instar. T. G. saith,T. G. p. 75. it is evident from Tacitus himself, that they had other Figures and Symbols in their consecrated Groves; although they had not any in the likeness of men, because they thought them unsuitable to the Celestial Deities; but I desire to be informed by him, 1. How other figures come to be a less disparagement to the Deity, than humane figures? Did they indeed think it less dishonour to God to be like a bruit, or a plant, or a cockboat than to be like a man? Did they who thought the Images of men so much below their Gods, take the others to be more agreeable to them? 2. How doth Tacitus make it appear, that they had other Symbols and Figures in the consecrated Groves? It is true that he saith, part of the Suevi did sacrifice to Isis; but, he saith, this was a foreign Religion, and he knows not how it came there, but he is sure by the Figure it p. 399was foreign? and doth this prove, that the Religion of the Germans did allow of Images, because a Religion was known to be foreign, by its Image? But this is the very quintessence of ingenuity, when he hath had no more to say against this Testimony, and not a word against any of the rest, to conclude after this fashion, His other citations I took upon his word without examining them (which I hardly take upon his word, finding him so ready to cavil upon the slightest occasion) and the Reader may guess by this out of Tacitus, whether it be not likely I did him a kindness in it; which I am content to leave to the Readers Ingenuity.

We are certain it was the custome both of the Germans and Gauls, §. 6.as well as other Nations, to worship not only stones and fountains, but Trees. Pliny saith in general,Plin. l. 12. c. 1. that Trees were looked on as Temples of the Gods; and that the people did not more worship the Images of Gold and Ivory, than they did the Groves; and the same Quintilian saith,Quint. l. 10. especially of Aged Oakes. Curtius saith,Curt. l. 8. the Indians accounted all things Gods which they worshipped, especially Trees. The Council of Carthage mentions the remainders of Idolatry in p. 400Groves and Trees as well as Images. Codex Afric. c. 84.And there was no one custome of Idolatry which the Northern Nations especially, were more hardly drawn from, after they had received Christianity: which was therefore strictly forbidden in the Capitular of Carolus M. and the Priests were severely punished if they did not discover those who did aut arbores, Capit. Caroli l. 1. tit. c. 4. l. 7. tit. 236.aut fontes, aut saxa venerari, which are the words there used. In the Lombard Laws, Leg. Longobard. l. 2. tit. 38. n. 1.there is a constitution of Luitprandus, against those that did worship ad arborem atque ad fontanas, before a certain tree, and at Springs. Othlonus in the Life of Boniface, Canis. Antiq. Lect. To. 4. p. 421.not only mentions this custome, but that Boniface did cut down a very great tree, which was called Arbor Iovis in a placed called Gesmere; which is in the lower Hassia saith Serrarius. Serrar. Rer. Mog. l. 3. not. 19.Agathias saith,Agath. histor. l. 1. p. 18. that the Germans worshipped Trees and Rivers, and Hills and Groves. In S. Augustins time,S. Aug. Dom. 21. post Trin. ser. 2. we find this custome continued among many called Christians, to pay their vows before certain trees, and to say their prayers at Fountains; for which he charges them with Idolatry; which trees, he saith, if they fell, they would not take a stick of them to burn, whereby they give honour to a dead Tree, and contemn the precepts of p. 401the living God. The twelfth Council of Toledo produces the second Commandment, Concil. To let. 12. c. 11.and the other severe prohibitions of Idolatry against this practice. The second Council of Arles hath a Canon against the Bishops, Conc. Arelot. 2. c. 23.who suffer any such Trees or Stones to remain in their Dioceses: the same hath the Council of Braga against Presbyters. Conc. Bracar. 3. c. 22.The second Council of Tours charges the Priests to excommunicate those who did these things:Annales Ecclesiast. Franc. A. D. 566. n. 51. Le Cointe by the Stones understands the Boundaries, at which the Heathens did celebrate the Terminalia, but without any bloody sacrifice, as he proves from Dionys. Halicarnassaeus, and Plutarch. The Synod of Auxerre forbids Christians paying their vows either before holy Trees, Synod. Autissiod. A. D. 586. c. 3.or at Fountains. The Council of Nantes commands the cutting down all such Trees, Concil. Nanuet. A. D. 656. c. 20.and casting away the stones; and that all people be told what a dreadful sin Idolatry is, and that he that worships Trees and Stones, denies God and renounces his Christianity; with a great deal more to that purpose; and yet all this while these men pretended to be Christians, and to direct the intention of their worship aright; which I beseech T. G. to observe; for all the fault the Council found with them was, that they did those things before p. 402Trees and Stones which ought to be done only in the Church, viz. making their oblations and saying their prayers. And in the Canons of Eligius, Annales Eccles. Franc. A. D. 659. n. 36.this is one, Nullus Christianus ad fana, vel ad Petras, vel ad Fontes, vel ad Arbores, aut ad Cellos, vel per trivia, luminaria faciat, aut vota reddere praesumat. Where we see these Canons did respect Christians and not Infidels; and several of them are inserted in the Collection of Canons by Burchardus and Regino: Burchard. l. 10. c. 9, 10, 32. Regino de Eccles. discipl. l. 1. c. 300. l. 2. c. 5. n. 43. c. 3…8.now I desire to be resolved by T. G. why it is not as lawful to say ones prayers in a consecrated Grove, or at a Fountain, or before a Stone or Pillar, as before a consecrated Image? Hath God only forbidden Groves and Statues to be worshipped, and not Images at all? Nay, one would think, that at the same time he had forbidden the one, he had commanded the other; when we see how scrupulous these Fathers were in the former, and how much the practice of devotion in the Roman Church, where it is openly and publickly allowed, consists in the other. Surely a man is not more apt to think God to be like a Tree, or a Stone, than to the Image of a man; and if this argument of similitude signifies any thing, it tends to justifie these practises, condemned by so many p. 403Councils; and to condemn the worship of Images in the likeness of men, which T. G. endeavours to justifie. And to let us see, how general this kind of worship was among the Heathen Idolaters, I shall conclude this discourse with a double Testimony to this purpose. The one of Dio Chrysostome, Dio Chrysostom. orat. 12.who saith, the generality of the barbarous Nations, called Mountains, Trees, and Stones by the name of Gods, i. e. as the Greeks and Romans did their Images, to which they gave divine worship. The other of Acosta;Acosta Natur. & Moral History of the Indies l. 5. c. 5. who saith, the Indians worshipped Rivers, Fountains, Rocks, or great stones, Hills and the tops of Mountains, which they called Apachita's, and all things in Nature which seemed to have something extraordinary in them.

2. The Heathens worshipped such Images, as had some shape and Figure, §. 7.but it was not of any real being, but only Imaginary. This I have so little reason to go about to prove against T. G. that he desires me,T. G. p. 48. to take notice, that the Heathens (as Origen, Hom. 8. in Exod. 20. and Theodoret q. 38. in Exod. tells us, when they expound the second Commandment) had two sorts of Images; some of which were purely figments or fictions of their p. 404own brain, made to represent what had no existence but in their own imaginations, as Sphinxes, Tritons, Centaures, and the like; and others which were made to represent such things, as had a real, and substantial Being in the World, as the Sun, Moon and Stars, &c. which they esteemed and worshipped as Gods. I shall not now dispute, whether the Idols forbidden in the second Commandment, be only such representations; nor whether. Sphinxes, and Centaures be such imaginary Beings, (for about the latter S. Hierom is uncertain;S. Hieron. vit. Pauli. p. 238. ed. Froben. and a Sphinx is nothing but an Aethiopian Ape, such as Philostorgius saith himself saw;Philostorg. hist. l. 3. c. 2.) but that which I insist upon, in this place, is, that this sort of Images was not certainly unlawful on the account of similitude to the Deity; and those who thought so were not Idolaters, but Atheists; for then they thought that to be like God, which was like to Nothing. And if the Athenians had any such as these, (as they were as good at Chimaera's as other people) S. Pauls argument would not reach to them; and it seems S. Paul mistook his point: for he, good man, thought he had been talking against Idolatry at Athens; but it was no such matter; for saith T. G. he talked against such Images as were p. 405proper likenesses and representations of the Divinity; now the Divinity certainly is a Real Being; and Idolatry is the worship of Idols; but an Idol, saith T. G. is a representation of an imaginary Being; therefore those Images S. Paul spake against at Athens were no Idols; and consequently S. Paul doth not prove the Athenians guilty of Idolatry. But of these things more at large when I come to the second Commandment.

