Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome, Part 1 · Chapter 1 (2 of 3)

Defense of the Discourse Concerning Idolatry in the Church of Rome · Part 1 · Chapter 1 (2 of 3)

p. 70Athenagoras proceeds to dispute against the worshipping any of the parts p. 71of the Universe, how beautiful or useful soever they be;p. 15. for why should we seek that from matter which it self hath not, and can do nothing but in obedience to a higher Cause? And let the things be never so beautiful, yet they retain the nature of matter still; for Plato confesses that the heavens and the Frame of the world are corporeal, and therefore subject to mutability. But, saith he, if I refuse to worship the Heavens and Elements as Gods whose workmanship I so much admire, because I know them to be corruptible; how can I be perswaded to do it to those things, which I know to be made by men? and thence shews not only the novelty of the Poetical Gods, but of the art of framing Images;p. 17. which was so late, he saith, that they were able yet to name the first makers of them. But, Because it was pleaded by some among them, that all the worship they gave to their Images was only a relative worship, and that they looked on them only as representations of their Deities; therefore he begs leave of the Emperours, to search into the Nature of their Poetick Theology, which he derives from Orpheus, as the rest do; and overthrows the worship of the Poetical Gods upon this principle, because p. 72they were not eternal, and were confessed to be at first made out of matter;p. 18. and why should we worship them which are material,p. 20. and generated, and lyable to all sorts of passions, according to the Poets description of them? But, it may be, this was nothing but Poetical figments, and they ought all to be understood of the natures of things, as Empedocles explains them,p. 22. why then, saith he, should we attribute the same honour to matter which is subject to corruption and mutation,p. 23. as to the eternal, unbegotten, and immutable God? Jupiter according to the Stoicks was the most active and fiery principle of matter, Juno the air, Neptune the water; but they all agreed that by their Deities were understood the several parts of the Universe, although with different manners of explication. Now, saith he, against the Stoicks I thus argue, (and here Athenagoras knew, that the Emperour M. Aurelius would think himself particularly concerned) If you own one Supreme God, eternal and unbegotten, and all other things to be made up of matter, and the Spirit of God to receive different names as it passes through the various changes of matter; then these several kinds of matter p. 73will make up one body, whereof God is the soul, and consequently upon the general conflagration, (which the Stoicks acknowledged) all the several names of matter will be lost by the corruptions of the kinds, and nothing will be then left but the Divine Spirit; why should we therefore look on those as gods, that are lyable to such a change? And so he proceeds to argue against the other hypotheses, as the Egyptians and others, whereby all their Deities were reduced to the principles of nature too, from the same principle, viz. that because these things were made and corruptible,p. 24. they were not capable of receiving divine honour from us. By all which we see, that the fundamental principle which Athenagoras went upon in this elaborate discourse of his to one of the Wisest Emperours Rome ever had, was this, that nothing but the eternal God ought to receive Divine Worship from men; whether they called it Soveraign or Relative, or what name soever they gave it; nay, although they did acknowledge one supreme God, yet if they gave divine worship to his Creatures, as the Stoicks did, the Christians thought it so unlawful, that they would rather die than comply with them in it. And here p. 74I appeal again to T. G's conscience (for since he hath shewed me the way, I hope I may follow him in it) whether he think so Wise and Vertuous an Emperour as Antoninus was, would not have preserved the Christians from suffering persecution, (as they did very smartly in his days) if they would have declared themselves to have understood the principles of the Roman Religion, after the Emperours own way, viz. by believing one Supreme God; and worshipping the several parts of the Universe under the names of those Deities, that were commonly received: and they might have directed this worship as they had thought fit, and have disowned all the ridiculous and prophane stories of their Poetical Gods, as the Stoicks did; and what principle then could hinder the Christians from complying with the Laws but this, that they accounted it Idolatry to give divine worship to any created Being?

§. 8.From Athenagoras I proceed to Clemens Alexandrinus, who understood the principles of the Heathen Theology as well as any; and exposes all their Poetical Fables and Greek Mysteries with as much advantage as any Christian Writer, in p. 75his Admonition to the Greeks. After he hath sufficiently derided the Poetical Theology and the Vulgar Idolatry, he comes to the Philosophers who did he saith foreign,Protrept. p. 42. Ed. Paris. make an Idol of matter, (the Images whereof were not surely the representation of a thing not existent, as a Centaur, or Sphinx, and yet called an Idol) and after reckoning up Thales, Anaximenes, Parmenides, Hippasus, Heraclitus and Empedocles, he calls them all Atheists, because with a foolish kind of Wisdom they did worship Matter; and scorning to worship Wood and Stones did Deifie the Mother of them. And so runs out, after his way, into a discourse about the several Nations that despised Images and worshipped the several parts of the Universe and the symbols of them, as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians and Macedonians, who, he saith, were the Philosophers Masters in the worship of these inferiour Elements which were made to be serviceable to men. Then he reckons up other Philosophers that worshipped the Stars, as animated beings; others, the Planets and the World, and the Stoicks who said, God passed through the meanest parts of matter: yet after all this, he confesseth, p. 76that there is a certain divine influence distilled upon all men,p. 45. especially on those who apply themselves to learning; by vertue of which they are forced to acknowledge one God, incorruptible and unbegotten; who is the only true Being, and abides for ever above the highest Heavens, from whence he beholds all the things that are done in Heaven and Earth: who, according to Euripides sees all things without being visible himself. And for the proof of this, he brings the Testimonies of Plato, Antisthenes and Xenophon, who all acknowledge Gods incomparable excellency,p. 46. as well as unity; and then adds the Testimonies of Cleanthes, and the Pythagoreans; and not contented with the Philosophers he heaps the testimonies of the Poets to the same purpose, as Aratus, Hesiod, Orpheus, Sophocles, Menander, Homer and Euripides, In the fifth Book of his Miscellanies (for so his Stromata truely are) he falls upon this subject again; p. 590.and then saith to the same purpose, that there is a natural knowledge of one omnipotent God,p. 591. among all considering men:p. 597. he grants, the Stoicks opinion about God to be agreeable to the Scriptures; and shews, that Thales confessed Gods eternity and omnisciency; p. 77that Epicharmus attributed omnipotency to him; and Homer the creation of the world, which he described in the shield of Achilles;p. 597. and then makes this observation (as though it were purposely intended for T. G.) he that is called both in Verse and Prose foreign or Iupiter,p. 598. carries our apprehension to God, (not to the Arch Devil as T. G. saith) and therefore he is said to be all things, and to know all things, and to give and take away all things, and to be King over all: that Pindar the Baeotian being a Pythagorean, said, there was one maker of all things whom he called foreign the Wise Artificer, and then he repeats several of the Testimonies which he had produced before; p. 601.to which he adds that of Xenophanes Colophonius proving God to be one and incorporeal; and of Cleanthes, reproving the opinion of the vulgar about the Deity; and of Euphorion,p. 603. and Aeschilus about Iupiter, which for T. G's better information I shall set down,

foreign

foreign.

