Of idolatry a discourse, in which is endeavoured a declaration of, its distinction from superstition, its notion, cause, commencement, and progress, its practice charged on Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Gnosticks, Manichees Arians, Socinians, Romanists : as also, of the means which God hath vouchsafed towards the cure of it by the Shechinah of His Son / by Tho. Tenison ...

Of idolatry a discourse, in which is endeavoured a declaration of, its distinction from superstition, its notion, cause, commencement, and progress, its practice charged on Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Gnosticks, Manichees Arians, Socinians, Romanists : as also, of the means which God hath vouchsafed towards the cure of it by the Shechinah of His Son / by Tho. Tenison ...

Table of contents

§

Title page

To the Right Honourable ROBERT Earl of MANCHESTER, One of the Gentlemen of his Majesty's Bedchamber, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Huntington, &c.

The CONTENTS of the CHAPTERS.

ERRATA.

CHAP. I. Of the notions of Superstition and Idolatry, as they are usually confounded; and as they ought, of right, to be distinguish'd.

CHAP. II. Of the Notion of Idolatry.

CHAP. III. Of the Causes and Occasions of Idolatry in the World.

CHAP. IV. Of the Time in which the Vanity of Man introduced Idolatry into the World.

CHAP. V. Of those who are charged with Idolatry; and of the conformity or inconformity of their worship to the Nature of Idolatry. Of Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Christians. Amongst them who have professed Christianity, of the Gnosticks, Manichees, Arrians, Socinians, Roman-Catholicks, the real Catholicks of the Communion of the Church of England. And first of the Idolatry charged on the Gentiles.

PART 1. How far the Gentiles were Ignorant of one Supreme God.

PART 2. Of their worship of Universal Nature, &c. as God.

PART 3. How far the Gentiles owned one true God.

PART 4. What Applications they made to one God.

PART 5. Whether they worshipping one God, could be guilty of that sin.

PART 6. Of their Idolatry in worshipping the Statues of God.

PART 7. Of the Idolatry of the Gentiles in their worship of Demons.

PART 8. Of their Idolatry in worshipping the Images of Demons.

PART 9. Of their Worshipping Daemons more than God.

CHAP. VI. Concerning the Idolatry of the Jews, and particularly of their worshipping the Golden Calf. Also of the Egyptian Symbol of Apis, as at that time not extant. And of the probable Reasons which set up Moses as the Original Apis.

PART 1. Of the Provisions made by God against Idolatry among the Jews.

PART 2. Of the Idolatry of the Jews.

PART 3. Of the Worship of the Golden Calf.

PART 4. Of the Idol Apis.

PART 5. Of the Originals of Apis and Serapis.

PART 6. Of the Egyptian Apis; Whether he were Moses?

PART 7. Why Moses might be Idolized among the Egyptians.

PART 8. Why Moses might be honoured by the Symbol of an Ox.

PART 9. Why Moses might be called Apis.

PART 10. VVhen the Worship of Apis commenced.

PART 11. Of the Idols Apis and Mnevis, and the Commencement of their Worship.

PART 12. Whence the Original of Apis might be obscured.

CHAP. VII. Of the Idolatry of the Mahometans.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Idolatry with which some are charged, who profess and •…all themselves Christians. And first of the Idolatry of the Gnosticks and Manichees.

PART 1. Of the Idolatry of the Gnosticks.

PART 2. Of the Idolatry of the Manichees.

CHAP. IX. Of the Idolatry with which the Arians and Socinians are charged.

PART 1.

PART 2. Of the Idolatry of the Arians.

PART 3. Of the Idolatry of the Socinians.

CHAP. X. Of the Idolatry with which the Roman-Catholicks are charged; and how far they are justly, or unjustly accused.

PART 1. Of the Charge which is drawn up against them.

PART 2. Of the mitigation of the charge of Idolatry against the Papists.

PART 3. Of the Idolatry charged on the Papists in their Worship of Saints.

CHAP. XI. Of the Idolatry Charged on the Papists in their Worship of Images. And first of the Worship of an Image of God.

CHAP. XII. Of the Idolatry charged on the Papists in the worship of Images.

PART. 1. Of the worship of the Image of Christ.

PART 2. Of the Idolatry charged on the Romanists in the Worship of the Images of Saints.

CHAP. XIII. Of the Idolatry charged, without any tolerable colour, on the Church of England.

CHAP. XIV. Of the means which God hath vouchsafed the World towards the cure of Idolatry; and more particularly, of his favour in exhibiting, to that purpose, the Shechinah of his Son.

PART 1. Of the Cure of Idolatry.

PART 2. Of the Cure of Idolatry by the Shechinah of God.

PART. 3. Of the Shechinah of God from Adam to Noah.

PART 4. Of the Shechinah of God from Noah to Moses.

PART 5. Of the Shechinah of God from Moses to the Captivity.

PART. 6. Of the Shechinah of God, from the Captivity to the Messiah.

PART. 6. Of the cure of Idolatry by the Image of God in Christ God-man.

PART 7. Of the Usefulness of this Argument of Gods Shechinah.

PART 8. Of the Usefulness of this Argument of Gods Shechinah, with relation to the Worship of Angels and Images.

CHAP. XV. A REVIEW and CONCLVSION.