3. They had artificial Images of real Beings; in the Likeness of Men. §. 8.And I shall now shew, that even these Images were not set up or worshipped among the Heathens, because they supposed the Gods to be like them. For which, in the first place I shall produce this remarkable Testimony of Cicero, where he answers the Epicurean argument for the Gods being of humane form, because men are wont to represent them so; Quis tam caecus, saith he,De Nar. Deor. … 1. c. 27. in contemplandis rebus unquam fuit, ut non videret species istas hominum collatas in Deos, aut consilio quodam sapientum, quo facilius animos imperitorum ad Deorum cultum à vitae pravitate converterent; aut Superstitione, ut essent simulachra, quae venerantes, Deos ipsos se adire crederent? p. 406Who was there ever so blind in the judgement of things, as not to see that the Figures of men are attributed to the Gods, either by the advice of wise men, the easier to draw rude and wicked people to the worship of them; or out of superstition, that when they worshipped their Images, they might believe they approached to the Gods themselves? Where we observe, that these words are brought to disprove the Epicurean opinion of the Gods being like to men; and he undertakes to give an account how they came to be represented in humane shape, although they were not like to it; viz. 1. To make the notion of God more familiar and easie to rude and barbarous people, that knew not how to conceive of him, and therefore neglected his worship, which is all one with making them Books for the ignorant Laity. 2. To excite their devotion, that when they made their addresses to these Images, they might believe they made them to the Gods themselves. And according to T. G. what harm was there in all this? provided that these were declared not to be proper likenesses of the Deity; and so we see they were, by their best and wisest men. But the people might imagine the Gods to be like them; and what then? may they not p. 407do the same in the Roman Church, and with as good reason? when they see God painted like a Pope, with his Crown and Pontifical Vestments; may they not as reasonably think, that as the Pope is Gods Vicar on earth, God himself is the Pope in Heaven. If they say they take care the people be better informed: not too much of that neither; but did not Cicero and others do the like by the Heathens? who argued against the folly of supposing the Gods to be like men, and derided the Epicureans for asserting it; as men that neither understood the nature of Gods, or Men. And Cicero in the same place is so far from looking on this practice of worshipping the Gods in Images of humane shape as Universal, C. 29.that he confesses it to be almost peculiar to the Greeks and Romans; and saith,De Nat. Deor. l. 3. c. 1. that the Epicureans who did assert the Gods, to have the members of mens bodies, but made no use of them, did only droll, and in words assert a Deity, which in Truth they denied. Maximus Tyrius debates the case about the several ways of representing God; Max. Tyr. diss. 38.and although he makes the manner as indifferent, as whether our words be expressed in Phoenician, or Ionian, or Attick, or Aegyptian Characters, they being all intended only as p. 408helps to our understandings and Memories, and as far distant from the Deity as Heaven from Earth; yet, he saith, they are useful to the duller part of mankind, who like Children are taught to read and understand, by these broader characters; which are intended only as a Manuduction to them; yet, he prefers that which he calls the Greek way, of representing the Gods with the most exquisite art in humane Figures; but he doth it so timorously, that he only saith, it is not unreasonable; not that he imagined the Gods to be like them; but only because the Soul of man comes nearest to God; and that habitation which God had chosen for a divine Soul seemed the fittest to be a Symbol of the invisible Deity. But he does not blame the other Nations which made use of other wayes of representing the Deity; which he must have done, if he had thought the Greek Images the proper likenesses of God; for although he disputes against the Persians and Aegyptians, yet he concludes all at last with this saying, whether men worship God by the art of Phidias, as the Greeks; or by the worship of living Creatures, as the Aegyptians; or by the worship of Rivers, or of Fire, as other Nations, I condemn not the variety; let them only p. 409understand and love, and remember him whom they worship. foreign, i. e. in T. G.'s Translation, let a man only direct his intention towards God, and then without doubt the actions go whither they are intended. And upon these grounds none of the Heathens were to blame in the worship of Images, provided they looked on them only as Symbols, or Analogical representations of the Deity, as Maximus Tyrius saith they did, and directed their worship towards the Supreme Being, as he adviseth them all to do. For, saith he, God who is the Father and Maker of all things, elder than the Sun and Heaven, better than Time, and Age, and all Fluid things, a Lawgiver without name, that cannot be expressed with words, or seen with eyes; whose essence being incomprehensible by us, we make use of all helps from sounds and words, and living Creatures, and Images of Gold, and Ivory, and Silver, and Plants, and Rivers, and Mountains, to bring us to the Conception of him; and because of our Weakness, those things we account good we attribute to him, as lovers use to do, who delight in any representation of him they love; and behold with great pleasure, the harp, or the dart, or the seat he sate upon, or the place he ran p. 410in, and whatever brings him to mind▪ What need I say any more concerning Images? Let God only be in the mind. Is not this a Vindication of Heathen Idolatry, to T. G.'s hearts desire?T.G. p. 17. For, saith T. G. Is it not an honour to the King to kiss his Picture? And the very light of nature teaches that the honour or dishonour done to a picture, or Image, reflects upon the person represented by it. Now, saith Max. Tyrius, we look upon Images, and Trees, and Rivers, and Mountains but as so many imperfect pictures and representations of the Deity; but although they do not come near his beauty, yet we honour them for the sake of him whom they represent; wherein we do but as great lovers do, we kiss the footsteps where he trod, we embrace, admire, and value things as they represent him, and bring him to our minds. And is there any thing more natural than this? For is it not an honour to the King to kiss his picture? or, as the Emperour Iulian more elegantly expresses it,Iulian. oper. p. 539. foreign, &c. He that loves the King, takes pleasure in seeing the picture of the King, he that loves his Child, loves any representation of him, and so doth he that loves his Father; even so, saith the devout p. 411Emperour Iulian by the meer light of Nature, every one that is foreign, a Lover of God, loves the representations of the Gods, and beholding their Images doth secretly fear and reverence them, which although invisible themselves do behold him. Wherein we see how admirably Iulian and T. G. have hit not only on the same principle of nature, but the very instance, and almost the very same expressions: It seems, this great man did not corrupt himself in those things he knew naturally, but pursued the light of Nature towards the Defence of Pagan Idolatry; making the Worship of Images a part of Natural Religion, as T. G. doth. But what spight is this, for me to mention Julian and T. G. together? whereas it is well known that Julian was against Invocation of Saints, and called that as great Idolatry as the Heathens, as T. G. notably observes against Dr. St. But for all this Iulian, though an Apostate, and great enemy to Christianity was a shrewd understanding man, and found out the very fundamental principle of the worship of Images, and resolved it into the Light of Nature, as T. G. doth. But Julian supposed these Images to be proper Likenesses of the Gods, and consequently the worship of them as such is condemned: p. 412no such matter I assure you, Iulian was a more Orthodox man than so, he was no follower of that damnable heretick called Anthropomorphus (for so I find him in an ancient Catalogue of Hereticks;) Iulian detests that opinion,Gennad. de dogm. Eccles. c. 4.Eccl 4 and calls the Gods foreign, without any corporeal figure, or shape; and therefore he proposes the objection of a Christian against him, how it could then be proper to make any corporeal Images of them? Why, to that, p. 537.saith Iulian, I answer, the Images of the Gods are placed by our Ancestors, as Signs and Symbols of their presence, not that we should believe them to be Gods, but that we should worship the Gods by giving Reverence to them. For, we living in the body ought to give them a worship suitable to our corporeal state, foreign; but they are incorporeal. So that Iulian did not look on Images as the proper likenesses of the Gods, but as ancient and venerable Symbols of their presence; in which, he saith, all Nations of the world were agreed, and in all Ages. Wherein he lashes too far; but that is at least but a venial sin, to stretch a little for the sake of so good a Cause. And Iulian was not singular in this opinion of his, of the fitness of corporeal Images, although the p. 413Gods were not like them; for Varro was of the same mind; who gives this account of the first design of making the Images of the Gods like to men,Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 7. c. 5. Quorum qui simulachra specie hominis fecerunt, hoc videri secutos, quod mortalium animus, qui est in corpore humano, simillimus est immortalis animi, &c. that the soul of man was most like the Deity; and men made Images like to their Bodies, just as if a Wine-vessel were put in the Temple of Bacchus to represent him, intending thereby to represent first the Wine, which should be in the Vessel, and by the Wine him that is the God of Wine: so, saith he, by Images of mens shape they signified the Soul contained within the body; and by the Soul they represented God as of the same nature, viz. the Soul of the World. Porphyrie, Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 7.such another good Catholick as Iulian was, in this point of the worship of Images, doth not in the least suppose any similitude between the Shape of a Man, and the Nature of God, but he gives this account of representing the Gods in Figures like to men, foreign, They made the Gods like to men, because the Divinity is a rational Being; and withall, he saith, that many were wont to represent him by a black stone, p. 414to shew that he is invisible. Dio Chrysostome at large debates the case about Images, in his Olympick Oration; Dio Chrysost. Orat. 12. p. 199.wherein he first shews, that all men have a natural apprehension of one supreme God the Father of all things; that this God was represented by the Statue made by Phidias of Jupiter Olympius, for so he said, foreign, before whom we now are; and then describes him to be the King, Ruler and Father of all both Gods and men; this Image he calls, the most blessed, the most excellent, the most beautiful, the most beloved Image of God. p. 206.He saith, there are four wayes of coming to the knowledge of God, By nature, by the instructions of the Poets, by the Laws, and by Images: but neither Poets, p. 207.nor Law-givers, nor Artificers were the best Interpreters of the Deity, but only the Philosophers who both understood and explained the Divine Nature most truly and perfectly. After this, he supposes Phidias to be called to account for making such an Image of God, p. 209.as unworthy of him; when Iphitus, Lycurgus, and the old Eleans, made none at all of him,p. 210. as being out of the power of man to express his nature; to this Phidias replies, that no man can express mind and understanding by figures, p. 211.or colours, and p. 415therefore they are forced to fly to that in which the soul inhabits, and from thence they attribute the seat of Wisdom and Reason to God, having nothing better to represent him by: and by that means joyning power and art together, they endeavour by something which may be seen and painted, to represent that which is invisible and inexpressible. But it may be said, we had better then have no Image or representation of him at all; no saith he, for mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance, but to come near and feel him, and with assurance to sacrifice to him and crown him. Like Children newly weaned from their Parents, who put out their hands towards them in their dreams as if they were still present: so do men out of the sense of Gods goodness and their relation to him, love to have him represented as present with them, and so to converse with him: thence have come all the representations of God among the barbarous Nations in Mountains, and Trees, and Stones. But if the quarrel be, that I have given a humane shape to him; for that, saith he, the Poets are much more to blame who began those things, especially Homer who compared Agamemnon to God in his head and eyes: but for my statue, no man that p. 416is not mad would compare it to a mortal man, much less to the perfection of the Deity: and so Dio proceeds with a great deal of eloquence to shew, how the representation of God by his Image was more decent and becoming God, than that which the Poets had made of him: and how he had endeavoured by the utmost of his skill to represent the perfections of the Divine Nature in the admirable workmanship of his Statue, as to his power, Greatness, and Good Will to Mankind; and concludes all with saying, that as to his workmanship he thinks he hath gone beyond all others; but yet no workmanship can be compared to the God that made the whole World. Thus we see from the Testimony of these very considerable Authors, the Wiser Heathens had no such foolish Imagination as T. G. supposes them to be possessed with, viz. that the Images of the Deity which they worshipped were the proper likenesses of him; and if T. G's Light of Nature and Common sense do sufficiently decide this Controversie, it is very plain on which side the ballance inclines, viz. towards Paganism against Christianity. Macrobius saith,Macrob. in Somn. Scipion. l. 1. c. 2. that anciently they made no Image at all of the Supreme God, as being above any representation; but they made Images p. 417of the inferiour Gods although they were formarum talium prorsus alieni, in nothing like to them. The former Clause in Macrobius must be understood of the most ancient times before the Age of Phidias as appears by the foregoing passages; and yet Porphyrie saith,Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 11. that the Aegyptians were wont to represent the Creator whom they called Cneph in the figure of a man of a dark blew Colour, holding a girdle and a Scepter in his hand; out of whole mouth came an Egg, by which they represented the world as his production. Not much unlike to this, is the Image of the Creator in the Temple of Meaco in Iapan, which is all over black, with a Scepter in his hand, and they likewise represent the world by an Egg; as Arnoldus Montanus observes.Montanus. p. 279. In the Itinerary of Alexander Geraldinus to those parts of Africa under the Aequinoctial (which was written by him to the Pope, when he was Bishop of S. Domingo) in the account he gives of the Religion of those parts (which is far more particular than is to be met with elsewhere) he describes several Images of the Great God which were in mighty veneration among them: as in Bassiana the King with all his people do worship the God of Nature in an Image of Marble, set upon a high Throne, Alex. Geraldini Itinerar. l. 4. p. 68.holding the p. 418Sun in his right hand, and the Moon in his left, and the other Stars on either side of him; and wherever the King travels, he carries such an Image along with him, and prays five times a day prostrate before it. In Demnasea upon the top of a wall is placed the Image of God holding all things, l. 11. p. 171.before which the people are bound to pray every morning. l. 10. p. 168.In Ammosenna, they represent the God of Heaven by four Heads coming out of the body of a Lynx looking towards the four quarters of the world to represent his omnisciency and omnipresence, whom they call Orissa.l. 8. p. 131. In Logonsennea, the God of Nature is painted in the Image of a man and all other Images of him condemned Now if T. G. were sent on a Mission into any of those parts where God was worshipped after such a manner, I have a great desire to understand, what his opinion would be concerning this kind of worship; whether it were Idolatry or no? If not, they might still continue in it and be saved; as far as men can be saved by the meer light of Nature, which herein T. G. thinks they follow exactly; for they honour God by worshipping his Image. If it be Idolatry, how comes it to be so? for this is neither the representation of some Pigment, but of a real Being; nor is it p. 419of some real thing falsely taken to be God, which is his larger notion of an Idol; but it is looked on only as the Image of the True God; and that not as a proper Likeness, but by Analogical representation, and consequently according to T. G. is no disparagement to the Deity.T.G. p. 49.

But whatever T. G's opinion in this case is,§. 9. the Fathers when they discoursed against the Heathen Idolatry, made use of such arguments which held against such Images and representations as these; and that upon these two weighty considerations.

