Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Part 1 · Chapter 1 (1 of 3)

Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Part 1 · Chapter 1 (1 of 3)

p. 1CHAP. I. T. G's notion of Idolatry examined and confuted.

TO make good the Charge of Idolatry against the Roman Church,§. 1. which is my present business, there are two things necessary to be done,

1. To lay down the right notion of Idolatry.

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

I begin with the consideration of the Nature of Idolatry, not only because my p. 2Adversary calls me to it in these words, T. G. p. 203.Here the Ax is laid to the root, and if ever the Dr. will speak home to the purpose, it must be upon this point. He must speak to the Nature of the thing, &c. But because the weight of the whole matter in debate depends upon it, and whosoever reads through T. G's answer to me, will find the only strength of it to lie in a very different notion of Idolatry which he sets up, which if it prove true, the main of my charge must fall to the ground; although however by his way of writing he can hardly answer the character I had given him, either of a Learned or ingenuous Adversary.

The notion of Idolatry which T. G. lays down may be gathered from these assertions of his, p. 64.That, God being the only supreme and superexcellent Being above all and over all, to him therefore Sovereign honour is only to be given, and to none beside him; That as no command of God can make that to be not Idolatry which is so in the nature of the thing; so no prohibition (if there were any) could make that to be Idolatry, which hath not in it the true and real nature of Idolatry; That, the worship of Images forbidden in the Commandment,p. 203. is the worshipping Images instead p. 3of God; and the reason of the Law was to keep the people in their duty of giving Sovereign worship to God alone,P. 39 by restraining them from Idolatry.p. 63. That this Law was made particularly to forbid Sovereign worship to be given (as he saith, it was at that time given by the Heathen) to graven Images,p. 67. i. e. representations of imaginary Beings; or to any similitude, i. e. the likeness of any thing, which although it had a real being, yet was not God: That, p. 99.the Image-worship condemned by S. Paul, was the worshipping Images for Gods, or as the Images of false Gods: That, p. 103.evil Spirits or false Gods did reside in their Images by Magical incantation:p. 349. That, the supreme God of the Heathens was not the true God but a Devil, and that the Poets who call him the Father of Gods and men,p. 348. were those whom Horace confesseth, that they took the priviledge to dare to feign and say thing. From these assertions, it is no hard matter to form T. G's notion of Idolatry, viz. That it is, The giving the Soveraign worship of God to a creature, and among the Heathens to the Devil. And now who dares charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry? I do not wonder that he calls this so foul, so extravagant, so unjust a p. 4charge; and parallels me with no meaner a person than Iulian the Apostate, saying, That surely a more injurious Calumny scarce ever dropt from the pen of the greatest enemy of Christianity,p. 350. except that of Julian the Apostate. But I am so used to their hard words, that I can easily pass them over, and immediately apply my self to the debate of these things, which will tend very much to the clearing the true notion of Idolatry,

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

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

For if those who acknowledge one Supreme Being, the Creator and Governour of the world, were notwithstanding this, guilty of Idolatry, and that Idolatry be, as T. G. confesseth, p. 27.the giving the worship due to God to a creature; then if we can prove, that the Church of Rome doth give any part of that worship which is due to God to any thing besides him, we may still justly charge them with Idolatry, although they believe one Supreme God, and reserve some worship which he calls Sovereign to him.

p. 51. Whether Idolatry be not consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme 1Being, Creator,§. 2. and Governour of the world? Whom I suppose T. G. will not deny to be the true God. It is agreed by him, that the whole Heathen world was guilty of Idolatry, without excepting the more intelligent and wiser persons among them; therefore our only business as to them is to enquire, whether they did acknowledge this Supreme Being; and it is without dispute, that all Christians do acknowledge the True God; if I can then prove, that such have notwithstanding been charged with Idolatry, by those whose judgement T. G. dares not refuse, I hope these two things being made out, will be sufficient to prove, that those may be guilty of Idolatry, who acknowledge one Supreme God.

As to the Heathens, who are confessed 1to be Idolaters. I have such plenty and choice of evidence in this matter, that it is not easie to know which to leave out; for, if either the Testimony of the Heathens themselves may be taken; or the Testimony of the Writers of the Roman Church concerning them; or the Testimonie of the Scriptures; or of those p. 6Fathers who disputed against their Idolatry, or of the Roman Church it self, I do not doubt, to make it evident, that those Heathens who are charged with Idolatry, did acknowledge one Supreme God. In so great store I have reason to consider the temper of the person I have to deal with; For, if I produce the Testimony of the Heathen Writers themselves, it may be he may suspect, that the Devil dwelt in their Books as well as in their Images; and being a very cunning Sophister that he might perswade their Philosophers to write for one God, that he might have the worship belonging to him: as O. C's Instruments were for a single Person, that the Government might be put into his hands. But, I have a better reason than this, viz. that this Work is already undertaken, by a very learned Person of our Church.

The Testimony of Scripture is plain enough in this matter to any unbyassed mind; as appears by S. Pauls saying to the men of Athens when he saw the Altar to the unknown God; Whom ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you;Act. 17.23.Acts 17:23 Did S. Paul mean the Devil by this? Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to the world? yet he preached p. 7him whom they ignorantly worshipped, i. e. the Devil, saith T. G. Although S. Paul immediately saith, v. 24.it was the God that made the World, and all things in it: and afterwards quotes one of their Poets for saying foreign, For we are his offspring;v. 28. and it is observable that the words immediately going before in Aratus are foreign, and he useth foreign twice more in the verses before, foreign—foreign,p. 348.349.352. which is the very word that T.G. saith doth signifie an Arch-Devil. Doth S. Paul then say, we are all the Devils offspring? and not an ordinary one neither, but the very Arch-Devils? Was this his way of perswading the Athenians to leave the worship of Devils, to tell them, that they were all the Devils offspring? No: it was far enough from him, for he infers from that saying of Aratus, that they were the offspring of God, foreign.v. 29. So that if Saint Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Iupiter was so far from being the Arch-Devil, that he was the true God, blessed for evermore. And it is observable, that S. Paul quotes one of their Poets for this saying; notwithstanding T. G's sharp censure of them out of Horace; p. 8with which, the force of S. Pauls testimony is overthrown. But he was not alone in making this to be the Poets sense, Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 13. c. 12.for Aristobulus the Iewish Philosopher produces it to the same purpose, and adds, that although he used the name of Jove, yet his design was to express the true God. Minucius Felix saith wisely in this case, Minuc. Felix in Octav. p. 19.They who make Jove the chief God, are only deceived in the name, but agree in the Power; so far was he from thinking their Iupiter Father of Gods and men, (which he applauds the Poets for saying) to have been the Arch-Devil.

But T. G. quotes Origen for saying, Orig. c. Cels. l. 5.that the Christians would undergo any Torments rather than confess Jupiter to be God; for they did not believe Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the same, neither indeed to be any God at all, but a Devil, who is delighted with the name of Jupiter, an enemy to men and God. I grant, Origen doth say so; but suppose St. Paul and Origen contradict one another, I desire to know whom we are to follow? Yet if T. G. had considered Origen as he ought to have done, he would have seen how little had been gained by this saying of his. For when Celsus had said, it was p. 9no great matter whether they called the Supreme God Jupiter, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammon as the Aegyptians did, or Pappai as the Scythians. Origen answers. 1. That he had spoken already upon this subject, which he desires may be remembered; now in that place he saith, that by reason of the abundance of filthy and obscene fables which went of their Jupiter, the Christians would by no means endure to have the true God called by his name;Orig. c. Cels. l. 4. p. 196. ed. Cant. having learnt from Plato to be scrupulous about the very names of their Gods. 2. Origen hath a particular conceit about the power of the Hebrew names; and hath a very odd discourse, unbecoming a Philosopher and a Christian, about the power of words in enchantments, and that the same words had great force in their Originals,Orig. c. Cels. l. 1. p. 19. &c. which they lost being translated into other Languages; and if it be thus, saith he, in other names, how much more ought we to think it so in the names of God? And therefore he would by no means have those powerful names of Adonai and Sabaoth to be changed for any other. By which for all that I can see, Origen would as much have scrupled calling the Divine Being God, as Iove, If Vossius his conjecture be true, that God p. 10is the same with the old German Gode, or Godan,Voss. de Idolol. l. 1. c. 37. and according to the common permutation of those letters, Wodan, who was the chief God among the Germans. 3. He saith, that it was no fault at all for any persons to call the Supreme God by the names used in their own language; as the Aegyptians might call him Ammon, and the Scythians Pappai: and then why not the Greeks foreign or foreign? and I do not see he finds much fault with them for it; but he would not have those names brought into the Christian Religion, which had been defiled by such impure stories and representations among the Heathens: which is the best thing that he saith to this purpose: But we see that Origen himself doth not deny that either the Greeks, or Aegyptians, or Scythians did own a Supreme God, or that they had proper names to express him by: but he would not have the Christians bring those names into their Religion; And that Origen grants that the Heathens did acknowledge the Supreme God, will be proved afterwards. But whatever his opinion was, we are sure S. Paul by the God that was known among the Heathens, did not mean the Devil: For was the believing the Devil p. 11to be the Supreme God, that holding the truth in unrighteousness,Rom. 1.18.Rom 1:18 which S. Paul charges the Heathens with? Was this indeed that foreign That which is known of God, which he saith, v. 19.not only was manifest in them, but, that God himself had revealed it to them? Was this that eternal Power and God-head which was to be seen by the things that were made, so as to leave them without excuse?v. 20. Was this their knowing of God,v. 21. and that incorruptible God whose glory they turned into the Image of a corruptible man, &c? Was all this, v. 23.nothing but Iupiter of Crete, and the Arch-Devil under his name? But what will not men say, rather than confess themselves Idolaters?