Iupiter is aether and Earth and Heaven and all things, and if there be any thing p. 78above all, Jupiter is it; and Clemens is so far from thinking this an improper speech, that he saith it was spoken foreign. with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God. By this it appears, that they who boast so much of the Fathers, are not over conversant with them: but Father Bellarmine, or Father Coccius, serves them, for a whole Iury of them. But I commend T. G. for his modesty, for when he had said, this was the sense of the Fathers, he produces no more but good Father Origen; and he is so kind hearted to him, that though I believe he hath heard how he hath been condemned for a Heretick, yet he with great judgement supposes, that what he said was the common sense of the Fathers. But besides this, p. 604.Clemens quotes a saying of Heraclitus approved by Plato, wherein the only Wise Being is called by the name of foreign, or Iove. And to shew that one Supreme Being was received among the Greeks, he cites farther an express testimony of Timaeus Locrus, wherein he saith, there is one unbegotten principle of all things; for if it were begotten it were no first principle, but that out of which it were begotten would be that principle: p. 79which Clemens parallels with that saying of Scripture, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, and him only shalt thou serve. I omit the testimonies of Authors cited before, but to them he adds Diphilus the Comaedian, who was a little younger than Menander, and lived in the time of the first Ptolemy; who speaks plainly concerning the omniscience, providence and justice of God in the verses cited out of him; and calls God the Lord of all, whose very name is dreadful: and whose words afterwards are so full of Emphasis, that I cannot forbear setting them down; (although I beg pardon for mixing so much of a foreign language in an English discourse) he bids those men look to it, who presume upon Gods patience because he doth not at present punish them.p. 606.

foreign.

foreign,

foreign

foreign.

Look to it, you that think there is no God. There is, there is; if any man do ill, Let him think time is gain; For certainly, Suffer he shall for what he hath done p. 80amiss. But withal he quotes a saying of Xenocrates Chalcedonius, wherein he calls God foreign the Supreme Iove, and another of Archilochus Parius a very ancient Poet, p. 604.(in the 23 Olympiad saith S. Cyril of Alexandria) wherein he begins foreign O Iove,Cyril. c. Iul. l. 1. thy Power is in Heaven, and thou seest all that is done there, whether good or evil; and Menander saith, that God is in all things good: and Aeschylus celebrates the mighty power of God to this purpose. p. 609.Think not that God is like to what thou seest; Thou knowest him not, for he is like to that which cannot be touched or seen. He makes the mountains tremble, and the Sea to rage, when his commanding eye doth on them look, For the great God can do what he thinks fit: But Diphilus saith yet farther, Honour him alone that is the Father of all good things. From all which Clemens concludes, p. 611.that the East and West, the North and South have one and the same anticipation concerning the Government of one Supreme Disposer of things;p. 612. because the knowledge of his most common operations have equally reached to all; but especially to the inquisitive Philosophers of Greece, who have attributed a wise Providence to the invisible, p. 81and only, and most powerful, and most skilful contriver of all things.

Although these things might be sufficient to convince a modest man, §. 9.that the Gentiles who were charged with Idolatry by the Primitive Fathers, did agree in the acknowledgement of one Supreme Deity, and were so thought to do, by those who managed that charge against them; yet I shall proceed from Clemens to Origen his disciple: and see if the state of the Controversie were altered in his time. The dispute between Celsus and him did not at all depend on this, whether there were one Supreme God or no, or whether Soveraign worship did belong to him; for Celsus freely acknowledged both these. I know Origen several times charges him with being an Epicurean, but whatever his private opinion was, he owns none of the Epicurean principles about Religion in his Book against the Christians, wherein he declares himself to be both for God and Providence. He calls God the universael Reason, he acknowledges him to be the maker of all immortal beings, and that all things are from him,Orig. c. Cels. l. 5. p. 247. and saith, that God is common to all, good, and standing p. 82in need of nothing, and without envy: nay he calls him foreign the great God:l. 6. p. 320. l. 4. p. 200. and saith, that men ought to undergo any torments rather than to think or speak any thing unworthy of him,l. 8. p. 392. p. 421. p. 419.that he is at no time to be forsaken by us, neither night nor day, in publick or private, in our thoughts or actions; but our soul ought always to be intent upon him. Thus far Celsus seems a good Christian; what is the matter then between Origen and him, that they could not agree about Divine Worship, since Celsus doth acknowledge the supreme excellency of God, and consequently that Soveraign Worship is only due to him? Why, the dispute lay in this point, Celsus contended with great vehemency, that since God made use of inferiour spirits to govern the World, that those ought to have divine honours given to them, according to the customs of their several Countries; that this tended more to the honour of the supreme Deity: for that devotion,p. 421. saith he, is more perfect which passeth through all to him; that it was not to be conceived that God should envy the honour of his own Ministers; but we ought rather to suppose that the Great God is better pleased with it.p. 381. So that all that Celsus pleaded for, was either p. 83an inferiour service of foreign, or at the utmost but a Relative Latria, a divine worship which was to fall after an inferiour manner upon the lower Gods, but to be finally terminated upon the supreme. To this Origen answers two ways. 1. By shewing that these inferiour Deities were not good Angels, but Daemons, i. e. evil Spirits; which he proves many ways, but chiefly by this, that they seemed so covetous of divine worship from men. 2. By insisting on this as the fundamental principle of worship in the Christian Religion, that divine worship is to be given only to God himself; and to his Son Christ Iesus. This he inculcates upon all occasions; this he lays down in the beginning of his Book, that God alone is to be worshipped, all other things whether they have beings or have not, are to be passed by,l. 1. p. 10. and although some of them may deserve honour, yet none of them do worship or adoration: and elsewhere, l. 3. p. 158.that only the Maker of all things ought to be worshipped, admired and adored by us, that neither the work of mens hands, nor those assumed to the honour of Gods can be decently worshipped by us, either without the Supreme God, …r together with him: where the Latine p. 84Interpreter hath apparently shuffled, rendring that place only thus, nihilque praeter eum aut pari honore cum eo; as though all that Origen condemned were only giving equal divine worship to other things besides God. Whereas Celsus never pleaded for that, but that men should give foreign, i. e. in the very terms of the Council of Trent,l. 8. p. 414. due veneration: To which Origen answers, we desire only to be followers of Christ who hath said, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. It is true,p. 415. saith he, several Nations have avoided the worship of Images, some for one reason and some for another; but the Christians and Iews do it because of that Law, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve,l. 7. p. 275. and several places to the same purpose, so that we ought rather to die than to defile our selves with these impieties. And they who did forbear Images, did worship the Sun or Gods Creatures which we are forbidden to do. This he so frequently insists upon throughout his Books, that it would be to no purpose to bring all the places; these being sufficient to shew that the state of the Controversie abou… Idolatry, did not depend upon their giving p. 85soveraign worship to any thing besides God, but any divine worship although they did acknowledge the Supreme God. As Origen himself doth very often declare, that the Heathens did. S. Paul, he saith, l. 3. p. 140.spake truly of some of the Wise-men of Greece, that they knew God, and that God was manifested to them; and elsewhere, l. 4. p. 181.we testifie truly concerning them that they knew God; but their fault was, that after their grave disputations they worshipped Idols and Daemons as the rest did. We cannot but assent, saith he, to what Plato hath said concerning the chief Good;l. 5. p. 260. for God hath manifested this to them and whatever else they have said well:l. 6. p. 276. but therefore they deserved punishment, because when they had a right apprehension of God, they did not give him the worship which was worthy of him: and he quotes a little after Plato's epistle to Hermias and Coriscus,p. 280. wherein he appeals to God as the Lord of all things: and several other passages, wherein his Government, and Power, and Iustice, and Excellency are truly set forth: p. 285.and after several other passages of Plato and Celsus about the ways of knowing God,p. 287. which he allows, he concludes with this, that God is so great a lover of mankind thatl. 7. p. 360. p. 363. p. 86he made known his Truth and the knowledge of himself not only to his own people, but to those who were strangers to the sincere worship and service of him. Judge now Reader, whether Origen himself, T. G.'s single witness, doth make the Supreme God of the Heathens an Arch-Devil; and what reason he had upon so slender a Testimony to cry out, The Fathers, the Fathers?

