Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine, Dialogue 4 (1 of 3)

Conferences of Romish Priest Fanatic Chaplin and English Divine · Dialogue 4 (1 of 3)

p. 349THE Fourth Conference, About the Parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry.

R. P.

HAVE you considered what T. G. saith, concerning the parallel between the Heathen and Romish Idolatry, and doth not your heart fail you, as to the defence of Dr. St. which you promised to undertake?

P. D.

No truly. The more I have considered it, the less I fear it.

R. P.

What think you of the notion of Idolatry he chargeth on T. G.? viz. that it is the giving the Soveraign Worship p. 350of God to a Creature, and among the Heathens to the Devil, as if the Idolatry of the Heathens consisted only in worshipping the Devil; Dial. p. 276.whereas it appears from the words Dr. St. cites out of him, that he charged the Heathens with Idolatry in worshipping their Images for Gods, and the Creatures for Gods; although withal they worshipped evil Spirits, and T. G. contends, that their Supream God was an Arch-Devil.

P. D.

Is this such a difficulty to be set in the Front? I suppose it is only to try whether I will stumble at the threshold. If the Supreme God whom the Heathens worshipped was an Arch-devil, as T. G. saith, then without all question they gave their most Soveraign worship to the Devil. And when he pleads so earnestly, that all the Gods of the Heathens were Devils, under whatsoever name or title they worshipped them; what injury can T. G. think it to his Hypothesis to say, that the Heathen Idolatry did consist in giving Soveraign worship to the Devil? Besides Dr. St.'s words do not imply, that according to T. G. the Heathens did not give Soveraign worship to other things, but that they did it eminently to the p. 351Devil; which must needs follow, if the Supreme God among them was no other than an Arch-Devil; as T. G. then asserted, and now endeavours more at large to prove.

R. P.

Therefore waving this, I come to the main point; whether the Heathen Jupiter were the true God, or an Arch-Devil?

P. D.

You are just like the Author of a late Scurrilous Pamphlet called Jupiter, Dr. St.'s Supreme God, &c. who would fain reduce the whole Question of Idolatry to this single point, without considering either the occasion of this Question, or the main arguments used by Dr. St., or the very scope and design of his Discourse: But he is so pitiful a trifler, that he deserves no notice at all. That we may proceed more clearly in this Debate, we ought first to attend to the principal Question; which was, whether Idolatry be consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme Being? And the reason of this Question was, because those who did plead the most plausibly in excusing your Church from Idolatry, went upon this principle, that supposing men preserved in their minds the notion of one p. 352Supreme Being, it is impossible they should give to a creature that honour which was due to God alone. To overthrow this Dr. St. undertook to shew, that this principle would equally excuse the Heathen Idolatry, since both the ancient and modern Heathens did own one Supreme God. And if this be granted him, it matters not to the main design of his Discourse whether it were Jupiter or not. And it is a wonder to me, since the man in T. G.'s Dialogues who argues against Dr. St. professes himself a Disciple of Mr. Thorndike, he should never take notice of this principle, nor once go about to defend it. But since T. G. acknowledges that the Heathens had a notion of one Supreme Being ingraffed in their minds by nature; Dial. p. 371.the point then in debate is, on what account they were charged with Idolatry; and whether that will not reach to the practices of the Roman Church, i. e. whether their Idolatry lay in worshipping the Creature and not the Creator; or in giving Divine Worship though of different degrees to the Creature and the Creator? And here lies the main strength of this controvesie; and supposing Dr. St. were mistaken as to the sense of the Fathers, about Jupiter; yet if the true notion p. 353of Idolatry be proved to consist in giving the same Divine Worship to God and his Creatures, his parallel will be sufficient to make good the charge of Idolatry against the Church of Rome. Yet, since T. G. seems to lay so much weight upon the Fathers sense concerning Jupiter, I am content to examine them together with you; but in the first place let us consider, what the Scripture saith to this point; for as I remember Dr. St. began with that, then he proceeded to your own Writers, and at last brought in the Testimonies of Fathers, and I see no reason we should go off from this method.

R. P.

Since you will have it so, I will begin with the Scripture; and Dr. St. pretends to prove Jupiter to be the Supreme God from those words Acts 17. Whom ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.

P. D.

Consider, I pray, the question between Dr. St. and T. G., viz. whether it were the true God, or an Arch-devil: and Dr. St. argues in these words. Did St. Paul mean the Devil when he said, whom you ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you? Did he in good earnest go abroad to preach the Devil to the world? Yet he preached him p. 354whom they ignorantly worshipped. What saith T. G. to this?

R. P.

From this very Inscription, To the unknown God, Dial. p. 301.he notably proves, it could not be understood of Jupiter who was a known God; and St. Paul could not be said to come to preach their Jupiter to the Athenians, when he expresly tells them, he came to declare to them a God whom they did not know.

P. D.

To this I answer, that the Athenians had so confounded the notion of the supreme God, with that of the Poetical Jupiter, and the Peoples fancies were so stained and polluted with those vulgar representations of Jove which they learnt from the Poets and Painters, that the Apostle rather chose to preach the true God to them from the inscription to the unknown God, than from any Altars that were inscribed Jovi Opt. Max. Because the People would have imagined, if St. Paul had made choice of any usual inscription to a Deity worshipped in common with the rest, that he must in consequence allow the nature and kind of their Worship. For they joyned Jupiter and the rest of their Gods together, the Body of their Worship consisting of an acknowledgment of one as Supreme, viz. Jupiter, p. 355and of the rest as worshipped together with him; and so their worship being a complex thing, it was more agreeable to the Apostles design, which was to destroy their Idolatry, not to make use of that notion of God which was corrupted by their Idolatries, but to take advantage from the Inscription to the unknown God, so to declare his Nature, as to confute their Idolatrous Worship, as he doth in the following verses. Jupiter therefore as he was the Head of the Heathen Worship, and as he stood in conjunction with their other Deities, was a known God amongst them, and solemnly worshipped by the Athenians; but as by Jove was understood the Eternal Mind as the only proper object of Divine Worship, and therefore ought not to be worshipped with mens hands, nor to be joyned with his Creatures, so he was an unknown God. For they had no other knowledge of a Supreme God, than as of one who admitted others into a participation of the same Worship with himself. And there were these two things which made those Gentiles disown the God of the Jews, who agreed with them in the acknowledgement of one Supreme God who made the world, (1.) That he would be p. 356worshipped by no Images or representations of himself. (2.) That he would admit no inferiour beings to have any share in Divine Worship, but all such were accounted Idolaters by the Jewish Laws, who according to the Eastern Customs worshipped any other as Mediators, or inferiour Deities. From hence the Heathens accounted the God of the Jews an unknown and unsociable Deity; there being no representations made of him; nor any others to be joyned in worship with him: therefore Dion Cassius calls him foreign, a God who could neither be described nor represented. If we believe Georgius Syncellus, this Altar and Inscription To the Vnknown God, Syn. Chron. p. 333.was but lately set up at Athens; whence St. Paul might have the greater reason to take notice of it, and from thence to declare how unsuitable their Worship was to the true God. And therefore St. Paul when he supposes the True God to be the unknown God among them, speaks not in respect of his Eternal Being, for even T. G. confesseth the Heathens had the notion of one Supreme God ingrafted in their minds by nature; but in respect of his way of Worship, without Images or Inferiour Deities. For so he pursues his discourse, by arguing p. 357from his perfections against that way of Worship which was in use among them. Whereas, if he had supposed them wholly ignorant of one Supreme God, his first and most necessary work had been to have proved there was such a one; but this he supposes as a thing well enough known in General by them; but not worshipped by them as he ought to be. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth, dwelleth not in Temples made with hands; nor is worshipped with mens hands, &c. If St. Paul had supposed them ignorant of a Supreme God, ought he not first to have proved that there was a God who made the world, &c. But since there was no dispute about that, he shews the incongruity of their way of Worship to the Perfections of his Nature. St. Augustin proves from this place, Whom ye ignorantly worship, Aug. c. Cre…. l. 1. c. 28, 29.him I declare unto you; that the True God was truly though ignorantly worshipped by the Athenians. For, saith he, what did St. Paul preach to them, but that the same God whom they ignorantly and unprofitably worshipped out of the Church, they should worship wisely and savingly in the Church? One God, saith he, is worshipped ignorantly p. 358without the Church, and yet he is the same God: as it is the same faith which is without charity out of the Church; for it is one God and one Faith, and one Catholick Church; Non in quâ solâ unus Deus colitur, sed in quâ solâ Unus Deus piè colitur. Not in which alone One God is worshipped; but in which alone One God is piously worshipped. The fault then of the Athenians lay in their manner of the Worship of the True God, and not in the total neglect of it, or in Worshipping an Arch-devil instead of him.