Although these Testimonies of Scriture, be never so evident;§. 3. yet I am not sure but T. G. may be the Polus mentioned in Erasmus now, (whom he mentions for my sake, p. 37.203.more than once) and may espy a red fiery Dragon, even the old Serpent there, where I can see nothing but the discovery of the True God. Therefore supposing that the Testimony of Heathens or the Scriptures may not weigh much with him, methinks he might have p. 12considered what the Learned men of their own Church have said to this purpose. Th. Aquinas confesseth, Th. Aquin. c. Gent. l. 1. c. 42. in fin.that the most of the Gentiles did acknowledge one Supreme God, from whom they said all those others whom they called Gods did receive their being; and that they ascribed the name of Divinity to all immortal substances, chiefly by reason of their wisdom, happiness, and Government. Which custom of speaking, saith he, is likewise found in Scripture, where either the holy Angels, or Men, and Iudges are called Gods; I have said Ye are Gods, and many other places. Franciscus Ferrariensis in his Commentaries on that place saith, that Aquinas his meaning was, that the Scripture only agreed with the Heathens as to the name, but that they called their Gods properly so, whereas the Scripture speaks of them only by way of participation. And did Aquinas, mean any otherwise of the Heathens, when he saith, that all their inferiour Gods derived their very being from the Supreme? The same Aquinas, in his Book purposely written against the Gentiles,Id. l. 3. c. 120. gives this account of their Principles of Religion; that some of them held one God the first and universal principle of all things; but withall p. 13all they gave Divine Worship (Latriam) next to the Supreme God to intellectual substances of a heavenly nature, which they call Gods, whether they were substances separated from bodies, or the Souls of the heavenly Orbs and Stars: in the next place to intellectual substances united to aerial bodies, which they called Daemons, whom they made Gods in respect of men, and thought they deserved divine worship from men as being Mediatours between the Gods and them; and in the last place to the Souls of good men, as being raised to a higher state than that of this present life. Others of them suppossing God to be the Soul of the World, did believe, that divine worship was to be given to the whole world, and the several parts of it, not for the sake of the Body but the Soul, which they said was God: as a wise man hath honour given him not for the sake of his Body, but of his mind. Others again asserted, that things below men as Images, might have divine worship given to them, in as much as they did participate of a Superiour nature, either from the influence of heavenly bodies, or the presence of some Spirits, which Images they called Gods, and from thence they were called Idolaters. And so he proves, that they p. 14were, who acknowledging one first principle did give divine worship to any other being: because it weakens the notion and esteem we ought to have of the Supreme Being to give divine worship to any other besides him; as it would lessen the honour of a King, for any other Person to have the same kind of respect shewed to him, which we express to the King: and because this divine worship is due to God on the account of Creation, which is proper only to him, and because he is properly Lord over us and none else besides him: and he is our great and last end; which are all of them great and weighty reasons, why divine worship should be appropriated to God alone. But, saith he, although this opinion which makes God a separate Being and the first Cause of all intellectual Beings, be true: yet that which makes God the Soul of the World, though it be farther from truth, gives a better account of giving divine worship to created Beings. For then they give that divine worship to God himself: for according to this principle, the several parts of the world in respect of God, are but as the several members of a mans body in respect of his Soul. But the most unreasonable opinion, p. 15he saith, is that of animated Images, because those cannot deserve more worship, than either the Spirits that animate them, or the makers of them, which ought not to have divine worship given them; besides, that by lying Oracles and wicked Counsels, these appear to have been Evil Spirits, and therefore deserve no worship of us. From hence, he saith, it appears, that because divine worship is proper only to God, as the first principle; and none but an ill disposed rational Being can excite men to the doing such unlawful things, as giving the worship proper to God to any other Being, that men were drawn to Idolatry by the instigation of evil Spirits, which coveted divine honours to themselves: and therefore the Scripture saith, they worshipped Devils and not God. From which remarkable Testimony we may take notice of these things. 1. That he confesseth many of the Gentiles whom he charges with Idolatry; did believe and worship the Supreme God as Creator and Governour of the world. 2. That divine worship is so proper to the true God, that whosoever gives it to any created being, though in it self of real excellency, and considered as deriving that excellency from God, is yet guilty of Idolatry. p. 163. That relative Latria being given to a creature, is Idolatry; for so he makes it to be, in those who supposed God to be the Soul of the world. And I desire T. G. or any other cunning Sophister among them to shew me why a man may not as lawfully worship any part of the world with a relative Latria, supposing God to be the Soul of the world, as any Image, or Crucifix whatsoever? For if union, contact, or relation, be a sufficient ground for relative Latria in one case, it will be in the other also; and I cannot but wonder so great a judgement as Aquinas had, Aquin. Sum. p. 3. q. 25. art. 3.should not either have made him justifie the Heathens on this supposition, or condemn the Christians in giving Latria i. e. proper divine worship to the Cross. For there is not any shadow of reason produced by him for the one, which would not held have much more for the other. For, if the honour of the Image is carried to the Prototype; is not the honour of the members of the Body to the mind that animates them? If the Image deserve the same worship with the person represented by it; is not much more any part of the body capable of receiving the honour due to the Person? as the Popes Toe is of the worship p. 17that is given to him. Why should it be more unlawful to worship God, by worshipping Fire or Water or the Earth, or any inferiour creature, supposing God to be the Soul of the World, than it is to shew Reverence to the Pope by kissing his Toe? which I suppose, can be upon no other reason, but because it is a part of his body, which is animated by the same Soul in all the members of it. 4. That Aquinas doth not therefore say, that the Heathens worshipped Devils, because the Supreme God whom they worshipped was an Arch-Devil, as T. G. saith, but because none but evil Spirits would draw men to give divine worship to any thing but God himself; and then, that evil Spirits did appear to heighten and encourage this devotion, by acting and speaking in Images. The consequence of which I desire T. G. to consider. And this testimony of Aquinas is the more considerable, not only for his great Authority in the Roman Church; and because Pius 5. in the approbation of his Works A. D. 1567. very gravely mentions Christs speaking to him from a Crucifix, when he was praying before it, that he had written well concerning him (it seems the Crucifix was animated too); but because I find this Book so p. 18highly applauded by Possevin,Possev. Biblioth. l. 9. c. 25. Thom. à Iesu de Convers. gent. l. 11. c. 2. and others for the best account of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathenism.

Card. Cajetan in his Commentaries on Aquinas speaking of the Images of God, Cajet. in Th. p. 3. q. 25. art 3.he distinguishes them into 3. sorts. 1. Some that were to represent the Divinity, which he utterly condemns. 2. Some to set forth the appearances of God mentioned in Scripture. 3. Some by way of Analogy, that by sensible things we may be brought to the veneration of insensible, as the Holy Ghost in the form of an old man holding a globe in his hand, which last way, saith he, comes near to the custom of the Heathens who represented God diversly, as he is the cause of divers effects, as under the form of Minerva by reason of his Wisdom, and the like. Would Cajetan ever have parallel'd the Custome of the Church of Rome, with that of the Heathens, if he had thought they had only pictured the Devil under these representations? In another place he puts this Question; how it could be said that all the Gods of the Heathens were Devils,In Aq. 2.2. q. 94. art. 4. since although they worshipped many Gods, yet withal they worshipped one Supreme God? To which he answers. 1. That the Devils were p. 19the causes of Idolatry, and so they were Devils causally though not essentially. 2. That although those they worshipped were not in themselves Devils, as the heavenly intelligences; yet they were so as they were the Gods of the Heathens: i. e. as they had divine worship given to them. And the true God himself, he saith, was not worshipped according to what he was, but according to what they conceived of him. But he grants before that they conceived of him, as the Supreme God: which was a right conception of him; but if he means it was imperfect, is it not so in those who worship him most truly?