But I have not yet done with him; for if we come down lower into the times of the Christian Church when this controversie of Idolatry was again revived in the days of Iulian the Apostate,§. 10. we shall find the very same acknowledgements made by the most learned and judicious Fathers of the Christian Church S. Cyril of Alexandria who undertook to answer the three Books of Iulian agains… Christianity,S. Cyril. Alex. c. Iul. l. 1. p. 16. saith, that the Greeks di… speak admirable things concerning God and that they did exceed themselves in those discourses; and that they could not have attained to such a knowledge of God without some particular manifestation of himself unto them. And afterwards h… produces the Testimonies of Orpheus, and Homer, and Sophocles concerning him p. 87Thales, he saith, made God the Soul of the World;p. 26. p. 28. Democritus, an active mind within a sphere of fire; Aristotle, a separate form resting upon the sphere of the World; the Stoicks, an active fire passing through the parts of the world. Of these things, he saith, Plutarch and Porphyrius speak, but above all he commends what Pythagoras and Plato and Hermes have said of God: p. 30.with several of the Testimonies before mentioned; some of which are repeated by Theodoret to the same purpose. Theod. de cur. Graec. serm. 2.But these things will be made more clear by considering the state of the Controversie between Iulian and S. Cyrill about Idolatry.Cyril. l. 2. p. 52. Iulian confesseth, that there is a natural knowledge of God in the minds of men, from whence comes that common inclination of all mankind towards a Deity; and that supposition among all men, that he who is the King over all hath his Throne in Heaven: He acknowledgeth with Plato,p. 58. that God is the maker of all things, that he is the Father of the Gods too; (and S. Cyril never quarrels with him for giving the title of Gods to those Superiour and Intelligent Beings: for, saith he, p. 59.we grant that there are some in Heaven that are called both Gods and Lords; nay men are called Gods in p. 88Scripture) Of these Gods' according to Plato,p. 65. Iulian saith, some are visible, as the Sun, and Moon, and Stars, and the Heavens, but these are only images of the invisible, and therefore Plato calls these later foreign, being invisible Deities represented by visible: but one God is the Maker of them all. But Iulian utterly rejected the Poetical Fables concerning the Gods, and that for T. G's reason, Cyril. l. 2. p. 44.because the Poets took the liberty to feign and say any thing; nay he calls them incredible and monstrous Fables; and this was the Scheme of his Theology,l. 4. p. 115. That there was one Supreme God the common Father and Lord over all, who had distributed the several Nations and Cities of the World to particular Gods as Governours over them: but although all perfections were in the Supreme God, yet they were scattered and divided among the inferiour Deities: and so Mars had the care of Wars, and Minerva of Counsels, and Mercury of things that required cunning more than courage: and every particular Nation followed the humour of the Gods that were set over them; as he goes about to prove by the different tempers of Nations. To which Cyril answers. That greatp. 121. Princes do choose some of the Wisest p. 89of their Subjects to be Governours of Provinces, but they who are so imployed do not Govern them by their own Laws, but by their Princes, and on all occasions set forth their greatness, and pay all duties to them; but these Deities assume those honours to themselves which are due only to God; and by bringing in Images into Temples of several forms and figures they endeavour to cast dishonour upon God; and by degrees draw men to the neglect of him. Either then, God despises the service of men, or these are not faithful servants to him; by bringing in visible objects of worship by setting up Images, and perswading men to make oblations, and offer sacrifices to them. And because it was so hard a matter to choke those natural motions of mens minds towards the Supreme God and Father of all,p. 122. therefore they endeavour'd to draw men farther from him, by tempting them to all manner of impiety. Whereas the good Angels we read of in Scripture, always directed men to pay their honours and adoration, not to themselves, but only to the Supreme God: and teach men that it is not fit to give them to any of his Ministers and Servants:p. 123. but these Deities of Iulian are willing to receive worship from men, and p. 90their prayers, and acknowledgements, and praises, and gifts, and sacrifices; (where we see he joyns them all together as parts of that divine worship which is proper only to God:) But Iulian is very much displeased at the Second Commandment, and would have been glad to have seen it struck out of the number of ten (as some in the World have done) because God therein expresses so much jealousie for his own honour;l. 5. p. 155. Cyril in answer to him shews that this is no way unbecoming God to be so much concerned for his honour, because mens greatest happiness, (as Alexander Aphrodisiensis said in his Book of Providence) lies in the due apprehension and service of God. By which we see, that the controversie about Idolatry, as it was hitherto managed between Christians and Heathens, did suppose the belief of one Supreme God in those who were charged with the practise of it.

After these, it may not be amiss to consider, what the ancient Author of the Recognitions under Clemens his name saith upon this subject of the Heathen Idolatry; he lived, saith Cotelerius, in the Second Century; if that be true, his Authority is the more considerable; however it is certain Ruffinus translated this Book, and th… p. 91makes it ancient enough to our purpose. He brings in the Heathen Idolaters pleading thus for themselves, Clem. Recogn. l. 5. n. 19.We likewise acknowledge one God who is Lord over all, but yet the other are Gods too; as there is but one Caesar who hath many Officers under him, as Praefects, Consuls, Tribunes and other Magistrates; after the same manner we suppose, when there is but one Supreme God, he hath many other inferiour Gods, as so many Officers under him, who are all subject to him, but yet over us. To this, he brings in S. Peter answering, that he desires them to keep to their own similitude; for as they who attribute the name of Caesar to any inferiour Officers, deserve to be punished; so will those more severely, who give the name of God to any of his Creatures. Where the name is not to be taken alone, but as it implies the dignity and Authority going along with it, and the professing of that subjection which is only due to that Authority; for what injury were it to Caesar for a man only to have the name of Caesar? but the injury lies in usurping the Authority under that name; so the nature of Idolatry could not lie in giving the name of Gods to any Creatures, but in giving that worship which that name p. 92calls for; and yet this worship here is supposed to be consistent with the acknowledgement of the supreme excellency of God.