R. P.

T. G. doth not deny that they had some confused notion of a supreme God, but he saith, that he whom they worshipped under the notion of Jupiter was an Arch-devil.

P. D.

It appears by S. Augustin, that they worshipped the same God, while they were Heathens and when they became Christians, but after a different manner. And as to Jupiter, Dr. St. observes, that S. Paul quotes the saying of Aratus, For we are his Off-spring; which words are spoken of Jupiter by the Poet, and applyed to the True God by the Apostle; and surely he did not mean that we are the Devils Off-spring; but from thence he infers, that we are the Off-spring of p. 359God: so that if S. Paul may be credited rather than T. G. their Jupiter was so far from being the Arch-devil, that he was the true God, blessed for evermore.

R. P.

To this T. G. answers, that it is no wonder a Heathen Poet should apply the attributes of the true God to Jupiter; and the name of Jupiter to the true God, as being the name of that Deity which was supreme among them; but S. Paul takes the Poets words by way of Abstraction from Jupiter, and applyes them to the true God; leaving out all mention of Jupiter, and changing his name; which he would not have done if their Jupiter was the true God.

P. D.

I pray tell me one thing; did S. Paul only intend to fill up his discourse with the end of a Verse, as some Writers do, with Omne tulit punctum, &c. or did he intend it by way of argument to convince the Athenians?

R. P.

S. Paul surely did not affect Pedantry, and therefore it must be argumentative.

P. D.

If that be granted, consider the force of the argument in T. G.'s sense of S. Pauls words. For in him we live and move and have our Being; as certain also of your own Poets have said, p. 360For we are also his Off-spring. For as much then as we are the Off-spring of God, &c. S. Paul proves that we have our life, motion, and subsistence from God, from the words of Aratus; For we are his Off-spring: Either Aratus did speak of the same God whom S. Paul speaks of, or not? if not, where lyes the force of the argument? if he did, then S. Paul allows Aratus his Jupiter to be the Supreme God. Whosoever reads the Verses in Aratus cannot imagine he should mean any else; and the Greek Scholiast there saith, by Jupiter he meant the God that made the World. And Dr. St. produced the Testimony of Aristobulus the Jewish Philosopher, to the same purpose, viz. that under the name of Jove, his design was to express the true God.

R. P.

T. G. doth not deny that Aratus might apply the name of Jupiter to the true God, and the attributes of the true God to Jupiter: Dial. p. …03.but, he saith, it doth not follow that S. Paul, because he cited him, thought their Jupiter to be the true God.

P. D.

Suppose then S. Paul was of T. G.'s mind, and that their Jupiter was an Arch-devil; and see what admirable reasoning he attributes to S. Paul. We p. 361have all our dependence upon God, as certain of your own Poets have said, speaking of him who was really an Arch-devil; For we are his Off-spring. If an Athenian had asked S. Paul, whose Off-spring doth Aratus say we are? Gods or the Devils? If Jove meant by Aratus was no other than an Arch-devil, how doth this prove us to have our dependence on God for life and motion? If he were the true God, then I grant it follows; and the Jupiter meant by Aratus must be the supreme God. If Aratus doth give the name of Jupiter to the true God, then he that was meant under that name was the true God; and S. Paul bringing this sentence to prove a main point of Divinity must allow him that was called by the name of Jupiter to have been the true God. And if T. G. doth yield that the Poet did apply the name of Jupiter to the true God, he gives up the cause, for that is all which Dr. St. contends for: and surely it is not possible for T. G. to imagine the true God and an Arch-devil to be the same. And supposing that Dr. St. had such a faculty as he mentions, P. 302.of changing the Devil himself into God; it seems much more desirable, than that of p. 362T. G. of changing the true God into an Arch-devil.

R. P.

But doth not S. Paul say, that the Heathens offered to Devils and not to God; P. 304.and will you make S. Paul to contradict himself?

P. D.

S. Paul doth not there speak of their intention and design; for they professed to worship the true God, and good spirits as inferiour Deities; but what their worship was in Gods account; which being so abominably corrupted with Idolatry and Superstition, was so far from being pleasing to God, that it could be acceptable to none but impure spirits. From whence you may do well to observe, that Worship is not terminated according to the i…ention of the persons, but according to the nature and design of the Worship; For the Heathens, when they were urged, did stifly maintain, that the spirits they worshipped, were good in themselves and kind to us, and utterly denyed that they worshipped any other,Defence, p. 518. as Dr. St. hath shewed; but notwithstanding this S. Paul doth charge them with the worshipping of Devils and not of God. And the main argument the Fathers had to prove them to be evil spirits was because p. 363they received such worship from men, which good Spirits would never have done. This observation is of necessary use for understanding both Scripture and Fathers, when they charge the Heathen Idolaters with worshipping Devils and not God; as will appear by our following discourse. This place doth not therefore prove that the Gentiles did not intend to worship the true God under the title of Jupiter O. M. but that Idolatrous worship doth not tend to the honour of God, but to the service of the Devil.

R. P.

Do not you remember, when at Lystra the Priest of Jupiter would have offered Sacrifice to S. Paul as Mercury,P. 304, 305. and to Barnabas as Jove, in whose shapes they supposed those Gods to have appeared, S. Paul not only forbad them to do it, but told them their design was to convert them from those vain things to the living God: and can you now think that S. Paul meant Jupiter by this living God, when he taught them to convert themselves from those vain things (their false Gods) to the living God, i. e. to Jupiter? Was this his way to perswade the men of Lystra to leave the worship of their Gods, to tell them that he came to teach them to worship Jupiter?

p. 364P. D.

Is there no difference between these two Questions; whether the true God might not be worshipped among the Heathens under the title of Jupiter O. M.? and whether Jupiter of Creet as worshipped by them was not a false God? This later Dr. St. never denyed; and the former was all he pleaded for, as pertinent to his purpose. When they did make such a description of him as to his Power, and Goodness, as could not agree to such a wretch as the Cretan Jupiter was described by the Poets; when they rejected the Poetical Fables, and declared as plainly as men could do, that they understood the supreme Governour of the World; as Dr. St. hath at large shewed;Defence, 44, &c. the question is, whether under the name of Jove they meant the true God or not? But doth he ever so much as intimate that Jupiter of Creet was not a false God? or that S. Paul and the Apostles did not go about to convert mankind from the vanities of Idol-worship in the sacrifices they made to this Jupiter and Mercury, as well as any other of their inferiour Deities? To make this matter more clear, which concerns the worship of Jupiter among the Heathens; we are to observe,

p. 3651. That the name was more ancient in Greece for an object of Divine Worship than Jupiter of Creet. If this can be made out, then although this name might be applyed to a particular person, (as it was usual in the Eastern parts to call their Princes by the name of their Gods) yet originally it belonged to the Deity, and consequently might still be properly attributed to him; and under that name they might well understand the Supreme God. For the proof of this, I make use of an observation of Pausanias, and of others from him;Pausan. in Arcad. Euseb. Chron. p. 28. Isid. Orig. l. 8. Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 18. c. 10. viz. that Cecrops was the first who called the supreme God foreign or Jove; Eusebius hath it foreign; hic primus omnium Jovem appellavit, saith Isidore. It is well known that Cecrops came out of Egypt, from whence Herodotus observes the Greeks took the names of their Gods; Cecrops lived in the time of Moses, and before the flood of Deucalion saith Varro: it happened in his time, say Eusebius and S. Hierome, in which great part of Thessaly and Greece were overwhelmed. But Jupiter of Creet, by whom Europa the daughter of Agenor was taken, was the fifth in descent from Deucalion, according to Diodorus, being the son of Tectamus, the son p. 366of Dorus, the son of Hellen, the son of Deucalion. His proper name, Diodorus saith, was Asterius, whom Eusebius follows: S. Augustin calls him Zanthus, and Strabo, Zathus; whose son Jon carryed the Colonies of Greeks into the twelve Cities of Asia, from him called Jonia. From hence it appears that the name of Jupiter did not properly belong to him of Creet, but was assumed by him, when he affected divine honours.