Martinus Peresius Ayala a learned Bishop in Spain,Mart. Peres. de divin. trad. part. 3. p. 120. treating the Question of the worship of Images; saith expresly, That S. Augustine condemned all divine worship or Latria to be given to any kind of Images, not, saith he, in regard of their matter, for there was no need to give caution against that, but in regard of their representation, and he calls them Idolaters which give that worship to Images which is due to God (with T. G's leave I translate Simulachra Images, for so I am sure Peresius understands it) Neither saith he, was S. Augustine ignorant, that there were few or none among the Gentiles p. 20who thought the matter of their Idols so fashioned to be Gods or God: (let T. G. mark that) but on that account he seems to condemn them, that they gave divine honour to their Images, as they represented God: for there were many Idols among them in which there was no Devil who gave answers, but they only represented God as their benefactor: neither did all the things which the Gentiles worshipped signifie a false God. For there was an Altar at Athens to the unknown God. Ioh. Ferus saith, Ferus in Act. 17.Acts 17that the intention of the Heathens, was through their Idols to give worship to the true God Now T. G. knows that humane acts d… certainly go whither they are intended▪ so that according to Ferus, these Heathens did truly worship the true God Athan. Kircher layes it down as a certain principle,Kirch. Oedip. Aegy. synt. 3. c. 1. that there never was in any Age, any People so rude and barbarous which did not acknowledge and worship one Supreme Deity, the first principle and Governour of all things.c. 2. But saith he that they might teach the people that the Supreme Being, whom we call God, w… present in all places, therefore they ma… abundance of Gods in all places and ov… all things. So that as Max. Tyrius saith p. 21no place was left without a Deity. Petavius not only makes use of the arguments produced by the Heathens to prove one Supreme God, Petav. dogm. The. To. 1. c. 1. §. 9.and thinks them considerable: but saith that S. Paul demonstrates (mark that) that the Gentile Philosophers attained to the knowledge of God by the works of Creation: and quotes the saying of Max. Tyrius with approbation, Max. Tyr. dissert. 1▪that however the several Nations of the world differed from each other in customs and languages and modes of worship, yet they all agreed in this, that there was one God, Lord, and Father of all, and saith, that the Testimony of Orosius is most true,Oros. l. 6. c. 1. that both the Philosophers and common Heathens did believe one God the authour of all things,Petav. l. 1. c. 3. §. 3. and to whom all things are referred: but that under this God they did worship many inferiour and subservient Gods: and he adds that passage of S. Augustin,Aug. c. Faust. l. 20 c. 10. that the Heathens supposed all their Gods to come at first out of one substance: but I wonder he omitted what is very observable in the same chapter, viz. that Faustus the Manichean holding two first principles, saith, that the Christians joyned with the Heathens in believing but one: and S. Augustin confesseth, that the greatest part p. 22of the Heathens did believe the same with the Christians in that point; but the difference, he saith, lay here, that they worshipped more Gods than one: and therein the Manichees agreed with them, and the Christians only with the Jews: c. 9.but the Manichees in that were worse than the Heathens, that these worshipped those things for Gods which were, but were not Gods; but they worshipped those things, which were so far from bein Gods that they were not at all. Faber Faventinus,Ph. Faber Faven. advers. in his discourse against Atheists,Atheos disp. 1. c. 2. n. 27. insists upon this as an argument of some weight to prove a Deity, because all mankind had so settled a notion of one first principle in their minds from which all things come, and by which they were governed, and however they differed in other conceptions about this first principle, yet they all agreed in this, that it was immortal, and not only good in it self but the fountain of all good. Which surely was no description of an Arch-Devil. But what need I farther insist on those Authours of his own Church who have yielded this; when there are several who with approbation have undertaken the proof of this in Books written purposely on this subject: such p. 23as Raim. Breganius,Raim. Bregan. Theolog. Gentil. Mutius Pansa,Mutius Pansa de Osculo Ethnicae & Christianae Philoso. Livius Galantes,Liv. Galant. Christianae philosoph. cum Platon. comparat. Paulus Benius Eugubinus,Paul. Benii Eugub. Platon. & Aristot. Theolog. but above all Augustinus Steuchus Eugubinus,Aug. Steuch. Eugub. de perenni Philo. who have made it their business to prove, that not only the Being of the Deity, but the unity as a first principle, the Wisdom, Goodness, Power and Providence of God, were acknowledged not meerly by the Philosophers, as Plato and Aristotle and their followers, but by the generality of mankind. But I am afraid these Books may be as hard for him to find as Trigautius was, and it were well, if his Principles were as hard to find too, if they discover no more learning or judgement than this, that the Supreme God of the Heathens was an Arch-Devil.

But T. G. saith, §. 4. T. G. p. 350.that the Father of Gods and men among the Heathens, was according to the Fathers an Arch-Devil. Is it not possible for you to entertain wild and absurd opinions your selves, but upon all occasions you must lay them at the doors of the Fathers? I have heard of a place where the people were hard put to it to provide God-fathers for their Children; at last, they resolved to choose two men that were to stand as p. 24God-fathers for all the Children that were to be born in the Parish; just such a use you make of the Fathers, they must Christen all your Brats, and how foolish soever an opinion be, if it comes from you, it must presently pass under the name of the Fathers. But I shall do my endeavour to break this bad custome of yours, and since T. G. thinks me a scarcerevolted Presbyterian, I shall make the right Father stand for his own Children. And because this is very material toward the true understanding the Nature of Idolatry, I shall give a full account of the sense of the Fathers in this point; and not as T. G. hath done from one single passage of a learned (but by their own Church thought heretical) Father, viz. Origen, presently cry out, the Fathers, the Fathers. Which is like a Country Fellow that came to a Gentleman and told him he had found out a brave Covie of Partridges lying in such a Field; the Gentleman was very much pleased with the news and presently asked him how many there were: what half a score? No. eight? No. Six? No. Four? No. But how many then are there? Sir, saith the Country Fellow, it is a Covie of one. I am afraid T. G's Covie p. 25of Fathers will hardly come to one at last.

Iustin Martyr is the eldest genuine Father extant who undertook to reprove the Gentiles for their Idolatry,Iustin. Martyr. paraen. p. 4. ed. Paris. and to defend the Christian worship. In his Paraenesis to the Greeks he takes notice, how hardly the wiser Gentiles thought themselves dealt with, when all the Poetical Fables about their Gods were objected against them (just as some of the Church of Rome do when we tell them of the Legends of their Saints, which the more ingenuous confess to be made by men, who, took a priviledge of feigning and saying any thing, as well as the Heathen Poets); but they appealed for the principles of their Religion to Plato and Aristotle: both whom he confesses, p. 6.to have asserted one Supreme God; although they differed in their opinions about the manner of the formation of things by him. Afterwards he saith, That the first Authour of Polytheism among them, viz. Orpheus, did plainly assert one Supreme God,p. 16. and the making of all things by him: for which he produces many verses of his: and to the same purpose an excellent testimony of Sophocles, viz. that in truth there p. 26is but one God, who made Heaven and Earth and Sea and Winds: but the folly and madness of mankind brought in the Images of Gods, and when they had offered sacrifices and kept solemnities to these, they thought themselves Religious.p. 18. He farther shews that Pythagoras delivered to his disciples the unity of God, and his being the cause of all things, and the fountain of all good: that Plato being warned by Socrates his death durst not oppose the Gods commonly worshipped, but one may guess by his Writings, that his meaning as to the inferiour Deities was, that they who would have them might, and they who would not might let them alone: but that himself had a right opinion concerning the true God.p. 19. That, Homer by his golden chain did attribute to the Supreme God a Power over all the rest;p. 22. and, that the rest of the Deities were near as far distant from the Supreme as men were: and that the Supreme was he whom Homer calls, foreign God himself, which signifies, saith Iustin, foreign the truely existent Deity: and that in Achilles his Shield he makes Vulcan represent the Creation of the world.p. 27. From these arguments he perswades the Greeks to hearken to the Revelation which the p. 27true and Supreme God had made of himself to the world, and to worship him according to his own Will. In his Apologies to the Roman Emperours, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, and the Roman Senate and People (for so Baronius shews, Baron. A. 164. n. 14.that which is now called the first, was truely the second, and that not only written to the Senate, but to the Emperour too, who at that time was Marcus Aurelius, as Eusebius saith and Photius after him) he gives this account of the State of the Controversie then so warmly managed about Idolatry:Euseb. hist. l. 4. c. 17 that it was not whether there were one Supreme God or no: or whether he ought to have divine worship given to him: but whether those whom the Gentiles called Gods were so or no; and whether they or dead men did deserve any divine honour to be given to them; and lastly, that being supposed, whether this honour ought to be given to Images or no? For every one of these Iustin speaks distinctly to. As to their Gods, he denies that they deserved any divine worship, because they desired it and were delighted with it; From whence, p. 44.as well as from other arguments, he proves, that they could not be true Gods, but evil Daemons: that those who were Christians, p. 28did only worship the true God the Father of all vertue and goodness; and his Son who hath instructed both men and Angels, (for it is ridiculous to think that in this place Iustin should assert the worship of Angels equal with the Father and Son, and before the Holy Ghost, as some great men of the Church of Rome have done) and the Prophetick Spirit, in Spirit and truth.p. 68. In another place he saith, that they had no other crime to object against the Christians, but that they did not worship the same Gods with them; nor offer up libations and the smoak of sacrifices to dead men;p. 66. Nor crown and worship Images; that they agreed with Menander, who said we ought not to worship the work of mens hands: not because Devils dwelt in them, but because men were the makers of them. And he wondered they could call them Gods,p. 57. which they knew to be without soul, and dead, and to have no likeness to God: (it was not then upon the account of their being animated by evil Spirits, that the Christians rejected this worship, for then these reasons would not have held) All the resemblance they had, was to those evil Spirits that had appeared among men; for that was Iustins opinion of the beginning of p. 29Idolatry,p. 44. that God had committed the Government of all things under the heavens to particular Angels, but these Angels prevaricating by the love of Women, did upon them beget Daemons, that these Daemons were the great corrupters of mankind; and partly by frightful apparitions, and by instructing men in Idolatrous rites did by degrees draw men to give them divine worship, the people not imagining them to be evil Spirits, and so were called by such names as they liked best themselves, as Neptune, Pluto, p. 55.&c.