If we now look into the sense of the Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathen Idolaters,§. 11. we shall find them agreeing with the other. Tertullian appeals to the consciences of men for the clearest evidence of one true and Supreme God;Tertul. Apolog. c. 17. for in the midst of all their Idolatries, they are apt upon any great occasion to lift up their hands and eyes to Heaven,De Testim. animae. where the only true, and great, and good God is; and he mentions their common phrases, God gives, and God sees, and I commend you to God, and God will restore; all which do shew the natural Testimony of conscience, as to the unity and supreme excellency of God: and in his Book ad Scapulam,Ad Scap. c. 4. God shewed himself to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Iove. Minucius Felix makes use of the same arguments, and saith, they were clear arguments of their consent with the Christians in the belief of one God, and makes it no great matter what name they called him by,Minut. Fel. in Octav. p. 19. as I have observed already, p. 93and afterwards produces many Testimonies of the Philosophers, almost all, he saith, that they acknowledged one God, although under several names.p. 21. Arnobius takes it for granted, Arnob. c. gent. l. 2. p. 67. l. 3. p. 101.that on both sides they were agreed, that there was one Supreme God, eternal and invisible and Father of all things, from whom all the Heathen Deities had their beginning: but all the dispute was about giving divine worship to any else besides him. Lactantius saith, there was no wise man ever questioned the being of one God,Lact. l. 1. §. 3. who made and governed all things; yet because he knew the World was full of Fools, he goes about to prove it at large from the testimonies of Poets and Philosophers, as so many had done before him: and for T. G's satisfaction, he saith, c. 5, 6, &c.that Orpheus (although as good at feigning as any of the Poets) could not by the Father of the Gods mean Jupiter the Son of Saturn; yet who can tell, but such a Magician as Orpheus is said to have been, might mean an Arch-Devil by him? But I am sure neither Lactantius, nor any of the Fathers ever thought so; for if they had, they would not so often have produced his Testimony to so little purpose. And to the Greek Testimonies mentioned before p. 94by others, Lactantius adds those of Cicero, and Seneca, who calls the infeririour Gods the children of the Supreme, and the Ministers of his Kingdom. Thus far we have the unanimous consent of all the Writers of the Christian Church against the Heathen Idolatry, that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God. S. Augustin tells us, S. Aug. de liv. Dei. l. 4. c. 9.that Varro thought, that those who worshipped one God without images, did mean the same by him that they did by their Jove, but only called him by another name; by those, De Consens. Evang. l. 1. c. 22.S. Austin saith, Varro meant the Iews, and he thought it no matter what name God is called by, so the same thing be meant. It is true S. Augustin argues against it from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno; but withal he confesses, that they thought it very unreasonable,c. 23. De Civ. Dei l. 7. c. 9. c. 11. c. 13. for their Religion to be charged with those Fables which themselves disowned: and therefore at last he could not deny, that they believed themselves, that by the Jove in the Capitol they understood and worshipped the Spirit that quickens and fills the world, of which Virgil spake in those words, Iovis omnia plena. But he wonders that since they acknowledged this to be the Supreme if p. 95not only Deity, the Romans did not rather content themselves with the worship of him alone, than run about and make so many addresses to the petty and Inferiour Deities? This indeed was a thing to be wondred at; and yet no doubt, they thought they had as good reasons for it, as T. G. gives why incontinent persons should rather make their addresses to S. Mary Magdalen in Heaven, than to her Sister Martha, or to God himself. T. G. p. 369.So the Roman women thought Lucina and Opis better for a good hour, than Ceres or Minerva; and Levana and Cunina for new born Children,De Civ. Dei. l. 4. c. 11. c. 24. than Vulcan or Apollo; and yet S. Augustin tells us, many of them did not esteem these, as any distinct Deities, but only as representations of the several powers of the same God suitable to the conditions of persons: but T. G. will not say, that by S. Mary Magdalen, he only understood the power of Gods Grace in converting incontinent persons; but if he had, he had given a much better reason of their praying to her: yet even in such a case S. Austin thinks it were better to pray directly to God himself. And the old Roman Matrons would have thought they could have directed such persons to Temples proper for them, viz. p. 96those of Virtue and Chastity, the one of which stood ad Portam Capenam, the other in vico longo. But I need not give such particular directions, for I am afraid their Ruines are scarce left in Rome: for neither Marlianus, nor Alexander Donatus in their accurate descriptions of Rome can tell where to find them.

For our better understanding the controversie about Idolatry as it is represented by S. Augustin,De Civ. Dei l. 4. c. 27, 30, 31. we are to consider that not only Scaevola and Balbus in Cicero, but Varro and Seneca, and the rest of their wiser men, did with great indignation reject the Poetical Theology as they called it; l. 6. c. 5, 6, 7. c. 10.and wished several things reformed in the popular Religion; and thought themselves as unjustly charged with the practises of the People, as T. G. doth for their Church to be charged with all the ridiculous addresses that some make to Saints among them; T.G. p. 368.for Varro confesses that the People were too apt to follow the Poets,De Civ. Dei l. 4. c. 32. (as in the Church of Rome they are to pray by their Legends) but they thought the people were better let alone in their fopperies, than to be suffered to break loose from that subjection which their Superstition kept them in; and with these S. Austin reckons the Philosophers;l. 6. c. 1. p. 97with whom, he saith, the Question to be debated was this, whether we are bound only to worship one Supreme God the Maker of all things? or whether it be not lawful to worship many Gods, who are supposed to be made by him? And after he hath discoursed against Varro and those of his opinion, who reduced all their Theology to Nature, and made God to be the Soul of the World, and the several parts of the world capable of divine Worship on that account; in his eighth Book, he undertakes those who asserted one Supreme Deity above Nature and the Cause of all things, and yet pleaded for the worship of inferiour Deities; he confesses, that they had the knowledge of the true God,l. 8. c. 9. c. 10. c. 11. and brings the several places of S. Paul mentioned in the entrance of this discourse to prove it: and enquiring how the Philosophers came to such knowledge of him, he first propounds the common opinion of the Fathers that they learnt it in Egypt, meeting with the Books of Scripture there, but he rather (and with good reason) resolves it into the natural knowledge of God; for, saith he, that which was known of God was manifest to them, for God had revealed it to them. p. 98But it seems by S. Augustin, that there were two opinions among them at that time about divine worship; for some, of whom he reckons Apuleius the chief, c. 22.were for the worship of Daemons, although they acknowledged them to be subject to evil passions; yet they looked on them as intercessors between men and the Gods, and therefore to be worshipped; but others who kept closer to the doctrine of Plato, believed none to be Gods but such as were certainly good;c. 13, 22. but were shy of declaring their opinion against the worship of Daemons for fear of displeasing the people by it:l. 9. c. 1. and with these S. Augustin declares he would have no controversie about the name of Gods, as long as they believed them to be created,c. 23. immortal, good and happy not by themselves, but by adhering to God; which, he saith, was the opinion either of all, or, at least, the best of the Platonists.