1. Because such a representation of God, was unsuitable to his Nature.

2. Because it was repugnant to his Will.

1. Because such a representation of God was unsuitable to his Nature. foreign, saith Clemens Alexandrinus. Clem. Strom. 9. p. 559.A visible representation of the Deity lessens his Majesty; and it is a disparagement to an intellectual Being to worship him by sensible matter: therefore, saith he,p. 584. Moses forbad any Image to be made of God, that we might ascend above sensible things; and thereby declaring p. 420God to be invisible, and incomprehensible. And from hence Zeno the Stoick said, no workmanship of man could be worthy of God. And in another place, he saith,Str. 1. p. 304. the reason why Numa forbad any Image of God like to man, or any living creature, was, because the most excellent Being could be represented only to our Minds; and that Antisthenes learnt that from Socrates, that God was like to no representation we could make of him;Protrept. p. 46. and therefore no man could learn any thing of him from an Image; and Xenophon, that it is apparent that God is great and powerful, but we know not how to make any thing like him. Is it possible then, that such Athenians as these, should look on any Images as the proper likenesses of God? These wiser Heathens, T. G. confesses,T. G. p. 74. did mean, that the nature of God being spiritual and invisible, it could not be represented by any thing like unto it; and yet these were Athenian Philosophers, as well as those whom, he saith, S. Paul condemned for supposing their Images to be proper Likenesses and representations of the Divinity. p. 96.But T. G. supposes, that the reason why the worship of Images is a disparagement to the Deity, and incongruous to the Divine Nature, is, because the people p. 421gave worship to them as Gods, or like unto the Gods they worshipped; whereas I have now plainly shewed, that those who contended for the Worship of Images among them, did neither look upon them as Gods, nor like to their Gods, but only as Symbolical representations of the Divine Nature. And the Fathers make use of this acknowledgement of theirs of the incongruity of Images to the Deity, from thence to prove the incongruity of the worship of them. So that it is not, the supposing the Images to be like God, which they condemn in them, for none of their wiser men were such Fools; but the making of such Images and worshipping of them, which in their own nature were so infinitely beneath the divine Being, did tend to the begetting in mens minds mean and unworthy thoughts of God. And therefore they frequently insist upon this, that mens imaginations are easily tainted and corrupted by the daily representations of things, especially when they are proposed as objects of worship: and however, the very manner of worshipping an infinite, and immaterial Being by a gross and material representation is that which the Fathers condemn as most unsuitable to the Divine Nature. For this, Justin Martyr p. 422saith, is not only unreasonable, but it is done foreign with the reproach of God, Iustin. Martyr. Apol. 2. p. 57.whose glory and form is inexpressible. Athenagoras saith,Athenag. p. 14. if God and matter be all one, it is then reasonable to worship God by giving worship to sensible matter; but if there be an infinite distance between them, why are we accused for not doing it? And if we refuse to worship the workmanship of God, viz. the Heaven and Elements;p. 16. why should we do it to the workmanship of men? Origen looks on this,Orig. c. Cels. l. 2. p. 91. l. 5. p. 255. l. 3. p. 120. as one of the most peculiar characters of the Christian doctrine, that it raises mens minds above Images and all worship of Creatures to the Creator of all things, and that it is one of the first things the Catechumens are instructed in, to despise Idols, l. 5. p. 375.and all Images; He saith, it is not only a foolish thing to pray to Images, as Heraclitus said; but to seem to do it as the Philosophers did. If they are worshipped, it must be either as Gods, which Celsus denyed, p. 376.or as representations of God, which cannot be, because God is invisible and incorporeal: and therefore, he saith,p. 374. that the Christians would not endure the worship of God by Images; and although other Nations did refuse the worship of Images, (with whom Celsus p. 423parallels the Christians) yet it was not upon the same ground that the Christians did, viz. because they would not debase and draw down the worship of God towards matter so fashioned and formed. Lactantius shews,Lact. l. 2, c. 2. how unreasonable it is to worship God by an Image; since Images are intended to represent the absent; but God is every where present. But if there ought to be any Image of God (which he calls simulachrum Dei, and surely doth not signifie an Idol in T. G's sense; and I hope here he will not charge me with want of fidelity in translating it Image) it ought to be living and sensible, because God lives for ever: therefore that cannot be the Image of God that is made by the Work of mens hands, but Man himself, who gives all the art and beauty to them which they have; but poor silly men as they are, they do not consider, that if their Images had sense and motion, they would worship the Men that made them; and brought them into such a curious figure out of rude and unpolished matter. Who can be so foolish to imagine, there can be any thing of God in that Image, in which there is nothing of man, but the meer shadow? But their minds have the deepest tincture of folly; for those who have sense, worship things p. 424that have none; they who think themselves wise, things that are uncapable of Reason; they that live, things that cannot stir, and they that came from heaven, things that are made of earth. What is this, saith he, but to invert the order of Nature, to adore that which we tread upon? Worship him that lives, if ye would live; for he must dye, that gives up his Soul to things that are dead. And after he hath fully shewn his Rhetorick in exposing the folly of worshipping Images, he concludes very severely;c. 18. quare nonest dubium quin Religio nulla sit, ubicun que simulachrum est. Wherefore there can be no true Religion, where there is the worship of Images; no, although it be simulachrum Dei, the worship of God by an Image; for his reason holds against all; Religion, saith he, is a divine thing, and whatever is divine is heavenly, but whatever is in Images is earthy, and therefore there can be no Religion in the worship of Images. What sport do Tertullian, Minucius, and Arnobius make with the Images which were consecrated to divine worship? Tertul. Apol. Minuc. Octav. Arnob. l. 6.from the meanness of the matter they are made of, the pains, and art that is used to bring them into their shape, the casualties of fire and rottenness, and defilements they are p. 425subject to, and many other Topicks on purpose to represent the ridiculousness of worshipping such things; or God by them. O, saith Arnobius, that I could but enter into the bowels of an Image, and lay before you all the worthy materials they are made up of; that I could but dissect before you a Jupiter Olympius, and Capitolinus. Yet these were dedicated to the worship of the Supreme God. Would men ever have been such Fools to have exposed themselves rather than such Images to laughter and scorn, if they had used any such themselves, or thought them capable of relative divine worship? How easily would a Heathen of common understanding have stopt the mouths of these powerful Orators, with saying but a few such words to any one of them. Fair and soft, good Sir; while you declaim so much against our Images, think of your own; what if our Iupiter Olympius, or Capitolinus be made of Ivory, or Brass, or Marble; what if the Artificer hath taken so much pains about them; what if they are exposed to Weather, and Birds, and Fire, and a thousand casualties: are not the Images of S. Peter, and S. Paul, or the several Madonna's of such and such Oratories liable to the very p. 426same accusations? If ours are unfit for worship, are not yours so too? if we be ridiculous, are not you so? and so much the more, because you laugh at others, for what you do your selves. So that we must either think the first Christians prodigious Fools, or they must utterly condemn all Images for Religious Worship; and not meerly the Heathens on considerations peculiar to them. And that we may not think this a meer heat of Eloquence in these men, we find the same thing asserted by the most grave and sober Writers of the Christian Church, when they had to deal not with the rabble, but their most understanding Adversaries. We have no material Images at all, saith Clemens Alexandrinus, Clem. Protrept. p. 34.we have only one intellectual Image, who is the only true God; We worship but one Image which is of the Invisible and Omnipotent God, saith S. Hierome. Hierom. in c. 16.No Image of God ought to be worshipped, but that which is what he is, neither is that to be worshiped in his stead, but together with him, saith S. Augustin. Ezek. c. 4. prope fin. Aug. ep. 119. c. 11.Ezek 4Where it is observable that the reason of worship given to this Eternal Image of God, is not communicable to any Image made of him, as to his humane Nature; for it cannot be said of the humane nature it self, p. 427that it is God, much less of any Image or representation of it. Therefore let T. G. judge whether the worshipping Christ by an Image, be not equally condemned by the Fathers with the worship of God by an Image; but of that hereafter. Eusebius answering Porphyrie about the Image of God, Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 10.saith, What agreement is there between the Image of a man and the Divine understanding? I think it hath very little to a mans mind, since that is incorporeal, simple, indivisible; the other quite contrary, and only a dull representation of a mans shape; The only resemblance of God lies in the soul, which cannot be expressed in Colours or Figures; and if that cannot which is infinitely short of the Divine Nature, what madness is it to make the Image of a man to represent the Figure and form of God? For the Divine Nature must be conceived with a clear and pure understanding free from all corruptible matter; but that Image of God in the likeness of man, contains only the Image of a mortal man, and that not of all of him, but of the worst part only, without the least shadow of Life or Soul. How then can the God over all, and the Mind which framed the World be the same that is represented in Brass or Ivory? p. 428S. Augustin, S. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 7. c. 5.relating the saying of Varro, about representing God by the Image of a mans body, which contains his Soul which resembles God, saith, that herein he lost that prudence and sobriety he discovered in saying, that those who first brought in Images among the Romans, abated their Reverence (to the Deity) and added to their errour;L. 4. c. 31. and that the Gods were more purely worshipped without Images: wherein, saith S. Augustin, he came very near to the Truth. And if he durst speak openly against so ancient an errour, he would say, that one God ought to be worshipped, and that without an Image: the folly of Images being apt to bring the Deity into contempt. Is it possible to condemn the worship of God by an Image in more express words than S. Austin here does?

2. Because the worship of God by Images is repugnant to his Will. §. 10.Clemens Alexandrinus mentions the Law given by Moses, Clem. Alex. Str. 5. p. 559.against the making any Image of God in the place before mentioned; and which he there asserts to be still obligatory to Christians. But although he there repeats the Command at large against all sorts of Images, yet it is observable that when he p. 429goes about to set down all the Commandments, this by some artificial hand is conveyed out of the way; and the second Commandment is,Strom. 6. p. 682. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord, &c. which made me not a little wonder, finding Clemens so often in other places expressing his zeal against Images. But it is not hard to guess what hands his Greek Copies have passed through, since the second Nicene Council; yet we are beholding to them for leaving so much evidence of their foul dealing behind them; for within few Pages,P. 688. he saith, the tenth Commandment takes in all sorts of Concupiscence, and therefore the precept against Images must be a distinct Command to make up the number: so that Sylburgius justly complains that the place is mutilated. If Clemens did not think this precept concerned Christians, he would never have objected it as an absurdity against a sort of Gnosticks, that thought themselves bound to oppose the Law, why then, saith he, when God said, Strom. 3. p. 441.Thou shalt not make any Graven Image, you were best go and worship Images. By all which we see, that he thought the precept to be still in force, and that it was intended against the worship of Images, and those Images, such as respect God, and not p. 430meerly the Heathen Idols. Origen saith,Orig. c. Cel. l. 7. p. 375. that for the sake of that Law, Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image, the Christians would rather die than defile their Faith with such impieties as the worship of Images: and therefore their case was very different from that of the Scythians, Numidians, Seres and Persians, with whom Celsus joyned them in the contempt of Images. When Symmachus pleaded with Valentinian for the toleration of the Pagan Religion, Symmach. Ep. l. 11. Ep. 54.on this pretence, that the same God was worshipped by all, and that by several waies men aimed at the same end; S. Ambrose answers,Ambros. c. relat. Symmac. 2. That God himself was fittest to teach what way he would be served in: You worship the Work of mens hands, we account it an injury to God to call anything by His Name that can be made by man; Non vult se Deus in Lapidibus coli, God hath declared, He will not be worshipped after such a manner. Whereby we see the Primitive Christians fixed themselves on the Command of God, as upon an immoveable rock, against the Worship of Images.