But the true God had no certain name given to him, for saith he, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but titles arising from his works, and good deeds: and God,p. 44. is not a name, but a notion engrafted in humane nature of an unexpressible Being. But, that God alone, is to be worshipped, appears by this, which is the great command given to Christians.p. 65. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve, with all thy heart and with all thy strength, even the Lord God that made thee. Where we see, the force of the argument used by Iustin in behalf of the Christians, lay in Gods peremptory prohibition p. 30of giving divine worship to any thing but himself; and that founded upon Gods right of dominion over us by vertue of creation. In his Book of the Divine Monarchy, he shews, that although the Heathens did make great use of the Poets to justifie their Polytheism, yet they did give clear testimony of one Supreme Deity, who was the Maker and Governour of all things; for which end he produces the sayings of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Philemon, Menander, and Euripides; all very considerable to this purpose. In his works there is extant the resolution of several Questions by a Greek Philosopher, and the Christians reply, in which nothing can be more evident, than that it was agreed on both sides that there was one Supreme God infinitely good, powerful and wise. Nay the Greek Philosopher looks upon the ignorance of God as a thing impossible,p. 160. because all men naturally agree in the knowledge of God.

§. 5.But there are plain evidences in that Book that it is of later date than Iustins time; therefore instead of insisting any more on that, I shall give a farther proof, that in his time it could be no part of the p. 31dispute between the Christians and Heathens, whether there were one Supreme God, that ought to be worshipped by men; and that shall be from that very Emperour to whom Eusebius saith, Iustin Martyr did make his second Apology, viz. M. Aurelius Antoninus. It is particularly observed of him, by the Roman Historians, that he had a great zeal for preserving the Old Roman Religion: and Iul. Capitolinus saith, Iul. Capit. vit. Anton.that he was so skilful in all the practices of it, that he needed not, as it was common, for one to prompt him, because he could say the prayers by heart; and he was so confident of the protection of the Gods, that he bids Faustina not punish those who had conspired against him, for the Gods would defend him: his zeal being pleasing to them; and therefore Baronius doth not wonder that Iustin and other Christians suffered Martyrdom under him. Baron. A. 164. n. 7, 8, 9.But in the Books which are left of his writing we may easily discover, that he firmly believed an eternal Wisdom and Providence which managed the World; and, that the Gods, whose veneration he commends, were looked on by him as the subservient Ministers of the Divine Wisdom. Reverence the Gods, saith he; p. 32but withal,Anton. l. 6. §. 30. l. 2, 3. l. 5.33. l. 5.21. l. 6.5.42. l. 5.32. l. 4.40. l. 7.9. l. 9.4. he saith, honour that which is most excellent in the world, that which disposeth and Governs all: which sometimes he calls the all-commanding reason, sometimes, the Mind and Soul of the World, which he expresly saith is but one. And in one place he saith, that there is but one World, and one God, and one substance, and one Law, and one common reason of intelligent beings, and one Truth.

§. 6.But the great objection against such Testimonies of Antoninus and others lies in this, that these only shew the particular opinions of some few men of Philosophical minds; but they do not reach to the publick and established Religion among them, which seemed to make no difference between the Supreme God and other Deities; from whence it follows, that they did not give to him any such worship a… belonged to him. Which being the most considerable objection against the design of this present discourse, I shall here endeavour to remove it, before I produce any farther testimonies of the Fathers

For which we must consider, wherei… the Romans did suppose the solemn and outward acts of their Religion to consist, viz. in the worship appropriated … p. 33their Temples, or in occasional prayers and vows, or in some parts of divination, whereby they supposed God did make known his mind to them: If I can therefore prove, that the Romans did in an extraordinary manner make use of all these acts of Religious worship to the Supreme God, it will then necessarily follow, that the controversie between the Fathers and them about Idolatry, could not be about the worship of one Supreme God, but about giving Religious worship to any else besides him.

The Worship performed in their Temples, 1was the most solemn and frequent among them; in so much that Tully saith, therein the people of Rome exceeded all Nations in the world;De Aruspic. Resp. c. 9. but the most solemn part of that Worship was that which was performed in the Capitol at Rome, and in the Temple of Iupiter Latialis in Alba; and both these, I shall prove were dedicated to the Supreme God.Euseb. Chronic. p. 118. The first Capitol was built at Rome by Numa Pompilius, and called by Varro the old Capitol,Varro de Ling. Lat. l. 4. which stood at a good distance from the place where the foundations of the great Temple were laid by Tarquinius Priscus, the one being about the Cirque of Flora, the other upon the Tarpeian Mountain. p. 34There is so little left of the memory of the former, that for the design of it, we are to judge by the general intention of Numa as to the worship of the Deity: of which Plutarch gives this account; Plutarch. in Numa.That he forbad the Romans making any Image of God, either like to men or beast; because the First Being is invisible, and incorruptible, and can only be apprehended by our minds. From hence, saith he, it was that the Romans, although they built Temples and holy places, yet for 160. years had no graven or painted Image of God; accounting it a prophane thing to represent the more excellent by what was below it; and because we cannot come near to God any other way than by our understanding. I do not deny, that Numa did allow the worship of inferiour Deities, as of Iuno, Minerva, and of Deified men, as of Quirinus, as Dionysius Halicarnassaeus saith; Dionys. Halicarn. Antiq. Rom. l. 2.but since it is plain from hence that he acknowledged a First, invisible, incomprehensible Being, since he deduced the reason of Divine worship from considerations proper to him, since he appointed a Flamen Dialis as the chief of all the rest, Liv. hist. l. 1. c. 19.as Livy tells us, and erected a Capitol to Iove, it is incredible that he p. 35should design it for any other than the Supreme Deity. What force was there in Numa's reason against Images, if the First, and invisible Being were not worshipped by him? to what end were reasons framed against a thing never intended? and which would not hold against the worship of Deified men, unless the worship of them were supposed to be carried at last to the Supreme God? But not only Plutarch attested this, Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 4. c. 31.but Varro saith that for 170. years the Romans worshipped their Gods without Images: i. e. till the New Capitol were erected: which was vowed by Tarquinius Priscus in the Sabine War; Dionys. l. 3.but he was only able to prepare the place and lay the Foundations; Tacit. hist. l. 3. c. 72.Servius Tullius carried it on, Tarquinius Superbus was at vast charge upon it, designing, saith Livy,Liv. l. 1. c. 53. a Temple of such a capacity as might become the King of Gods and men;Varro de Ling. lat. l. 5. Plaut. Capt. Act. 3. sc. 4.Acts 3 which was the common phrase whereby Ennius, Plautus and Virgil did set forth the Supreme Deity. This magnificent Temple which, according to Dionysius, stood upon 800. foot of ground, was not finished till after the expulsion of Tarquin, and was then dedicated with great solemnity by Horatius Pulvillus being p. 36both Consul and Pontifex. And from that time this was accounted the great seat of God and Religion among them;Liv. l. 2. Senec. Consol. ad Marciam. Liv. l. 5. c. 50. Ovid. Fast. l. 2. Cic. in Verr. 4. c. 58. Tacit. hist. 3.72. Plin. Panegyr. it was sede… Iovis, in Livy; Iovis Summi arx, in Ovid; terrestre domicilium Iovis, in Cicero; Sedes Iovis Opt. Max. in Tacitus; which are all as plain Testimonies that this Temple was designed for the Supreme God among them, as can be desired; bu… if any thing more can be added, it is only what Pliny saith in his Panegyrick that God was as present there as he w… in the heavens. To this Temple th… greatest resort was made especially by the Magistrates on all solemn occasions hither the Consuls came and made thei… vows and offered sacrifices before the… went into their Provinces, on the ver… day they entred upon their Office, sait… Livy,Liv. l. 4. c. 32. l. 21. c. 63. for it was one of the charges again Flaminius, that he went away witho… doing it; hither those that triumphe… came and offered up their Laurels an… laid them in the lap of Iupiter O. M. here the great Souldiers consecrated the… Arms,Plin. hist. l. 15.30. Sen. ad Helv. c. 10. and hung up the Spoils of the Enemies, by which means it came to incredible riches; A. Gel. l. 7. c. 1.Here, the great Scip… was observed to be very often conversant in the night in cella Iovis; an… p. 37Alexander Severus never missed attending the service of the Capitol, if he were in the City, every seventh day, as Lampridius saith in his Life; by which we see in what extraordinary esteem the service of Iupiter O. M. in the Capitol was among the greatest persons in Rome: from whence, Lactantius saith, Lactant. l. 1. c. 11.it was summum caput Religionum suarum publicarum; the very top of their Religion; and Isidore thinks it was called Capitolium,Isidor. Origin. l. 15. c. 2. because it was Romanae urbus & Religionis caput summum; so that it was not only the worship of the Supreme, but a higher degree of worship than was used at any other Temple in Rome. If any worship can be supposed more solemn than this, it was that of Iupiter Latialis upon the Mountain of Alba, whither the Roman Coss. went upon the Feriae Latinae, and there met the Ambassadours sent on purpose from the whole Society of the Latins; where they all joyned together in a common sacrifice to the same Iove, as Dionysius, Strabo, and Livy relate.Dionys. hist. l. 4. Strabo. l. 5. Liv. l. 21. c. 63.22. c. 1.38. c. 44.41. c. 16.42. c. 35.45. c. 3.44. c. 19.