2. This Jupiter of Creet did obtain Divine honour under that name among the rude and barbarous Greeks. And this was the great discovery made by Euhemerus, from the inscription in the Temple of Jupiter Triphylius in Greece: from whence it appeared,Lact. l. 1. c. 11. that this King of Creet was a very busie and active Prince, having great command both at Sea and Land, and was very successful in reducing the barbarous people under Laws and Government, and in many useful inventions for the benefit of humane Life: which made the people after his death in Creet, bestow the greatest Divine honours upon him, and worship him under the most sacred name. For it had been a custome long before among the Greeks to Deifie the most useful men; as p. 367S. Augustine observes of Phegous the Brother of Phoroneus;Aug. de Civ. Dei l. 18. c. 3, 5▪ of Apis King of the Argives who dyed in Egypt; of Argus who had a Temple and Sacrifices allotted to him; of Phorbas, Jasus, Sthenelus, who were all Princes among the old Greeks. And therefore it was no wonder such people should give Divine Worship to this Prince, who had brought them into so much order in comparison of what they were in before. From hence we find him not only worshipped in Creet, where he had several titles from the places where his Temples stood, as Idaeus, Dictaeus, Arbius, Asius, Temillius and Scyllius, &c. but in Greece, as Ithometes, Atabyrius, Triphylius, Olympius, Cithaeronius, &c. and whereever the Colonies of Greeks in Asia were, as at Tarsus, S. Paul's own Countrey; and he was called Sardessius, from a City of Lycia, Chrysosoreus from a place in Caria, Tarantaeus from a City in Bithynia, Dolichaeus from a City in Comagene, Abretanus from a place in Mysia, and Asbameus from a Fountain in Cappadocia. Is this now any such mighty argument to prove that Jupiter could not be taken for the supreme God, because in Lystra a City of Lycaonia S. Paul and Barnabas refused the p. 368worship the people would have given to them, as to Jupiter and Mercury? Among the Grecian Colonies, what wonder is it, if the Grecian Jupiter was worshipped? and who ever said, that he was not a false God? But, after all this, suppose they did mean the great and original Jupiter, the maker of the world, had not S. Paul and Barnabas reason to turn them from the vanities of their worship, when they found them so ready to give divine honours to two men whom they fancied to appear in the likeness of their Gods, by doing a sudden and unexpected miracle? And if it were lawful, by the light of nature to give divine worship of an inferiour degree to mankind, what made the Apostles so concerned to run in among them, and to rent their clothes, and to cry out, We are men of like passions with you. Therefore all that strain of T. G.'s Rhetorick whereby he endeavours to return Dr. St.'s arguments upon himself from this place, hath no manner of strength or pungency in it.

But what saith T. G. to Dr. St.'s other argument from Scripture, viz. that S. Paul to the Romans doth say,Rom. 1.19.Rom 1:19 that which is known of God was manifest among the Heathens; that his Eternal Power and Godhead were so p. 369far discovered that they were left without excuse in their gross Idolatry? How could this be, if their supreme God whom they worshipped were only an Arch-devil? Or doth T. G. suppose, that they did own one true God, but gave all their worship to the Devil? And since the name of Jupiter was used to express alwayes the chief God whom they did own, and by such characters as could only agree to the true God, is it any wayes likely they should never intend to worship him under that name? When Dr. St. hath shewed from Dio Chrysostom, Defence▪ p. 11, 47.that by Jupiter they meant the first and greatest God, the supreme Governour of the World, and King over all rational beings.

R. P.

I do not find T. G. takes any notice of the other argument from Scripture, but he applyes himself to the Fathers.

P. D.

But what saith he to the Testimonies Dr. St. produced of the Writers of his own Church, a full Jury of them,Defence from p. 11. to p. 23. who frankly acknowledge that the Heathens did own and Worship one supreme God?

R. P.

I suppose he thought none of the rest worth answering: but he finds p. 370great fault with the testimony out of Aquinas.

P. D.

This is a rare way of answering. Dr. St. produced twelve several Authors of good reputation, T. G. takes no notice of eleven of them, and because he makes some cavils at the twelfth, he would have this pass for an answer to them all.

R. P.

But the Dr. loseth his credit so much in that, that we need not to examine the rest.

P. D.

Why so? It is possible a man through haste or inadvertency, or as T. G. expresseth it, through a casual undulation of the visual rays, may for once mistake; but doth it follow, that he must do it for twelve times together? But I have not yet found any cause for these clamours; and I suppose there may be as little as to this Testimony: I pray tell me where lyes it?

R. P.

T. G. makes a great many words about it, but the short of the charge is this,Dial. from p. 399. to p. 405. that what Aquinas spoke of some of the Philosophers, viz. the Platonicks, who acknowledged one supreme God, from whom they said, all those others whom they called Gods, did receive their being: p. 371Dr. St. interprets as spoken of the Generality of the Heathens, who are there said to acknowledge a multitude of Gods properly so called.

P. D.

I know not whether to express greater shame or indignation at this disingenuous dealing. There needs no other answer, but to set down Aquinas his words, and to leave the Reader to construe them.c. Gentes l. 1. c. 43. Hac autem veritate repelluntur Gentiles Deorum multitudinem confitentes, quamvis plures eorum unum Deum summum esse dicerent, à quo omnes alios quos Deos nominabant, creatos esse asserebant, &c. Can any thing be plainer from these words, than that those Gentiles are refuted who held a multitude of independent Deities, although the greater number of them (of whom? is it not of the Heathens he spake of before? and where is there one word of Platonists or Philosophers in the whole sentence?) do acknowledge one supreme God, of whom all others whom they called Gods did receive their being. What can be more evident from these words, than that although some among the Heathens might hold a multitude of independent Deities, yet the greater number did not? p. 372The single question here is, whether plures Gentilium, doth signifie the greater number of Gentiles, or the small number of Platonists, who are not once mentioned? But besides this, Dr. St. produces another Testimony out of the same Book of Aquinas, where he makes three several schemes of the Heathen Worship, viz. (1.) Of those who held one First principle, but thought Divine Worship might be given to inferiour Beings. (2.) Of those who supposed God to be the soul of the world. (3.) Of those who worshipped animated Images. If the other had been the general opinion of the Heathen, he would have ranked it in the first place; viz. of those who gave Divine Worship to many independent Deities, but he doth not so much as mention it, where it had been very proper to do it. And it is plain from this Testimony of Aquinas, that it is Idolatry to give Divine Worship to any Creatures, although of never so great excellency.

R. P.

Let us come to the Fathers I beseech you, for my fingers itch to be at them; for I see T. G. hath taken more than ordinary pains to prove, that the Fathers make the Heathens supreme God to p. 373be an Arch-devil: but it is necessary in the first place to state the question aright.

P. D.

I think so too.

R. P.

T. G. hath taken some pains to do it, to prevent misunderstanding. For he takes notice of four several questions which may relate to this matter.Dial. p. 310. (1.) Whether the Heathens did not acknowledge one Supreme God? which he yields, and produces several Testimonies of the Fathers to that purpose. p. 312, &c.(2.) Whether the Heathens did not pretend that they understood this Supreme God by Jupiter, and accordingly gave him the titles due to the Supreme God? This T. G. denies not, to be fully proved by Dr. St., but he saith all these Testimonies are impertinent. p. 316, &c.(3.) Whether the Fathers do not acknowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens? This T. G. accounts impertinent too: For, p. 318.saith he, they might cite some sayings of the Heathen to that purpose, and yet be of a contrary judgement themselves. But the point in debate between the Dr. and T. G. is this, (4.) Whether it were the Fathers own sense that Jupiter was the Supreme God?