Thus much may suffice to have shewn in this place, that the Controversie between the Christians and Heathens about the worship of Images, was not whether p. 431they were proper Likenesses of God, from the apprehensions they had of their Images. I proceed now to shew it.

2. From the Notions they had of their Gods. And here, I must in the first place,§. 11. exclude those who in Truth were Atheists and not Idolaters, I mean the Epicurean Philosophers, who although they seemed to assert some pleasant Beings, that lived in perfect ease, far from the noise and smoke of the World; yet they utterly overthrew all foundations of worship in Prayers, or Sacrifices, by denying the Gods to have any regard to the actions of men, for fear of disturbing their sweet repose. These indeed made their Gods like men, but so thin and airy, that they could not bear the least justle of Atoms, and so quiet and still that the least thought of business would destroy their happiness. These were only made for fine Idea's to amuse the people with, but any one might see that they were never intended for the objects of worship; and therefore Plutarch and Athenaeus say,Plut. advers. Colot. Athen. l. 4. c. 27. That Epicurus took away all the worship of the Gods; however he complyed with the common practises of the people; and when he lift up his Hands to his Mouth, in token of adoration, p. 432he could not but laugh through his Fingers at the Gods they worshipped.

But we may see by the discourse of the Academick and Stoick, with the Epicurean in Cicero, how much they abhorred this Epicurean doctrine of the Gods being like to men; and Velleius the Epicurean doth in effect confess, there were no Philosophers of that mind besides themselves. For he reckons up all the opinions of the other Philosophers concerning the Nature of the Gods after such a manner, as to discover that this opinion was peculiar to their own Sect. He acknowledges, that Thales asserted God to be an Eternal Mind, which framed all things out of Water;Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 1. c. 25. even Anaximander and Anaximenes, who held only Material Gods, or first principles (for even the Atheist were willing to have matter believed to be a God by them, to avoid the odium of Atheism among the people) yet these rejected a humane form; at which the Epicurean is displeased, as though they might have flattered the people, (as they did) in the fashion, as well as in the name of a Deity. Some have undertaken to clear Anaximenes; and to make him of the same opinion with Thales, Lescaloper. ad Cicer. de Nat. Deor. p. 40.concerning an incorporeal Deity; saying that by Air, he meant only a Divine p. 433Spirit; and therefore in Plutarch he compares it to the Soul of Man, Plut. de Placit. l. 1. c. 3.which being Air doth animate the body; and Diogenes Apolloniates his disciple held Air only for matter, De Civit. Dei l. 8. c. 2.and Reason for the efficient cause: as St. Augustin tells us. However, Anaxagoras another disciple of Anaximenes is confessed by Velleius to hold God to be an infinite and active mind; free from all mixture of matter; as the words of Anaxagoras in Simplicius do express his meaning:Simplic. in Phys. Aristot. l. 1. p. 33. ed. Aldi. and S. Augustin under takes his vindication against the Epicurean objections, which suppose it impossible for us to understand any such thing as Mind without the conjunction of sense and Matter. Pythagoras said, That God was a quickening Spirit diffused through the World; which is best expressed by Virgil, in those words after the sense of Pythagoras,

Spiritus intus alit, totos que infusa per artus

Mens agitat molem, & magno se corpore miscet.Aeneid. 6. v. 724, &c.

Xenophanes falls under the same condemnation with the rest for asserting God to be a Mind; but he went somewhat farther, for in the Verses cited out of him p. 434by the Fathers,Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 13 c. 13. Theodoret. de cut. Graec. serm. 3. Clem. Alex. Str. 5. he said, That God was like to man neither in body, nor in mind: and for men to make an Image of God like to themselves, was all one as if a Horse should paint him with a long tail and four feet, if he had understanding enough to make a representation of the Deity; or an Ox or a Lion should draw him by their own Figures. Parmenides made God to be of a circular figure in the fashion of a Crown or Orb of Light compassing about the Heavens. Whatever the opinions of Alcmaeon, Empedocles, Protagoras, Diogenes Apolloniates were, it is certain the Epicurean despises them all; because they either appeared too doubtful and obscure in their opinion about a Deity, or at least seemed to make him of an inconvenient form to deceive the people. Even Democritus himself doth not please him, for although he makes his Images to be Gods, yet he did not by them understand such as T. G. doth, but he means no other than his Atoms (which Laertius calls foreign) and that first matter whence they arise; but, saith Velleius, while he destroys an Eternal Being, Democritus must needs overthrow the very opinion of a Deity; however he would give the title of it to his Images or matter, or the minds of men. p. 435He grants, that according to Plato, God is an incorporeal mind; but then, he saith, he must want sense, and prudence, and pleasure (i. e. Epicurean pleasure), but withall he adds, that Plato contradicts himself, making the world, and the Heavens and Stars, and Men to be Gods, which are both false in themselves, and inconsistent with each other. This charge against Plato seems to be the most material, and therefore deserves to be more fully cleared, which shall be afterwards done, when I come to the Platonick doctrine about Divine Worship, where it will be made appear, that Plato did assert one supreme and incorporeal Deity, and that the worship allowed by him to inferiour Gods was of the same nature with that which is practised in the Roman Church, and that he no more believed Images to be like the true God than they do. I now proceed to the rest of the Philosophers opinions in this matter: Xenophon is charged by the Epicurean, to be guilty of the same fault with Plato, and that in the Memoires of Socrates written by him, he saith, that men ought not to enquire after the Form of God; and that it is impossible for us to know it: for we only know, saith he,Xenoph. Mem. 4. that he is great and powerful, who makes all things to p. 436quake and tremble. Antisthenes acknowledged but one God in Nature, although there were many of the Peoples making; by which, saith Velleius, he destroyed the force and nature of the Gods: and upon the Epicurean supposition that they were like to men, he thought it necessary for their pleasure, that there should be more than one to keep up good fellowship among them. And because Speusippus said, That the Divine Nature did imply a Governing Spirit, he thought this as bad as the denying his Being; it being to his apprehension impossible to be happy and to Govern. He grants, that Aristotle affirmed God to be an incorporeal Being; however, he saith, that he was not constant to himself, sometimes making nothing to be God but only Mind; at other times attributing Divinity to the Heavens and parts of the World; but as the late Commentator on that part of Tully observes,Lescaloper. ad Cic. de N.D. p. 55. the former was only the First, Eternal, Infinite God, the other a secondary, limited, and participative Divinity, and rather an Image of the Divinity than it self: as he proves from comparing several places in Aristotle together,De Aristot. Theologia, p. 184, &c. and concludes with that excellent description of God drawn out of Aristotle by Du Vall, God is an Eternal substance, p. 437and Act, without potentiality and Matter, without magnitude, parts, division, Du-Vall. Synops. Analyt. Doctr. Peripat. ad Metaphyl. l. 14. c. 7.passion, change, intelligible by himself, the principle of Motion, but immovable, the Cause of Heaven, and, nature, and infinitely happy. Mirare Lector, saith Du Val, hominis Ethnici Theologiam. See how far Aristotle was from thinking the Athenian Images to be proper Likenesses of the Deity. If to these now we add the Stoicks, who asserted God to be a Divine Reason and Spirit actuating the World, we have a full Discovery, that by the confession of those who were of another opinion, all the famous Sects of Philosophers agreed in rejecting that principle that the Gods were of humane shape, and consequently the Idolatry they were guilty of in the worship of Images could not lie in this, that they thought their Images to be proper Likenesses of God. Of the same mind with these were the freer Philosophers of following Ages: among whom Cicero deserves a name,Cicer. Tuscul. 1. were it only for that excellent description of God, which Lactantius and S. Augustin quote out of him,Lact. l. 1. c. 5. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 22. c. 20. with great approbation, Neither can God himself be otherwise understood by us, than as a Mind free, and disentangled from all corporeal mixtures, perceiving and p. 438moving all thing. The same thing might be proved of Seneca, Epictetus, Plutarch, Alcinous, Plotinus, Proclus, Sallustius, and others; but I purposely forbear, both because these are sufficient for my purpose, and because it may be said by those who have nothing else to say, in this matter that they came to have truer apprehensions of God only by the means of the Christian Religion. Nay, I might prove that many of the very Poets themselves had much nobler conceptions of the Deity, than to imagine him to have any thing corporeal; but I shall only mention these Verses out of the ancient Tragoedian,

foreign

foreign.

Think not that God is like to mortal flesh.

From whence we see, that if there were any so foolish among the Athenians to imagine their Gods to be just like their Images, they did it not for want of instruction to the contrary; and if the nature of their Idolatry did lie in this, scarce any understanding man among the Heathens that did really believe a Deity, was guilty of it.

p. 4392. But if they did not suppose their Images to be the proper Likenesses of God, §. 12.yet they worshipped the Images of false Gods, or they worshipped their Images themselves for Gods, and therefore, saith T. G. the Apostle condemns them, T.G. p. 99.Rom. 1. To make my Discourse come home to them I must shew, saith he, that the Images by which they honour Christ and his Saints, are worshipped by them as Gods, or as the Images of false Gods, as those were of which the Apostle speaks in that place. That is it I aim at, to bring my discourse as home to them as may be; and therefore to give him full satisfaction, I shall enquire whether the Heathen Idolatry condemned by S. Paul, did consist in one of these two things, either, 1. That they worshipped only the Images of false Gods. Or, 2. That they took the Images themselves for Gods.

1. Whether their Idolatry lay in worshipping the Images of false Gods? If I can prove, 1. That they did intend to worship the true God, either by an Image purposely for him, or to direct the worship through the Gods and Images they worshipped to him; And 2. That there is no greater repugnancy in the manner of their worship, than is used in the Roman p. 440Church, I hope I shall bring my Discourse home enough to T. G.