I con foresee but 2. Objections against this evidence for the worship of the Supreme God among the Romans. 1. That Jupiter was not worshipped alone in the p. 38Capitol, but Juno and Minerva too. 2. That this Jupiter was not the Supreme God, but Jupiter of Crete. To these I answer. 1. I confess that Iuno and Minerva had their Images in the Capitol; but we are to consider that it was a rule in their Pontifical Law, that a Temple could be consecrated only to one God; and therefore M. Marcellus could not dedicate the same Temple to Honour and Vertue, because the Pontifices, saith Livy,Liv. l. 7. told him, unum Templum, duobus numinibus non rectè dedicari. But there might be Images or little cells, of other Gods besides; as T. G. knows, in a Church dedicated to God or the B. Virgin, there may be Chappels to Saints, which do not hinder the main design of the worship being to God: and so it was in this (and many other things among the old Romans;) as Diana and the Muses were in the Temple of Apollo; and the Graces of Phidias in the Temple of Iupiter Olympius; but Livy particularly saith, as to this Temple of the Capitol, that they cleared the ground as much as they could of all worships besides,Liv. l. 1. c. 55. ut area esset tota Jovis, that it might wholly belong to Iove.

p. 39The only question then is, whether 2by this Jove they meant the Supreme God, or Jupiter of Crete? For which we are to observe, 1. That the Poetical Fables were rejected at Rome. 2. That the character given of Jupiter by the Romans can belong only to the Supreme God.

That the Poetical Fables were rejected 1at Rome. I do not mean only that they were rejected by their Wisemen as Varro, Seneca, and others, but by their most ancient Laws about Religion. Marlianus mentions a Table of the Laws of Romulus preserved in the Capitol, among which this is one, DEORUM FABULAS NE CREDUNTO.Marlian. Topogr. Romae, l. 2. c. 8. And that this was no invention of his own, appears by what Dionysius Halicarnassaeus at large discourseth on this subject:Dionys. Halicarn. where he shews, that although the customes and rites of Religion instituted by Romulus were agreeable to the best among the Greeks;Antiq. Rom. l. 2. p. 90. yet he utterly rejected all their Fables concerning their Gods (which are indeed so many blasphemies and reproaches of them) as wicked, unprofitable and indecent, and not becoming good men, much less those which were worshipped for Gods: And that he disposed p. 40the minds of men to speak and think things worthy of that blessed nature they supposed them to have. And he particularly instances in the Fables of Saturn and Iupiter, and the Mysteries of Ceres and Bacchus, and the madnesses and wickedness of the Greeks in celebrating their Religious mysteries; but, he saith, all things that concerned Religion were said and done among the Romans, with greater gravity than among the Greeks or Barbarians. By this he would not have any think him ignorant, that some of the Greek Fables might be useful to some persons, either for natural or moral Philosophy or other purposes; but upon the whole matter he did much more approve the Roman Theology, because the benefit of those Fables was very little to any, and those very few; but the common people who are not versed in Philosophy, are apt to take these things in the worst sense, either from thence to learn to contemn their Gods, or to follow their examples. I do not undertake to defend all the Roman Theology, nor can it be said that the Romans did in all things maintain that foreign or decency of worship which Dionysius magnifies them for, as appears by the many indecencies which p. 41the Fathers charge the practice of their Religion with; but as they were not to be excused in other things, so we ought not to charge them with more than they were guilty of; I mean when all the Poetical Fables of Iupiter are applyed to Iupiter O. M. that was worshipped in the Capitol at Rome. But some Writers are to be excused, who having been bred up in the Schools of Rhetoricians, and practising that art so long before, when they came to be Christians, they could not easily forbear giving a cast of their former employment. As when Arnobius had been proving the natural notion of one Supreme God in the minds of men, he brings in the Romans answering, Arnob. c. gent. l. 1. p. 19.that if this were intended against them, it was a meer calumny, for they believed him and called him Jupiter O. M. and built a most magnificent Temple to him in the Capitol; which he endeavours to disprove because God is eternal, and their Jupiter was born and had a Father and Mother and Uncles and Aunts, as other mortals have. Which indeed was an infallible argument, that Iupiter of Crete could not be the Supreme God; but for all that, might not the Romans call the Supreme God by the name p. 42of Iupiter O. M? The Question is not, whether they did wisely to make use of a name so corrupted and abused by abominable Fables; but whether under this name they meant the Supreme Being or no? and they thought it a sufficient distinction of him from that infamous Iupiter of the Poets, that they called him Optimus Maximus: which Lactantius confesseth, Lact. l. 1. c. 10.were the titles the Romans alwaies gave him in their prayers; Quid horum omnium Pater Iupiter, qui in solenni precatione Opt. Max. nominatur? Which not only shews the titles they gave him, but the supplications they made to him, and the believing him to be the Father of Gods and Men: and yet after this, Lactantius rips up all the extravagancies of the Poets; as though the Romans at the same time believed him to have done all those things, and to have been the Supreme Governour of the world, as he confesses they did. c. 11.Regnare in coelo Iovem vulgus existimat, id & doctis pariter & indoctis per suasum est; quod & Religio ipsa & precationes, & hymni & delubra & simulacra demonstrant; Which words are a very plain testimony, that they not only believed him to be Governour of the world, but that they did intend to p. 43give solemn worship to him by prayers and hymns and sacrifices. But when he immediately adds, that they confess the same Jupiter to have been born of Saturn and Rhea; he might have done well to have explained himself a little more, for not long after he acknowledges, that many did reject the Poets in these matters, as guilty not only of lying but of sacriledge; and besides these, the Philosophers he saith, did make two Ioves, the one natural, the other fabulous, i. e. in truth, they made but one, rejecting the other as a figment of the Poets. But he saith, they were to blame in calling him Iove; and what then? this is only a dispute about the name, whereas the question is, whom they understood by that name; and some think it was the most proper name they could have used, Iove being only a little varied from the name the Supreme God was called by in the Scripture. And Lactantius himself confesses, they had the knowledge of the Supreme God among them, and what other name had they to call him by? especially when they joyned those two attributes of Power and Goodness, as sufficient to prevent any mistake of him.