P. D.

I pray tell me for what end were the Fathers appealed to in this p. 374dispute about the nature of Idolatry? Was it not to prove Idolatry consistent with the acknowledgement of one Supreme God? For doth not Dr. St. propose several ways for the proof of this concerning the Heathens, Def. p. 5.either the Testimony of the Heathens themselves; or of the Writers of the Roman Church, or of the Scriptures, or of those Fathers who disputed against their Idolatry, or of the Roman Church it self? Therefore the Fathers were appealed to as Witnesses concerning this main point; and if it appear from them that it was Idolatry in the Heathens to own a Supreme Deity and to give Divine Worship to any created Being, then the notion of Idolatry will reach to the Roman Church. But T. G. endeavours to get off from the close debate of this, which was the most pertinent of all, and would fain substitute another question in the place of it, which was but a secondary and accidental dispute occasioned by T. G.'s saying that the Heathens Supreme God was an Arch-devil. Although Dr. St. hath proved that was not agreeable to the general sense of the Fathers, yet any one may see that quite through his discourse his chief aim was at stating the Nature p. 375of Idolatry according to the sense of the Fathers. Defence p. 25.From Justin Martyr he shews that the question between the Christians and Heathens was not about one Supreme God, which he acknowledges to be owned by them; but whether Divine Worship ought in general to be given to any creature, and in particular to the Heathen Gods? And he lays the force of the Christian Doctrine as to worship upon that peremptory declaration of the Will of God; Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. The same he shews as to Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Defence p. 60, &c.Origen, Cyril, and all the Fathers who managed the dispute against the Heathen Idolatry. Is it impertinent to the right stating the nature of Idolatry, to consider whether they who charged the Heathens with it, did at the same time confess they owned one Supreme God? Doth not T. G. himself grant that it is very material towards the right understanding the nature of Idolatry to consider what was the design of the Fathers to charge them with Idolatry in? Dial. p. 3…8.Whether in worshipping the Creature and not the Creator with Divine Worship; or in worshipping more Gods than one properly so called; (which he p. 376seems to fix the Heathen Idolatry upon) or in giving the same worship to God and his Creatures (which Dr. St. asserts) which notion soever of these be true, it cannot be said to be impertinent for Dr. St. to prove his notion to be the sense of the Fathers. And if the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God, as T. G. grants, and the Fathers do allow this in their disputes of Idolatry; which T. G. cannot deny; then the question comes to this, whether they charged them with Idolatry only for neglecting to worship the Supreme God which they owned; or in holding one Supreme and many Supremes at the same time? For if they believed one Supreme God, as T.G. grants, and yet held many independent Deities which they worshipped as such, they must hold one Supreme and yet many; for every independent Deity must be Supreme. I wonder therefore if T. G. designed to debate this matter fairly, why he should account the other questions impertinent; and account that the only point in debate, whether according to the sense of the Fathers Jupiter was the Supreme God?

R. P.

Do not you remember how Dr. St. insulted over him as to the sense p. 377of the Fathers in this matter; and had he not reason then to speak to this point?

P. D.

I allow him all the liberty he can desire, provided he do not reject the main evidence as to the Cause of Idolatry to be impertinent; which he would cut off by this trick, that they do not refer to his question about Jupiter. But since you have such a mind to tell me the sense of the Fathers in this matter, let us hear and consider them in order.

R. P.

T. G. begins as Dr. St. doth with Justin Martyr: and he shews from him that the Devils appearing in humane shapes were the first beginners of Idolatry, Dial. p. 287.the people taking them for Gods, and worshipped their Images.

P. D.

This is no great discovery to Dr. St. for he takes notice of this very opinion of Justin Martyr.Defence p. 29.

R. P.

But he makes Jupiter to have been one of these Devils in his first Apology, Where he saith, the Poets and Mythologists not knowing that the Angels and Daemons begotten by them had been the Authors of the infamous practises he there speaks of, attributed them to God himself and to the sons begotten by him, and to those who are called his Brethren, Neptune and Pluto.

p. 378P. D.

What follows from hence I beseech you?

R. P.

That according to the sense of Justin Martyr, Jupiter the Supreme God was a Devil.

P. D.

That should be better proved; For how doth it follow from Justins words? That which Justin saith is, that what he attributes to Devils, the Poets attribute to God himself and his Sons: and what then? It thence follows that Justin thought they attributed very unworthy things to God, but not that he thought him to be a Devil. For doth not the same Author prove that their Poets as well as Philosophers did own one supreme God, and that Homer calls him Emphatically, foreign, which is the very expression Justin useth in this place, foreign; and by that he saith, is meant the truly existent Deity, whom he calls foreign.

R. P.

But Justin saith, the Devils were the causes of Idolatry, and the Poets say the true God was the cause, therefore according to Justin Martyr their true God was a Devil.

P. D.

Which is just like this kind of reasoning. The Poets and Mythologists of the Roman Church attribute the miracles p. 379wrought by Images to the true God; others say, they are wrought by the power of the Devil; therefore they make the Papists God to be a Devil. Which is altogether as true reasoning as the former. For Justin saith, he believes Idolatry to have come from the Devils, the Poets they say it came from God: and although he quotes this opinion of theirs, it doth not follow that he thought their God to be a Devil; but that they attributed those things to God, which did come from the Devil. So much for the first Testimony, let us come to the next; and if the rest prove like it, notwithstanding T. G.'s fluttering, all his Fathers will be but a Covie of one still.

R. P.

The next is, Athenagoras, who first shews from what the Poets and Historians relate concerning the Heathen Gods, Def. p. 288.that there was nothing that might induce us to believe Saturn, Jupiter, Proserpine and the rest of them to be Gods, but rather that they were men, and by their actions Devils: and then that Jupiter according to the interpretation of the Philosophers was no God.

P. D.

Is not this, the same Athenagoras who said, that the generality of mankind were agreed in this, whether they would p. 380or no, that there was but one God? And who proves this from the Testimony of the Heathen Poets and Philosophers, and that with the very name of Jupiter too? Athenag. leg. pro Christian. p. 5, 6.foreign. Doth Athenagoras yield this to be a good proof concerning one true God, and yet deny the true God to be meant by Jupiter? No; but we must consider a threefold sense of Jupiter among the Fathers.

