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

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

p. 124But besides, they have another way of defending themselves, which the same Author gives this account of, viz. that God or that Soveraign being whom they call Achar (immutable) hath produced or drawn out of his own substance, not only souls,p. 178. but also whatever is material and corporeal in the Universe, so that all the things in the world are but one and the same thing which is God himself; as p. 125all numbers are but one and the same unity repeated. If this principle of theirs were true, I hope they might stand upon even terms with T. G. as to the adoration of the Host. For if the belief on one side will justifie his Church from Idolatry, a sufficient object of adoration being supposed to be present, I hope the same supposition on their side may do it too; so that if men can be but foolish and extravagant enough in their opinion about a thing, they need not doubt the lawfulness of the worship they pay to it. And that this is not a meer supposition not only appears by the Testimony of this inquisitive Person, but by what Trigautius saith of the Chineses,Trigaut. de exp. apud Sinas, l. 1. c. 10. that this opinion is very prevalent among the Learned men there, that makes the world and God to be one substance, of which all particular things are members; and by what Alexander Valignanus,Possevine Biblioth. l. 10. c. 2. Provincial of the Iesuits in the Indies for thirty years, hath said upon this subject. In his discourse about the best means of converting the Iaponese, printed by Possevine, he tells us of a Sect among them, who hold but one principle, which they call the first reason, and the true opinion, and the divine truth, and that this principle is all things, and all p. 126things are nothing but it extended now and do return into it again upon their dissolution, that the soul of man is the same with it, that men by inward contemplation may now attain to a knowledge of and union with this first principle; and as one of the Iaponese converts said, after a man hath spent thirty years in this contemplation, he is then fit to be Canonized, and to be worshipped among their Cami's and Fotoques. This first principle they grant to be one, absolutely Perfect and Wise, but not thoughtful, but living in perfect ease and happiness. This, saith Bernier, is the great Cabala of the Brachmans and Persians; and if Valignanus may be credited, is so of the Iaponeses too: and it seems to be the very same which Orpheus had from the Egyptians, and contains in it the most plausible Reason of giving divine worship to any thing, which is proposed for adoration. Valignanus offers a great many arguments against this opinion, but I dare say not one of them stronger or plainer than those which are daily brought against transubstantiation: and yet T. G. will by no means allow any Idolatry therein, because the object supposed to be present, deserves our adoration. But the generality of the people p. 127Valignanus confesses did acknowledge a Supreme Being whom they called Tento, and believed him to be the Governour of the World, and to him in their great distresses they made supplications, believing that all things are well known by him; but under him they suppose many Cami's and Fotoques to be, whom they acknowledge to have had a beginning, such as Xaca, and Amida, and Canon, and Toranga and many others, to whom they make their daily addresses in their Temples. And the Reasons which Valignanus gives against this way of worship among them deserve our consideration. 1. Because God only hath the power of conferring the blessings of this life or another upon us;c. 5. and his argument must hold as to both, or else it doth not reach home; for the Iaponeses are observed more to pray to their Saints or Deities for riches, and health and honour, than for what belongs to another life. 2. Because Xaca and Amida and the rest of the Cami and Fotoque were once men, and therefore the administration of the world cannot be committed to them, being a thing above humane understanding. Very well again: and if▪ this argument signifie any thing, it must extend to their incapacity p. 128of receiving their addresses for want of divine knowledge; otherwise they might pray to Amida and Xaca still, as Mediators at least between God and them. 3. Because the world was, before they had a being, and consequently was governed by that Wise Being which made it; and he that disposed of things then, doth so still; therefore it is an absurd thing to pray to and adore such beings which did not make the world. All which I grant to be reasonably, and truly said, and only desire they may be remembred against another day: and what he adds about the great affront which is offered to God, when the honour which belongs to him is given to any creatures,…. 6. either dead men, or Images, or Devils; and yet he makes no scruple notwithstanding the former pretences, to charge these Gentiles with Idolatry.

§. 15.It remains now, that I consider the Religion of the Chineses; that I mean, which is properly theirs, and is by Writers commonly called the First Sect among them, and by Martinius the Philosophical Sect.Martin. praefat. Atlant. Sinic. p. 7. Although he admires them for their morality; yet, he saith, although anciently they did believe and worship one p. 129God, yet that now they have left off to worship him because they do not know how to do it: but Greuber,Voyage du Greuber, p. 6. who came later from thence saith, that they do profess to worship one Supreme Being which they call Sciax-Ti, and adore him by certain sacrifices of paper and incense. They worship no Pagod or Idol, saith Semedo,Semedo hist. of Chinach. 18. but acknowledge a Superiority or Deity, who is able to chastise or reward: but they have no Churches wherein they worship him, nor any divine service which they celebrate, nor any prayers that they rehearse, nor any Priests or Ministers which officiate at his service. Yet they speak and write very honourably of him, neither do they attribute any undecent thing to him, as our Ancestors did to their Gods: but they have Temples for Heaven and Earth in Nankin and Pekim, in which the King himself offers the sacrifice; and in the Cities they have Temples for Tutelar Spirits, to which the Mandarins do sacrifice; as, to the Spirits of the Rivers, Mountains and four parts of the World, &c. and there are Temples to the honour of great Benefactors to the publick, and therein are placed their Images. Trigautius saith, Trigaut. de Christ. exped. apud Sinas, l. 1. c. 10.that he finds in their ancient Books that the p. 130Chineses did of old time worship one Supreme God, whom they called King of Heaven, or by another name Heaven and Earth: and besides him they worshipped Tutelar Spirits; to the same purpose with Semedo: and the same, he saith, continues still in the learned Sect among them, whose first Author was their famous Confutius: to him they have a Temple erected in every City with his Image, or his name in golden letters, whither all the Magistrates every new or full Moon do resort, to give honour to Confutius with bowings, and Wax-candles, and incense: the same they do on his birth-day, and other set times; there to express their gratitude for the mighty advantages they have had by his Doctrine, but they make no prayers to him, and neither seek nor hope for any thing from him. They have likewise Temples to Tutelar Spirits for every City and Tribunal; where they make oblations, and burn perfumes, acknowledging these to have power to reward and punish. Bartoli saith, Bartoli Asiat. hist. l. 1. n. 73.it is not out of any contempt of Religion, but out of reverence to the Deity because of the excellency of his Majesty, that they suffer none but the King to offer Sacrifice to him: and accordingly the larger Power the Tutelar Spirits p. 131are supposed to have, the greater Magistrates are to attend their service: and the lesser those of Cities, and Mountains, and Rivers. But that which is more material to our present business, is, to consider the Resolution of a case of Conscience not long since given at Rome by the Congregation of Cardinals de propagandâ fide, after advising with and the full consent of the Pope obtained 12 Sept. 1645. Which resolution, and decree was Printed in the Press of the Congregation the same year, with the Popes Decree annexed to it, and his peremptory command for the observation of it by all Missionaries; and that Copy of the Resolution I have seen, was attested by a publick Notary to agree with the Original Decree: which case will help us very much to the right understanding the Notion of Idolatry according to the sense of the Church of Rome.