p. 442That the character given of this Iupiter O. M. by the Romans can belong only to the Supreme God, S. Augustin confesses, that they believed him, whom they worshipped in the Capitol, to be the King of the Gods as well as men;Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. 4. c. 9. and to represent this, they placed a Scepter in his hand, and built his Temple upon a high hill; and that it is he of whom Virgil saith, Iovis omnia plena; and the same in Varro's opinion that was worshipped by some without any Image, by whom he means the Iews, saith S. Augustin. Luc. Balbus in Cicero saith, Cicer. de Nat. Deor. l. 2. c. 1.by Iove they understood Dominatorem rerum & omnia nutu regentem, & praesentem ac praepotentem Deum: which are a full description of Gods infinite power and presence and Government of the world. When we call Iupiter Opt. Max. and Salutaris, and Hospitalis and Stator,De Finib. Bon. & Mal. l. 3. c. 20. we mean, saith Tully, that the safety of men depends upon his protection. And that they gave him the titles of Opt. Max. to express his Power and Goodness;Pro Domo sua. c. 57. but first Opt. then Max. because it is a greater thing to do good,De Nat. Deor. l. 2. c. 25. than to exercise power. You may safely, saith Seneca, call God by the titles of Jupiter Opt. Max. and Tonans and Stator, Seneca de Benefic. l. 4. c. 7.not from stopping the Roman army, p. 45but because all things do stand by him. And you may give him what names you please, while you thereby express his divine power and efficacy, as Liber Parens because he is the Authour of all things, Hercules because of his irresistible force, Mercury for his Wisdom. If you had received a kindness from Seneca, and you should say you owed it to Annaeus, or Lucius, you would not change the person but his name: for what name soever you call him by, he is the same person still; you may use what name you please, while you mean the same thing. And lest we should think this only a Philosophical subtilty in Seneca ,Senec. Natur. Quaest. l. 2. c. 45. he tells us elsewhere, that their Ancestors were not such Fools to imagine that Jove, as they worshipped him in the Capitol and elsewhere, did send forth thunderbolts from his hand, (as his Image was there placed sitting in a chair of State with sometimes a Scepter, sometimes a Globe in one hand, and a Thunderbolt in the other) but by Jove they meant the same that we do, the preserver and Governour of the Universe, the Soul and Spirit, and Lord and Maker of the world: which is as full a testimony as can be wished for, to our purpose. The title of Iupiter Omnipotens p. 46is so frequent in Virgil,Virg. Georg. 2.325. that it is needless to cite any places for it; and he was particularly observed by the ancient Criticks,Aen. 1.64.2.689.3.251.4.25.6.592.7.141.770. &c. to be so nice and exact in all matters that concerned their Religion, as if he had been Pontifex Max. as Macrobius observes: Macrob. Saturn. l. 7. c. 1.He is called in the known verses of Valerius Soranus produced by Varro

Iupiter omnipotens Regum Rex ipse, Deusque

Progenitor, genitrixque Deum, Deus unus & omnis.

Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 7. c. 9. c. 11.And this man was accounted the most learned among the Romans before Varro; on which account his testimony is the more considerable. But besides the Poets, we find others attributing omnipotency to their Iove; Tacitus disputing what God Serapis was, Tacit. hist. l. 4. c. 84.says, some called him Iove, ut rerum omnium potentem; whereby it appears that they looked on omnipotency as proper to him: So in the speech of young Manlius in Livy to Geminius, when he asked him, when the Roman Army would come out, he said, Liv. l. 8. c. 6.very speedily, and Iupiter would come with them, as witness of their Falseness, p. 47Iupiter qui plus potest polletque: which signifies no less than an Almighty power. When the miraculous victory was obtained by M. Antoninus over the Marcomanni by the prayers of the Christians (as Tertullian and Apollinaris say upon good grounds, although the Heathen historians attribute it to the vertue of Antoninus, or to some Magicians with him) the whole Army made this exclamation, saith Tertullian,Tertul. ad…. Scap. c. 4. Deo Deorum & qui solus Potens, whereby they did, saith he, in Iovis nomine Deo nostro testimonium reddere: by which it is evident they intended this honour to their own Iove; for in the whole Army only the Legio Fulminatrix are supposed to have been Christians; and besides this upon Antoninus his Column at Rome, Baronius tells us there is still to be seen the Effigies of Iupiter Pluvius;Baron. An. 176. n. 24. destroying men and horses with thunder and lightning. Dio Chrysostome who lived in Trajans time, Dio Chrysostom. orat. 36. p. 447.saith that by Jupiter whom the Poets call the Father of Gods and men, was meant the first and greatest God, the Supreme Governour of the world, and King over all rational Beings; and that the world is Jupiters house, or rather his City, being under his care and government; p. 48and that in their prayers to him they called him Father: which shews not only their esteem of him, but the particular worship they gave to him as Supreme God.

2Besides the worship of him in the Temple, they made solemn addresses, and prayers, and vows to him on special occasions. Livy mentions Romulus his prayer to Iove with his Arms lifted up to Heaven,Liv. l. 1. c. 12. when his Army was flying, Iupiter tuis jussus avibus, &c. At … Pater Deûm hominumque hinc saltem arc… hostes; and then makes a vow to him of building a Temple in that place Statori Iovi: and presently he speaks to his Souldiers, as if he were sure his prayers were heard, Iupiter Opt. Max. resistere at que iterare pugnam jubet: upon which Livy saith, they stopped as if they had heard a voice from heaven. Dionys Halicarnassaeus mentions his prayer he made when the people chose him King foreign,Dionys. Halic. l. 2. to King Iupiter and the other Gods: as Iulius Caesar when M. Antony would have pu… the Diadem on his head, sent it to th… Capitol to the Statue of Iupiter O. M with this saying, Su…ton. Caesar. c 79.solum Iovem Regem Romanorum esse. When Numa Pompilius p. 49was to be inaugurated, the Augur made this prayer in Livy, Iupiter Pater,Plutarch. in Caes. Dio. l. 44. si est fas hunc Numam, &c. When some were applauding the felicity of P. Camillus upon the taking of Veii, Plutarch saith, Plut. in Camill.he made this appeal to heaven, foreign. O mighty Jove, and ye Gods that behold the good and evil actions of men, &c. When Manlius Torquatus found Annius,Liv. l. 8. c 6. after his insolent speech against the Romans in the Senate, lying dead at the foot of the steps of the Temple of Iupiter Capitolinus; he cryed out, Est coeleste Numen, Es Magne Iupiter; haud frustrate Patrem Deum hominumque hac sede sacravimus. There is a God in heaven, Thou art O mighty Jove. It is not in vain that we have consecrated this Temple to thee the Father of Gods and Men. Plautus affords us many instances of prayers to the Supreme God; so Hanno the Carthaginian in his Poenulus,Plaut. Poenul, Act. 5. sc. 3.Acts 5 Magne Iupiter restitue certas mihi ex incertis opes: and the Punick Nurse cryes out at the sight of him, Proh Supreme Iupiter! and more fully Hanno in the following Scene,sc. 4.

p. 50Iupiter qui genus colis alisque hominum, per quem vivimus,

Vitale aevum: quem penès spes, vitaeque sunt hominum omnium:

Da diem hunc sospitem quaeso rebus meis agundis.

And in his Capteivi,Capt. Act. 4. sc. 1.Acts 4 Iupiter Supreme servas me. and again, Act. 5. sc. 2.Acts 5Serva Iupiter Supreme & me & meum gnatum mihi.

It was a custome among the Romans, as Turnebus observes, Turneb. Advers. l. 11. c. 17.to lift up their eyes to heaven, and by way of amplification to cry ille Iupiter. So Plautus in Amphitryo,Amphit. sc. 1. Quod ille faciat Iupiter; and in his Mostellaria,Mostel. Act. 2. sc. 1.Acts 2 Ita ille faxit Iupiter: in his Curculio,Curcul. c. 1. nec me ille sirit Iupiter Virgil likewise hath many prayers to the Supreme God with the acknowledgement of his Almighty Power; as in the prayer of Anchises,

p. 51Iupiter omnipotens, precibus si flecteris ullis,Virgil- Aen. 2.689.

Aspice nos, hoc tantum: & si pietate meremur,

Da deinde auxilium Pater, atque haec omina firma.

And in the prayer of Aeneas,

Iupiter omnipotens, si nondum exosus ad ununoAen. 5.687.

Trojanos, si quid pietas antiqua labores

Respicit humanos, da flammam evadere classi

Nunc Pater, & tenues Teucrûm res eripe letho.

So in the prayer of Ascanius,

Constitit ante Iovem, supplex per vota precatus;Aen. 9.625.

Iupiter omnipotens audacibus annue coeptis.

In the prayer of Venus,Aen. 10.18.

O Pater, ô hominum Divúmque aeterna Potestas,

(Namque aliud quid sit quod jam implorare queamus?)

p. 52Which is after explained in these words

100Tum Pater omnipotens rerum cui summa Potestas

Infit.

And in the prayer of Turnus,

669Omnipotens genitor tantón me crimin… dignum

Duxisti?