(1.) The Original Jupiter, the Father of Gods and Men among the Poets, the supreme mind and Governour of the world among the Philosophers; the one God confessed by all mankind; whom Athenagoras mentions under that name, in the verses of Euripides. And if Athenagoras took this Jupiter for a Devil, he doth not prove any thing to his purpose from those Testimonies of the Poets and Philosophers. For his design was to vindicate the Christians in holding the Vnity of the Godhead, which I desire T. G. to observe; You accuse us, saith Athenagoras, because we reject your popular Gods, and assert one God; yet saith he, you condemn not your Poets and Philosophers who applyed p. 381themselves most to the consideration of things, and agree with us in the Vnity of the Godhead. What force were there in this argument; if the God they owned were not the true God, but an Arch-devil? How could the Christians plead the consent of the Wiser Heathens with them, if they owned a Devil instead of the true God? Suppose any loyal subjects in the late times had been accused as enemies to the Government, would it have passed for any vindication of them to have pleaded that they owned O. C. who was a single person, as well as our lawful King? It is true, they both agreed in a single person, but the rights of those two single persons were so opposite to each other, that the same men could not be friends to both, or both be said to own the same Monarchy. But when the Christians pleaded the consent of the Heathens, it was not meerly to purge themselves from Atheism; but to shew that the wisest Heathens were of their mind; As T. G. confesseth, the Fathers appealed to the Testimony of the Consciences of men to this purpose, Dial. p. 312, 313, 314.as giving evidence for Christians, (mark that) What evidence was this for Christians, unless it were not only for one God, but for the true God? p. 382For they who did own one God, who was so far from being the true, that in the Fathers judgement, he was the greatest enemy to him in the world, viz. an Arch-devil; these were far from giving testimony to the Christians; as who would say, that the Indians who worship the Devil do give testimony to the true God? If therefore it was the Arch-devil, as T. G. saith, whom the Poets and Philosophers according to the Fathers, did give testimony to, instead of producing their evidence as they did on all occasions, they ought to have rejected it with scorn and indignation. For what consent could there be between God and the Devil? If the Fathers thought they owned one supreme Devil, and yet produced their testimonies to justifie their belief of one true God, it would have been just, as if the Kings Subjects should have said to O. C.'s friends; why are you angry with us for not submitting to his Government; since D. and H. and P. and the rest, own a single person as well as we? True, would they have said, but our difference is the more irreconcileable, for you are for one single person and we for another; and their interests can never be united, there being a competition between p. 383them for the same Power. Thus when Athenagoras and the rest of the Fathers produce the Testimonies of Euripides, Sophocles, Plato, Aristotle, &c. to shew their consent with the Christians in the acknowledgement of one supreme God; we will suppose the Emperour Antoninus to whom Athenagoras addressed himself, to ask him this question, You produce their testimonies to prove their consent with you as to one supreme God; do you mean the same God; or an Vsurper and an Arch-devil? If you think it was not the same, but his utter enemy, What madness is it to produce those who owned him whom you account the greatest usurper, to prove a consent with you, who pretend to discover his usurpation, and do cry out upon him as the greatest enemy to God and mankind? If you think they meant the same God with you, who is the Lord and Governour of the world, we cannot deny the force of your allegations, and judge it unreasonable to condemn you for that doctrine, which the wisest among our selves did own. Since therefore T. G. confesseth that the Heathens did own one supreme God, and that under the name of Jupiter, and that the Fathers do p. 384produce many testimonies of theirs to that purpose: and that, as it appears, to shew their consent with Christians as to the unity of the Godhead, as Athenagoras saith expresly; what can follow more naturally from hence, than that the Fathers did look upon that Jupiter whom they owned to be the one supreme God, to be the same true God, whom the Christians worshipped? And when Athenagoras produced the Testimony of Plato concerning the Maker and Father of the Vniverse, he immediately adds, foreign· · understanding thereby one unbegotten and eternal God. Was this meant by Athenagoras of the true God, or of the Arch-devil? And from hence he argues thus; If Plato's opinion were not impious or Atheistical, neither is ours who hold the same God who made the world. What force is there in this arguing, if Athenagoras did not look on Plato's God and the Christians to be the same? And in another place speaking of Plato's saying concerning Jupiter, Legat. p. 26.that he rides first in Heaven upon his winged chariot, ordering and disposing all things; and an army of Gods and Daemons follows him; he subjoyns this caution, that this is not to be understood of Jupiter the son of Saturn; p. 385but that this name belongs to the Maker of all things. Can there be a plainer testimony than this, that there was a more ancient and greater Jupiter than the son of Saturn, and he no less than the Maker of the World? When Athenagoras himself makes this distinction, and owns that the name of Jupiter belongs to the maker of all things, is it possible to think that by this Jupiter, Athenagoras did not mean the supreme God but an Arch-devil? But he goes on and saith, that Plato added the word Great to Jupiter, on purpose to distinguish the Celestial Jupiter from the Terrestrial, and him that was unbegotten, from him that was begotten; and not only junior to the Heaven and Earth, but to the Cretans who stole him away to prevent his being killed by his Father.

(2.) The Poetical Jupiter. Of him Athenagoras speaks, when he joyns him with Saturn and Proserpina. Where he mentions the Poetical Theology; and he saith, that Orpheus, Homer, and Hesrod were not much inferiour in age to the Gods they describe, as to their Genealogies, shapes, Athen. p. 16.actions and passions; which he shews at large to be unworthy of any who are called Gods. Towards the latter end of p. 386his Apology, he gives the true account of these things, viz. that those whom they worshipped for Gods had formerly been men of interest and power, P. 34.and either through fear or flattery had divine worship given to them; and particularly of Jupiter, he proves from Callimachus, that he was born in Creet, although the Poet will by no means allow that he died and had a Sepulchre there. From hence he shews, that under the names of Deified men the evil spirits did assume the divine worship which was given to themselves; which he proves from the cruel and impure actions which they did put men upon. He shews, that the Image of Neryllinus who lived in their time did give answers to those who consulted it; and so did that of Proteus, or Lucians Peregrinus, who cast himself into the fire at Olympia; since therefore the Images themselves could not do these things, nor those whose Images they were, he concludes they were evil Spirits who were busie about those Images, and wrought upon the imaginations of those who came to consult them. And who denies that these were evil Spirits which drew men to Idolatry, and encouraged them in it, as Athenagoras observes, who under the names of great men did assume divine p. 387worship to themselves? And in this sense Dr. St. never denied that Jupiter of Creet was a false God, and the Devil under his name drew men to the practice of gross Idolatry.

(3.) The Allegorical Jupiter. For Athenagoras saith,Athen. p. 22. that the Poetical Fables were so filthy and base, that the Philosophers had no other way, but to turn them into Allegories; and to interpret them Physically of the nature and mixture of the Elements. And thus according to Empedocles, Jupiter was Fire, Juno Earth, Pluto Air, Nestis water. However, saith Athenagoras, these are but Elements, and parts of matter, and therefore cannot be Gods, nor deserve divine worship. The Stoicks made Jupiter to be Fire, Juno Air, Neptune Water. Others made one part of Air to be Jupiter, and another Juno: however they cooked and dressed their Allegories, they were but Pork still; it could arise no higher than a worship of the Elements instead of God. And now let any one judge how sufficiently T. G. hath proved from Athenagoras, that the supreme God of the Heathens was an Arch-devil. I pray proceed to your next.

R. P.

Theophilus Antiochenus saith, that neither the Mother of the Gods, nor her Children p. 388are Gods, but Idols, the works of mens hands, and most impure Devils: which T.G. saith, was cited by him in the same page with Origen before, although Dr. St. makes so much sport with him about crying out the Fathers, when he named, he saith, only Origen.

P. D.

And was not this true? Doth T. G. name any more than Origen to prove that Jupiter according to the Fathers was an Arch-devil? Look the place and you will find it punctually true. I grant he mentions Theophilus Antio…hemis in the same page;Cath. no Idol. p. 349, 350. but to what purpose? Not to prove the supreme God an Arch-devil; but the inferiour Deities to be Inferiour Devils: which was a thing never denyed by Dr. St. and therefore this Testimony signifies as little now, as it did before.

R. P.

But you will not so easily reconcile Tertullians Testimonies with Dr. St.'s abominable pretence, Dial. p. 290.as T. G. calls it, that the God of the Romans was the true God.

P. D.

It is one thing to say, the God of the Romans was the true God, and another to say, they did worship the true God under the title of Jupiter O. M. For the former may imply that they had no p. 389other Gods besides him to whom they gave Divine Worship; which I dare say never came into Dr. St.'s head. But all that he asserted was, that the Romans did own and worship the supreme God under the titles of Jupiter O. M. and gave such characters and descriptions of him as could agree to none but the Lord and Governour of the World: which he proved from many testimonies of Cicero, Seneca, and others the gravest of the Roman Writers. And what doth Tertullian say to take off these testimonies?

R. P.

First, he saith, we are not ignorant that those who act and are pleased and counterfeit a Divinity under those names (of dead men) and consecrated statues, Tertul. de spect. c. 10.are wicked spirits, i. e. Devils.

P. D.

And what then I beseech you? Was Jupiter O. M. one of these dead men? if not, to what purpose is this Testimony brought; unless it be as Countrey people say, for want of a better?

R. P.

Not so, for he saith elsewhere, We worship one God whom ye all know by the light of Nature: As for the rest whom you think to be Gods, Ad S…ap. c. 2.we know them to be Devils.

P. D.

Admirable! who can stand before such demonstrations? Tertullian p. 390here grants they all knew the true God, therefore the supreme God of the Romans was a Devil. He might as well have brought another Testimony out of the Book de spectaculis; No man can be ignorant of that which Nature suggests, De spect. c. 2.that God is the Maker of the World. Were the Romans ignorant of that, which Tertullian saith, no man could be ignorant of? And when they made use of the most proper Epithets of Good and Great to describe and worship him by; is it probable they should not understand him? Or that Tertullian should think their supreme God was an Arch-devil; when he saith in the words cited by T. G. he was the same God whom the Christians worshipped? Doth T.G. consider what he writes? when he puts down this for a Testimony against Dr. St. We worship one God whom ye all know by the light of Nature. Doth it not hence follow, that the God whom the Gentiles knew, was the same whom the Christians worshipped? and he was not certainly an Arch-devil. I pray judge, whose pretence is the more abominable upon his own Testimonies.