An ALPHABETICAL INDEX.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

K

L

M

N

O

P

R

S.

T

V & U

W

Z

§

[Page]

[Page]

[Page]

Imprimatur,

Guil. Jane R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. a Sacris Dom.

Nov. 10. 1677.

§

[Page]

OF IDOLATRY: A DISCOURSE, In which is endeavoured A Declaration of, Its Distinction from Superstition; Its Notion, Cause, Commencement, and Progress; Its Practice Charged on Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Gnosticks, Manichees, Arians, Socinians, Romanists: As also, of the Means which God hath vouchsafed towards the Cure of it by the SHECHINAH of His SON.

By THO. TENISON, B. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty, and late Fellow of Corpus-Christi Colledg in Cambridge.

LONDON: Printed for Francis Tyton at the Three-Daggers in Fleetstreet, over against St. Dunstans Church, 1678.

To the Right Honourable ROBERT Earl of MANCHESTER, One of the Gentlemen of his Majesty's Bedchamber, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Huntington, &c.

[Page]

[Page]

My LORD,

IT is now a year, and almost another, since I wrote a Letter for private Use, about the Worship of Images: A Practice most scandalous to the Christian Religion, and (as some use it) so extremely ridiculous, that the very statue, had it any apprehension, would modestly bow it self, and prevent the Adorer. From that small beginning has arisen a Book sufficiently big; but of the less solidity by reason of the hasty growth of it. More art, together with more hours of leisure would have made it a lesser Volume. For in writing of Books, as in carving of Statues, the cutting away of each superfluity is a work of skill and time.

[Page] But if this Volume were equally great and good, it would be the more suitable Present for your Lordship, to whom the Dedication of it is due, whether the Author be considered, or that which be hath written.

For the Author he hath had long dependance on your Honourable Family; such as may almost be dated from that happy time in which these Islands were disenchanted, and received their true and undoubted Soveraign, in place of that Spectre of Authority which then walked at Whitehall. He is possessed of one Living by the Bounty of the then Lord Chamberlain your Father, whose most generous kindness and condescension must for ever be remembred by him. And seeing the Noble offer makes the favour, and not the acceptance; he owes to your Lordship his acknowledgments for another. Many other Obligations from your Honourable Person and Family, and therein from your most excellent Lady, (whose eminent and exemplary Virtues surpass the very heighth of her Birth and Quality) as in Gratitude I must not forget, so in good manners I ought not here to repeat them at large; for it would be a rude abuse of your Lordships patience to turn this Epistle into a second Book.

[Page] For the Book it self, some part of it was meditated, the whole revised at your Castle of Kimbolton; a place where your Lordship does yearly offer new matter to the admiration of Travellers, who speak with such praise of the Fair Villa's of England. It was enlarged, and now at last published, not without the desire of some of your Lordships very Learned Relations, who by their own accurate Pens have made amends to the world for any trouble they may occasion by mine. It hath already some hope of your favourable acceptance; and therefore it lays it self with the greater assurance at the feet of your Honour.

Where it offendeth either in Matter or Form, (for in an heap of so many particulars some which are not very current may pass through my hand undiscerned;) I beg not Patronage, but excuse.

In the matter, I would hope that the main of it is passable, because I have used as its touchstone the Doctrine and Worship of that Church, in whose Communion (by Gods good Providence) I have always lived, the Church of England: a Church of unparallel'd sobriety and invincible Truth. The Country was one of the last of those which the Arms of the ancient Romans subdu'd; and the Church is [Page] such that it can never be conquered by the Arguments of the Modern.

It is true, I have said many things which the Church hath not said; for I was unwilling to disgust any curious Reader, by serving up nothing but what had formerly been often set before him. But against the Church I am not conscious that I have written a syllable. And for some Speculations which might have been subject to misconstruction, I have committed them to (that which they call the best keeper of Secrets) the Fire. If any offensive phrase or notion have escaped me, as soon as I am shewed it, I shall be readier to blot it out, than I was ever to write it.

Touching my manner of writing, I crave leave to observe a few things about the stile, and the temper of this Discourse.

Concerning stile, had it been my Talent, it had not been possible in such an Historical and Philological Argument to have made any considerable use of it. A Discourse into which the words of other men of differing Professions, Ages, Countries, Languages and stiles, are so frequently woven, must needs be uneven and parti-coloured.

Concerning the Temper observed in this writing, I have endeavour'd to abstain from [Page] all unnecessary heat and severe Language. For I cannot perswade my self that the Witchcraft of Error can be removed, or so much as weakned by the meer scratches of the Pen. It hath also been my care not to misrepresent the opinions of those from whom I differ. Yet I am sensible that this very Impartiality, with which I move in the middle path, will draw upon me the censorious lashes of many Zealots who place themselves on either hand. Those whom Jesuitick Bygotry possesseth will say I have maliciously blackned their Church. Others whose over-rigid humour must needs pass for the only Protestancy, whose Religion sheweth it self in nothing but in a fierce and indiscreet zeal against Popery, will think my Pen hath flattered. They will cry out that it hath imitated his pencil, who drew the loose Gabrielle in the figure of chaste Diana.