But besides Virgil (who was so Critical in the rites of Religion that he would never have brought in such prayers as these, if they had not been agreeable to the Roman customs) we have the like instances in others, as in Silius It… licus,

Sili. Ital. l. 4.— Nosco te summe Deorum,

Adsis ô firmesque tuae Pater alitiomen.

And in Persius,

Pers. Satyr. 3.Magne Pater Divûm, saevos punire Tyrannos

Haud aliâ ratione velis—

p. 53But this was not only the custom of their Poets, whom T. G. may imagine to have been as extravagant in their prayers as in their Fables (although the Theatre and Poets have seldom erred on the right side in Religion), yet it will appear to have been the practice of their Oratours upon solemn occasions to make a particular address to Iupiter O. M. especially in the beginning; as not only appears by Pliny's Panegyrick, but by the Testimony of Valerius Maximus,Valer. Max. Praef. Nam si prisci oratores à Iove Opt. Max. bene orsi sunt; and Cicero quotes it as the old formula of beginning their Orations, Iovem ego Opt. Max. which himself practises in his Oration pro Rabirio;Cic. Divin. in Q. Caecil. but in other places reserves it for an extraordinary occasion. Quo circa te Capitoline Iupiter,Pro domo sua c. 57. quem propter beneficia P. R. Optimum, propter vim Maximum nominavit; and at the conclusion of his Orations against Verres, Nunc Te Iupiter Optime Maxime, &c. but most emphatically pro Milone,Pro Milon. c. 31. Tuque ex tuo edito monte Latiari Sancte Iupiter, &c. (where the Feriae Latinae were kept.) And a little before, where he speaks of those that seemed to question a divine Power, he breaks out into those admirable words. p. 54Est, est profecto illa vis, &c. And to confute Servius his observation, that they only invocated Jove in their exordiums, because they attributed the beginnings of things to him, we see they made their solemn addresses to Iove likewise in the conclusion; Well: Paterculus concludes his Book, Iupiter Capitoline & auctor & stator Romani nominus; and Pliny both in the beginning and end, To praecipuè Capitoline Iupiter precor, as he speaks at the conclusion of his Panegyrick. But this was not only practised by Orators, but by their Commanders in the Field, as appears by that prayer of Vocula in Tacitus when he was in a great streight. Tacit. hist. l. 4. c. 58.Te Iupiter Opt. Max quem per octingentos viginti annos, to triumphis coluimus, &c. Thus we see that solemn addresses were made to the Supreme God, by all sorts of person upon great ocasions: but this was no… the only way whereby they testified there devotion to him. For they erected Altars to him, as in that inscription which Manutius transcribed from the Marble.

p. 55HANC. TIBI. ARAM. JUPPITER. OPT. MAX. DICO. DEDICO QUE. UTI. SIS. VOLENS. PROPITIUS. MIHI. COLLEGISQUE MEIS. &c.Inscript. Antiq. 23.12.

As King Antiochus in Cicero dedicated his rich Candlestick made with admirable workmanship of Gold and Jewels in these words, Cicer. in Verr. l. 4. c. 29.Dare, donare, dicare, consecrare Iovi Opt. Max. testemque ipsum Iovem suae voluntatis ac Religionis adhibere. In the old Roman inscriptions we find several vows made to Iupiter O. M. for the safety of the Emperours, as in these:

I. O. M.Inscrip Ant. 11.3, 4, 5.

PRO. SALUTE. IMP. &c.

Sometimes they made vows for the return of the Emperours, as in those of the Coss. Cl. Nero, and Quintilius Varus for Augustus: p. 5611.1, 2.LUDOS. VOTIVOS. PRO. REDITU. IMP. CAESARIS. DIVI. AUGUSTI. PONTIFICIS. MAXIMI. JOVI. OPTIMO. MAXIMO. FECIT. EX S. C.

They made these inscriptions to Iupiter O. M. in behalf of their Emperours, because they believed them to be under his particular care, tibi cura Magni Caesaris fatis data,Horat. Od. 1. l. 3. saith Horace. Thence in the inscriptions,

JUPPITER.

CUSTOS.

20.1.DOMUS. AUG.

And, 10.6.NUMINI. DEORUM. AUG. JOVI. OPT. MAX. AEDEM. VOTO. SUSCEPTO. Q. LEPIDUS.

p. 57It were endless to repeat the Inscriptions that were made to him alone; or to him under his several attributes that were peculiar to him, as

DEO. QUI. EST. MAXIMUS.17.9.

foreign

foreign

Or his other titles, as

CONSVERATOR, CUSTOS. STATOR.

foreign.1064.11.

Or to him, where he is distinguished from the rest of the Gods: as in this, I. O. M. ET. CONSESSUI. DEORUM. DEARUMQUE. PRO. SALUTE. IMPERII. ROMANI.2.11.

p. 58But these are sufficient to my purpose, which was to shew, that the Romans did express their devotion to the Supreme God, in all their solemn Acts of Religion.

3Of which there is but one part remaining, viz. in the way of enquiring into the mind of God, which they supposed was to be done by Divination. And that they looked on this as a part of Religion, is seen by Tullies dividing their Religion in Sacra, & in Auspicia, & in Monita.De Nat. Deor. l. 3. c. 2. Thence there were three chief Colledges of Priests; the Pontifices, who looked after the rites of sacrificing, the Augures and Aruspices, who were the Judges in Divination. But the Colledge of Augures as appears by many passages in Tully,De Leg. l. 2. c. 12. De Arusp. Res. c. 9. Plin. ep. l. 9. c. 8. had a very great esteem and authority in the Common-wealth, so that nothing of moment was done without them: and the younger Pliny calls it sacerdotium priscum, religiosum, sacrum & insigne: but the great reason of this seems to be, that they were sacred to Iove;Philip. 13.5. de Div. l. 1. c. 34. thence they are said by Tully, to be interpretes, internuntiique Iovis Opt. Max. and Iovis consiliarii & administri; and the birds were said to be aves internuntiae Iovis;2. c. 34. and they who refused to hearken to them, c. 37.nolle moneri à Iove▪ p. 59So that this sort of Priesthood was peculiar among them, to him whom they believed to be the Supreme God. And from hence we may understand the passage in Arrian,Arrian. l. 2. c. 7. where he blames the persons that came to the Augury with so much sollicitude of mind, which he calls foreign, coming to God to know his pleasure as to particular events; which they did, saith he, observing the Augury trembling, and crying foreign, Lord have mercy upon me: which is so plain a form of supplication to the Supreme God,Card. Bona. Rerum Liturgic. l. 2. c. 4. that Cardinal Bona brings this as a particular instance of the addresses they made to Him: and as the common Litany of mankind. Thus much I have thought necessary here, to clear not only the acknowledgement but the worship of the Supreme God among the Romans. I now proceed to other testimones of the Fathers in their disputes against the Heathen Idolaters.