R. P.

For all this, Tertullian shews, that Jupiter worshipped in the Capitol was not the true God. For speaking of the supplications p. 391the Heathens made there, he saith,Apol. c. 40. they were averse both from God and Heaven.

P. D.

And had he not great-reason to say so, when he saith, The Romans with full bellies, and wallowing in all kind of Luxury, did offer up their sacrifices to obtain rain, and thought to have it drop down from the Capitol upon them, if the people went barefoot thither? Doth not God himself tell the Jews they were far from him, when they seemed most to draw nigh unto him? i. e. their sacrifices and oblations signified nothing, while they continued in their sins. I should not stick to say that intemperate and wicked men are averse both from God and Heaven, though they walk barefoot and make the richest presents to the true God. But how doth this prove they did not intend to worship the true God there? Although withal their worship, even in the Capitol, was Idolatrous worship; both as to the Image of Jupiter, and the conjunction of other Gods with him; therefore whatever their intention was as to the worship of Jupiter O. M. their supplications might well be displeasing to the true God; and on that account they might be said to be averse from God and Heaven.

p. 392R. P.

I have another testimony of Tertullian still good; which if I mistake not will put you hard to it. It is in his Apologetick.Apolog. c. 24. We are esteemed not to be Romans but injurious to them, because we do not worship the God of the Romans. 'Tis well, he is the God of all, whether we will or no. But among you it is lawful to worship any thing but the true God; as if he were not the great God of all, whose no are all. Dial. p. 290.What could be said more express to remove that abominable pretence of the Doctors, that the God of the Romans was the true God?

P. D.

I see no reason in the world for your accounting the Doctors pretence abominable, unless he justified the way of worship then used, which he confesseth to be abominable both in the old Romans and others who too much imitate their Idolatries. Observe, that Tertullian speaks of their worship, which being Idolatrous, the Christians had just reason to refuse joyning with the Romans in it. From hence they were accused for worshipping another God from him whom the Romans worshipped, and Tertullian before mentions the several suspicions which they had concerning the God of the Christians; Apolog. c. 16.some said it was the head of an Ass, some p. 393the Cross, some the Sun, and some set forth a ridiculous picture with the ears of an Ass, a Book and a Gown, and called this the God of the Christians. Tertullian upon this declares that the Christians worshipped the God that made the world and none else; or as he said to Scapula, the God whom all men know by Nature. And in that very Chapter from whence those words are cited, he saith, it was the common opinion among the Romans, that there was one God higher and more powerful than all the rest, of perfect Wisdom and Majesty: for the greatest part, saith he, did make this scheme of Divinity, that the chief Power lay in one God, to whom the rest were only ministerial and subservient. I am afraid T. G. will allow my sense of these words no more than he is wont to do Dr. St.'s. I will therefore give you Tertullians own words. Nam & sic plerique disponunt Divinitatem, ut imperium summae Dominationis esse penes unum, officia ejus penes multos velint. Which words are of mighty weight and consequence in this matter, towards the right understanding Tertullians meaning. Here we see from whence Aquinas had his plures eorum, and in what sense it must be understood. From hence it appears, that the Generality of the p. 394Heathens did not assert a multitude of independent gods: nor were charged with Idolatry on that account. And to let us see whom they meant by this supreme God, he produces in the next words the place of Plato mentioned by Athenagoras of the great Jupiter in Heaven with his Army of Gods and Demons.

R. P.

But Tertullian saith, the Christians did not worship the God of the Romans; and the Romans would not suffer them to worship the true God: how could this be, if they did own and worship the true God?

P. D.

I will tell you, The God of the Romans was he who was worshipped after an Idolatrous manner in the Capitol and elsewhere: the Christians chose rather to to dye than to worship God after this manner: the Romans would permit no other kind of Worship than their own: and when the Christians refused to joyn in their worship, they could not believe, let them say what they would, that they worshipped that God whom all men know by the light Nature. The God of the Romans is the God worshipped after the Roman manner; as the God of the Jews, of the Turks, and of the Christians is the God worshipped according to those several Laws, although he be the same God p. 395in himself the Maker and Governour of the World. This place then doth imply no more, than that the Roman Religion as it stood at that time and the Christian were inconsistent; but it doth not follow from hence that the Romans did not intend to worship the Supreme God under the title of Jupiter O. M.

R. P.

Before we leave Tertullian, I have something more to say to you concerning him: it is about a passage of his Book ad Scapulam cited by Dr. St. where he endeavours to prove that the Heathens Jupiter was the Supreme God, Dial p. 371, &c.by a miracle wrought upon the Heathens supplications to him under the name of Jove.

P. D.

Are you sure that Dr. St. ever meant any such thing?

R. P.

T. G. quotes his words, God, saith he, shewed himself to be the powerful God by what he did upon their supplications to him under the name of Jove.

P. D.

But doth not Dr. St. expresly say,Defence p. 47. that it was upon the prayers of Christians, that miracle was wrought?

R. P.

Yes, T. G. takes notice of that, and from thence proves that he wilfully corrupted Tertullians text, and makes a very Tragical business of it. Methinks I see the great Dionysius with his Birchen p. 396Scepter walking round him,Dial. p. 284. telling him of his faults, and then one or two lashes; but lest his pain should be too soon at an end, he takes off his hand, and walks the other turn, with a stern and Magisterial Countenance bidding others beware, and telling them what an example he will make of him, he laies on again, with such a spring in his arm, and so many repeated strokes, that I even pity the poor Doctor, and I could not think Dionysius himself could have expressed more severity on such an occasion; but I consider, it is against an Heretick, and it is necessary sometimes to let you see how sharp we can be.

P. D.

You need not to tell us that; but we had need to keep out of your lash as long as we can, for we expect no great kindness from you, if ever we fall under it. But why should T. G. think that Dr. St. designed to corrupt Tertullians sense in that place, when himself had before owned that the miracle was wrought by the prayers of the Christians? He would never have done this, if he intended the other. I do confess the words, as they lye, are capable of that construction T. G. puts upon them; but in common ingenuity they ought to be p. 397understood according to his own former sense of them; unless the force of the argument lay in the other sense; which I do not perceive it doth. For Dr. St. designed to prove in that place from Tertullian, Defence p. 92.that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God, from the testimony of their Consciences, and lifting up their hands and eyes to Heaven upon any great occasion: and then brings in those words before mentioned; which are there produced for no other end, but to shew that the same powerful God was owned by the Gentiles and Christians in that famous miracle. He did not intend there to prove, as T. G. suggests, that Jupiter whom they worshipped in the Capitol was this one Supreme Being, from the testimony of Tertullian and the Miracle wrought by God himself upon the Heathens supplications to him under the name of Jove; And where he did purposely set himself to prove this, he there confesses that the miracle was wrought at the prayers of the Christians, and that the whole Army made the exclamation, Deo Deorum & qui solus potens, whereby they did in Jovis nomine Deo nostro testimonium reddere, saith Tertullian; and Dr. St. adds that the Heathens did intend this honour to their own p. 398Jove. From whence it appears that all the force of the argument from this Testimony lies in this, that the Heathens did confess there was one supreme and powerful God whom they called Jove. And this I say in Dr. St.'s name is the whole strength and force of his argument, and that he never thought of what T. G. imposes upon him, viz. that God wrought that miracle upon the supplications of the Heathens to prove that Jove was the true God: which was not necessary to his design. But I do insist upon it, as an invincible proof of that which he intended, the acknowledgement of one supreme God, whom they called Jove. I do yield then, that the miracle was wrought by the prayers of the Christians; that the Christians did not pray to God under the name of Jove; that the Heathens did attribute the honour of the miracle to their Jove; that in the titles they gave to him on this occasion they did give testimony to the mighty power of that God whom the Christians worshipped; I will not deny, that M. Aurelius did write a Letter to the Senate, wherein he acknowledged this miracle to be wrought by the Christians, (although it may be that was not the Letter, p. 399which is extant in Baronius) But after all these concessions, I say, that Dr. St.'s argument holds good, that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supreme God under the name of Jove. For what could the Army mean else, by that acclamation, Deo Deorum & qui solus potens? From whence it unavoidably follows, that the Heathen Army did acknowledge one Supreme and Omnipotent God, whom they called Jove: And in Antoninus his Column at Rome, this God is described under the title of Jupiter Pluvius: therefore according to the sense of the Heathen Army, this Jupiter was Deus Deorum, & solus Potens. T. G. could not but see, that herein lay the strength of Dr. St.'s argument; but he dissembles it, and makes him to aim at what he never thought of, and catching hold of an ambiguous expression, he runs away with that, and uses him with more severity than ever Dionysius turned Pedant, or reforming Stepmother used, which are his own expressions upon a far less occasion.