To do this more convincingly I shall give an account of the principles of Divine worship among the Heathens from their own Writers (which I suppose will be another way of bringing it home to them) and because T. G. particularly charges Socrates and Plato, I shall make choice of the Platonick principles of Divine worship, and see upon what grounds they become guilty of Idolatry, which will not reach home to themselves. Card. Bessarion hath written an elaborate vindication of Plato against Trapezuntius, Bessarion advers. caluminat. Platonis. l. 2. c. 3.wherein he shews that Plato did assert the Unity, Power, and Goodness of God, and the Creation of all things by him; and that he doth this frequently and constantly, in his Parmenides, Phaedrus, Phaedo, Philebus, Timaeus, Sophista, Laws, Politicks, Epistles, every where.l. 3. c. 5. But Trapezuntius charges Plato, that although he did acknowledge God, he did not worship him, and that he sacrificed only to the inferiour Gods; to this Bessarion answers, that in his Books of Laws, which were made for the People, he doth not expresly prescribe any worship to God under the name of One, or First, or Ineffable, which were the Titles he p. 441had given him in his Dialogues, and were not known to the People; but in his eighth book of Laws, he appoints twelve solemn Feasts to the twelve Gods of whom Iupiter was chief; under which name the Supream God was known among the People, than which name in the proper importance of it, none could have been more significant of the Nature of the Supreme God; and that he retained the other common names of the Gods worshipped among them (that he might not seem to innovate any thing in Religion) although the Philosophers understood them in another sense than the common people did; by Iove they meant the First Being or Supreme Deity, by Minerva Wisdom, by Mercury Reason, by Saturn Eternity, by Neptune Form, by Iuno Matter, by Venus Nature, by Apollo the Sun, by Pan the Universe; but when they spake to the People about the worship of them, they did not mention Wisdom, or Reason, or Eternity, but Minerva, Mercury, Saturn; and he saith, it would have been folly in them to have done otherwise, the People being accustomed to worship the Gods under these names, and nothing more was requisite but to make them understand p. 442them aright. But for Plato himself, he saith, he worshipped the Supreme God after the best manner, i. e. with inward Reverence and adoration; in Plato's own expressions, by thinking the best and most worthy things of him, which Bessarion interprets in Spirit, and in Truth; and he adds, that Plato looked on Sacrifices, and Images as unworthy of him who was a pure mind, and could not be represented by any Image to men. But Plato's Adversary charges him, with giving the worship of Latria to inferiour Gods, and Creatures: to which Bessarion saith, that Latria among the Heathens signified only a stricter kind of service which some men paid to others that were above them;l. 3. c. 4. and that the worship by sacrifice by a long custome from the time of Zamolxis and Orpheus was looked on as common to all things worshipped by them; but, saith he, he referred all that worship which others gave to many and different Gods, to the First and Chief Principle of all things; and again mentions that saying in his Epinomis, that the most suitable worship of God is to think honourably of him. Which I suppose Plato would have said, was the same thing which those of the Church of Rome p. 443call Latria, and that he could by no means understand how sacrifices come to be appropriated to it; and to this purpose Bessarion quotes the saying of Porphyrius, that God is to be worshipped in Silence, and with a pure mind; and with the sacrifice of a good life. And as to other Deities which Plato allowed to be worshipped, he saith, that he supposed them to be inferiour and subordinate to the Supreme,l. 2. c. 4. and dependent upon him; and that he did not worship empty Statues, but one God the principle of all. Which being compared with Plato's Law, and practice about worshipping according to the Custome of the Countrey, doth imply that he worshipped Images with a respect to the True God. Let now the Reader judge whether according to the judgement of this learned Cardinal, Plato was guilty of worshipping only the Images of false Gods. But Trapezuntius still urges hard upon Plato, l. 3. c. 6.that if he allowed the worship of a second and third Order of Gods, which were but creatures, he might on the same ground worship any creatures, because all creatures are infinitely distant from the Creator. Bessarion like an understanding man, tells him, that this argument would hold as well against the Church of Rome, as against Plato, p. 444which worships Angels although they be Creatures; but yet he doth not think the argument will reach to the worship of all creatures; because though all creatures be equally distant as to existence, yet some come nearer than others as to perfection. This Trapezuntius takes off, by saying that Plato worshipped Daemons;c. 7. which Bessarion grants, but by Daemons he saith, Plato and Aristotle, and other Philosophers did not understand such evil Spirits as we do, but certain aereal Beings, lower than Gods and above men, whom they looked on as Mediators and intercessours between God and men; but for evil Spirits, he saith, they were not received into their Religion; and that Lucifer was looked on as accursed by them under the name of Ate. c. 8.And he shews farther from S. Augustin that all the Poetical Theology was rejected by Plato. So that the whole dispute with Plato about worship must come to these two points. 1. Whether it be lawful to worship the Supreme God, by external and visible representations, supposing that a man direct his intention aright towards the honour of God by them? 2. Whether it be lawful to give an inferiour worship to any Created Beings, whose p. 445excellencies are supposed to be far above mens in order to their intercession between God and Us? And now let T. G. judge whether I have not brought my Discourse home to their own doors. I omit Marsilius Ficinus as a man that may be supposed too partial to Plato; but I hope Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus may pass for a sound Catholick; being an Italian Bishop, and a Roman Courtier, that had so much zeal as to vindicate Constantines Donation against Valla; and therefore his Testimony cannot be rejected.Aug. Steuch. Eugub. de perenni Philos. l. 5. c. 1. He undertakes at large to prove that Plato acknowledged one True and Supreme God; and that all other Beings are created by him; and when he seems to attribute Divinity to other things, it is only a Divinity by way of gift and participation, such as Angels and holy men are said to have; which doth not hinder our believing them to be all at first created by one God. There were three sorts of inferiour Deities, he saith, asserted by the Philosophers,c. 2. viz. Daemons, or Gods with aërial bodies, who have a particular care of humane affairs; Intelligences or the Spirits which animate and move the Stars, and Coelestial Deities who converse with the Supreme God; now all these he makes appear from many passages p. 446in Plato, especially the famous one in his Timaeus, to have been made by God. And that when in his Books of Laws, c. 3.and the Epinomis or Appendix to them, he so much sets forth the Divinity of the Stars and the Heavens, he must either contradict himself, or attribute only an inferiour Divinity to them: and that he did not speak so clearly of the worship of the Supreme God, because he looked on him as incomprehensible, and that he could not so well know in what way it was fit to worship him. c. 5.However he invocates him in several places; especially when he was to speak concerning the Gods; and in his Epistle to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus, which he writ when he was grown old; he calls to witness, the God over all, Governour of all things and times, and Father of the Lord and Cause of things; but as to the publick manner of worship, he saith, that no man ought to teach unless God himself direct him. He farther shews, that notwithstanding Plato spake so much and so well concerning the true God, Plato. Epinomis p. 989. ed. Serran.c. 6.yet he attributed the title of Divinity to several ranks of Spirits, to the Heavens, the Sea, to the World, to Zamolxis, to Mercurius Trismegistus, and to good men in general, to whom he commands sacrifices and other p. 447acts of worship to be performed, Quod in Religione nostra justissimè fit Sanctis & Divis: which is with great reason done among us to Saints and Deified men. I now appeal to T. G. whether Aug. Steuchus doth not bring this matter very home to them? when, he saith,c. 11. that they either worshipped Angels (so he saith Philo renders their Daemons) or Saints, as they verily believed, and supposed the honour of these was very well pleasing to the Supreme God, whom they constantly acknowledged; as he at large proves not only concerning Plato, but Aristotle, and all the Philosophers of any reputation; and he saith, that Socrates in Plato not only confessed the true God, c. 12.but that he ought to be worshipped and observed by men, and that for his sake men ought never to forsake the way of righteousness, and therefore he resolved rather to follow God than the advice of his Friends, foreign, which cannot be better rendred than in the Apostles words, It is better to obey God than men. It would be endless to repeat the places wherein he shews at large, that Plato and the rest of the Philosophers, did acknowledge the Unity, Power, Wisdom, Goodness and Providence of the Supreme God; And after all these acknowledgements p. 448is it possible to conceive that they should never intend to refer the honour they gave to inferiour Deities and their Images to this Supreme God? nay, it is not possible, say some, they should do otherwise, since they believed all the other Deities they worshipped to be created and dependent Beings.

But I need not make use of such a way of proving it, Paulus Benius Eugubinus hath made it appear,Platon. & Arist. Theolog. Decad. 2. l. 2. p. 213. he saith, that according to Plato the Supreme God is to be worshipped after a singular and peculiar manner. And he gives this account of the Platonick principles of divine worship as to inferiour Deities. 1. That Plato's Gods were no other than our Angels, and that he sets God the maker of them, at a mighty distance from them. 2. That when he speaks so much of the worship of the heavenly Bodies, he doth not thereby intend the worship should be given so much to the bodies, as to those Blessed Minds that moved them; yea, saith he, to them properly and precisely, and so that they being removed, no honour or worship is to be given to the bodies themselves. Which certainly is no more Idolatry on this supposition, than adoration of the Host is, upon one far more extravagant. But, he p. 449saith, by one place in Plato's Epinomis, it may be questioned whether he intended the stars should be worshipped otherwise than as Images of the Gods; and therefore, saith he, very ingenuously,p. 217. Plato did scarce at all differ, unless in words, from the doctrine of the Roman Church in this matter. 3. That Plato did put a difference in the nature and kind of the worship which he gave to inferiour Deities, and that which was due to the Supreme God, and the same kind of difference as is made among them; and that when he acknowledges them to be created by him, he could not give Soveraign worship to them. 4.p. 219. That when Plato gave worship to Daemons the difference is only about words, because by Daemons he understood an inferiour Order of Angels, whom he supposed to be good and holy, and to have a care of mankind. The only difference then, that this learned man could find, worth taking notice of between Plato's worship and theirs was this, that they worshipped those for Saints and Deified men, and the Images of such, who were not truly Saints (not being Canonized by the Pope) but if they had been such,p. 220. he then confesses, that they did nothing amiss in the worship they gave to them, or their p. 450Images. Alioquin, saith he, ea cultus venerationisque ratio cum nostra magnopere congrueret. So that all the dispute comes to this, whether Mercurius Trismegistus were not as good a Saint as Thomas Becket, and as much deserved to be worshipped; or Socrates as Ignatius Loyola; not, whether we account them so, but whether they upon their supposition of their excellencies and vertues might not as innocently worship them, as the Papists do the other. P. Lescalopier a late Iesuit, saith,Comment. in Cic. de Nat. D. p. 51. that Plato makes so palpable a distinction between the Supreme God maker of all things, and other Deities, that no one but an Epicurean Backbiter can deny, that Plato did openly and constantly assert one God; and that he did not give equal honour to any as he did to him; and delivers this as the substance of his opinion, Unum Deum imprimis adorandum, cujus gratiâ caetera numina colenda sunt. One God to have Soveraign worship given him, and others to have a relative and inferiour worship. And now I hope, I have brought this matter home to T. G. and made it appear from their own Writers, that these Philosophers went upon the same principles of Divine Worship that they do in the Roman Church.

p. 451The only appearance of difference is about the worship of Deified men, §. 13.and that not as to the nature and kind of the worship, but only as to the persons; and yet as to this it ought to be considered, 1. That it was only a mistake, such a one as many may be guilty of in the Roman Church, who it is possible may worship those for Saints in Heaven, who are in a worse place. 2. Many of those worshipped by the Heathens are confessed to have been good men; so Campanella confesses of Ianus, Campan. Triump. Atheism. c. 11. n. 18.whom he took to be Noah, and he said, deserved to be worshipped, as well as Moses, and Peter, and Paul and the Prophets: and he saith farther, that many Wise and Vertuous men were worshipped by the Heathens, who did not look on them as essentially Gods. Thus many learned men have shewed that the Veneration of Adam and Eve, of Noah, Shem and Iaphet, of Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, of Ioseph, Moses and Ioshuah, &c. hath been preserved among the Gentiles under the names of the several Deities of Saturn, Tuisto, Mannus, Mercury, Bacchus, Apollo, Hercules, &c. in which case, the Heathens were innocent as to the Persons they worshipped. 3. The Papists ought in reason to allow them all the excuses they make use of for themselves; p. 452such as invincible Ignorance, Oral Tradition, Authority of Teachers, and conditional worship, which alone would justifie them; for by that the intention of the worship, is to somewhat supposed to be worthy of it, but if they be mistaken in the particular application of it, that general intention is thought sufficient to render the worship lawful.