The case was this; The Missionaries of the Society of Iesuits, having had a plentiful harvest in China, and many of the Great men embracing the Christian Religion by their means; the Missionaries of other Orders, especially the Franciscans, had a great curiosity to understand the arts, which the Iesuits used in prevailing with so many Great persons to become p. 132Christians; and upon full enquiry, they found they gave them great liberty, as to the five Precepts of the Church, as they call them, viz. hearing Mass, annual Confession, receiving the Sacrament at Easter, Fasting at the solemn times, and Tenths and First-fruits: besides, they did forbear their Ceremonies of baptism, their oyl and spittle in the ears, and salt in the mouth, when they baptized Women, and giving extreme Unction to them, because the jealousie of their Husbands would not permit them to use them; but that which is most to our purpose is the liberty they gave the Mandarins in two things. 1. To go to the Temple of the Tutelar Spirit in every City, as they are bound by vertue of their office to do twice a month, or else they forfeit their places, and there to prostrate themselves before the Idol, with all the external acts of adoration that others used; and swearing before it when they enter into their office, so they did secretly convey a Crucifix among the flowers, that lay upon the altar, or hold it cunningly in their hands, and direct all their adorations to the Crucifix by the inward intention of their minds. 2. To go to the Temple of Keum-Fucu, or Confucius, twice a year, and to perform all the p. 133solemnities there, that the rest did: and the same as to the Temples of their Ancestors which are erected to their honour according to the precepts of Confucius; because the Chineses declared that they intended only to give the same reverence to the memory of their Ancestors, which they would do to themselves if they were still living; and what they offer to them is nothing but what they would give them, if they were alive, without any intention to beg any thing from them, when they know them to be dead: and the same allowance they gave, as to the Images of their Ancestors, about which many Ceremonies were used by them. The Missionaries of S. Francis order, being well informed of the Truth of these things, from the Philippines they send a Memorial to the King of Spain concerning them, who by his Ambassador represents it to the Pope, whereupon the Congregation of Cardinals was called, and after great deliberation and advising with the Pope about it, they made their Decree, wherein, they by several resolutions, declare it unlawful upon any of those pretences to use acts in themselves unlawful, and superstitious, although directed by their intention to the worship of the true God. And lest any p. 134should imagine it was only matter of scandal, which they stood upon (as T. G. doth, T. G. p. 92.about worshipping towards the Sun) they make use of several expressions, on purpose to exclude this, for so they resolve the seventh Quere, nullatenus licere, it is by no means lawful; and the eighth, nullo praetextu, under no pretence whatsoever, and to the ninth expresly, that it could not be salved propter absentiam gentilium, if there were no gentiles present: from this Resolution we may observe several things to our purpose.

1That Idolatry is consistent with the belief of the Supreme God, and reserving soveraign worship as due only to him: For the Congregation calls the Image of the Tutelar Spirit an Idol, and consequently the act of adoration must be Idolatry, yet it is very clear that the Chineses (especially the Christians) did never intend to give to the Tutelar Spirit the honour proper to the Supreme Deity: And Bartoli hath at large proved, Bartoli hist. Asi. l. 1. n. 70.that the Chineses did of old acknowledge the true God, and his Providence over the World: and that their Princes do worship the same God still, to whom they offer Sacrifice: and they call him by two names, Scianti, which signifies supreme Monarch, and Tienciù, Lord p. 135of Heaven, and as he tells us, they put an apparent difference between Tienciù and Tienscin, i. e. between God and Angels, and say that the power of forgiving sins belongs only to God and not to them; that, upon a debate among the Missionaries about the use of these words for the true God, and some scruples raised from some misinterpretations of it by an Atheistical Sect among them, they were satisfied by plain and perspicuous testimonies out of their Books, that they could mean no other than the true God: and that he to whom the King every year offers sacrifice is a pure Mind, free from all mixture, governing all things, and therefore to him all the acts of soveraign worship are performed; such as Sacrifices, Vows, Prayers and thanksgivings. Therefore the worship they give to the Tutelar Spirits or Guardian Angels, (as they suppose them) must be of an inferiour nature, and yet the Congregation of the Cardinals by the direction of the Pope, condemn this for Idolatry.

That giving an Inferiour Worship on the 2account of created excellency, when it appears to be Religious, is utterly unlawful among Christians. For this is the only imaginable reason why the Congregation p. 136did so absolutely condemn the worship of Confutius and their Ancestors; and Hurtado in the explication of this decree, Thom. Hurtado Resolutiones de vero Martyrio Fidei, p. 487.confesses, that the Chineses did not esteem Confutius, as a God, but only looked on him as a holy and vertuous Philosopher; yet, saith he, because they did those acts to him which are only proper to God, they commit manifest Idolatry in it. For, saith he, they who give to a creature the worship due only to God, do commit Idolatry; and from hence the Gentiles who acknowledged one God were Idolaters, because they gave to the creatures the honour due to him, in the doing of which they made an acknowledgement of divine excellency in the things they gave it to. By which it appears, that there are some external acts of worship so proper to God, that although a man hath never so clear apprehension in his mind of the Supreme excellency of God above the creatures he worships, yet the giving that worship to them makes his act Idolatry. The Iesuits to excuse these things, speak very high things of Confutius, and of his admirable Life and doctrine, and surely not without great reason, if their relations hold true, as I see no reason to suspect them: but the more Confutius is extolled, the p. 137worse they make their own case, for all these acts of external worship towards him, are condemned for Idolatry: and how then comes the worship of Ignatius Loyola to be otherwise, who, I dare say, never was so great a Philosopher, nor did so much good in the world, as the Iesuits say Confutius did? But at last, they would have all these honours to Confutius to be only civil honours; although Trigautius confesses, Martin. hist. Sinic. l. 4. p. 151.that he hath a Temple in every City, that his Image with that of his Disciples, is set up in it; that these Disciples are looked on as a sort of Divi, i. e. as Canonized Saints;Bartoli hist. Asiat. l. 1. n. 54. Trigaut. l. 1. c. 10. that bere they make use of all the rites of adoration, genuflections, wax-candles, incense, oblations, prayers only excepted: but we see, notwithstanding all their pretences, the Pope and Congregation of Cardinals have condemned them as guilty of Idolatry.

That the Pope and Congregation of Cardinals 3were not of T. G's mind, that acts do certainly go whither they are intended; For all these acts of worship were directed by the intention of the persons to the secret Crucifix, which lay among the flowers upon the Altar; but notwithstanding, this in their opinion were a fit object of worship, yet other circumstances p. 138did so much alter the nature of it, that they declare these acts to be in themselves unlawful. By actions going whither they are intended, I do not mean, as T. G. suggests, that the Physical act of the mind doth not pass to the object whither the act is directed, i. e. that I do not think of that which I do think of; but my meaning is, that such a directing the intention of the mind doth not give a moral denomination to the nature of the action, viz. that it becomes lawful or unlawful, by vertue of such an intention of the mind, but that the Law of God may so determine the nature of our acts of worship, as to make them unlawful, whatever the intention of the mind be. And thus the Congregation of Cardinals here resolves the case; the Persons used only those acts of adoration that may be directed to God, by a secret intention of the mind; they suppose a Crucifix a fit object for divine worship, and going together into an Idolatrous Temple, and using all the external equivocal acts (as T. G. calls them) which the rest did, they direct their acts by vertue of this intention to the Crucifix; yet although the Congregation thought this intention rightly directed, they condemn the acts as in p. 139themselves unlawful. But of these things hereafter; the first observation being sufficient to my present purpose, viz. to shew that according to the present sense of the Roman Church the practice of Idolatry is consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme God.