R. P.

But Tertullian distinguishes the true God from him who was worshipped under the name of Jove.

P. D.

I deny not, that Tertullian doth p. 400distinguish the worship of the true God from the worship of Jove. And when the Heathens attributed such miracles to their Jupiter, with a design thereby to justifie the Heathen Worship, the Christians had great reason to stand upon this distinction; and to complain that what the Christians obtained by prayers and fasting, they attributed to their Jupiter, i. e. what the Christians hoped would convince them of their Idolatry, they used for an argument to prove that God was not displeased with it. But it doth not follow, from any thing Tertullian hath said, that he did not suppose the Heathens did not intend to worship the true God under their Jupiter, when he confesses the greatest part of them did suppose one Supreme God, and that the Christians worshipped the same God whom all men knew by the light of Nature.

R. P.

What say you to Clemens Alexandrinus, Dial. p. 290.who affirms the Gods of the Heathens to be Devils; and among the rest he reckons up Jupiter himself; so far was he from thinking Jupiter to be the true God?

P. D.

Dr. St. had prevented this objection,Defence p. 75. by saying that in that place Clemens speaks of the Poetical Theology, p. 401and of Jupiter of Creet; but withall he shews not only that Clemens doth acknowledge that all mankind had a natural knowledge of the true God,P. 77. but that they meant him under the name of Jupiter: and commends the manner of speaking concerning God as grave and decent, where the Divine perfections are attributed to Jupiter: he quotes a saying of Xenocrates wherein he calls God foreign the Supreme Jove, and some others of a like nature. Which seem to be as plain evidences as Dr. St. could desire. And what answer doth T. G. give to them?

R. P.

He saith,Dial. p. 360. it doth not follow from hence that it was the sense of Clemens himself, that Jupiter who was worshipped in the Temples was that true God. And his meaning was not to assert Jupiter to be that supreme Being, but from the Epithets and Titles of Omniscient, Omnipotent, &c. which the Poets and Philosophers attributed unto God under the name of Jupiter, to convince them, that there was but one supreme Being, Maker and Governour of the World.

P. D.

His design then was to convince them of that, which he proves they all knew already. If they had such a knowledge p. 402of God, as T. G. grants that Clemens doth prove from their Testimonies,Dial. p. 361. either it was the true God they knew, or a false God or an Arch-devil. If the later, they do not reach to what he brings them for, which was to prove the inbred notion of one supreme Disposer of things; if the former, then all those Titles and Epithets did express the true God; according to Clemens his own sense of them. But doth T. G. think that they gave the Titles and Epithets of Omnipotent, Omniscient, &c. to the Devil? and that Clemens believed it at the same time, when he proves from hence that all men have the natural knowledge of God? If he can think so, he must make Clemens a man of much reading, but of no judgement. But I pray reflect a little;Dial. p. 3…9, &c. T. G. confesses that Clemens saith, that those Epithets were attributed to Jupiter with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God; then according to T. G. the Devil may very decently and gravely be said to be an omnipotent and omniscient Devil. For I pray observe but this one passage and you will find what pitiful shifts T. G. is put to. The things which the Poets attribute to Jupiter in express terms Clemens saith are p. 403spoken with great decorum of God: and at the same time he grants, that they meant God by their Jupiter; what then follows but that although they used the name Jupiter, yet under that name they spake those thinks of God which were very agreeable to him. No, saith T. G. this is not his meaning, but that they spake those things concerning their Jupiter, which being applied to the true God would be spoken with great gravity and decency. Which in plain terms is, that they attributed the perfections of God to the Arch-devil, which was very ill done of them one would think, and horrible blasphemy; but however, saith T. G. these things may be said to be spoken with great gravity and decency concerning God, because if you take them from the Devil and apply them to God, they are decent expressions. Let us suppose James Naylor riding through the streets of Bristol assuming to himself the title of the Son of God, and some of his followers crying Hosanna to the Son of David: would T. G. say this were spoken with decency a…d gravity; because it would be so, if it were rightly applied to his Son Christ Jesus? T. G. doth not seem here to consider wherein the decency of speech lies; for there is the greatest p. 404indecency, nay blasphemy in the misapplication of the best titles and most glorious attributes. And were there no other reason to convince me of the sense of the Fathers in this matter, this alone were sufficient; that if T. G.'s hypothesis were true, all those great things which the Heathens spake of their Jupiter were most abominable blasphemies; for the Divine Perfections were attributed to the chief of Devils. And if to attribute the miraculous works of God to the Devil be the sin against the Holy Ghost; what then is it to give to the Devil all the perfections of God himself? And yet, if T. G. say true, the Fathers must believe that the most learned and wise of the Heathens did so, when they spake of the Wisdom, and Power, and Goodness of their supreme Jupiter: and if they did believe they were guilty of such horrible blasphemy, would they so often quote, approve, extol these sayings as they do? Would they not rather have reproved, censured, condemned them for them, as the most intolerable reproaches of the Divine Nature? Would they have born such things in Plato, Euripides or any other Philosopher or Poet? For to call a Stone, a Stock, a dead Man, a God; p. 405to attribute life, sense, understanding to meer matter; were tolerable blasphemies in comparison with making the Devil to be the supreme Governour of the world; to be One and All; to be infinite Wisdom as well as Power; and yet all these must be thus given to the Devil by the wisest Poets and Philosophers which the Heathens ever had. Nay farther, their best and most understanding men who are most commended by the Fathers themselves, must be the greatest blasphemers of all others, and be thought so by the Fathers at the same time when they magnifie their sayings, for the Wisdom, Gravity, and Decency contained in them. This is so gross, so wild, so absurd an imagination as could hardly enter into any mans head who had any manner of esteem for the Fathers. And I would advise T. G. rather to let the Fathers quite alone, than to fix such absurdities upon them.

R. P.

Methinks you are grown very warm of a sudden; but I have another Father to cool you, and he is Minucius Felix.

P. D.

He is but a Paterculus a very diminutive Father, as T. G. speaks; however I hope he is able to speak for himself.

p. 406R. P.

He saith, the impure Spirits lurking in the consecrated statues gained to themselves the Authority and Esteem of a Deity that was there present.

P. D.

And what then? How often must you be told, that the question is not, whether the Devils were not assisting in the practice of Idolatry? which Dr. St. never questioned; either by presence in consecrated Images, or by assuming divine honours under the names of Deified men; but this doth not come up to the question in hand; which is, whethers the Fathers did not believe they did intend to worship the supreme God under the name and Titles of Jupiter O. M.? I will make this plain to you, that if possible you may understand the difference of these questions. You know what boasts are made in your Church of the Miracles wrought by our Lady of such and such a place, as of Mointague, Hall, Loretto, &c. what do you mean by this, but that such Images which are there of her did effect them, not by the power of the Wood or Stone, but of some spiritual power which was present in or about them; suppose now a person who hath heard of the coming of Satan with signs and lying wonders, should believe that the p. 407evil spirits did endeavour to retrieve Idolatry in the Christian World after the way by which they advanced it in the Heathen World; and so concludes that they work these pretended miracles, might not such a one say, that impure spirits lurk in your consecrated Images, and there receive Divine Worship under the names of Saints and Angels; and yet at the same time believe that you worship one supreme God?

R. P.

But here the case is different; for Minucius saith, that Saturn,Dial. p. 291. and Serapis, and Jupiter (mark that) confess themselves to be Devils.