Athenagoras made an address to the same Emperour M. Aurelius Antoninus in the behalf of the Christians,§. 7. Athenag. legat. pro Christ. p. 6. ed. Iustin.wherein he doth at large assert the concurrence of the Heathens with the Christians in the belief of one Supreme God; and proves p. 60it from the Testimonies of Euripides, Sophocles, Philolaus, and other Pythagoreans; and from Plato and Aristotle, and the Stoicks; concerning whom he adds, that although they seemed to make many Gods,p. 7. by the several names they gave according to the difference of matter which the divine Spirit did pass through, yet in truth they did assert but one God: nay he saith farther, that the generality of mankind, were agreed in this whether they would or no, foreign, that there was but one God. But then to the question why the Christians did refuse to worship Images? He gives this considerable answer; If God and matter were but several names for the same thing,p. 14. we might be charged with impiety, if we did not believe stone, and wood, and silver and Gold to be Gods; and consequently give divine worship to them; but if these are infinitely distant from each other; as far as the clay is from the Potter which forms and fashions it, why are we charged with impiety for not giving the same honour to the Clay that we do to the infinitely wise Framer of these things? And if the artificer shews his skill in the vessels he makes, the honour is given to him and not to the vessels; so it is here, the honour and p. 61glory is not to be given to the matter, but to the wise contriver, who is God himself: therefore if we look upon any of the several parts of matter as Gods, we shall thereby discover how little sense we have of the true God, by making things corruptible equal to him that is eternal. But wherein could they make them equal? not believing them to be equal in Power and Wisdom, for he supposed before, that one Supreme God was allowed on both sides; it could be therefore no otherwise than by giving divine honour to the creature as well as to the Creator: and that not for their own sakes, for he still supposeth them to be thought the Works of God; but although it were designed to give honour to the Supreme Architect by falling down before any parts of matter, he thought it as senseless and unreasonable a thing, as for a man to honour an artificer by falling down before his Work. It was not then we see the supposing evil Spirits to dwell in Images, which made the Christians so peremptorily deny divine worship to them; but because in so doing they should make the creature equal to the Creator. Although, saith he, the beauty, and greatness, and capacity, p. 62and figure and order of the world, deserve our admiration; yet we ought not to worship the world but only the Maker of it. As when any of your Subjects make their addresses to you, would it be well taken for them to pass you by, and turn themselves to your Palaces? but men are not so foolish as to do so, but they admire the beauty and excellency of them in passing by, and pay their whole respect and service to your selves. If we look upon the World as a Musical instrument, well tuned and harmoniously struck, we ought not therefore to worship the instrument, but him that makes the Musick: and those who are the Iudges at the Musick exercises, do not crown the Vial, but him that plaid upon it. If it be said, that all this proceeds upon the supposition, that the Supreme God is passed by and hath no peculiar honour given to him. I answer, 1. The contrary appears, by what I have already said; for they did give particular honour to the Supreme Deity as such. 2. It is unreasonable to suppose that those who believe one Supreme God to be the Maker of all things, should in their inward intention wholly pass him by in the worship they give to his creatures. Of the Laws of the Church, ch. 25.Mr. Thorndike indeed saith, suposing in a man as p. 63uncorrupted opinion of the incomparable distance that indeed is found between God and the most excellent of his creatures, it is impossible for him to attribute the honour due to God alone to that which he conceiveth to be a meer creature: Which would be true, if all the honour due to God, did lie only in the inward esteem of our minds; but as Card. Tolet well observes, Tolet. Sum. Casuum. l. 4 c. 14. n 2.although Idolatry do suppose an errour in the mind, yet that errour lies in judging that to deserve divine honour which doth not: which may be consistent with the belief of the Supreme excellency of God. And I do not deny that those who acknowledge one Supreme God, may have their minds so corrupted as to judge it fit to give that divine worship to a Creature which is only due to the Creator; but I say, it is unreasonable to suppose that as long as they acknowledge them to be creatures, they should not give at least that relative Latria to them, which T. G. saith, is carried to the Creator at last. But of these things afterwards. 3. The reasons which Athenagoras gives do equally hold, supposing the true God not to be wholly passed by: for the creatures are still at as great a distance from the Creator; which is the main reason he gives p. 64against the the worship of them. 4. It is possible to suppose, that those who believe a Supreme excellent Being may yet give him no eternal adoration at all not out of any disrespect to him, but out of the great esteem they have of his excellency; looking upon him, as far above all our service and adoration. And that this is not a bare supposition of a thing only possible, appears by that testimony of Porphyrius produced by S. Cyril against Iulian;Cyril. c. Iul. l. 2. p. 60. Let us sacrifice, but a… becomes us, to the God over all, i. e. as a Wise man said, by offering up no sensible thing to him. For every material thing is impure when compared with an immaterial: Therefore the best sacrifice to God is to offer up our Lives to him (for even our words and thoughts are below him) which is the most proper Hymn to him, and the most beneficial to ourselves. And the same S. Cyril observes out of Dionysius Halicarnasseus,Cyril. c. Iulian. l. 6. p. 193. that a… Numa would allow no Image of God in the Temples, because unsuitable to his nature; so he would not have any material sacrifices to be offered up to him on the same reason: and some of the Platonists are quoted by him, saying, tha… the Supreme God being incorporeal,l. 9. p. 311. stand in need of nothing without him; but the p. 65other Gods, especially those that are visible, ought to be pleased with inanimate sacrifices. Therefore we ought not to conclude, that the Heathens did not believe one Supreme God, if we do not find any peculiar and external sacrifices that were offered to him; for we see they might forbear them out of the opinion they had of his supereminent excellency. Aquinas supposeth this to have been one of the principles of the Heathens,Aquin. 2.2. qu. 94. art. 2. that only visible sacrifices belonged to other Gods, and internal acts of the mind as being better, to the Supreme God; And the Supreme and Invisible God's being so far above any need of our service, was the reason given by the Mandarins in China, and the Ynca's of Peru, why they shewed so little outward Reverence towards him whom they believed to be the Supreme God. Were these persons Idolaters for the worship they did not give to the Creator, or for the worship they did give to his Creatures? and it is plain by Athenagoras the latter was the matter of their dispute: for they did not quarrel with the Christians about the worship of the Supreme God; but for not worshipping those things they looked on as his Creatures; and if their fault p. 66only had been, that they wholly passed by the Creator, this would have been no reason against the Christians, who might have worshipped the Creator and the creatures together, and consequently have freed themselves from the force of the Laws, which required no more but giving divine worship to the Deities publickly worshipped, without any declaration of their minds concerning them. For they might understand them as they pleased; as we see the wise men among them did, without any censure or reproach from others. If it were lawful then for Christians to give a relative Latria to any creatures with an intention to honour God thereby, I cannot see how the Christians were excusable in their sufferings; for all that was required from them was only, to obey their Laws and offer incense to their Gods. Nothing being expressed by the Laws as to the disowning the true God, nor as to declaring in what sense they did intend to worship them; the Emperour declared, he was for the Laws being observed, and himself in his own writings had expressed his mind as to one God; what was it then made the Christians refuse obeying the Laws, when so many Philosophers had said, p. 67that these Gods were only parts of the Universe, and deserved divine worship because of Gods presence in them? If they had not thought it Idolatry to give divine worship to any creature, it is very hard to make out their title to Martyrdom. For if we look over the Acts of the Martyrs, we shall find it came to this pinch with them; will you obey the Laws in offering incense, or will you not? When Iustin Martyr was summoned before Rusticus the Praefect of the City, after some previous discourses, Let us come, saith he, to the business in hand;Baron. A, 165. n. 5. Come you Christians hither and sacrifice with one consent to the Gods; Iustin answers, No true Christian will forsake his Religion, and return to errors and impiety: and the rest agreeing with him; the Judge pronounced their sentence, that because they would not sacrifice to the Gods and obey the Emperours Edict, they should be scourged, and have the punishment of death inflicted upon them: which was accordingly executed. When Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was summoned before Aemilianus,Euseb. l. 7. c. 11. he gives this account himself of the passages between them; that he told Aemilianus plainly, that he would worship p. 68none but the true God, and that he would never depart from this resolution; the Governour dismisses him for that time; the next time he lets him know the Emperour had so great a regard to their safety, that if they would but act according to reason, and worship the Gods that preserved the Empire, they might be safe. Dionysius answers, We, saith he, worship the one true God the Maker of all things, who hath bestowed the Empire on Valerianus and Gallienus; and to him we pray continually for the safety of the Empire. But, saith Aemilianus again, who forbids you, to worship that God you speak of, and the other Gods too? Dionysius then gave that as his final answer, we worship none else besides him. I might bring multitudes of instances to the same purpose, but I instance in these two, because they were men of eminency for their learning as well as piety. Now I appeal to the conscience of T. G. whether upon the principles of worship which he delivers, these men could have suffered for conscience sake any otherwise than as weak Brethren that wanted good information. For they might have reserved the Sovereign worship due only to God, on the p. 69account of his Supreme excellency, and have given only a Relative Latria to those whom they called Gods, but in truth were only Gods creatures and Subjects; and what harm was there in all this? O, but, saith T. G. they were called Gods, but in truth were Devils whom they were to worship; how doth that appear to have been the cause, when they say no such thing, and give no such reason of their refusals? besides they might make them Gods by giving them absolute Latria, for that is due only to God himself; but no more was required of them, than to sacrifice to them, and they never debarred them of the freedom of directing their intention to the Supreme God; and T. G. knows, acts go whither they are intended, and those whom they called Gods, they might understand them only by way of participation, or as some Analogical representations of the true God. O but sacrifice was required of them, and that is the worship peculiar to God: but how comes sacrifice alone to belong to God? and what sacrifice? burning of Incense: and that T. G. knows, is allowed to be done to creatures with a respect to God, by the Rules of their Church. So that for all that I can see, if relative Latria may p. 70be allowed to creatures, the Primitive Christians were not so wise, as they might have been; and the Modern doctrines of worship in the Roman Church, would have saved the lives of thousands of the Primitive Martyrs, and not only of the common sort but of the best, and wisest of them; Who sacrificed their lives on this principle, that, Divine worship (and not meerly Sovereign worship) is to be given to none, but to the Supreme God. But if that pass for good Divinity, that they who believe one Supreme God, cannot possibly give the honour due to him to any creature: I do not see why the Christians needed to have been so afraid of giving divine worship to any thing besides God, for upon this principle they were afraid of impossibilities: For as long as they preserved in their minds a just esteem of the incomparable excellency of God above his creatures, they were uncapable of any real Idolatry. But I think it is hard to pitch upon a principle more repugnant to the sense of the Primitive Church than this is; as I hope to make it clear before I have done with this argument.