But I have (I hope) avoided both those Extremes: Most certain I am, I have studied to do so. And if just moderation must be blamed, I am willing to be a sufferer in so good, so honourable a cause.

There are another sort of Enemies of whose Censures I am also in some expectation, though in no fear at all: I mean the lower sort of [Page] Criticks, into whose Province of Philology I have sometimes stepped. This sort of men seemeth to me like those wretched Barbarians on the Coast of Guinea, whose Idol is a certain Bundle of Feathers. Religious men of the warmest temper are not more earnest about matters of Faith than these are in questions of wit, and debates about words and tittles. For though the interest of the thing they contend about be insignificant, yet they think that power and mastery in any thing is worthy their zeal. If I have but mispelled the name of some Heathen-god, I expect severe usage from such Grammarians. But though they shall prove angry, I will not retaliate. It is not worth the while to keep up a controversy begun about a trifle, and to bandy light matters backward and forward by eternal dispute.

But I trespass upon your Honour by the liberty of this Discourse, and by introducing these Pedantick people who make so absurd a figure in Courts.

This only I have to add: If there be any thing useful in this writing, I know your Lordship will accept it for its own sake. And for that which is useless, or defective, [Page] I hope it may obtain pardon through the submission of the Author, who is,

From Dr. Lawson's house in Mincing-Lane in London, March 16, 1677.

My Lord,

Your Lordship's most Obliged and Obedient Servant, THO. TENISON.

The CONTENTS of the CHAPTERS.

[Page]

[Page]

CHap. I. Of the Notion of Superstition pag. 1.

Chap. II. Of the Notion of Idolatry p. 12.

Chap. III. Of the causes and occasions of Idolatry in the World p. 24.

Chap. IV. Of the commencement and progress of Idolatry p. 38.

Chap. V. Of the Idolatry charged on the Gentiles

Part 1. How far the Gentiles were ignorant of a supreme God p. 49.

Part 2. Of the Worship of Universal nature, &c. by the Gentiles as God p. 52.

Part 3. How far they owned one true God p. 55.

Part 4. What applications they made to one God p. 62.

Part. 5. Whether they worshipping one God could be guilty of the sin of Idolatry p. 65.

Part 6. Of their Idolatry in worshipping the Statues of God p. 68.

Part 7. Of their Idolatry in worshipping Daemons p. 75.

Part 8. Of their Idolatry in worshipping the Images of Daemons p. 88.

Part 9. Of their worshipping Daemons more than God p. 95.

Chap. VI. Of the Idolatry of the Jews.

Part 1. Of the provisions made by God against the Idolatry of the Jews p. 97.

Part 2. Of the Idolatry of the Jews p. 101.

Part 3. Of the worship of the Golden Calf p. 108.

Part 4. Of the worship of the Idol Apis p. 112.

Part 5. Of the Originals of Apis and Serapis p. 118.

[Page] Part 6. Of the Egyptian-Apis whether he were Moses p. 125.

Part 7. Why Moses might be Idolized among the Egyptians p. 131.

Part 8. Why Moses might be honoured by the Symbol of an Ox p. 136.

Part 9. Why Moses might be called Apis p. 138.

Part 10. When the Worship of Apis commenced p. 139.

Part 11. Of the Idols Apis and Mnevis p. 140.

Part 12. Whence the Original of Apis might be obscured p. 141.

Chap. VII. Of the Idolatry of the Mahometans p. 143.

Chap. VIII. Of the Idolatry with which some are charged who profess themselves Christians

Part 1. Of the Idolatry of the Gnosticks p. 148.

Part 2. Of the Idolatry of the Manichees p. 155.

Chap. IX. Of the Idolatry with which the Arians and Socinians are charged

Part 1. Of the Idolatry of the Arians and Socinians jointly p. 157.

Part 2. Of the Idolatry of the Arians p. 163.

Part 3. Of the Idolatry of the Socinians p. 169.

Chap. 10. Of the Idolatry charged on the Papists

Part 1. Of the Charge which is drawn up against them p. 176.

Part 2. Of the mitigation of the Charge of Idolatry against the Papists p. 184.

Part 3. Of the Idolatry charged on the Romanists in the Invocation of Saints p. 189.

Chap. XI. Of the Idolatry charged on the Romanists in the Worship of Images, and particularly of the Worship of an Image of God p. 264.

Chap. XII. Of the Idolatry charged on the Romanists in worshipping Images

Part 1. Of the Worship of the Image of Christ p. 276.

[Page] Part 2. Of the Worship of the Images of Saints p. 296.

Chap. XIII. Of the Idolatry charged on the Church of England p. 303.

Chap. XIV. Of the means which God hath vouchsafed the World towards the curing Idolatry; and particularly of his favour in exhibiting to that purpose the Shechinah of his Son

Part 1. Of the cure of Idolatry p. 311.

Part 2. Of the cure of Idolatry by the Shechinah of of God p. 315.

Part 3. Of the Shechinah of God from Adam to Noah p. 320.

Part 4. Of the Shechinah of God from Noah to Moses p. 323.

Part 5. Of the Shechinah of God from Moses to the Captivity, and therein largely of the Ark and Cherubims and Urim and Thummim p. 330.

Part 6. Of the Shechinah of God from the Captivity to the Messiah p. 368.