But what saith T. G. all this while?T. G. p. 98. Why, forsooth, S. Chrysostome saith, that Plato gloried in the worship of Images and Creatures (of which he speaks before) so he renders foreign, which signifies no more, than setting them off with the best advantage; of which I have given an account already; and Socrates commanded a Cock to be sacrificed to Aesculapius: who denyes it? All the Question is what Socrates understood by Aesculapius. For those who have had the greatest insight into the doctrine of Socrates, and Plato, tell us, (such as Marsilius Ficinus, Ficin. in Platon. Phaedon. Coel. Rhodig. Antiq. Lect. l. 16. c. 12.and Coelius Rhodiginus) that by Aesculapius Socrates understood the Divine Beneficence that cures all diseases, to which a Cock was sacrificed as the forerunner of Day and the Sun, thereby acknowledging the Light of Life to be derived from the Divine Bounty, the Daughter of Providence: and that now especially they should do it in token of his p. 453deliverance from the diseases of doubt and fear; and the ancient Oracles say, that Souls returning to Heaven sing an Iô Paean, the fittest Emblem of which was the offering up a Cock. But besides this, Tacitus hath a remarkable passage to explain this sacrificing to Aesculapius, Tacit. histor. l. 4.viz. that many called God by the name of Aesculapius as he healed the diseases of Mankind; of which Seguinus takes notice in some ancient Coynes, wherein the Serpent the proper Symbol of Aesculapius is joyned with the horn of Iupiter Ammon, Saguin. select. Numismat. p. 2, 3, 4.and the Rays of the Sun; to shew, saith that learned Antiquary, that the same God was meant by all those several titles. So that hereby appears no contradiction to what I have said as to the Platonick doctrine and principles of Divine Worship.

However, T. G. is content to suppose that the Philosophers were as subtil as I would make them (or rather as honest as their own Writers make them) yet, saith he, were they not worthily condemned by the Apostle, though but for the external profession of praying and offering Sacrifice to the Statues of Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, &c. as also to those of birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things as the Vulgar did? I answer, that upon the principles of worship p. 454allowed in the Roman Church, they were not to blame in what they did, supposing that to be their meaning, which their own Writers allow; as appears by the foregoing discourse. But T. G. saith,T.G. p. 108. however they were to blame in two things. 1. Because the Images being instituted by publick Authority for the worship of false Gods, they concurred as I acknowledge with the vulgar in all the external practises of their Idolatry. 2. Because though in the Schools they denyed them to be Gods, yet as Origen charges Celsus, they worshipped them as Gods, and the people are confirmed in their opinion. But all the question is, how this external worship comes to be Idolatry, supposing they acknowledged one Supreme God, and gave only a relative or inferiour worship to other Beings created by him, or to the Images of them. Wherein I pray did this Idolatry consist? not in worshipping the true God by Images: that T. G. utterly denyes to be Idolatry. Was it then in giving Soveraign worship to inferiour Gods? that their own Writers deny that they did, but only a subordinate and relative worship. But it lay, saith T. G. in worshipping the Images of false Gods: these false Gods by the confession of their own Writers, were either good Angels, or Deified men; and p. 455is it at last confessed to be Idolatry to give divine worship to these? But they concurred with the people in their worship; and why not upon their grounds? what scandal did this give among them? but it was the external profession of Idolatry; of what Idolatry? of the worship of false Gods. What! still in a round? I grant they were false Gods, as they had divine worship given to them; and so whatever creature it be, that is so worshipped, though never so real or excellent a Being, becomes a false God; and so doth the Image of that Being so worshipped. But the people had other notions of these false Gods than the Philosophers had, and yet they complyed with the people in external acts of worship. This is just the case of the Roman Church, their Learned men have complained that the people worship the Images for Gods among them; but doth T. G. think himself guilty of external profession of Idolatry in using the same external acts of worship with the people, though with another intention? if not, why shall not the same excuse hold for Titius, which holds for Sempronius? Will they undertake to defend the follies of the ignorant people? no, they do not think themselves bound to do it, but blame them for their p. 456Ignorance and Superstition, and say the Church is free because it hath taken care to instruct them better. Might not the Philosophers have said the very same thing? We are not bound to answer for the madness of the rabble; we instruct them better, and our Schools are open for them to learn: but since the nature of such actions depends upon the intention of the Doers; we declare our intentions to be to honour the Supreme God in the first place; then the Coelestial Deities, with a worship inferiour to his, but above all other Beings; next to them we worship the Heavens on the account of the Intelligences that animate and move them; then the aereal Daemons or Lower Angels which have the nearest entercourse with men; and last of all the Souls of Deified men, whom some extraordinary excellency hath advanced above the condition of other souls: and according to the worship we give to the Beings represented, we give worship to the Images or representations. And if you allow the distinctions of Divine Worship, into Soveraign and subordinate, into absolute and relative, what harm is there in all that we do? Indeed, if it be unlawful to worship God by any p. 457Image; if it be unlawful to give any divine worship to any Creature; we are then to blame, and are justly condemned, otherwise we think we stand upon equal terms, with those who make use of the same distinctions, and only change the names of some, and the persons of others. Thus T. G. may see the parallel is not so extravagant as he would make it to be: and while S. Paul condemned the Philosophers for changing the glory of the incorruptible God, into Images of men or beasts, while they still retained God in their minds, he doth effectually condemn all those who worship the true God by any Images either of himself, or of any of his Creatures.

But besides this opinion of the Platonick Philos. there was another currant among the Heathens, viz. that one and the same God was worshipped under different names and titles; and Simon Majolus an Italian Bishop, and of great reputation as appears by the character given of him by Ferd. Ughellus, Ferd. Ughelli Italia sacra Tom. 8. p. 559.is of opinion, that they who began the Poetick Theology among the Heathens were wiser than Pythagoras, Socrates, or any of the Philosophers; for their design was, saith he, under the representation of a multitude of Gods, Majoli Dies Canicul. par. 2. coll. 1. p. 435.to shew to the people that p. 458God did see and know all things; because the common people were uncapable of understanding how one God should be present in all places; therefore they called that Divine power which Governed the Heavens Jove, the air Juno, the Sea Neptune, &c. And we may observe, saith he, that all the Gods of the Ancients were nearly related to Jove, by which it appears that their design was to signifie but one God that ruled and governed all things, whose power was diffused over the whole World. To which that saying of Plotinus agrees, speaking of God that made the world, bringing the rest of the Gods with him, or rather, saith he,Plotin. Ennead. 5. l. 8. c. 9. foreign. Who is one and all; and every one is all agreeing in one; in powers different, yet in that various power they are all one, or rather one is all. Plutarch saith,Plutarch. de Isid. & Ofirid. p. 377. ed. Francs. that there were not different Gods among the Greeks and Barbarians, in the Northern and Southern parts: but as the Sun, Moon, Heavens, Earth, and Sea are common to all Nations, but called by different names; so that One Reason and Providence which orders, disposes, and manages all things hath different honours, and Titles and p. 459Symbols, some more plain and easie, others more difficult and obscure. So Apuleius saith,Apul. Metam. l. 11. the same Deity was worshipped through the whole world, under different names, and Images, and customes. Which Hypothesis makes it yet more difficult for T. G. to charge the Heathens with the worshipping the Images of false Gods; for if the same God were worshipped only under different titles and representations as they say, if the worship of God by an Image be lawful, all the Heathens which went upon this principle, must be freed from the charge of Idolatry.

2. But T. G. is a man of tricks,§. 14. and he hath one fetch yet behind; which is, that the Heathens took the Images themselves for Gods, and therein were guilty of Idolatry. S. Paul, saith he, speaks of such Images, T.G. p. 99.106.as were worshipped for Gods, or for Images of false Gods. This is the very last reserve, and if this doth not help him, nothing can. Who would not commend the various artifices of my Antagonist, that doth with so much slight of hand convey one distinction after another, to blind the Spectators eye? If Idolatry be forbidden, and the command be too plain to be denyed; Yes, saith he, Idolatry is a very naughty p. 460thing; but what is Idolatry? Idolatry is the worship of an Idol, is it not? Yea verily. Now pray tell me, what is an Idol? an Idol is an Idol, in the self-evident and scientifical way. But to be serious,

Methinks Sir, saith a Disciple of T. G. to him, my conscience is a little unquiet when I worship an Image of a Madonna, for fear that should be an Idol.

Now see what a Fool you are; is not the B. Virgin in Being? Yes without doubt in Heaven.

Then her Image can be no Idol.

Say you so? but I pray how doth that appear?

Why, saith T. G. to his Scholar, an Idol is a representation of nothing that seems to be something; as if you imagine a Centaur, or a Triton, or any Chimera. And so farewell the Commandment.

But doth not S. Paul condemn the Athenians for Idolatry in worshipping the work of mens hands? And although Chimera's be the work of mens brains, yet surely Images are the work of mens hands.

It is true, saith T. G. but then he condemns not all Images, but such as are the proper likenesses of the Deity.

Hold Sir a little, you are too quick for me; Were these Athenians Idolaters or no?

p. 461Why do you ask me that Question?

I will tell you, Sir, an Idol you told me was a Chimera, but the proper likeness of the Deity is no Chimera, unless you suppose the Deity it self to be one; so that, methinks you free them from that which S. Paul condemns them for, viz. Idolatry. But I pray, Sir, what think you of those S. Paul condemns, Rom. 1. did they believe their Images to be proper likenesses of their Gods? had they any four-footed and creeping Gods, as they had Images like to such things?

No, saith T. G. these were another kind of Images from those at Athens.

"Of what kind were these?

These were the Images of false Gods.

"You mean they were Idols, do you not?

Yes, they were Idols.

Very well; then I have them right; they were Images of Centaures, Tritons, Sphinxes, Chimera's; but he doth not speak against such Images, but the representations of living and real Beings, as men, or beasts, &c. which are no Chimera's. Therefore it seems, whatever S. Paul saith, these were not guilty of Idolatry; and so methinks we have done a very good act of charity, for we have freed almost all the Heathens from Idolatry.

p. 462Hold a little, saith T. G. they were guilty for all this.

Of what? of Idolatry? when S. Paul saith, They knew God, but did not glorifie him as God, because they worshipped such Images; then it should seem to be Idolatry to worship God by an Image.

You run too fast; I said they were guilty; but, do you mark me, I did not say of Idolatry, but of complying with the people in the external practice of Idolatry.

Very well; the people then were guilty of Idolatry, and they only of compliance; but why doth not S. Paul lay this only to their charge, which was their only fault, as he doth when he blames the Corinthians for eating in the Temple of Idols? I remember, Sir, a good principle of yours, that actions go whither they are intended: now if these men intended to worship the true God by the publick Images, this action of worship must be free from Idolatry in them, whatever it were in others who had not such intention.

But what do you mean by the exteriour practice of Idolatry? If all external actions be aequivocal, and the nature of Idolatry depends on the intention of the mind, how comes the guilt of Idolatry p. 463to be charged upon external acts when you do not know the inward intention? Suppose among us, a person falls to his prayers before the Image of the Blessed Virgin; here is all the external profession of Idolatry that may be, for I can see no difference in any outward act between what he doth to the Image, and what he would do to the Person of Christ, if he appeared to him. If this be Idolatry, Wo be to us all; if it be not Idolatry in us, how came it to be so in the Philosophers, who, I have heard, owned the same true God, and had the same distinctions of the degrees of worship that we have?

But these were false Gods that they worshipped.

I hope the true God is not a false God, but I said they worshipped the true God.

Suppose that, yet they joyned false Gods with him.

Not in the same degree with him, for they supposed him to be far above them all which were created by him, and dependent upon him: and do not we do the very same in the worship of Angels and Saints?