And now we are come to the true state of the Controversie, as it is managed by S. Augustin in his tenth Book: which is, whether those rites of Religious worship which are used in the service of the Supreme God,l. 10. c. 1. may be likewise used toward any created Being, though supposed to be p. 99of the highest excellency, and as near to God as we can suppose any creature to be? And that this, and this only is the state of the Controversie, I appeal to his own words, which I shall set down in the language he writ them, that I be not blamed with artificial turning them to my own sense: Hoc est, ut apertius dicam, utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, placeat eis ut sacra faciamus, & sacrificemus; vel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos Religionis ritibus consecremus? i. e. That I may speak plainly, whether it be pleasing to them, viz. good spirits, that we offer divine worship and sacrifice to them; or that we consecrate our selves, or any thing of ours to them by Religious rites? And this, saith he, is that worship which is due to the Deity, which because we cannot find one convenient word in Latin to express it by, I would call Latria, as that service which is due to men is called by another name, viz. foreign: and he gives this reason why he made choice of Latria to signifie divine worship in the Latine Tongue, because the Latine word colere is so very ambiguous, it being applied to the tilling of land, inhabiting of places, and therefore p. 100cultus could not so properly be applied only to divine worship; nor yet Religiō, because that according to the custom of the Latins is applyed to other senses; and the same reason he gives as to other names. For my part, I quarrel not at all with S. Augustins use of the word, and think it proper enough to apply it in his sense: which comprehends in it, not meerly sacrifice, but all those Religious Rites, whereby we give Worship to God. And nothing can to me appear more senseless than to imagine that S. Augusti… should here speak only of Soveraig… Worship proper to God in regard of his Supreme Excellency, distinguishing that from an inferior kind of Religious Worship due t… created Excellency, when it was agreed on both sides, that there was one Suprem… Excellency, which was incommunicable to any creatures, so that the dispute abou… Worship must suppose those to be created and dependent Beings; which being supposed, it was impossible for them to believe they had supreme Excellency in them. B… if it be said that the dispute was, whethe… Sacrifice did not belong only to God? … shall hereafter shew, that there is no reason in the world to appropriate divine worship p. 101only to sacrifice; my present business is only to prove, that the Controversie of Idolatry did on both sides suppose one Supreme God, which I think is manifest from S. Augustin, if any thing can be made so. But if this be not full enough to our purpose, we may add the plain testimony of Maximus Madaurensis to S. Austin, who saith, that none but madmen could deny that there was one supreme and eternal God who was the great Father of nature,S. Aug. ep. 43. whose influences diffused through the world, they worshipped under different names. This man seems to have been of Varro's way, and not of the Platonists, for he makes God sine prole; and so understood all the Heathen Deities but as several titles of the same God.

In the same time with S. Augustin Orosius lived, Paul. Oros. hist. l. 6. c. 1.who saith, that not only the Philosophers found out one God the maker of all things, to whom all things ought to be referred; but that the Pagans of their times, without distinction, when they were disputed with by Christians, did confess that there was but one Great God, who had several Ministers under him.