Part 7. Of the cure of Idolatry by the Image of God in Christ God-man p. 371.

Part 8. Of the Usefulness of this Argument of Gods Shechinah p. 379.

Part 9. Of the Usefulness of this Argument of Gods Shechinah, with relation to the Worship of Angels and Images p. 382.

Chap. XV. A Review and Conclusion p. 391.

ERRATA.

[Page]

PAg. 7. lin. 14. for, of a remorse, read, of remorse, p. 12. l. 13. f. Fritbert r. Freiberg. p. 26. l. 17. f. Deitas r. Deütas. p. 34. l. 2. f. notions r. motions. p. 40. l 20. f. Families of Cain and Lamech r. Family of Cain. p. 41. l. 32. & p. 47. l. 33. f. Loyn r. Line. p. 42. l. 18, 19. f. Commical r. Conical. p. 43. l. 6. f. Vatallus r. Vatablus. p. 48. l. 18. f. ascendeth a Pyramis r. ascendeth in a Pyramis. p. 196. l. 25. f. opposite r. apposite. p. 230. Marg. for Virgine r. Virgini. p. 249. Marg. f. quid r. quod. p. 324. l. 20. f. re-acting r. reaching. p. 338. l. 18. f. man r. mean. p. 355. l. 26. blot out and. p. 385. l. 6, 7. f. Heaven r. Heathen. In p. 385, 387, 389. there is left out in the Title on the top. with Relation to the Worship, &c. p. 400. l. 2. f. He r. We. p. 410. l. 23. f. second r. third. p. 413. l. 21. f. chres r. sepulchres.

Other Mispellings and little mistakes are left to the candor of the Reader, who is desired as he peruseth the Book, to cast his eye sometimes upon the Review at the end of it, a few amendments and additions being there subjoined.

CHAP. I. Of the notions of Superstition and Idolatry, as they are usually confounded; and as they ought, of right, to be distinguish'd.

[Page]

I Know not how I can better begin this discourse concerning Religious Worship, than by imitating the Prologue of Origen, or rather of Maximus, to his dispute against the Heresie of Marcion. In the entrance of that Dialogue, he Orig. cont. Marc. S. 1. p. 2. [...]. maketh a right opinion concerning God to be the Basis and Foundation of Universal Goodness. Men are imperfect, and oftentimes the more they are known, the less they are honoured; insomuch, that distance and reservedness is made use of, especially among the Eastern Princes, as the necessary instrument of Veneration. But God is a Being absolutely perfect; and the better he is understood, he is worshipped with the more rational Religion, and with the profounder Reverence. God is that One, Supreme, Infinite, Spirit; who by Almighty Power, Wisdom and Goodness, made and governeth the World. And if men entertained such a notion of him, instead of those rude and false draughts, which are pictur'd in their vain Imaginations, they would pay him an homage more agreeable to his Divine, and to their own reasonable, though humane nature. They would then serve him with that pure Religion, or sincere Christianity, [Page] which is not adulterated either with Idolatry or Superstition. Of these, the notions being so commonly entangled, that Hesychius expoundeth the name, [...] [a superstitious person] by [...] [an Idolater]; and the translators of the Psalms * render [...], the vain or empty (that is, the exceeding) Psal. 31. 7. vanities of Idols, by superstitious vanities: I will in the first place offer to the Reader a distinct consideration of them.

Superstition, if we have regard only to the bare derivations of its names in the Greek or Latin Tongues, is no other than a single branch of Idolatry. It is the worship of the Divi, coelestes semper habiti, (as the Law of the twelve Tables speaketh) that is, of the Sempiternal Daemons; and also of those, Quos in coelum merita vocârunt (as the same Law distinguisheth); of such Hero's and superexisting Souls as were, through their eminent and exemplary virtue, translated from Earth to Heaven. Yet in the notion of Plutarch, [...], or Superstition, consisteth not so much in the bare worship of such invisible Powers, as in that servility and horror of mind which possessed the worshippers, and inclin'd them (like those who flatter Tyrants) to hate them, and yet to fawn on them, and to suppose them apt to be appeased Plut. de superst. p. 167.— [...], &c. by ceremonious and insignificant crouchings. Use hath further extended the signification of the word; insomuch, that sometimes it comprehendeth, not only all manner of Idolatry, but also every false and offensive way, which disguiseth it self under the colour of Religion. Thus Socrates the Historian, Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 1. p. 168.— [...]. when he mentioneth the signs which Julian gave of his proneness to Superstition he meaneth by that word the whole Religion of the Gentiles.