From the Idolatry of the East-Indies,§. 16. I proceed to that of the Tartars, whose Dominion hath extended it self over that vast Continent from the utmost North-East parts, to the borders of Europe that way; and this acount I shall give from the least suspected witnesses in this matter, viz. the Emissaries of the Roman Church, who had conversed most among them, and made it their design to understand their Religion. In A. D. 1246. after the horrible devastations made by the Tartars in Poland and Hungary, Pope Innocent 4. sent Iohannes de Plano Carpini as his Legat, or Nuncio to them: Ioh. à Plano Carpini Libellus historicus de Tartaris, c. 3.and after a year and four months stay among them he gives this account of their Religion, unum Deum credunt, quem credunt esse factorem omnium visibilium, & invisibilium; & credunt eum tam bonorum in hoc mundo quam poenarum esse factorem; non tamen orationibus, vel laudibus aut ritu aliquo ipsum p. 140colunt. They believe one God, whom they believe to be the maker of all things visible and invisible; and to be the Author of all worldly goods and punishments; and yet he saith, they had no manner of worhip of him: but their worship they gave to Images, which he there at large decribes. But there is an inferior Deity, whom he calls Itoga, Paulus Venetus Natagay which they believe to be the God of the earth,Paul. Venel. de Reg. orient.l. 1. c. 58. l. 3. c. 47. and him they worship with great superstition; and besides they worship the Sun, Moon and Fire, and make oblations to the Image of their first Emperour; and the same thing is affirmed by Vincentius Bellovacensis.Specul. hist. l. 29. c. 72, 74. After him, Lewis the ninth of France sent William de Rubruquis, a Franciscan, A. D. 1253. who passed through the several Courts of the Tartarian Princes, and gave an exact account to his Prince of the Religion he found among them. In the conference he had with Mangu-Chan (who was then Emperour) about Religion; the Emperour told him, Gul. de Rubruquis Itiner. c. 43.We Moals (which is the name they call themselves by, that being the name of the Tribe from whence Iingiz-chan came, the Tartars being another Tribe, but better known to the Europeans,) We, (saith he,) believe that that there is but one p. 141God, through whom we live and die; and we have an upright heart towards him: and he added, that as God had given to the hand five fingers, so he hath given many ways to men. But there was a Sect of Idolaters among them, whom he calls Tuinians, who held two first Principles, and many Gods; but it seems by their discourse, that they acknowledged the Superiority of one above all the rest. For when the Frier said there was but one God; the Tuinian who disputed with him before Mangu-Chan, said, Fools say there is but one God, but wisemen day there are many; are there not great Lords in your Country? and here is a greater Lord Mangu-Chan. So is it of the Gods, because in divers countries there are divers. And afterwards he acknowledged, that there is one Highest God in the Heavens, whose Generation we know not yet, and ten are under him, and under them there is one Inferiour: and in the earth there are infinite. And of another Sect, called Iugurs, he confesses, that they believe on God,c. 42. and yet make Idols; from whom the Tartars had their letters; and he affirms the same of the Moals or Tartars in general, c. 27.and yet they make and worship many Images: and their Priests pray by their Beads, having p. 142a string with a hundred or two of Nutshels upon it; and the repeating of certain words with them, they account meritorious at Gods hand. Haithon, the Armenian,Haithon. Armen. hist. Orient. c. 48. agrees with the former, saying of the Tartars, that they confess one immortal God. Gregorius Abul-pharajius brings several examples of Iingiz-Chans acknowledging one Supreme and omnipotent God,Greg. Abulpharai. hist. Dynast. p. 285. p. 290. (who laid the foundation of the Tartarian Empire) as, when he made his prayers to him upon the injury of Gayer-Chan: when he owned his Power to be given him from the God that is King over all and omnipotent; and therefore, Haithon makes that the first command of Jingiz-Chan to his followers, that they ought to believe and obey the immortal God,Haithon. hist. Orient. c. 16. by whom he obtained his Empire. And that the Tartars, who have not embraced Mohometism, did still acknowledge and worship one Supreme God maker of Heaven and Earth, is confessed by Iacobus Navarchus among the Indian Epistles;Iac. Navarch. Epist. Asiatic. p. 344. and the same, Nicephorus Callistus affirms, Niceph. Callisth. l. 18. c. 30.of the ancient Turks, who were a race of Tartars living beyond the Bactrian Mountains.