p. 102§. 12.After so full and clear evidence of the consent of all the Fathers in this matter, not taken from any single or incoherent passages, but from the series and design of their discourses, I can foresee but one objection against it out of Antiquity, which I shall endeavour to remove. And that is from the testimony of Sanchoniathon mentioned by Eusebius and S. Cyrill concerning the Phoenicians,Euseb. Praep. Evang. l. 1. c. 6. c. 9. c. 10. S. Cyrill. c. Iulian. l. 6. p. 205.that they worshipped the Sun, Moon and Stars as the only immortal Gods, among which the Sun was chief, whom they called Beelsamen Lord of Heaven; and their mortal Gods were men Deified for the kindness they had done to the world. To the same purpose Maimonides speaks of the Zabii,Maimon. More Nevoch. l. 3. c. 29. whose sect, he saith, did overrun the earth, that they had no other Gods but the Stars. But although this take not off the force of our former evidence, which lay in this, that those Fathers who did charge the Heathens with Idolatry, did at the same time confess, that they owned one Supreme God; yet I shall endeavour to prove, that even the Eastern Idolaters did acknowledge one Supreme Deity. Gregorius Abulfarajus, and Sharestanius,Not. in Specim. Histor. Arab. p. 143. both cited by our Learned Doct. Pocock, do expresly contradict p. 103Maimonides, for one of them saith, that they have very strong arguments to prove the unity of God; and the other, that although they call Planets Gods, yet they look on them only as Mediators between the Supreme God and men; and that Learned and Iudicious Person thinks that we have more reason to believe Gregorius Abulfarajus, because he conversed with many of their writings in their own language, whereas Maimonides only saw the translations of some of them. Sharestanius makes this their great principle, p. 140.that between the Supreme God and us, there must be some Mediators, which say they, are pure spiritual substances, which because we cannot immediately converse with, therefore we have need of some means of communication with them; which some make to be the coelestial Houses, and others Images. Those who are for the coelestial Houses, worship the Bodies of the Planets as the habitations of the living, rational and intellectual substances which they suppose to animate them; and therefore they are very punctual in the observations of them, and accordingly they make their Talismans; and if they have these about them, and the proper garments on for the Planet, and the day and hour peculiar to p. 104him, and say the Forms of prayer fitted for him, they do not question, but they shall be heard in the things which depend upon his influence. And these are the only persons I have heard of, that have discovered the invention of making Astrological Prayers; which seem to me to be built on as good Reason, as the Predictions are; and I doubt not, but they were able to produce as many experiments for the hearing of those prayers, as others do to justifie their predictions. But there were others among them, that thought the Planets at too g…eat a distance, and too often out of sight, and therefore they would have more constant and visible Mediators; for which purpose they made them Images, but they must be sure to be of a Figure and Metal, proper to the Planet, with a due observation of days, hours, degrees, minutes, habits, prayers, and whatever else they knew to be most pleasing to the Wise and Intelligent Planet. Now by the help of these, they hoped to get the favour of the Houses, and by the favour of the Houses they hoped for that of the Intelligencies, and by their favour they hoped for that of the Supreme God. But it seems there were some amongst them who are called p. 105Harbanistae, who supposed God to be one in essence, but to be many in regard of the different manifestations of himself to the Planets and other visible beings; and that he committed the care of this lower world to the celestial bodies whom they called Fathers, the elements Mothers, and all compounds Children. If the former representation of their worship be true, and that they thought there was no approach to the Supreme Deity, but by Mediators (as it seems to be) that might give the occasion to Maimonides and others, to say, that they worshipped only the Sun, Moon and Stars, and accounted them for their Gods; because it seems they gave no immediate worship to the Supreme Deity, but what honour they gave him was by passing through so many to him. And this may be a very probable reason why the Sun in the Phoenician and Chaldean Theology was looked on as the Supreme Deity, i. e. visible, and the highest Mediator to whom any worship was offered: and therefore called by the Chaldeans Baal, by the Phoenicians Beel Samen, by the Ammonites Moloch, by the Persians Mithras; and by the Moabites Baal Peor and Chemosh: so the Moon was called Astaroth or p. 106Astarte, and Malcha, or the Queen of Heaven: and Saturn worshipped under the name of Ciun, or Cevan; the Pleiades of Succoth Benoth: and it is not improbable, that from worshipping the Host of Heaven this Sect of Idolaters might have their name from foreign Saba, rather than from Sabius a fabulous son of Seth. Greg. Abulfarajus describes the Religion of the old Arabs much after the same manner, that they all worshipped the Stars, although some Tribes one more than another: and it is an ingenious conjecture of Doct. Pocock's, that whereas Herodotus saith that the Arabians only worshipped foreign as it is read in the Bodley MSS. and foreign,Not. in Spec. p. 107. this latter Alilahat signifying Daughters, implies the lesser Deities, and Olla taal the Supreme God, as the words signifie: which he proves from Sharestanius that the old Arabs did acknowledge. Abraham Ecchellensis speaking of the Religion of the old Arabians, saith, that those who were of the Sect of Chaled,Abr. Ecchellens. Histor. Arab. c. 6. in Chron. Orient. went upon this principle, that there was one Creator and Governor of all things, most Powerful and most Wise: Besides these, there were those who worshipped Intelligences, or Celestial Spirits; and these, saith he, although p. 107they confessed one Creator of the World, most holy, wise and powerful, yet they said we had need of Mediators to him; therefore they invoked those Spirits with all rites of Religious worship, and these, saith he, were called the Daughters of God, as they are in the Alcoran: not much different from these, were the worshippers of Images, whom he describes as we have done before. But he tells us, there was a Sect of Dahritae among them whom he calls Philosophers, who were meer Atheists, and asserted the Eternity of the World, and these being excepted, he saith, that the ancient Arabs did believe the creation of the world; and he tells out of them, c. 9.their particular history of it. But Ecchellensis was aware of the parallel between the worship practised in the Church of Rome, and that among the Arabians supposing they acknowledged one true God, and therefore puts the Qustion, whether they did worship their Idols for Gods without relation to any Superiour, or only took them for second causes, and gave them the name of Gods only Analogically? It was a question seasonably put, but not so wisely answered. For, as if he had quite forgotten, what he had said before, he saith, without all doubt the most of p. 108them looked upon the Gods they worshipped as of Supreme Authority, and Majesty, and Independent of any other. What, although they acknowledged but one Supreme God, and called all the lesser Deities his Daughters! Although all of them, a very few excepted, believed the creation of all things by one most Wise and Powerful Being! But alas! he did not think of this Question, when he said the other things; and he was not bound to remember them now, but to say what served best for his present purpose to clear the Roman Church from Idolatry. I will not deny then, but there might be a Sect of Dahritae who did only in name own any thing of God and Religion, that did assert the Eternity of the world, and that there were no other Gods, but the Sun, Moon and Stars, both among the Phoenicians and Chaldeans as well as Arabians; but I say, these were Atheists and not Idolaters; those who where charged with Idolatry among them were such as believed a Supreme Deity, but gave Divine Honours to Beings created by him.

The like is suggested by some concerning the Persians, as though they attributed omnipotency and divine worship only p. 109to the Sun; and those who take all things of this nature upon trust meerly from Herodotus, or Iustin, or other Greek and Latin writers, may think they have reason to believe it; but if we look into those who have been most conversant in the Persian writings, we shall find a different account of them. Iac. Golius in his Notes on Alferganus saith, Gol. not. in Alferg. p. 20.that the Persians gave the names of their Gods to their Months and Days; according to the ancient Religion of the Persians and Magi, whereby they did believe their Gods to preside over them; for it was a principle among them as well as other Nations of the East, that the things of this lower world are administred by Angels: and accordingly they had their particular prayers and devotions according to the several Days and Months; and not only so, but their very meat, drink, clothing and perfumes were different; and they had their Tables or Rubricks to instruct them. And what worship they gave to the Planets, was not, saith he, p. 21.to themselves but to those Intelligencies, which they supposed to rule them; nay, they supposed particular Spirits to rule over all the material parts of the world; the Spirit over fire was called Adar and Aredbahist, the Spirit over p. 110Herbs and Trees Chordad, the Spirit over Bruits was Bahmen, the Spirit over the Earth was Asfendurmed; and so they had an Angel of Night, and another of Death; and the Spirit over the Sun was called Mihrgîan, from Mihr the Sun, (whence the word Mithras,) but above all these, they believed there was one Supreme God whom they called Hormuz and Dei; p. 40.and the Persian Writers say, that Zoroaster appointed six great Festivals in the year, in remembrance of the six days creation.p. 24. And to this is very agreeable what the Persees in Indosthan do to this day deliver of the principles of their Religion; for, Lords descript. of the Persees, p. 5.they affirm God to be the maker of all things; but that he committed the Government of the world to certain Spirits; and they worship the fire as a part of God, and call the Sun and Moon Gods great witnesses;p. 8. p. 44. and the description of them in Varenius fully accords with this, that they acknowledged one Supreme God, every where present,Varen. de divers. gent. Relig. p. 269. that governs the world, but he makes use of seven chief Ministers for the management of it, one over men, another over bruits, another over fire as is before described; and under these they place 25 more, who are all to give an account to the Supreme God of their administration. p. 111With this account agrees the relation of Mandelslo concerning them,Voyage des Indes du Sr. Mandelslo. l. 1. p. 215. who saith, that the Parsis believe that there is but one God preserver of the Universe; that he acts alone and immediately in all things, and that the seven servants of God, for whom they have also a great veneration, have only an inferiour administration whereof they are obliged to give account: and after the enumerating these with their particular charges, he reckons up 26 under them with their several names, but they call them all in common Geshoo, i. e. Lords, and believe, he saith, that they have an absolute power over the things, whereof God hath intrusted them with the administration. Whence it comes, that they make no difficulty to worship them, and to invocate them in their extremities, out of a perswasion that God will not deny them any thing they desire on their intercession. Schickard relates a particular story of the Persian King Firutz,Schickard. Tarich. p. 130. or Perozes, which shews the acknowledgement of a Supreme Deity among the Persians; in his time, which was about the time of the Council of Chalcedon, there happened a mighty drought in Persia, so that it rained not for seven years, and when the Kings granaries p. 112were utterly exhausted, and there was no hope of further supplies, he called his People out into the open Fields, and there in a most humble manner he besought the great God Lord of Heaven and Earth, to send them rain, and gave not over praying till a plentiful shower fell upon them: which, saith he, is another example, after the Ninivites, of Gods great mercy after a publick and solemn repentance. But that this Prince was yet a worshipper of the Sun, appears by what follows, when the Emperor Zen… had him at his mercy, and made him promise fidelity to him, by bowing of himself to him; he to avoid the reproach of it among his People, carried himself so, that he seemed only to them to make his Reverence to the Sun according to the custom of his Country.