But there is still behind its proper and especial [Page] notion; and the Synod of Mechlin hath attempted to set down a true description of it. The Council of Trent having commanded the abolishing of all Superstition, the Fathers of this Synod go about to explain the meaning of that Precept; and they do it Concil. Mech. inter. Conc. Max. c. 3. de Imag. p. 801. after the following manner. ‘This Synod (say they) teacheth, that all that use of things is superstitious, which is performed without [the warrant of] the Word of God, or the Doctrine of the Church, by certain customary rites and observances, of which no reasonable cause can be assigned: And when trust is put in Them, and an expectation is raised of an event following from such Rites, and not hoped for without them, from the intercession of the Saints. Also when, in the worship of Saints, they are done rather out of rashness and lightness, than out of Piety and Religion.’ But this description is in many respects defective. For many of the Usages which it decrieth, do not relate to Religion, and they deserve rather the names of follies, impertinences, and ludicrous inchantments: unless a man would distinguish concerning the kinds of Superstition, and call some, the Superstitions of common life, and others, the Superstitions of worship. The rites of the former kind become the more Superstitious, if their event be expected from some presumed Saint; for then an impertinent custom becomes an impiety, or the usage of a Magical charm, by which invisible powers are depended on, for the production of visible effects. If (for instance sake) a man shall fall into that conceit which hath possesled many, even Origen Origen. cont. Cels. l. 5. p. 261, 262. himself, that certain names signifie by nature, and not by institution; and that an event will follow from a certain ceremonious pronunciation, or other use of them, he meriteth the Title of a Trifling and Credulous Philosopher. [Page] But if he maketh such use of words [suppose of Adonai or Sabaoth, which Origen believeth to lose their vertue, if turn'd into any other language:] and hopeth thence for the event from God, through the intercession of some Spirit; he deserveth the reproof due to a superstitious man, who, by supposing a Divine attendance on his Trifles, doth highly dishonour God and his Saints.

Neither doth the Synod of Mechlin absolve such Rites from the guilt of Superstition, by adding to the intercession of Saints the prescription of the Church; for that cannot alter the nature of things, though it may render some Rites, indifferent in their nature, expedient, not to say, necessary, in point of obedience, for the preservation of Peace and Order. If Ri [...]es of worship are exceeding numerous under Christianity; if they are light and indecent; if being in themselves indifferent, or decent in their use, they are imposed, or observed as necessary duties; the stamp of Authority does not much alter the property of them. Wherefore others Reform. L [...]g. Eccles. Tit. de Idol. &c. c. 6. de Superstit. P. 32. have, in more accurate manner, defined Superstition; ‘A worship relating to God, proceeding from a certain inclination. of mind, which is commonly called a good intention; and springing always from mans brain; separately from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures.’ But neither in this definition are we to rest: For if the reason of mans brain answers the Piety of his intention; the worship which he offereth, though not commanded in Scripture, if not forbidden by it, may be grateful to God. I should therefore chuse, in this manner, to describe Superstition. ‘It is a corruption of publick or private worship, either in the substance, or in the Rites of it; whereby men (actuated by servile motives) perform, or omit, in their own persons; [Page] or urge upon, or forbid to others, any thing as in its nature Religious or Sinful, which God hath neither required, nor disallowed, either by the Principles of right Reason, or by his revealed Will. It is the paying of our Religious Tribute, to God or an Idol, in Coin of our own mintage. The positive part of it is the addition of our own numberless, absurd, or decent, inventions, to the prescriptions of God, in the quality of Laws and Rites, equal, or superior to those by him enacted.’

First, An observance of a very great number of such Rites and Ceremonies in the worship of God, as admit of excuse or praise in their single consideration, is a part of this Superstition: For it prejudiceth the substance of our duty, by distracting our attention, and is unagreeable to the Christianity which we profess; because it is not, as was the Mosaic, a Typical Religion. The Greek Church, as well as a great part of the Latin, aboundeth See their many ceremonies towards the very elements before consecr. in Stat. Hodiern. Eccles. Graec. p. 86. 87, and in receiving, in Christoph. Angel. [...]. p. 20. with Ceremonies; and the Rituals are of so great a bulk, that they look like Volumes too big for the very Temple, much more for the Church. Neither (probably) should such a number of Rites have ever been imposed on the Jews, if their ritual temper, their conversation with a people of like ritual disposition, and the use of Types in shadowing out the Messiah, had not mov'd the Wisdom of God to prescribe them.

The late pretender to the Latin Text, and English Translation of the Order, and Canon of the Mass, J. D's Great Sacr. of the new Law exp. by the Figures of the old. Printed, A [...], 1676. conscious, one would think, of the absurdness of the Romish ceremoniousness; at least of the appearance of it, as such, to the reformed in England; has in less than Thirty Crosses omitted more than Twenty. He hath never mentioned the Incensing of the Altar, the Book, the Priest: He hath left out, sometimes in his [Page] Latin, and oftner in his English, a great number of Rites enjoyned the Priest, and dayly performed by him. I will give a few instances in both kinds.

In the very beginning of the Order of the Mass, this is the authentick Rubrick. Miss. Rom. Par. 1660. p. 210. Sacerdos paratus cum ingreditur ad Altare, facta illi debita reverentia, signat se signo crucis a fronte ad pectus. & clara voce dicit, In nomine, &c. The Priest being accoustred, when he goeth to the Altar, after having done due reverence to it, he signeth himself with the sign of the Cross, from the forehead to the breast; and with a loud voice, saith, In the name of the Father. Instead of this, J. D. thus beginneth his Order. Sacerdos, ad Gradum Altaris, dicit, in nomine, &c. The Priest at the foot of the Altar, saith, In the name of the Father. In the Repetition of the Creed, the Priest is required, Miss. Rom. In Ord. Miss. p. 213. when he saith, Deum, God, to bow his Head to the Cross; when he saith Jesus Christ, to do the like: So that they are together ador'd. When he saith, And was incarnate, to kneel till those words, And was made man. When he hath ended, to cross himself from the forehead to the breast. All this J. D. hath omitted, both in his Latin and English Pages J. D. Order of the Mass, p. 18 19, &c.. In his pretended Version, he thus rendereth, J. D. Canon of the Mass. p. 36. 37. Genuflexus, adorat, surgit, ostendit Populo; Here the Priest elevates the sacred Host: whereas this is the genuine Translation, Here the Priest, with bended knee, adoreth the Host: Then he riseth up, and sheweth it to the People.