The like might be easily discovered of the most considerable Nations of the West-Indies, p. 143if it would not have swelled this discourse into too great a Bulk; in general we take this remarkable Testimony of Iosephus Acosta,Ioseph. Acosta Natural and Moral History of the Indies, l. 5. c. 8. a learned Spanish Iesuit, who lived seventeen years in those parts. They, (saith he, speaking of the Indians) do commonly acknowledge a Supreme Lord and Author of all things, which they of Peru call Viracocha, and gave him names of great excellence, as Pachacamac, or Pachaiackachic, which is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and Usapu which is admirable, and such like. Him they did worship as the chiefest of all, whom they did honour in beholding the Heaven. The like we see amongst them of Mexico, and China, and all other Infidels. Which accordeth well with what is said by S. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, where he did see the inscription of an Altar Ignota Deo, To the unknown God: whereupon the Apostle took occasion to preach unto them, saying, Him whom you worship without knowing him, do I preach unto you. In like sort those which at this day do preach the Gospel to the Indians, find no great difficulty to perswade them that there is a high God and Lord over all, and that this is the Christians God, and the true God. As it is therefore a truth conformable to p. 144reason, that there is a Soveraign Lord and King of Heaven, whom the Gentiles with all their Infidelities and Idolatries have not denied, as we see in the Philosophy of Timaeus in Plat. in the Metaphysicks of Aristotle, and in the Asclepius of Trismegist, as also in the Poesies of Homer and Virgil: So the Preachers of the Gospel have no great difficulty to plant and perswade this truth of a Supreme God, be the Nations to whom they preach never so barbarous, and bruitish. But it is hard to root out of their minds that there is no other God, nor any other Deity than one: and that all other things of themselves have no power, being, nor working proper to themselves, but what this great and only Lord doth give and impart to them. To conclude, It is necessary to perswade them by all means, in reproving their errours, as well in that wherein they generally fail, in worshipping more than one God, as in particular, which is much more to hold for Gods, and to demand favours and help of those things which are not Gods, nor have any power, but what the true God their Lord and Creator hath given.De procuranda Indorum salute, l. 5. c. 10. And in another place he saith, Hoc enim commune apud omnes pene barbaros est, ut Deum quidem p. 145omnium rerum Supremum & summe bonum fateantur. This is common among almost all the barbarous nations, to acknowledge one Supreme God, infinitely good. But there is so pregnant a Testimony concerning the acknowledgement of a Supreme Deity among the Yncas of Peru, that it ought not to be slightly passed over. The thing it self is confessed not only by Acosta, but by Eusebius Nierembergius,Euseb. Nieremb. hist. Natur. l. 8. c. 13. Augustinus de Zarate, Antonius de Calancha who was himself a Peruan born, and afterwards an Augustinian:August. de Zárate, l. 2. and these two mention the conference between Atahuallpa the last of the Yncas, and Vincentius de Valverde, about Religion, wherein, the Ynca told the Spanish Priest, Anton. de Calancha apud Ioach. Brul. hist. Per…an. l. 2. c. 9.that they believed in Pachacamac the Creator of the World, and after him they worshipped the Sun and Moon for their universal influence on the World. But the most perfect account of their way of worship is delivered by Garcilasso de la Vega, who was himself of the blood of Yncas by the Mother, and he corrects several mistakes of Acosta and other Spanish Authors, which were occasioned by their ignorance of the Peruvian language and Customs. He saith, that Manco Capac, Le Commentaire Royal Des Ynca's liv. 2. c. 1.(who was the founder of the Empire of p. 146the Yncas,) did reduce the barbarous Indians from the promiscuous Idolatry of almost all sorts of creatures before, to the worship of the Sun, as the great instrument of Pachacamac in the Government of the World; but although they had a great veneration for the Moon, as Wife and Sister of the Sun, yet he cannot find that they did ever worship her as a Goddess; or offer Sacrifices, and build Temples to her. Thunder and Lightning they called, the Executioners of the Iustice of the Sun; and did not look on them as Deities, as the Spaniards imagined. But the main thing he discovers as to their Religion is, c. 2.that they had only two Deities, the one visible, the Sun; the other invisible, the Creator of the World, whom they called Pachacamac, from Pacha which signifies the World, and Camac from the verb Camar to enliven, and that from Cama the Soul; so that Pachacamac is as much as, the Soul of the World: which word they had in so great veneration that they durst not pronounce it but with a great deal of ceremonie, and with the most humble posture of adoration: which was the external soveraign worship which they gave to the Supreme Deity, and above what they gave to the Sun, whose name p. 147they did usually pronounce: from whence he infers, that although the external worship of Sacrifices was performed to the Sun, yet they had in their Soul a greater adoration to Pachacamac, as an invisible Deity, that gave being and life to the World. He saith, that without all question the Yncas and their Amautas or Philosophers, did intend no other by this word, but the true Soveraign Creator of the World; however the Spaniards thought some Devil was understood by it: but, saith he, the Indians when they meant the Devil they called him Cupay; and at the naming him did spit on the ground in token of execration; but when they mentioned Pachacamac, they did it with all the Reverence and Devotion imaginable. And withall he adds, that whatever Acosta and others say, this is the proper name for God in the Peruvian Language; and they do not know how to express him otherwise; and that all other names given by the Spaniards, as Tici Viracocha, Pachaia Chacher, Pacharurac, do not set forth the unexpressible Majesty of God in their Tongue, as Pachacamac doth. He tells us, that it was an inviolable Law of the Yncas, throughout their Empire,c. 3. p. 146. that Divine Worship should be given only to Pachacamac p. 148as the Soveraign Deity, and to the Sun for the great benefit the world received by him: and that it was held a very reproachful thing among them to attribute the Name, Honour, Authority, Power of God or any other Divine perfections to any sublunary things: but they had an inferiour reverence for the Moon as Wife and Sister of the Sun, and for the Stars, which they called her Daughters and Servants of her House; and so they had for their Yncas too, whose bodies were set up in the Temple of the Sun in Cozco, on either side his Golden Image;l. 3. c. 20. and in the Chappel of the Moon were the bodies of the Empresses after the same manner: in which he observes, that the Yncas were wont to make their vows to the Moon,c. 21. and recommend themselves to her as their Mother; but they offered no sacrifices to her, as they did to the Sun. They have likewise great respect for the Stars, and especially for the Planet Venus, which they call the Page of the Sun; as they have for the Thunder, and Lightning, and Thunderbolt, which he saith again, they did not hold to be Gods, but to be his domestick Servants; which the Spaniards, because they represented them as three in one, mistook for the Trinity worshipped p. 149among them, which Eusebius Nierembergius from Acosta calls Tangatanga: Garcilasso knew nothing of it, but saith, that they called them Yllapa. They have likewise a great veneration for the Rainbow as the production of the Sun; and for the City of Cozco; but as to all these, they give only an inferiour and honorary worship to them; but they reserve the Soveraign internal worship for Pachacamac, and external by sacrifice for the Sun. This Pachacamac, although he had no Temple erected by the Yncas, yet the same Author tells us, l. 6. c. 30.that under the power of Cuysmancu, King of the Yuncas, there was a Valley, called the Valley of Pachacamac, where was a Temple erected to his worship; and when the Ynca of Peru demanded subjection to him, and to joyn in the worship of the Sun; he said, Pachacamac was Creator and preserver of all,c. 3. and therefore greater than the Sun, whom they worshipped, with the utmost expressions of adoration; the King himself not daring to enter the Temple with his face towards his Image: and besides Him they only worshipped the Oracle of Rimac, and Mamacohca i. e. the Sea; But for the Sun, they found too great inconvenience by his heat for them to worship him. p. 150The Ynca replyed, that they did not only worship the Sun, but Pachacamac too; but because he was an invisible and incomprehensible Deity, they offered him no sacrifices, nor built him any Temple: but they had the greatest inward veneration towards him, which they expressed by all possible demonstrations as oft as they mentioned his name. At last the difference was composed on these terms, the Yuncas were to retain the Temple of Pachacamac, but to forbear any Image of him, as unworthy of him, and humane sacrifices, and to receive the worship of the Sun; and the Yncas to admit the Oracle of Rimac. Huayna Capac, one of the Yncas, made use of this argument to the High-Priest his Uncle, that the Sun could not be the Supreme God:l. 9. c. 9. who dares, said he, command me to go a long journey and never rest? But if I command any Officer I have to go to Chili, he dares not disobey: surely then, saith he, our Father the Sun (so the Yncas still called him) must needs have a greater Lord than himself, which commands him to take such a journey every day. By these things, it fully appears, that the mighty Empire of Peru, while it was under the Power of the Yncas, did acknowledge one Supreme God, to whom p. 151they gave internal worship as most proper for him; and external adoration at the mention of his name, although they offered their Sacrifices to the Sun. And it is observable what the same excellent Author farther adds, l. 9. c. 4.that the Indians worshipped Pachacamac, under the very title of the Unknown God: which was the inscription on the Altar at Athens, from whence S. Paul said, whom ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.

Acosta saith, Acosta l. 5. c. 4.that the Supreme God was worshipped in Mexico with a very magnificent Temple, and after him the Sun; in Virginia, one that had it from intimate familiarity with the Priests declares, Hariots descript. of Virgin.that they believe there are many Gods, which they call Mantoac, but of different sorts and degrees, one only chief and great God, which hath been from all eternity. Who, as they affirm, when he purposed to make the world, made first other Gods of a principal order, to be as means and instruments to be used in the creation and government to follow, and after, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, as petty Gods, and instruments of the other order more principal. And when Tomocomo a principal person of Virginia was here in England,Purchas Pilgr. l. 8. c. 6. he averred, that they worshipped the God p. 152that made Heaven and Earth: who was the Author of all good to them. Creuxius the Iesuit,Creux. hist. Canad. l. 1. p. 78. in his late History of Canada, saith, that when Paulus Juvenaeus discoursed with the Inhabitants about God, and describing him to be of infinite power, and that made Heaven and Earth, they cried out to each other Atoachan, Atoachan, intimating that all things were made by that God whom they worshipped under that name: but they believe the seasons of the year, and the affairs of humane life to be managed by certain Spirits under him,p. 86. whom they endeavour to propitiate by certain rites of worship.