§. 13.But it will add yet more to the conviction of T. G. and to the discovery of the Nature of Idolatry, to shew that those Nations, which are at this day charged with Idolatry by the Church of Rome, have acknowledged one Supreme God. And I shall now shew that those Idolaters who have understood their own Religion, have gone upon one of these three principles, either p. 113(1.) that God hath committed the Government of the world under him to some inferiour Deities, which was the principle of the Platonists, and of the Arabians, and Persians. Or, (2.) that God is the Soul of the world, and therefore the parts of it deserve divine honour, which was the principle of Varro and the Stoicks. Or, (3.) That God is of so great perfection and excellency, that he is above our service, and therefore what external adoration we pay, ought to be to something below him: which I shall shew to have been the principle of those who have given the least external adoration to the Supreme God.

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

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

p. 114For the Brachmans, I shall take my account chiefly from those who have been conversant among them, and had the best reason to understand their Religion. Francis Xaverius, who went first upon that commendable imployment of converting the Indians,Xaver. epist. Indic. p. 11. saith, that the Brachmans told him they knew very well there was but one God: and one of the learned Brachmans in his discourse with him not only confessed the same, but added, that on Sundays, which their Teachers kept very exactly, they used only this prayer, I adore thee O God with thy Grace and Help for ever. Tursellinus saith, Tursell. vit. Xaver. l. 2.6.9.that he confessed this to be one of their great mysteries, that there was one God maker of the world, who reigns in Heaven and ought to be worshipped by men, and so doth Iarricus. Bartoli not only relates the same passages, Iarric. Rer. Indic. c. 81. Bartoli de vitâ & gest. Xaverii. l. 1. n. 30, 31.but gives this account of their Theology; that they call the Supreme God Parabrama, which in their language signifies absolutely perfect, being the Fountain of all things, existing from himself, and free from all composition: that he committed to Brama the care of all things about Religion; to Wistnow, another of his Sons, the care of mens rights and relieving them in their necessities; p. 115to a third, the power over the elements and over humane bodies: These three they represent by an Image with three Heads rising all out of the same trunk; these are highly esteemed and prayed to; for they suppose Parabrama to be at perfect ease, and to have committed the care of all to them. But the Brachman Padmanaba gave a more particular account of the management of all things to Abraham Rogers who was well acquainted with him, and was fifteen years in those parts. Linda descript. Orbis, p. 1 110.Next to Brama, they make one Dewendre to be the Superintendent Deity,Voyage des Indes du Sr. Mandelslo, l. 1. p. 201. who hath many more under him; and besides these, they have particular Deities, over the several parts of the world, as the Persians had. They believe both good and evil Spirits, and call them by several names: the former they call Deütas and the other Ratsjaies, and the Father of both sorts to be Brachman the son of Brama. In particular cases, they have some, saith Mr. Lord (who conversed among them and to whom Mons. Bernier refers us to one who gave a faithful account of them) whom they honour as Saints and make their addresses to;Lords descript. of the Banian Religion, p. 60. Berniers Memoires Tom. 3. p. 157.as for Marriage they invocate Hurmount, for Health Vagenaught, for success in Wars p. 116Bimohem, for Relief Syer, &c. and I suppose incontinent persons may have someone instead of S. Mary Magdalen to pray to. The custom of their daily devotion as the Brachman Padmanaba said, was first to meditate of God before they rise,Linda, p. 1108. then after they have washed themselves they repeat 24 names of God and touch 24 parts of their bodies; upon Su… rising they say prayers and pour down water in honour of the Sun, and then … down upon their knees and worship him and after perform some ceremonies … their Idols, which they repeat in the evening. The particular devotion which the… have to their Saints, and Images, a… Reliques is fully described by Boullaye-le-Gouz in his late Travels into those parts Mandelslo saith, Les voyages & observat. du Sieur de la Boullaye-le-Gouz, c. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.Voyage des Indes du Sr. Mandelslo, l. 1. p. 202, 204.that in the time of the publick devotions, they have long Less… about the Lives and Miracles of the Saints, which the Bramans make use … to perswade the people to worship them, Intercessors with God for them. Amo… their Saints Ram is in very great estim… tion, being the restorer of their Religi… and a great Patron of their Braman Kircher supposeth him to be the … with him whom the Iaponese call foreign, and the Chinese Ken Kian … p. 117Kircher, foreign Kia saith Marini, and those of Tunquin Chiaga, or as Marini Thic-Ca,Lords descript. of Banyans, c. 14. in all which parts he is in very great veneration; him they look on as the great propagator of their Religion in the Eastern parts, Kirch. China illustr. l. 3. c. 4.and they say he had 80000 disciples, but he chose ten out of them, all to disperse his opinions. From whence it is supposed that the Religion of the Brachmans hath spread it self not only over Indosthan, but Camboia, Tunquin,Marini Rolat. du Royaume de Tunquin. c. 9. p. 194. Cochinchina, nay China it self, and Iapan too; where it is an usual thing for persons to drown, burn or famish themselves for the honour of Xaca. This Sect was brought into China 65 years after Christ from Indosthan, as Trigautius, (or rather Matthaeus Riccius tells us, for Bartoli assures us, Bartoli de vit. Xaver. l. 3. n. 5. Trigaut. de exped. Christianâ apud Sinas, l. 1. c. 10. Bartoli Histor. Asiat. l. 1. n. 55.that Trigautius only published Riccius his papers in his own name) which he supposes, was brought in by a mistake for the Christian Religion, (and surely it was a very great mistake) but for all that, Trigautius hath found a …trange resemblance between the Roman Religion and theirs. For, saith he, they worship the Trinity after a certain manner, with an image having three Heads and one Body; they extol coelibate … a high degree so as to seem to condemn p. 118marriage; they forsake their Families, and go up and down begging, (i. e. the Order of Friers among them,) their very rites and customs are like ours; they have Images in their Temples, and their very habits agree with ours. I desire T. G. once more to make use of his Friends kindness for Trigautius, that he may see, whether I have translated him right or no. In all this, he mentions nothing of the Christian Religion, but only the rewards and punishments of another world; which most Nations of the world have believed; and for their other resemblances much good may they do themselves with such parts of Christianity. Histor. Asiatic. l. 1. n. 75.To these Bartoli adds, the worshipping the Mother of God with a Child in her Arms, their Penances, Monasteries, Nunneries, nay their very Beads and Indulgencies; And Semedo saith of their Priests,Semedo Hist. of China, p. 1. c. 18. that they wear their Head and Beards shaved, they worship Idols; they marry not; they live in Convents 4 or 500 together, they beg, mutter prayers; they sing; they have several offices and prayers against fire, tempests, misfortunes, and especially for the dead; in which functions they use sacerdotal garments; their Caps are like ours, and their sprinkling p. 119brushes without any difference at all; they eat neither flesh, nor fish, nor eggs, neither do they drink wine. But for this last cause of Fish and Wine, I might have imagined he had been describing a sort of men much nearer home. The same resemblances Bartoli finds, Bartoli de vita & gestis Fran. Xaverii, l. 3. n. 5, 6.and stands amazed at in Iapan; here again, he finds one Image with three Heads for the Trinity, and forty hands to denote his power, which they call Denix; (but he saith, their Philosophers interpret it of the Sun, Moon, Elements and first Matter,) here they cross themselves, but with a S. Andrewes cross; and say their prayers exactly with their Beads, of which they have 180 on a string; and which is yet more observable, they understand not one word of their prayers, and yet they hope for forgiveness of their sins for saying them. They have a kind of Ave-Mary Bell for the times of their prayers: have pilgrimages to certain places, and have great indulgences promised them for visiting them every year: they have a Tribunal of general confession; and Troops of persons who carry their Images in procession, and have great honour to Reliques; especially to a Tooth of Xaca at Meaco, which they look upon as of mighty vertue, p. 120being brought forth, either to obtain Rain or Fair weather: and which adds yet more cause of admiration, they have a Pope too, the Dairo, whom he calls Zazzus, who hath the chief care of Religion, and of Canonizing whom he thinks fit, and thence have the honour of Cami's or Saints; he consecrates Patriarchs and Prelates, who make Priests with a power of sacrificing with odors, and of disposing the merits of Xaca and Amida for the benefit of the living and the dead. Besides, saith he, they have multitudes of Religious Orders, Black and Grey, Eremitical and Coenobitical; and Nuns which are very serviceable and kind to the Bonzii, who shave their Heads, profess coelibate, abstain from flesh and fish, and observe their hours of devotion to Xaca. These things, Bartoli saith, he had from those who were eye-witnesses, and had been long conversant among them. But to increase the admiration yet more, Greuber in his late account of his return from China, A. D. 1661. by the way of Lassa, or Barantola, as Kircher calls it, Kircher. China illustr. part. 2. c. 1.but Greuber himself Baranateka (where, Voyage du Greuber. p. 18.he saith, no Christian had ever been) yet there he found Extreme Unction, Solemn Processions, worshipping of Reliques, Monasteries of men p. 121and women, bare-footed Missionaries, and several other things, which caused amazement in him; but above all he wondred at their Pope, to whom they give divine honours, and worship his very excrements, and put them up in Golden boxes, as a most excellent Remedy against all mischiefs; and to him all the Kings of Tartary make their solemn addresses, and receive their Crowns from him; and those that come near him, kiss his Toe, as Kircher saith, Kirch. China, p. 2. c. 4.and give the same adoration that they do to the Pope at Rome; and, saith he, is only due to him: which he looks on, as a notable trick of the Devil, to steal these customs from Rome, and to carry them into such a remote part of the world, where he little dreamed of being found out in his villany, had not Greuber chanced to have passed that way from China. I find these Authours very much puzzled, what account to give of all these customs and ceremonies of theirs among Infidels and Idolaters: Kircher runs back to Presbyter Iohn, others to S. Thomas; when alas! they all came from the very same fountain, from whence they came into the Roman Church, viz. folly and Superstition.