Again, There is a superstitious levity and want of decence in many Rites, which render them unfit for the solemnity of Divine Worship. The watchings of women on the Eve of the Nativity, together with the consequent nursings and rockings, used sometimes by those of the Roman Communion, are in some degree superstitious. They are apt to raise in the mind a mean and common Idea of our Lord's birth, and they give manifest occasions to profane men, to make [Page] ridiculous a very solemn part of our Christian Faith. In the worship and procession of some Images, the Rites are so apish, that they are fit only for the service of such an Idol, as that in India, spoken of by Vincent le Blanc, which had its Statue made of the Tooth of a Monkey. The very Rituals, and Missals, and Ceremonials of Rome prescribe, too often, very idle and unbecoming Rites, and make a kind of Farce to be the part of the Priest, or rather his humour, who in Carneval-time, went dressed half in the Spanish, and half in the French fashion. Lassels in Voy. to Italy. p. 190. They forbear not such levity in the very use of the Keys: For if a person dieth excommunicate, but with testimonies of a remorse, the Roman Ritual directeth the Priest to give him Absolution Ritual. Roman. p. 61. 62. Ed. Antv. 1617. by whipping the Body, if it remaineth unburied; or the Grave, if the Corps be in it, and it self be part of the consecrated Ground. A like mimical indecence is enjoyn'd by the Roman Missal Missale Roman. in Sabbato Sancto. p: 187, 188. Ed. Paris, 1660. See Pontif. Rom. de officio Sab. Sanct. fol. 192, &c. on a very solemn time, the Eve of Easter. By order of that Missal, all the Lights of the Church are extinguish'd, that they may again be lighted by new consecrated Fire. Procession is made, and the Deacon, who carries on a Pole three Candles in Triangular distance, does enter the Church with much Ceremony, and lighteth one of the extinguished Candles, and cryeth out, The light of Christ. He proceeding to the middle of the Church, lighteth a second Candle, crying out again, The Light of Christ. At last, approaching the Altar, he lighteth a third, and cryeth with a louder voice, The Light of Christ. Nor is there yet an end; for further postures, and lightings of Candles, especially of a great one in the Pulpit called Cereus, and of Lamps, are in such sort required Miss. Ro [...] p. 189., that the whole Ceremony looketh more like to the play of Children, than to the worship of Christian men.

[Page] Of the like levity most of their forms of Consecration may be justly accused. Such is that of the Benediction of a Bell, Pontif. Rom. part 2, fol. 68, &c. which is ceremoniously washed with Salt-water, and Crossed by the Bishop, and by his Ministers carefully wiped.

Such is that of the Dedication and Consecration of a Church, in which the Bishop filleth the Two Diagonal Lines of the Area, with the Latin and Greek Alphabets, writing first from the Corner on the lefthand at his entrance, the Row of the Greek Letters, with the end of his Pastoral-Staff; and then the Latin ones from the corner on his right-hand. Pont. Rom. part 2. fol. 113, &c.

Lastly, Such is that of the Benediction of Chrism, Pontif. Rom. part 3. fol. 186. or a mixture of Balm and Oyl. There the Bishop breatheth three times Cross-wise, over the Chrismal Phial. Then Twelve Priests, after having bowed in order to the Sacrament on the Altar, and the Bishop, proceed to the Table where the Phial is placed. There they successively imitate the Bishop, breathing three times cross-wise over the mouth of the Vessel: which being done, together with their obeisance, a second time to the Sacrament, and the Bishop, they retire for a season. Now it is not readily imagined, by what vertue such forms as these affect the Italians, who are a grave and steddy people. Neither are the Rites solemn enough, which the Greeks sometimes observe; as appeareth at large in Goar and Habertus. And, methinks, those Greeks at Jerusalem Journey of 14 English to Jerus. p. 29. might have better employ'd their Artists, than in making a narrow passage through two Pillars, in order to their creeping through, in imitation of the strait Gate, which leadeth to Life Eternal.