Leo Africanus,Leo Afric. descrip. Afric. l. 1. testifies concerning some of the ancient African Idolaters, that they worshipped Guighimo, i. e. the Lord of Heaven; which part of Religion, he saith, was not delivered to them, by any Prophet or Teacher, but was inspired into them by God himself. Varenius takes notice of the false and imperfect description which is commonly given of the Religion of the Negroes,Varen. de divers. gent. Relig. p. 304. and saith, he understood by those who lived long among them, that although they worship many Gods, yet they acknowledge one Supreme, whom they call Fetisso: and believe him to be the Author both of the good and evil they receive, and p. 153therefore endeavour to appease him by many Sacrifices, Ceremonies and Prayers. Mandelslo saith, Mandelslo Voyage l. 3.of the Inhabitants of Madagascar, that he was informed, that they believe there is one God who made Heaven and Earth; and will one day punish bad actions and reward the good. Ioh. de Barros saith, Barros Dec. 1. l. 10. c. 1.that the Inhabitants of Monomotapa, believe in one God whom they call Mozimo; and if we believe him, they worship nothing else besides him:Linda descript. Orbis, p. 1149. the same others say of the Mordui, a people that inhabit the farther parts of Muscovy, who declare, Archontolog. Cosmic. de Mosco. §. 44.that they worship only the Creator of the Universe to whom they offer the first fruits of all things, even of their meat and drink, casting some parts of them towards Heaven: but they have no Idols, nor baptism, and say they live according to nature: but Brietius saith, Briet. Geog. To. 2. l. 6. c. 2.they worship Idols, or are Mahumetans. Texeira and Pimenta say that the Sect of the Baneans called Lon Kah,Indiae vera descript. p. 118. worship only the Supreme God, without Idols; but Mexery hath Idols and doth worship them. Iosephus Indus, a Native of Cranganor saith, that the Gentile Idolaters there, did worship the God of Heaven,Piment. in Ep. Ind. Ioseph. Indi Navig. c. 3. under the form of a Statue with three faces, and his hands folded, whom they called Tambram: p. 154and he saith, the King of Calecut is of the same Religion with them of Cranganor: and Ludovicus Vartomannus saith, Lud. Vartom. Navig. l. 5. c. 21.that in Calecut, they call the Great God Tamerani, whom they believe to be the maker of the World; but he adds, that they believe him to live at ease, and that he hath committed the Government of the world to Deumo, whose Image they worship, having on his head, saith Vartomannus, just such a Crown as the Popes of Rome have, only it hath three horns upon it: and the same is confessed by Iarricus.Iarric. Rerum Indic. l. 1. c. 4. The people of Narsinga likewise believe one Supreme God, but worship Idols as the rest of the Indians do. Linschoten,Linda. p. 1145. Linschot. Navig. c. 33. gives this general testimony of them, that although they worship the Sun and Moon, yet they acknowledge one God, Creator and Governor of all things; and do believe the rewards and punishments of another life to be according to mens good or bad actions in this life. But withall they worship Idols called Pagodes, after such a terrible representation as we make of Devils, whom they assert to have lived formerly upon earth, and to have been famous for sanctity and miracles, and to whom they address themselves, as Mediators to the Supreme God for them. The p. 155Kingdom of Siam is supposed to have been the ancient Seat of the Bramans, from whence the Religion of the Indies did spread it self: and here Schouten,Schoutens descript. of Siam. p. 141. who lived long among them, saith, that the common perswasion of the Gentiles, although different in other points, is, that there is one Supreme God, who created all things, and after him many inferiour Gods in Heaven; that men shall receive rewards and punishments in another life according to their actions here. And that this Religion hath been delivered down to them by the succession of many ages; and confirmed by the Testimony of Saints, whose memory they worship in their Images, which they have set up like so many lesser Deities: who have merited Heaven by their good Works. The Ceremonies of their worship, the nature of their Images, the manner of their Oblations, the customs of their Talapois, (or Friers) are such, that, some few things excepted, one would imagine no great difference between the Varelles of Siam, and the Iesuits Church and devotions there. M. de Bourges,Relation du voyage de Mons. l' Eveque de Beryte, c. 13. p. 170. who hath given an account of the late French Mission into those parts, confesses, that their external devotion to their Images is extraordinary, p. 156that they offer no bloody sacrifices, but all their oblations are of the fruits of the earth: and that they free themselves from the charge of Idolatry, because they acknowledge and worship one God, who is Lord over all; and that their Images are intended to preserve the Memories of their Saints, that by the sight of them the people might be excited to imitate their vertues. And it is very true, saith he, that the Priests of Siam do thus answer the Christians who charge them with Idolatry, and think themselves no more guilty than the Missionaries of the Church of Rome who charge them. But he thinks, he hath cleared the difference between them by saying, that those of Siam are more uncertain in the belief of the Supreme God, and defective in giving any peculiar worship to him: and that they terminate their worship absolutely upon their Idols, and ask of them those things, which God alone can give. As to the former, we have seen the general consent of the Indians in the belief of a Supreme God, (which is no token of their uncertainty) and that many of them did think internal worship most proper to him; and for the latter, if they suppose those Deities to be so by participation, p. 157and subordinate to the Supreme, I do not see, how the difference is made appear between the addresses they made to their Saints by their Images, and those made in the Church of Rome; unless it be sufficient to say, that the Pope at Rome hath only power to Canonize Saints, and not the High-Priest of Siam. And therefore Campanella very wisely confesses upon these principles,Campanel. Atheism. triumph. c. 11. p. 155. the Heathens were no more guilty of Idolatry than themselves, in case the persons they worshipped had real vertues: and he doth not blame the wiser Gentiles, but the common people who forgot the true God, and worshipped their Varelles or Images with the worship of Latria; which the Church of Rome likewise gives to the Cross: but of these things afterwards.

If from the Indies, the model of this Discourse would allow us to search into the Idolatries of these Northern parts, we should find that the Nations which were the deepest sunk into Idolatry, did yet retain a sense of one Supreme Deity. Among whom we may justly reckon our Saxon Ancestors; and yet from the Gothick Antiquities which have been lately published, we have reason to believe, that there was a Supreme God acknowledged p. 158among them too. For in the Edda of Snorro Sturleson which contains the ancient Religion of the Goths;Edda Islandorum edita à Resenio Hauniae. A. D. 1665. the first Question proposed is, who was the Supreme, and the most ancient of the Gods? To which the Answer is, that the most-ancient of the Gods is called Alfader, the Father of all: and he had twelve names which are there enumerated: and after it is said of him, that This God lives for ever, and governs all things,Mytholog. 304. that he made the Heaven, and Earth, and Air, and all things in them; and which is the greatest of all, he made Man and gave him a Soul that should live for ever, although the body be destroyed; and that those who were good should be with him in a place called Gimle or Wingulf, but those that were bad to Hela, and from thence to Niflheim. Which Niflheim, they add, was made many ages before the Earth; and then they proceed to the creation of things, which is there reported after a fabulous manner. It is true, this Tradition came to be corrupted among them, when the attributes and worship belonging to this God were given to that Prince who conducted the Goths from their former Seat about the Palus Maeotis into the Northern Regions, who was called Odin, or Woden; and so p. 159there came in such a confusion in their Idolatry as was among the Greeks between Iupiter Olympius, and him of Creet. But since they do mention this Odin as chief of the Asae, and tell the circumstances of his leading the people first to one place, then to another, they cannot mean by him, the same God whom they assert to have been from eternity, and to have created all things: but all this confusion did arise among them and other Nations, when vain and ambitious men did take upon them the names of the Deity on purpose, that they might have worship given to them; and such a one this Odin is described to have been by all the Northern Historians; and from hence likewise the names of Deified men, have been given to him whom they worshipped for the Supreme God. Thus also Thor was the Son of Odin; yet in some of the Northern parts, they worshipped the Supreme Deity under his name, attributing the power over all things, even the inferiour Deities to him. And accordingly he was worshipped with a Crown on his Head, a Scepter in his hand, and twelve Stars about him; as he is described by Olaus Magnus and others; Olai Magni hist. l. 3. c. 3.and Ioh. Magnus saith, that Thor was worshipped in the p. 160Golden Temple at Upsalia, tanquam potentissimus & summus omnium Deorum;Steph. Stephan. Comment. in Sax. Gr. l. 6. and to this day among the most barbarous Laplanders the Supreme God is worshipped under the same representation of Thor,Ola. Worm. Mon. Dan. l. 1. c. 4. Alb. Crant. Vandal. l. 1. Ioh. Magn. hist. Goth. l. 1. c. 8. Schesser. Lappon. c. 7. p. 61. c. 10. (as we are informed by a late credible Writer) and to him they give besides, the name of Iumala: under him they worship a Deity, whom they call Storjunkare, or Vice-Roy, like the Tartars Natagay; under whose care they suppose all inferiour creatures to man to be, and therefore they living much by hunting, make many supplications to him, and worship him under the representation of a rough hollow stone, which as rude and barbarous as they are, they are far enough from thinking to be the Deity it self, but only a Symbol to represent him. And the Idolatrous inhabitants of Samogitia, although they worship a multitude of Gods under several names, and as having a particular care over some things, and a sort of Serpents as Ministers of their Gods, yet they confess a Supreme God: so Lasicius saith, Ioh. Lasicius de Samogit. p. 46.they have one omnipotent God, but many Zemopacii, or terrestrial Gods; which he there at large enumerates; and the same is acknowledged by Ioh. Meletius,Ioh. Meletii ep. de Relig. Boruss. who lived among them and describes their Idolatrous p. 161customs in an Epistle to Georg. Sabinus, A. D. 1553. who saith, that in the first place they invocate Occopirnus, the God of Heaven and Earth; and then the inferiour Deities who are set over the Sea, Air, Spring, Woods, &c. Thus far I have clearly proved, that the acknowledged Idolatry of the present world, doth not exclude a Supreme God, but either the Idolaters suppose him to be above their worship, or think it not unlawful to worship inferiour Deities with the same external acts of worship which they perform to the Supreme God.