True, but theirs were false Gods, and ours are Saints and Angels.

p. 464Upon the whole matter then, I find the fault of the Wiser Heathens, did not lie either in the general principles or practises of Divine Worship; but only that they called these Gods whom we call Angels (which I have heard S. Cyrill and S. Augustin thought not worth disputing) and that they did not worship such good Saints as we do, and of whom we have so good assurance that they were (as S. Christopher, Longinus, the eleven thousand Virgins, the seven Sleepers) whereas the poor Heathens were bred up with Fables; and we have such eminent proofs of their Sanctity, as S. Dominick's butchering Hereticks, and S. Ignatius Loyola's founding the Order of Iesuites. I am now very well satisfied, how justly the Philosophers were condemned, and how innocently we give the same kind of worship to those that far better deserve it.

Yet, saith T. G. there is another thing behind, which makes the difference so apparent that nothing but malice and blindness can hinder men from seeing it.

What is that, good Sir? for hitherto I have been forced to use my Spectacles; the difference was so fine and subtle.

Why, saith T. G. the Heathens took their Images themselves for Gods, which you know we do not.

p. 465This I confess is a very notable thing; but I pray, Sir, tell me, how they did it, and how we do it not? Did they really believe that the Wood and Stone of their Images did make and Govern the World? Or that a man by Houghs and an Axe could cut a God out of a Tree? That were as great a Miracle, as our Priests turning a Wafer into God, by saying five words; but I hope such Miracles are peculiar to the Roman Catholick Church. What was it then they meant, when they took their Images for Gods? I suppose it was only, that they believed a more special presence of their Gods in them; and that by their means Miracles were wrought at them, and that they sometimes spake, and sometimes bowed, and moved themselves. But do not all good Catholicks believe the very same things of our Images? Do not we know that our Lady is more present in one Image than in another? and that she works Miracles at some Images more than at others, and that she moves and speaks, and travels too; Witness the Holy House of Loretto, and the Madonna there; where was there ever such a thing done in Old Rome? The bringing the Stone from Phrygia, of the Mater Deorum, p. 466or the Serpent from Epidaurus, or the tattling of the Image of Iuno Moneta at Veii were not to be compared to this. Therefore, Sir, give me leave to advise you in this point; have a care of disparaging our wonder-working Images, while you would charge the Heathens with Idolatry, and free our Church from the guilt of it.

I had thought I had said enough in my former Discourse, §. 15.to make it appear, That the Wiser Heathens did not look on their Images as Gods, but as Symbols and Representations of that Being to which they did give Divine Worship: For I shewed that Celsus said, none but Fools think otherwise of them: that Porphyrie and the Heathens in Athanasius said they were only Books for the Ignorant: that in Arnobius thy denied that they ever thought their Images to be Gods, or to have any Divinity in them, but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use; and in S. Augustin, that they worshipped not the Images themselves, but through them they worshipped the Deity; that Maximus Tyrius at large proves, that Images were but signs of Divine honour, and helps to remembrance: that Julian saith, they do not p. 467think their Images to be Gods, but that through them they may worship the Deity; and that Eusebius in general testifies of the Heathens, that they did not look on their Images as Gods. All this put together I thought had signified something to the proving that the Heathen Idolatry did not lie in taking their Images to be Gods: and so it seems it did. For T. G. runs quite off from the business,T.G. p. 100. saying, That all these quotations do only prove (what I brought them for) that they did not look on their Images as Gods; but he saith, it appears from some of them that they looked on them nevertheless as Images or Symbols of false Gods. And did not I say, that I would prove by them, that they looked on them as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave Divine worship? I never said or thought, that the Heathens looked on all their Images as representations of the supreme God; For I very well considered that they worshipped inferiour Gods by Images made for them. And therefore after the producing these Testimonies I state the Question thus, I desire to know whether these men, who worshipped Images upon those grounds did amiss or no in it? I do not ask whether they were mistaken as to the objects p. 468of their Worship, but on supposition they were not, whether they were to blame in the manner of serving God by Images in such a way as they describe? And to this T. G. saith not one wise word; but only talks of scandal and compliance with exteriour practice of Idolatry, and what I have already answered: but he charges me, with misrepresenting the Testimonies, because, forsooth, Celsus adds, that they were Statues erected to the Gods; and Divinity and Deity are not in the Testimonies of Arnobius and S. Augustin;p. 101. and then bids the Reader learn what credit he is to give hereafter to my citing of Authors; and at the same time receive a farther Testimony of his kindness to me in taking the rest upon my word. Very artificially done, I confess, to pass those by to which no answer was to be returned, and to spend some Pages in most disingenuous cavils about the two Testimonies he insists upon. I desire only the Reader to consider, what I was proving, viz. That the Heathens did not take their Images themselves for Gods, which he yet asserts several times in that Chapter, after I had produced these Testimonies expresly to the contrary. Had it not become him either to have answered these Testimonies, or not to have asserted p. 469that, which these Testimonies most fully and clearly denied? But he is content to take them upon my word; I thank him for his kindness in it. But doth he take them as true or false? If as true, then the Heathens did not worship their Images as Gods, which he yet saith, they did: if he took them as false when I quoted them as true, the kindness was very extraordinary, and ought to be acknowledged. If he had produced the Testimonies of Bellarmin, Vasquez, Suarez, Valentia, and others, to shew that the Papists do not take their Images for Gods, and I should say, I took the Testimonies upon his word, and yet asserted the direct contrary to them, without so much as the least answering to what they said, would not any indifferent Reader account me either impudent or ridiculous?

Yet this is exactly the case of T. G. for he saith several times in this Chapter, that the Heathens did worship their Images as Gods, whereas those Testimonies say as plainly as words can express it, that they did not; and yet these Testimonies he takes upon my word, i. e. in common construction he believes them to be true, and yet the matter contained in them to be false: which is an admirable piece of T. G.'s art and ingenuity. But to add p. 470yet more to his kindness, at the same time he takes these Testimonies on my word, he will let the Reader see, what credit he is to give to my citing of Authors. But why then will he take any upon my word, if I have so little credit with him? Herein▪ he shews himself either very weak, if he will take my word, when he thinks I deserve no credit; or very malicious, if he knows I deserve credit, and yet goes about to blast it, as much as in him lyes.

But wherein is it, I have exposed my reputation so much in the two Testimonies, §. 16.he hath fastned his Talons upon? The first is that of Arnobius, wherein I say, the Heathens deny, that they ever thought their Images to be Gods, or to have any Divinity in them, but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use. That which he charges me with is, that by cogging in the word Divinity in the singular number, I would represent it to the Reader, as though the wiser Heathens intended to worship the true Divinity by those Images, whereas all that they say in Arnobius, is that they did not look on their Images as Gods per se of themselves, but they worshipped the Gods which by dedication were made to dwell in them; i.e. saith he, by p. 471Magical Incantation, by which the Souls of Wicked men were evocated and as it were tied to dwell in those Images, T. G. p. 102, 103.as S. Austin relateth l. 8. de Civ. Dei. c. 23. & 26. Hereupon he charges me very severely, with soul dealing; in putting Divinity in the singular number, when the Infernal Spirits were meant by it; as if they intended to worship the true God by these Images, when they declared they worshipped false Gods by them. A very heavy charge; to which I shall give a distinct answer: 1. To that of translating Divinity in the singular number, T. G. may if he please take it upon my word (or if not, let him search the place once more) that I translated these very words of Arnobius, Nihil Numinis in esse simulachris, that the Images have no Divinity in them, and if these words be not in that very place, and but two lines before those quoted by him. Erras & laberis, &c. I will venture my credit in citing Authors upon T. G.'s ingenuity: but if they be there, as most certainly they are, what doth such a man deserve for so notorious fair dealing? 2. My design was not to represent by this means that the Heathens only intended to worship the true God by Images, but that the worship of Images was unlawful, although men did not take the Images themselves p. 472for Gods: so I said in the very beginning of those quotations, that I would prove that the Heathens did look on their Images as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine worship. Do I say of the True God? Are not the words so general on purpose to imply that, whatever Being they worshipped, they looked on the Images as symbols or representations of it? And after, to prevent all such cavils, I purposely added, I do not ask whether they were mistaken as to the objects of their worship? But what can a man do to prevent the cavils of a disingenuous Sophister? 3. As to what he saith, that what they plead in Arnobius is only that their Images were not Gods per se of themselves, but by virtue of the Spirits dwelling in them, I answer, that T. G. charges the Heathen Idolaters with worshipping the Images themselves;T.G. p. 106. and saith, that I deal very disingenuously in affirming that the Wiser Heathens did not worship the Images themselves. Now what could be more pertinent to my purpose, than to produce those very words of Arnobius, You erre and are mistaken O T. G. in what you affirm, for we do not think the matter of Brass, Silver and Gold to be Gods or adorable Deities per se of themselves. Whereby we see T. G's own p. 473words as he renders them out of Arnobius do sufficiently vindicate me and contradict him. He saith, they did worship the Images themselves, and they say they did not. What doth he mean else, when he saith in other places,T. G. p. 99.106. that the Heathens worshipped their Images as Gods; what is this but to take the Images themselves for Gods? For he never once supposes it unlawful to worship Images on the account of a Divine Spirit being present in the Images, supposing that spirit of it self to deserve adoration: as suppose upon consecration of an Image of the B. Virgin, she should manifest her self in and by that Image, in speaking, or moving, or working miracles, doth T. G. think it the more unlawful to worship such an Image? no certainly, but that men ought to shew more devotion towards it. Therefore T. G. could not condemn the Heathens for the worshipping the Images, supposing good Spirits did dwell in them. Setting aside then, the dispute about the nature of the Spirits, all that he could imagine the Fathers had to condemn in those that worshipped Images, was, that they worshipped the Images themselves for Gods; which the Heathens in Arnobius deny, and which was the thing I produced that Testimony to prove. Bellarmin, whom p. 474my Adversary follows, saith, that the Heathens did take the Images themselves for Gods, Bell. de Imag. l. 2. c. 13.for which he gives some very substantial Reasons. 1. Because their Priests told them so. 2. Because almost all the world believed it. This one would think were enough to justifie the belief of it, having the Authority of their Teachers, and Consent of Nations for it. 3. The motion, speech, and oracles that came from them. 4. The humane shape it self, which he saith, is a very notable argument to make men think that Images live, because men do; especially, he saith, if it be said so by Wise men. But whatever the reasons be, he saith, he would prove that the Heathens believed ipsa idola esse Deos, the very Images themselves to be Gods. Now what could be more contradictory to this assertion, than those words of the Heathens in Arnobius are? So that the Per se which T. G. charges me with leaving out, adds rather more weight and Emphasis to the Testimony. 4. After all this, I say, that Arnobius doth reject the worship of Images on such grounds as do hold against the worship of the true God by an Image. For he brings that as the objection of the Heathens against the Christians, that supposing they had never so p. 475right apprehensions of the nature of those Beings which the Heathens worshipped for Gods, yet they were to blame for not worshipping their Images, Nec eorum effigies adoramus, saith Arnobius of the Christians,Arnob. l. 6. p. 190. which I beseech T. G. to remember are the words I translate, for fear he should take the next words, Templa illis extruimus nulla; and then cry out, there is no such thing as Images in the words, that I have cogged in the word to serve my turn; that this is setting up a flag in a Fireship—Dolus an Virtus— with such kind of laudable plain-dealing. Nay, Arnobius goes yet farther, For, saith he, what greater honour can we attribute to them, than that we place them there, where the Head and Lord, and King of all is to whom they owe the same acknowledgements that we do? But do we honour him, delubris aut Templorum constructionibus, with Images and Temples? So I render it without the fear of T. G's new charge of disingenuity; for, besides that the delubra were, saith Festus, wooden Images; it is certain that afterwards, according to Varro, the most learned of the Romans, when delubrum was applyed to a place, it signified such a one,Macrob. l. 3. c. 4. in quo Dei simulachrum dedicatum est: and in the old Glossaries p. 476it is rendred into Greek by foreign, therefore to honour God sine delubris, must be to worship him without Images; and this was the reason why the Christians denyed they had any Temples because the Heathens supposed there could be no proper Temples without Images; therefore in S. Hierom, Hier. ad Ripar. adv. Vigilant.Sanctorum Basilicas in Templa convertere, is all one as turn Churches into Idol Temples: and both in Origen and Minucius, the Heathens joyn those accusations together, that the Christians had no Altars, nor Images, nor Temples; and Vitruvius in the building of a Temple, Vitruv. l. 4. c. 5.takes the greatest care of placing the Images, that they may stand so, that the Images may look on those who come up to the Altars. And it appears by the discourse in Arnobius, that they valued no Temples, where there were no Images; thence came the suspicion that Hadrian intended to worship Christ, because he commanded Temples to be built in all Cities without any Images; as Lampridius saith in the Life of Alexander Severus. Lamprid. vit. Alex. Sever.It is all one to our purpose whether Hadrian had any such intention, or no; for its being believed that he had from this Reason, because the Temples were without Images, p. 477is a most undeniable evidence that the Christians then did not worship God or Christ, by any Images in their Churches. After this, Arnobius argues against the use of Images for this Reason;Arnob. l. 6. p. 195. if you believe your Gods to be in Heaven, to what purpose do you make Images of them to worship? cannot you as well pray to the Gods themselves? But it may be you will say, because you cannot see the Gods themselves, you represent them as present by those Images? But, saith he, he that thinks he must have Gods to be seen, doth not believe any at all. However, say they, we worship them through these Images. And what, saith he, can be more injurious, or reproachful than to know God to be one thing, and yet to pray to another? to expect help from the Deity, and yet to fall down before a senseless Image? which is like a man that should pretend to take advice from men, and to ask it of Asses and Swine. Is not that, saith he,p. 200. not meer mistake but madness, supplicare tremebundum factitatae abs te rei, to fall down trembling before a thing made by your selves? Besides this, he argues from the matter, form, and design of them, how ridiculous it is to worship Images; and after exposing the other pretences of the Heathen Idolaters, in the p. 478last place he considers this, that the ancients understood well enough, p. 208.Nihil habere Numinis signa; that there was no Divinity in Images, (T. G. sees I am for the singular number still, and I think Numen is so too) but that Images were set up to keep the rude people in awe; which, he saith, they were so far from, that they only made their Gods contemptible, and thereby encouraged them more in their Wickedness. I desire now the Reader to reflect, whether these arguments are peculiar to the worship of false Gods; and whether they do not with as much force hold against the worship of the true God by Images? And if it be possible to suppose that a man, that hath not the stupidity of an Image, should object those things against their worship, which would be returned upon his own, and never provide in the least for any defence of it? So that after all the loud clamours, and insolent charges of T. G. we find that Arnobius himself doth fully prove, that the Divinity cannot be worshipped by Images; and that what the Heathens plead for themselves in him, doth shew, that they believed there was no Divinity in Images; but what only comes from their consecration to such an Use.