Last of all, The Laws and Rites of Worship which man inventeth, how few and decent soever they appear, become Superstitious, as soon as they are made [Page] equal with the express Laws of God. This Superstition our Saviour condemned in the Pharisees, who usurped the Legislative Power of God, and taught sometimes for necessary Doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9. They made some of their Traditions equal to the most Moral Laws of Moses: Nay, they often were more fond of the Issue of their own Fancy, than of the Edicts of God. They were wont to say, Hieros. Beracoth, fol. 3. ap. D. Lightf. in Matt. 15. 2. p. 185, 186. That the words of the Scribes were more amiable than the words of the Law. Also, That the words of the Elders were more weighty than the words of the Prophets. Many of them vilified the Written Word in comparison of the Cabala, or Oral Tradition of the Elders, which they call'd The Foundation. They held the breach of a Traditional Rite, to be as capital as the violation of a Moral Law; Rabbi Jose teaching, That the eating of bread with unwashed hands, was as great a wickedness as the humbling of an Harlot See Drusius, on Matt. 15. 2.. Hence our Saviour defended the breach of this Tradition by his Disciples, not as it was an innocent Ceremony, but as it was imposed as a necessary part of Religion: the neglect of which defil'd a man, Matt. 15. 20. and rendered him as guilty in Gods sight, as if he had broken a written Law. Nay, they judged of their Saintship rather by the obedience they paid to their own Inventions, than by their observation of Gods Commands. Thus, by the device of their Corban, they made a false estimate of Charity; believing themselves Righteous, whilst they violated the indispensable Law of Love to their Parents.

Some Usages there are not commanded by God, yet acceptable to him, if our high estimation of them, and our indiscreet zeal in their use or imposition, does not become the dead Fly in the Spikenard. I cannot discern such Superstition, as others think they have [Page] done, Culver, Light of Nat. c. 17. p. 176. Some superstitious ones, how devoutly do they complement with a Candle, &c? in uncovering the Head when a light is brought in, and praying for the light of Heaven. I know not what Irreligion there is, in using the like Ceremony when our Neighbour sneezeth; and in wishing his health, or blessing God for his deliverance from the offensive vapour. I mean this, of those persons by whom it doth not appear, but that the inward intention doth accompany the outward sign. A prudent Christian is not offended at him, who on a solemn occasion maketh the sign of the Cross on himself, as an external sign of his Christian Religion. Neither doth he censure those, who well understanding their own tempers, do use fasting before the Eucharist, as an help to devotion: or those who use abstinence on a Saturday with discretion; by way of preparation (as is alledged Abridgement of Christ. Doctr. in Expos. of the Comm. of the Church of Rome. p. 166. by some) for the Holy-day which succeeds it. And he is not well-grounded in the Faith and Charity of a Christian man, who brandeth all those with Superstition, that comply with the Church of England in her Rites, which are neither in their number many, nor indecent, or immoral in their nature; neither are they required as Usages in themselves necessary to Salvation. They are enjoyned and used for the sake of order and comeliness, without which a Church is as it were undressed, and exposed in ungrateful and unbecoming circumstances, to the devout, who with Reason conceive some difgust, as well at the nakedness, as at the paint of their Mother.

There are, then, certain Free-will-offerings both of Churches and single persons, which God Almighty [who as Learned men think, accepted voluntary Sacrifices of Thanksgiving in the infancy of the World; and who most certainly accepted of voluntary dedications of Feasts under the very Law of Moses,] will [Page] not despise under Christianity; when they are presented with piety, humility and prudence. But if any shall perform or enjoyn such Rites, under the notion of indispensable duties; if they shall value them as the weightier matters of Religion, and impose them, as such, with fierceness and intemperate zeal; or if by negative scrupulositie, they shall place Religion in the meer abhorrence of them; they so far cease to be truly devout, and become ridiculously and uncharitably superstitious. God hath not required such things at their hands in such manner, or such a mighty dread of them; neither is he pleased with such Will-worship. Softer words are not to be used towards them who so highly exalt their imagination, as to make it the measure of Gods Will, and inforce those observances, or omissions, as heavenly Laws which the great Governour of the Church hath left to the discretion of his Christian Subjects. Their Usurpation is insufferable, who make more duties and sins than God commandeth or forbiddeth: And nothing but blind and slavish Superstition subjecteth the neck to their uneasie yoke. Lutherus referente Hofner [...] in Saxon. Evang. p. 110. nibil pestilentius in Ecclesiâ potest doceri, quam si ea quae necessaria non sunt, necessaria fiant. Hâc enim Tyrannide—mendacium pro veritate, Idolum pro Deo—colitur.

Let this little suffice here, concerning that corruption in the Laws, Rites and Motives of Worship; it being only spoken in the way to my direct Theme of Idolatry, by which the object of Worship is depraved.

CHAP. II. Of the Notion of Idolatry.

[Page]

IDolatry is either Metaphorical or Proper. By Metaphorical Idolatry, I mean that inordinate love of Riches, Honours, and bodily Pleasures, whereby the passions and appetites of men are made superior to the Will of God: Man, by so doing, making as it were a God of himself and his sensual temper. The Covetous man worshippeth Mammon; he valueth his Gold, [...], in the language of Philo Philo Jud. de Monarch. l. 1. p. 813., as a Divine Image: As if the Image of God were cast, in eminent manner, in that thick Clay spoken of by the Prophet, with which the Issachars of the world do lade themselves. Such Idolatrous estimation of Money, gave to a Mine in Friebert, which contained in it exceeding rich Ore, that high and mighty name of Himmelfurst, or the Prince of Heaven. The Ambitious man, rather than he will want high place, or popular fame, he will in unjust Wars, and unreasonable Duels, offer himself a sacrifice to Honour; an Idol on whose Altars more blood hath been profusely shed, than on those of Moloch or Bellona. To the Glutton, (as Tertullian in his Book of Fasting saith of him, after his sharp manner,) ‘His Belly is his God, his Paunch is his Altar, his Cook is his Priest, his Sawces are his Graces, and his Belching is Prophesie.’ The unchast man owns nothing so Divine as his Harlot, and borroweth the phrases of his Courtship, from the Goddesses and the Shrines, the Temples and the Altars, of the Theologers of the Gentiles, that is, their Poets. Now this excessive value of the things of the [Page] World, is a very high and impious presumption: But because it setteth not up Mammon or the Appetite, as a god, or an object of Religious worship; therefore I call it Metaphorical, and not Proper Idolatry; in which latter subject only, I am at present engag'd.