The last thing I shall prove the consistency of Idolatry with giving Soveraign Worship to the Supreme God by is, §. 17.from the Testimony of those Fathers who have charged such Christians with Idolatry, concerning whom there could be no dispute whether they believed and worshipped a Supreme God.

Athanasius frequently lays this to the charge of the Arians,Athanas. c. Arian. orat. 1. p. 286. ed. Par. that by giving adoration to the Son of God, supposing him to be a Creature, they did bring in the Heathen Idolatry among Christians: foreign, p. 162which words are the more remarkable, because he accuses them of doing the same thing, which S. Paul charges the Gentiles with; which therefore doth not imply, the passing by the worship of the Creator, but giving the same divine worship to a creature, which they do to the Supreme God. The same words he repeats afterwards in the same Oration, and desires the Arians to shew the difference between the Greeks and them,p. 296. if they believed Christ not to be the true God, but only by participation, as the Greeks supposed their Gods to be. The force of this argument were wholly lost, if either the Greeks supposed many independent Deities, or Idolatry were inconsistent with the acknowledgement of one True God; for the Arians might upon either of those grounds have shewed the disparity between them and the Greeks. Afterwards he saith expresly, they fell into the Polytheism of the Greeks;p. 297. from whence it unavoidably follows, that their Polytheism did not suppose several Deities of necessary and eternal existence; but one Original and Supreme God, and the others only made so by participation from him. If it be impossible for a man who hath a right opinion of Gods incomparable excellency p. 163above the most noble creatures, to attribute the honour due to God alone, to that which he conceiveth to be a mere creature; then the Arians were unjustly charged with Idolatry; for they were supposed to do that, which it seems is impossible to be done: for they asserted, Christ to be a mere creature, and yet Athanasius saith, they were therein guilty of Idolatry, although they believed God to be incomparably above his creatures, in as much as all creatures, and Christ himself had what he had by participation from him: and whatever excellencies are attributed to a mere creature, as to Power, or Wisdom or Goodness, supposing them to be derivative from a Superior Being, they do still suppose an incomparable distance between the Creator and the creature. And it is farther observable in Athanasius, that he doth not lay the force of his argument in any distinction of the degrees of the divine worship, but useth promiscuously the terms of Latria and Dulia, as to the worship given to a creature; for where he speaks afterwards of the Arians and Gentiles agreeing in giving divine worship to a creature,Orat. 3. p. 385. he thus expresses it, foreign, giving the worship of Dulia p. 164to a creature as well as to the Creator; not as though he looked on the worship of Dulia as distinct from Latria, but by using these words promiscuously he shews, that he understood by both of them that divine worship which is alone proper to God, and which being given to a creature makes it Idolatry. He farther saith, that supposing what excellencies we please in Christ,p. 387. although derived from God, yet if we withal suppose him to be a mere man, if we give divine worship to him, we shall be found foreign worshippers of man, i. e. such kind of Idolaters as the Heathen were in the worship of Deified men: from which nothing can be more evident, than that the supposing the most real excellencies in a creature to have been by participation from God, doth not take off from the guilt of Idolatry, when that worship is given to the creature, which belongs only to God. S. Athanasius farther argues, that nothing but the divine nature is capable of adoration, and not any created excellency how great soever it be. p. 394.For saith he, if the height of glory did deserve adoration, then every inferiour creature ought to worship the Superior; but it is no such matter, foreign, for one creature p. 165is not to worship another, but a servant his Lord, and the creature God. From hence Peter forbad Cornelius who would have worshipped him saying, For I also am a Man. And the Angel S. John saying, See thou do it not, for I am also thy fellow servant; worship God. Whence he infers, nor that the Angel complemented S. Iohn, not that S. Peter only did it to shew his humility, but foreign, that it is proper only to God to be worshipped, without any distinction of the nature, kinds, or degrees of worship. But how many distinctions would T. G. and his Brethren make before they would grant that proposition? It is true, say they, of Latria, soveraign and absolute worship, which is proper only to God; but not of an inferiour kind of divine worship, which may be given to a creature on the account of divine excellencies communicated to it by God: This we may suppose was the Answer of the Arians; but S. Athanasius was not certainly so weak a man to argue at this rate, if he had supposed this a sufficient answer; for he could not but foresee it; and a man of so much understanding, as it is evident he was, would have prevented this answer if he had thought it to the purpose; but instead p. 166of that, he sets himself to prove, that the Angels, knowing themselves to be creatures, have on that account rejected all divine worship; on the other side the Angels are commanded to worship Christ, and Christ did receive divine worship; therefore, saith he, let the Arians burst themselves they can never make it appear that Christ would have been worshipped, if he had been a creature. And to prevent all subterfuges in this matter, in his fourth Oration,Orat. 4. p. …64. he argues against joyning Christ together with God in our prayers to him, if he were a creature, foreign. No man would ever pray to receive any thing from God and Angels; or from God and any creature. Little did Athanasius think of mens joyning God and the Saints, or God and the B. Virgin in their prayers or praises: little did he imagine, that ever it would have been received in the Christian Church, to conclude their Books with a Doxology to God and the B. Virgin, Laus Deo & B. Virgini, as many of the greatest reputation in the Church of Rome have done: and as Baronius hath done it very solemnly at the end of every Tome of his Annals: as at the conclusion of the First, p. 167after the mention of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, he adds, Baron. Ann. To. 1. in Fine.Nec non & sanctissimae virgini Dei Genitrici Mariae, ut conciliatrici Divini Numinis; ipsi namque sicut haec omnia nostra accepta ferimus, ita pariter & offerimus; ut ipsa eadem qualiacunque sint dilecto filio suo porrigut, &c. And in the end of the second he hath these words, Tom. 2. A▪ 306. in Fin.Et beneficii memor actura gratias (oratio) ex more ad sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Mariae pedes prona se sternat; ut Cui accepta fert Omnia, dono offerat quicquid à Deo se ejus precìbus intelligit consecutam. Is not this joyning God and the creature together, which Athanasius supposes no Christian would ever do? but supposing they did it, he doth not at all suppose them to be excused from Idolatry in so doing. But Athanasius goes on shewing, Athan. or. 4. p. 468.that if the Arians confess Christ to be God, and to be of a distinct substance from his Father, they must bring in Polytheism; or at least worship two Gods, the one uncreated and unbegotten, the other created and begotten: and in so doing they must oppose one to the other. For, saith he, foreign, we cannot see one in the other, because of their different natures p. 168and operations. Which is an argument I desire T. G. to consider the weight of. He is proving, that supposing Christ to be of a different nature from God, although he had all imaginable excellencies in him communicated from the Father, yet God could not be worshipped in the worshipping of the Son; but these two worships must be opposite to each other, because the one is the worship of a created, the other of an increated Being. How far was Athanasius then from supposing, that the worship given to any created Being on the account of communicated excellencies, is at last carried to the Supreme, and terminated only upon him? For, he saith, that these two worships do foreign fight one against the other: and therefore who ever do give such different worships, they must bring in more Gods than one, which is an Apostasie from one God: where we still observe that Polytheism is consistent as well as Idolatry, with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being: and that they are said to worship other Gods, who do believe the true, but give divine worship to a Creature. And therefore he would have the Arians to reckon themselves together with the Gentiles: and although they shun the reproach p. 169of the name, yet they hold the same opinion with them: And it is to no purpose for them to say that they do not worship Two uncreated Beings, for this is only to deceive the simple: for although they do not worship two uncreated, yet they worship Two Gods of a different nature, the one created, the other uncreated. For, saith he in these remarkable words, p. 469.if the Heathens worshipped one uncreated and many created; and they worship one uncreated, and one created, what difference is there between them and the Gentiles? for that one whom they worship is but as the many which the Gentiles, being of the same created nature together with them: therefore, he saith, they deny Christ and joyn with the Gentiles, giving the same worship to several Gods. I do not think any proposition in Euclid can be made more clear, than it is from these expressions of Athanasius, that he believed Idolatry to be consistent with the belief and worship of one God.Epist. ad Adelph. p. 157, 158, 160, 161. The same thing he urges in other places, but if this be not proof enough, I know not what will be.