p. 479The next Testimony he charges me with foul-dealing in, is that of S. Austin, §. 17.wherein I say the Wiser Heathens deny, Aug. in Ps. 113.Ps 113that they worshipped the Images themselves, but they add, that through them they worship the Deity. After this T. G. sets down those words of S. Austin, Videntur sibi purgatiores esse Religionis, &c. And because in the following expressions, mention is made of the Corporeal Creatures, or the Spirits that rule over them as worshipped by their Images, therefore he charges me with great disingenuity in saying, that the Heathens in S. Austin affirmed that through their Images they did worship the Deity: and yet as it falls out, these are the very words I translated in S. Austin, Non hoc visibile colo, sed Numen quod illic invisibiliter habitat; and I now appeal to men of any common ingenuity, what usage I have met with from this Adversary, who passes by the very words I translated, as near to the signification as possible; and produces other passages; and then Hectors, and Triumphs, and cryes out of my disingenuity; when scarce ever any man discovered greater than in so doing, and I fear against his own conscience. The true state of the case in S. Austin p. 480about the worship of Images is this, 1. He exposes the worship of Images in general as a silly and ridiculous thing; being of things much inferiour to the meanest Brutes; and if men are ashamed to worship Beasts, that hear and see, and live and move, they ought to be much more ashamed to worship a dumb, stupid, sensless Image; and they might with greater reason worship the Mice and Serpents which are not afraid of their Images, but shelter themselves within them. Now it is plain this discourse of S. Austin doth reach to all sorts of Images for whomsoever they are intended. For an Image made for the true God hath no more sense, or life, or motion in it, than one of T. G's Idols, or an Image made for a Chimera. But because the Christian Church knew nothing at that time of the worship of Images, therefore he directs his discourse against the Heathens, to consider the pleas and excuses they made for it. 2. He reckons up their several pleas for their Images; 1. Some said that there was a secret Deity which lay hid in the Image, and which they worshipped through it. 2. Others, that thought themselves of a more refined Religion, said, they neither worshipped Images, nor Daemons, but only beheld in the corporeal Image, the p. 481Symbol of that which they ought to worship. Which is the place cited by T. G. Now I appeal to the Reader, whether this very place doth not prove what I intended, viz. that the Heathens did look on their Images as Symbols or representations of that Being to which they gave divine worship. Whereby I see T. G. hath done me a kindness indeed, which I thank him for, i.e. he hath proved that which I did intend, and confuted that which I did not.

But there remains yet another charge of disingenuity to be answered,§. 18. which concerns the quotation of Trigantius; the occasion whereof was this, I had said, if S. Paul had not thought men to blame in the worship of God by an Image, he would never have condemned them for it; as he doth Rom. 1. But he ought to have done as the Iesuits in China did, who never condemned the people for worshipping Images,Trigaut. l. 5. c. 16. p. 588. but for worshipping false Gods by them; and perswaded them not to lay them aside, but to convert them to the honour of the true God, and so melted down the former Images and made new ones of them. Can we imagine S. Paul meant the same thing, when he blames men not for believing p. 482them to be Gods, but that God could be worshipped by the Work of mens hands; and for changing thereby the glory due to God in regard of his infinite and incorruptible Being into mean and unworthy Images, thinking thereby to give honour to him. These are my words. Now observe T. G's ingenuity;T.G. p. 110, 111, 112, 113. instead of answering the argument he falls to the exercise of his best Talent, cavilling: the force of the argument lay in this, S. Paul condemns the very manner of worshipping God by Images; the Iesuits in China do not that, but bid them lay aside their old Images, and worship new ones: what is the reason, that the Iesuits vary from S. Pauls method, but only because they differ in judgement, i. e. S. Paul thought the worship of Images in general unlawful, the Iesuits do not, but only the Images of false Gods. This was the thing designed by me, to which he gives no manner of answer; but only for several pages he tells a sad story how hard it was for him to come by the Book of Trigautius; & when he had it, he thought he had gotten a mighty advantage against me; because, forsooth, I render simulachra Images; for the whole charge comes to this at last; for whereas Trigautius distinguished the Heathen simulachra p. 483from the Images of Christ because I did not in the account of the thing; (for I designed no verbal translation, as T. G. knew well enough by the character) therefore this is charged to be the effect of some very bad design; and an instance of my want of fidelity, sincerity, honesty, ingenuity, and what not? I am sorry Trigautius was so hard to come by, for it is possible, if he had not been put to so much trouble in procuring him, I might have escaped better. But is it in good earnest, such a horrible fault to translate simulachra Images? I see what a good thing it is to have a good Catholick Dictionary, for a hundred to one, but others would have rendred it, as I have done. I had thought Tully's using the words Statuae, Imagines, Signa and simulachra promiscuously might have been sufficient ground for my translating it by Images: Cicer. pro Archia c. 12. Pro domo sua. Isid. Origen. l. 8. c. 11.But it seems the Ecclesiastical use of the word is otherwise. I had thought Isidore a good Iudge of the Ecclesiastical use of a word; and he uses it promiscuously with Imagines & effigies; but I confess Ecclesiastical uses have been much changed since Isidores time. And it seems simulachra is only applyed to Heathen Images, by no means to those among Christians. But why so? do they not vultum p. 484simulare, as Horace expresses it;Horat. ep. l. 2. ep. 1. bear a resemblance to what they represent? Do they not pariles line as principali ab ore deducere, which is Arnobius his description of the proper notion of simulachrum? Arnob. l. 6.But for all this, their Images are not simulachra, and shall not be simulachra. It seems when Images were baptized Christian, they lost their former name, and have gotten a new one: and very much good may it do them, and all those that worship them, if the change of name would excuse their guilt. Yet Agobardus was of another opinion when he saith,Agobard. de Imag. sect. 19. that if those who forsook the worship of Devils had been bidden to worship the Images of Saints, puto quod videretur eis non tam Idola reliquisse, quam simulachra mutâsse: I think, saith he, that it would have seemed to them, that they had not left their Idols, but only changed their Images. Where we see Agobardus is my Author for making simulachra common to the Images of Heathens and Christians. And S. Augustin calls the Image of the true God simulachrum. Aug. de Fide & Symbolo c. 7.But to set aside Authorities, I hope the Images used in China before the Gentiles conversion, and those after did agree in something common to them both: although they were before the Images of false Gods, and after p. 485of Christ or the B. Virgin, yet they were all Images still. Might I not be allowed to say, that the Jesuits did not perswade the Converts to lay aside the use of Images; but to convert them to the honour of the true God; and so melted down the former Images and made new ones of them? No, by no means, For them and them, coming after one another, and the first being the Images of false Gods, it was scarce possible for an ordinary Protestant Reader not to avoid being mistaken. In what? in thinking they did not worship Images after, as well as before their conversion? no, but in supposing, that they made use of the same Images afterwards, which they did before? and what if they did? what harm was there in it on T. G's principles, supposing the intention be directed aright? Nay, T. G. after all his clamour yields the thing, for saith he, St. Gregory turned the Pagan Festivals into Christian Assemblies, Greg. l. 9. ep. 72.and Heathen Temples to Christian Churches without ever pulling them down to build them up again; and supposing the worship of Images lawful, why not those to be used as well as Temples? And yet, I no where say, that they made use of the very same, but they melted them down and made new ones of them; which is plainly p. 486to say, that though they did not allow those particular Images, yet they did not condemn the Use of Images for divine worship; but of the materials of the former Images they made new ones to be used by them as Christians, after that manner of worship which the Iesuits delivered to them; which was all that was necessary to my purpose. And now I leave the Reader to Judge whether in all this charge about these citations, T. G. hath not shewed himself to be a man of admirable ingenuity; and whether he be not well accomplished in the most laudable vertue of a Writer of Controversies, viz. sincerity, and fair dealing?