P. D.

Two wayes Jupiter might be a Devil, and yet not prejudice Dr. St.'s assertion. (1.) As he assumed the honours given to the Poetical Jupiter; who was really a Prince of Creet; but the Poets by attributing to him the villanies of many others (as to the ravishing of women, &c.) had made him one of the greatest monsters of Wickedness that ever was; and therefore it was no wonder the Devil should be worshipped under his name; not intentionally but terminatively, in as much, as all this worship ended in the service of the Devil, who was alwayes very active to subdue the minds p. 408of men to the Folly and Wickedness of Idolatry. (2.) As he was busie about consecrated Images, even to the supreme Jupiter. Thus although the Greeks and Romans might set up Images with Scepters, and Globes, and Thunderbolts in their hands, on purpose to declare that they intended to worship the supreme God by them; yet this way of worship being so disagreeable to the Divine Nature and Perfections, God might justly suffer the impure Spirits to be active in those very Images, which were consecrated to himself: and they might by this means run away with that honour which they intended to give to the Divine Majesty. But the Question still remains, whether notwithstanding all this, the Heathens did not design to worship the supreme God under the name of Jove? and nothing of this nature doth shew that the Fathers believed the contrary; and as to Minucius Felix, Dr. St. had produced a material passage out of him to prove, that they who make Jove the chief God, are only deceived in the name, but agree in the power.

R. P.

I am glad you mention that place; for T. G. hath at large proved that Dr. St. hath corrupted both the sense p. 409and words of Minucius to make him speak as he would have him.Dial. p. 354.

P. D.

I am now so used to these false and shameless charges of T. G. about Dr. St.'s corrupting of Authors, that I dare stand the shock, let T. G. make use of all his strength and skill.

R. P.

T. G. saith, that Minucius intended nothing less than to assert Jupiter to be the one supreme God; but that he argued only ad hominem (as we say) from what the wiser Heathens pretended they thought of Jupiter, that they ought to acknowledge but one supreme God, Maker and Governour of the World: and the design and sense of Minucius was this, That although they were deceived in their pretence of assigning Jupiter to be the supreme God; yet by what they affirmed of him, viz. that he was the Prince or the Chief, and the Poets setting forth one Father of Gods and Men, they were sufficiently convinced, that they ought to acknowledge but one supreme and undivided Power, by which the world was made and governed; which was the point Minucius was proving in that place. But the Dr. by putting in and leaving out what he thought might make for his advantage, hath corrupted the very Text of Minucius, to make it speak his sense.

p. 410P. D.

A very heavy charge! But what if there be no ground for all this? Is not T. G. a man of admirable dexterity, and unparallel'd ingenuity? I will take T. G.'s own translation of the words; and if from thence all that Dr. St. saith, doth follow, there can be certainly no cause for all these clamours. Those also, saith he, who will have Jupiter to be the Prince or Chief, are deceived in the name, but agree as to the Vnity of Power. The matter lies within a narrow compass: Either they who agreed as to the Vnity of Power and called that Power by the name of Jove did mean the same God with Minucius, or not. If they meant the same God, Dr. St. gives the true sense of Minucius, for then they who make Jove the chief God are only deceived in the name and agree in the Power: (and it is ridiculous Pedantry to quarrel at his translating, Qui Jovem Principem volunt, They who make Jove the chief God: and for putting in only, it is no more than the sense implyes, for if they agree in the thing, they must be only deceived in the name.) This is therefore the single point to be debated, whether according to Minucius they understood the same God or not? And to make this out I desire p. 411no other method than what T. G. proposes, viz. to consider the design of Minucius in that place. Providence being supposed, he saith, the question is whether the world be Governed by one, or more, and after other arguments for Monarchical Government in general, he produces the consent of mankind in lifting up their hands to Heaven, and calling upon God, and saying, God is great, God is true, and if God give. Is this, saith he, the voice of Nature in the common people, or the confession of a Christian? Where nothing can be more evident, than the consent between the voice of Nature, and the confession of a Christian as to the same God. And then it immediately follows. Et qui Jovem Principem volunt, falluntur in nomine, sed de unâ Potestate consentiunt. These agree too as to the Vnity of Power, who would have Jove to be Chief. Is there not all the reason that may be, to understand this agreement to be with those mentioned before; viz. the common people and Christians, who all consent in the Vnity of Power; but these call that Power by the name of Jove; and although Minucius thinks they are deceived in attributing that name to God, yet he yields that they agreed in the thing. This is the plain p. 412and easie sense of Minucius; Let us now consider T. G.'s sense of these words, and see how well that agrees with his design. His sense is this; They who would have Jupiter to be the Prince or Chief, were agreed as to the Vnity of Power, but were so much deceived, not only in the name, but in the thing it self, that they attributed this Power, not to God but to the Devil. For, saith T. G. Minucius his own thoughts were, that this Jupiter was a Devil. Let this be supposed, and his meaning is this, The common People call upon God, and say, God is true, God is great; and therein agree with the confession of Christians; and they who will have Jove, i. e. the Devil to be the Chief of Gods, do agree as to the Vnity of Power. They who make God to be Chief, and the Devil to be Chief, do both agree that one is Chief I grant: but will any man of common sense say only that these are deceived in the name, who thinks at the same time, they mean the Devil? Are they not deceived in much more than the name, in the very thing it self? Do they not set up an Vsurper instead of God, and his most inveterate enemy, and attribute infinite and undivided power to him? And is this dwindling expression fit for a Christian, to say only, falluntur p. 413in nomine, they are deceived in the name? No: but he ought to have told them, they were deceived much more in the thing than in the name. It was but a trifle in comparison what name they used, if their sense and meaning were good. Call him Jove or what they pleased, if they meant the same thing, it was only a difference about a name: but if they did really attribute the Divine perfections to the Devil, this was a crime of the highest nature, it was notorious blasphemy; and no true Christian could pass it over so gently and slightly, as Minucius doth, if he were of T. G.'s opinion. But to convince us that he was far from it; he afterwards produces the consent of Philosophers with the Christians, so he saith, (in the same page of the Leyden Edition) that they did consent with them: and surely it was no consent with Christians to give the divine perfections to the Devil. Speaking of Thales, he saith, Vides Philosophi principalis nobiscum penitus opinionem consonare. (I forbear to translate lest T. G. should want matter to fill up some empty pages as he did by proving that volunt doth not signifie making, &c.) However, Minucius shews, that this Prince of Philosophers p. 414did fully agree with the Christians. Wherein I beseech you? in attributing that power to the Devil which they give to God? this is an agreement which I dare say, no Christian would ever own. And therefore it must be, in acknowledging the same Divine Being which the Christians did. And after he hath reckoned up the several opinions of the most noted Philosophers, he hath this remarkable expression; Exposui opiniones omnium fere Philosophorum, quibus illustrior gloria est Deum unum multis licet designasse nominibus: I have set down the opinions of almost all the famous Philosophers, who all set forth one God though under many names: And lest any should fall into T. G.'s extravagant imagination, that this was not a consent in the same Being, but as to a meer Vnity of Power, though lodged in the Devil himself, he adds these words, Vt quivis arbitretur, aut nunc Christianos philosophos esse, aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianos. Let T. G. construe this to his sense, if he can for his heart. Would any man in the World, who believed the Heathens supreme God to be the Devil, have said, either that the Christians now were Philosophers, or the Philosophers then were p. 415Christians: i. e. that those who asserted that God, and those who said, the Devil were supreme Governour of the world, were of the same opinion. Which is so foolish, so ridiculous an assertion, that I wonder to find T. G. resolve to maintain it. And I now desire you, or any man to judge whether the half dozen Fathers T. G. hath produced before Origen can amount to a Covie of One. I have exercised great patience in examining these testimonies, and not after T. G.'s way turned off all the rest, because one was defective; and if you have any more that speak to the point, I am content to give you all the satisfaction you can desire, provided they prove more than that in general, the Gentiles sacrificed to Devils, which was never denied.

R. P.

T. G. produces the Testimonies of Eusebius, Athanasius, S. Cyprian, Dial. p. 293, &c.S. Chrysostom, S. Hierom and others.

P. D.

To what purpose?

R. P.

To prove that they were wicked spirits who delighted in their worship and Sacrifices.

P. D.

Who ever denyed this? Will T. G. quote the Fathers from one end to the other to prove that all men are sinners? Name me those who seem to p. 416speak to the poin…, and I will answer them.

R. P.

You cannot deny that Arnobius, Lactantius, and S. Augustin do speak to the point about Jove being worshipped as the supreme God, will you hear them?