S. Gregory Nazianzen parallels those who worshipped the Son or Holy Ghost,Greg. Nazian. orat. 40. p. 669. supposing them to be creatures, with those who worshipped Astaroth or Chemosh or Remphan, p. 170because they were creatures too: For whatever difference of honour or glory there be, all creatures are our fellow servants, and therefore not to be worshipped by us. Might not the Arians have chared Gregory Nazianzen to have imitated Iulian the Apostate upon as good reason as T. G. doth me? For however in words they professed to abhor the worship of Ashtoreth, or Chemosh, or Remphan, as much as he did; yet he did not regard their professions, but thought it reasonable to judge by the nature of their actions. And what profaneness would T. G. have accounted this, to parallel the worship of the Son and Holy Ghost with that of Chemosh and Ashtoreth? Yet we see Gregory doth not forbear making use of the similitude of the worship, although there were so great a disparity in the objects. Gregory Nyssen saith, Greg. Nyssen. in laud. Basil. Tom. 3. p. 484.that the Devil by the means of Arianism brought Idolatry again insensibly into the world, perswading men to return to the worship of the creature by his sophistry, and that Arius, Eunomius, Eudoxius and Aetius were his instruments in restoring Idolatry under a pretence of Christianity. In another place, De Fide ad simpl. Tom. 3. p. 38.he hath this considerable passage. God commands by the Prophet, p. 171that we should have no new God, nor worship any strange God; but that is a new God which was not for ever; and that is a strange God which is different from our God. Who is our God? the true God; who is a strange God? he that hath a different nature from the true God. He that makes the Son a creature, makes him of a different nature. And they who make him a creature, do they worship him or no? if not, they joyn with the Iews, if they do worship him, foreign, they commit Idolatry. Therefore we must believe him to be the true Son of the true Father, that we may worship him, and doing so, that we be not condemned as worshipping a strange God. To the same purpose he argues against Eunomius;Greg. Nyssen. c. Eunom. orat. 2. p. 450. that it is the property of Idolaters to worship the creature, or any new or strange God; and that they who divide the Father and the Son, must either wholly take away the worship of the Son, or they must worship an Idol (the very word used by S. Gregory) making a creature and not God the object of their worship, foreign, placing the name of Christ upon an Idol: that this was the fault of the Heathen Idolaters that they did foreign,p. 437.453. worship those which were not Gods p. 172by nature, and therefore could not worship the true God: where it is observable that he uses the word foreign both for the worship given to Idols by the Heathens, and for that which is proper to God: from which it is evident that these Fathers knew of no such distinction of the nature of divine worship, as is understood in the Roman Church under the terms of Latria and Dulia: for if they had, having to deal with subtile adversaries, they would not have failed to have explained themselves in the matter; which had been absolutely necessary to the force of their own arguments, if any such distinction had been known or allowed in the Christian Church. Again he saith, that he that puts the name of Son to a creature foreign must be reckoned among Idolaters;Orat. 4. p. 563. for they, saith he, called Dagon, and Bel, and the Dragon God: but for all that they did not worship God; and therefore he still urgeth against Eunomius, that either with the Iews he must deny the worship of Christ, or he must joyn with the Gentiles in the worship of the creature.p. 443.

S. Basil charges the Arians and Eunomians with bringing in the Polytheism and Idolatry of the Greeks;S. Basil. homil. 27. Sabel. & Ari. for they who say, p. 173that the Son of God is a creature, and yet worship him as God, do worship a creature and not the Creator, and so introduce Gentilism again. And against Eunomius,C. Eunom. l. 4. foreign. he urges the same places and reasons, which I have already mentioned out of Nyssen, viz. that if Christ be not the eternal God, he must be a new and strange God; and to worship that which by nature is not God, is the fault S. Paul charges the Heathen Idolaters with.

Epiphanius proves, Epiph. haeres. 64. n. 8.that Christs being a creature, and having divine worship given him, are inconsistent according to the Scriptures: and that those who worship a creature, fall under S. Pauls reprehension of the Heathen Idolaters, who did call the creatures God: but true faith teaches us to worship the Creator and not the creature. He thinks this Rule sufficient against all the arts and sophistry of men, foreign, that no creature ought to be worshipped. For, saith he, upon the same reason we worship one, we may worship all together with their creator, foreign: where we see he doth not speak of such worship as doth exclude the Creator, but of that which is supposed to be joyned together with his; nor of a Soveraign Worship to be given to them, p. 174but of such as doth suppose the distance between the Creator and his Creatures. Upon this principle,Haeres. 69. n. 31. he saith, the Arians made the Son of God like to the Idols of the Heathens: for if he be not the true God, he is not to be worshipped; nay, he adds, that those who said Christ was to be worshipped although a creature, did build up Babylon again, and set up the image of Nebuchadnezzar, and by their words as by Musical instruments draw men to the worship of an Image rather than of the true God.n. 36. Is it credible, saith he, that God should make a creature to be worshipped, when he hath forbidden men to make any likeness of things in Heaven or Earth, and to fall down and worship it? when the Apostle makes this the Idolatry of the Heathen that they worshipped the creature as well as the Creator: wherein they became Fools: for it is a foolish thing to attribute divinity to a creature, and to break the first Commandment of the Law, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Therefore, saith he, the holy Church of God doth not worship any creature, but the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, together with the Holy Ghost. To the very same purpose, he speaks in his p. 175Ancoratus.Ancor. n. 50. If the Son of God be a creature, he is not to be worshipped; for it is folly and wickedness to worship a creature. But these are not the only persons whom Epiphanius charges with such Idolatry as is consistent with the belief of one True God: for he charges those with Idolatry who gave Divine Worship to the B. Virgin; and saith, Haeres. 78. n. 23.that this was that very Idolatry which God condemned in the people of Israel, foreign there shall be worshippers of the dead: which worship of the B. Virgin, was offering up a Cake to her (which surely is not so much as mens offering up themselves to be her slaves, and offering up their devotions and services to her) yet this Epiphanius cryes out upon as rank Idolatry,Haeres. 79. n. 4. 78. n. 23. and destructive to their Souls who did it, and the device of the Devil; who always brought in Idolatry, saith he, 79. n. 5.under fair pretences. Which of all the Prophets ever suffered a man to be worshipped, not to speak of a woman? And although she have never so great excellencies, yet her nature remains the same with others: But neither is Elias to be worshipped, although still alive; nor S. John, although he received extraordinary favour from Christ; nor Thecla, nor any other p. 176of the Saints. For, saith he, the old deceit shall not prevail over us, to leave the living God, and to worship the things that are made by him: for they, saith S. Paul, served and worshipped the creature more than the Creator, and therein became Fools. But if it be not lawful to worship Angels, how much less to worship the Daughter of Anna? Of whom our Saviour said on purpose foreign;n. 4. what have I to do with thee? Lest any should think more than was fitting of her, he calls her Woman, as foreseeing the Schisms and Heresies that would come into the world on her account. We are not to imagine that these people were so silly to take the B. Virgin for the Great God, nor that they did forsake the worship of God and Christ for that of the B. Virgin; but all that Epiphanius saith of them is, that they brought her in foreign instead of a Deity, i. e. that they gave divine honour to her; and whosoever did give this to a creature, they looked on them as guilty of forsaking the true God, however they might in words still profess and acknowledge him; So he charges those with Idolatry who worshipped Iephthas daughter, 78. n. 24.and Thermutis the daughter of Pharaoh; but it were madness to think that either of these were p. 177esteemed by their worshippers, the Supreme Deity. But Epiphanius fully explains himself, 79. n. 4.when he saith that Idolatry comes into the world through an adulterous inclination of the mind, which cannot be contented with one God alone; like an adulterous woman that is not satisfied with the chast embraces of one Husband, and wanders in her lust after many Lovers. Therefore as adultery is consistent with the owning of one lawful Husband, so is Idolatry with the profession of one true God. Therefore Epiphanius bids men, have a care of too great an admiration of the Saints, lest it should lead them into this dangerous error;78. n. 23. that the safest way is to honour their Lord; that those are equally to blame who too much extol the B. Virgin, as those who depress and vilifie her;79. n. 1. too great praises being apt to become an occasion of others falling:78. n. 23. and therefore he repeats it twice as the saying he would have all Christians remember, foreign, Honour the Virgin, but worship God;79. n. 7, 9. and lest any should think worship were a part of that honour which was due to her, he saith expresly, foreign, Let no man worship the B. Virgin: for that belongs neither to the Woman, nor to her p. 178Husband, nor to Angels, but to God alone. How punctually hath the Church of Rome followed the Counsel of Epiphanius! But of this at large hereafter.