p. 122And they do not want wit to defend themselves upon the very same grounds, §. 14.that they do: as for instance, in their worship of Images, and Saints, (as they esteem them) as most proper to our purpose. Nicolaus Pimenta in his epistle to Claudius Aquaviva General of the Iesuits from God, A. D. 1600. saith, that when they disputed with the Brachmans,Epistolae Indic. Antw. 1605. p. 839. about their worship, they told them; And we likewise worship one God as well as you, and refer all the honour to him which we give to other things. I would he had told us what answer he gave them; but I find not a word of that: neither can I see what it was capable of, unless he told them, that they lied. And we have a considerable Testimony of an understanding Gentleman of Rome, who had the curiosity to enquire strictly into the worship the Gentiles in India gave to their Deities; that they have no other name to express their Deity but Deu or Deurù, Viaggi di Pietro Della Valle parte 3. Letter 6. foreign 10.which are likewise given to Princes; from whence he infers that the Gods of the Gentiles although adored and worshipped both in ancient and modern times, were never looked on in the same degree with God the Creator of the Universe, and wherein almost p. 123all Nations of the World have and do hold him, some calling him the First Cause, others the Soul of the World, others Perabrahmi as the Gentiles at this day in India: but the other Gods are and were always with them, as Saints are with us: of the truth whereof I have great arguments at least among the Indian Gentiles; or at the highest they esteemed them only as men Deified by the Favour of God, as Hercules, Romulus, Augustus, &c. Mons. Bernier when he was at the University of the Brachmans in Benares upon Ganges, discoursing with one of the most learned men among them, he proposed to him the Question, Bernier Memoires, Tom. 3. p. 171.about the adoration of their Idols, and reproaching them with it, as a thing very unreasonable; they gave him this remarkable answer, We have indeed in our Temples store of divers Statues, as those of Brahma, Mahadeu, Genich and Gavani, who are some of the chief and most perfect Deutas; and we have also many others of less perfection, to whom we pay great honour, prostrating our selves before them and presenting them Flowers, Rice, Oyles, Saffron and such things with much ceremony; but we do not believe these Statues to be Brahma or Bechen, &c. themselves, but only their Images and Representations, p. 124and we do not give them that honour but upon the account of what they represent. They are in our Temples, because it is necessary for praying well, to have something before our eyes that may fix the mind; and when we pray, it is not the Statue we pray to, but he that is represented by it. For the rest we acknowledge, that 'tis God that is absolute, and the only omnipotent Lord and Master. This, saith he, was his answer without adding or substracting any thing. And I desire to be resolved by T. G. whether upon these principles they were guilty of Idolatry, or no? I am sure their Church accounts them so; and yet they neither believe their Images to be Gods, nor terminate their worship upon them; and if they be guilty upon these principles, T.G. can never clear the Church of Rome.