S. Cyril of Alexandria likewise makes those guilty of Heathen Idolatry,S. Cyril. Alex. Thesaur. assert. 15. p. 149. of worshipping the creature rather than the creator, who give adoration to Christ supposing him to be a creature: and he undertakes to demonstrate out of Scripture, that no creature ought to be worshipped as God; and that nothing which doth give adoration to God, ought to receive it from others: which he proves, from the examples of Peter to Cornelius, the Angels to S. Iohn, and Manoe; and that whatever excellency we suppose in creatures, it doth not make them capable of divine worship; but although they have different excellencies, yet one sort is not to worship another, but all of them are to worship God alone, and his Son Christ Iesus. Again, if Christ be not God,Assert. 32. p. 307. and we give him worship, we shall be found foreign, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator; (where we are to observe that S. Cyril applies foreign to proper divine worship.) Again, it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,p. 314. and him only shalt thou serve; how then, if he be a p. 179creature, can he be worshipped by us? And elsewhere, De Incarn. unigenit. p. 700.the question being proposed, whether we may worship Christ as man? he answers, God forbid: for, saith he, this would be vanity,Concil. Ephes. Cyril. foreign §. 31. errour and deceit; and we should differ nothing from those who worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, and be liable to the same charge S. Paul draws up against the Heathen Idolaters, viz. that they changed the Truth of God into a lie, &c. and at large there shews, that this would be relapsing into the old Idolatry. In his Commentaries on S. Iohn he shews, Comment. in Evang. Ioh. l. 2. p. 217.that although Christ had never so divine excellencies communicated to him, yet he was not a fit object for our worship if he were not the true God; because we are bound to serve and worship God alone: and that if he be not so, not only mankind but the Angels will be guilty of Idolatry in giving him adoration.l. 10. p. 850. In his Dialogues about the Trinity,Dialog. 4. de Trinit. p. 512. he saith, it is one of the great blessings we have by Christ, to be delivered from the worship of the Creature; but in case we return to that, the institution of Moses will be found better than that of Christianity; for that did strictly forbid all worship of creatures, and p. 180called men from them to the worship of God alone; that this was the reproach of the Gentiles,p. 528, 529. that they worshipped Creatures, and that the Christians returned to Gentilism, if they worshipped a Creature together with God; foreign: and afterwards, he calls this a falling from Christ;Dial. 5. p. 566. all which doth fully discover S. Cyrils judgement that Idolatry is consistent with the acknowledgement and worship of one Supreme God.

Theodoret saith, Theodor. de haeret. fab. l. 5. c. 3.he that came to take away the worship of the creature, would never set it up again: for this would be a most absurd thing,v. Theod. in Exod. q. 37. in Rom. 1.24.Rom 1:24 to bring them back again, foreign to the worship of creatures, where he uses dulia likewise for the adoration that is due to the Son and Holy Ghost.

S. Chrysostom saith, S. Chrysost. Tom. 6. foreign p. 955.that the Arians and Macedonians making one Great God, and another less and created God, did bring in Gentilism again. For it is that which teacheth men to worship a Creature, and to make one great God, and others inferiour. Such as these S. Paul condemns, for giving worship to a creature: and they are accursed according to the Law of Moses: which saith, Cursed p. 181is every one who worships a creature, or any thing that is made.

S. Ambrose goes farther and saith, S. Ambros. de Fide, l. 1. c. 7. ad Grat. De Fide c. Arian. c. 2.S. Paul foresaw that Christians would be brought to the worship of Creatures, and therefore not only condemns the Gentiles, but warns the Christians by saying, that God would damn those who worship the creature rather than the Creator. Either therefore let the Arians cease to worship him whom they call a creature;De Incarn. Sacr. c. 8. or cease to call him a creature whom they worship; lest under the name of worshippers they be found to commit the greater sacriledge.

S. Augustin saith, S. Aug. c. Sermon. Arian. c. 29. c. Max. l. 1.that the Arians by giving worship to Christ as God, whom they believed to be a creature, did make more Gods than one, and break the Law of God which did forbid the worship of more than one God; and set up Idols to themselves,l. 3. c. 4. Ep. 66. although they acknowledged one Great God, and made the Son and Holy Ghost lesser and inferiour Gods.

From this unanimous consent of the Fathers in charging the Arrians with Idolatry, it most evidently follows, that according to them Idolatry is consistent with the belief and worship of one Supreme p. 182God; which is not, the only considerable advantage we gain by those Testimonies, but from them it likewise appears, 1. That it is Idolatry to give divine worship to any creature, how great soever the excellencies of that creature be; for none can be imagined greater, than those which the Arians attributed to the Son of God. 2. That the Fathers looked on the worship of Dulia as divine worship; as appears by their applying that term to the worship which was given to Christ. 3. That the name of an Idol doth belong to the most real and excellènt being, when divine worship is given to it; for they give this name to Christ himself, when he is worshipped as a Creature. 4. That relative Latria is Idolatry, when given to any Creature. For this was all the Arians subterfuge, that it could not be Idolatry to worship Christ as a Creature, because they worshipped him only as the Image of God, and relatively terminating their worship on God the Father through him: notwithstanding which answer of theirs, the Fathers with one consent, declare such worship to be Idolatry; and that it would make way for the worship of any creature, p. 183and was the introducing of Heathen Idolatry under a pretence of Christianity. These things which are here only observed in passage, will be of great use in the following Discourses.