This kind of Idolatry which I call Proper, is by many supposed a matter of nice and difficult speculation. They think the notion of it too abstruse for common heads; yea, too hard for some Scholastick ones, which are not very accurate in dividing a Cummin-seed. And yet the Holy Writers do every-where reprove the people for this sin, supposing its nature to be commonly understood: and sure it is no other than that which is briefly describ'd by St. Cyprian and Hilary. ‘Then (saith St. Cyprian) is Idolatry committed, when the Divine Honour is given to another. So Hilary the Roman Deacon (sometimes mistaken for St. Ambrose,) doth, in this, place the nature of Idolatry, That it usurpeth the Honour of God, and challengeth it in right of the creature.’ Not unlike to these descriptions is that which we find in the Book of the Reformation Reform. Leg. Eccles. Tit. de Idol. c. 2. p. 32. of Ecclesiastical Laws, begun by Henry the Eighth. ‘Idolatry (saith that Book) is a Worship, in which not the Creator, but the creature, or some figment of man is adored.’ To this worship of the Creature, the Scripture doth frequently give the name of uncleanness. This it hath done, partly in compliance with the Jewish Idiom, which calleth any thing that is detestable, dirty or unclean; the persons of that people being desecrated by corporal pollutions. It hath also done it, by reason of those very unchast Actions and Rites, by which many of the Idols of the Gentiles were served; though in the worship of some few, and particularly in that of Vesta, the great observance was [Page] Chastity. But the Scripture hath, especially, given to Idolatry that name of uncleanness, because it was an alienation of the hearts and bodies of the Jews from the God of Israel, who had, as it were, chosen that Church as his Spouse on Earth. For the like Reason Witchcraft is a sort of Idolatry, because it breaketh Covenant with God, and entreth into solemn league and compact with Daemons.

Now if this common notion seemeth, too briefly, or too generally propounded, I am ready to make a particular enlargement of it in the following definition. ‘Idolatry is a sin, which by inward reverence or outward signs, giveth to some other object, in an act or habit of Religious Homage or Worship, that Honour which is either essential to God; or being communicable, yet appertaining to God only till he hath declared his actual communication of it, is either not at all communicated, or not in that extent or continuance of vertue, which seemeth thereby to be attributed to it.’ This definition containeth in it three branches, which are also three degrees of Idolatry.

First, The Idolater giveth away, sometimes, the essential and incommunicable Honour of God. This he doth two ways; first, when he dethroneth God in his imagination, and setteth up some other object in his place. Thus the Babylonians offended, whil'st they adored the primitive Baal, the Sun, as the best and greatest Deity, not only in their World or Empire, but likewise throughout the Sphere of all things. He doth it, Secondly, when admitting of God, he addeth another principle equal to him; for he that divideth the Empire of God, diminisheth his Honour: He makes him cease to be God, that is, to be One and Supreme. This presumption Pliny, Plin. nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 7. p. 3. chargeth, [Page] in effect, on Democritus, giving to his two Principles, the names of Poena and Praemium, Punishment and Reward; or (as I think) more properly, Avenger and Rewarder. The like fault is found in the Persian Theology, which constituteth (as they say) two Principles; the one the fountain of Good, under the name of Oromasdes; the other the source of Evil, under the name of Arimanius: Although it may appear from Theodorus, in his Book Theodor. Mopsuest. Epist. apud Photium in Biblioth. Cod. 81. p. 199. of the Persian Magick, that both (according to Zarasdas or Zoroaster) were the off-spring of Zaruam, who was own'd as the Prince of all things, and the Father of Hormisda and Satanas, and called [...], or Fortune. Such Idolatry is likewise charged on the Americans of Mexico, who are reported (b) to have had Two thousand gods, and amongst them two principal ones, Tezcatlipuca the c Gages New Survey of the West-Indies. c. 12. p. 116, 117. god of providence, and Vitzilopuchtli the god of the wars. It may be that there was a Deity own'd by them superiour to both these: For what else was intended by that great and superiour Image plac'd on the top of the Chappel of Idols Gage ibid. p. 117. in the City of Mexico? It was either the Statue of the Supreme God, or of the supreme Demon of their Precinct. And why should it not be thought that Mexico own'd one God as well as Peru, in which the Soveraign Principle (as Acosta instructeth us) was called Pachacamac and Viracocha, inferiour to whom they esteemed the Sun and Thunder, their two Principles, (as I guess) of Good and Evil.

In the next place, the Idolater giveth to some other object, that Honour which might have been communicated by Gods Authority, but hath been entirely reserved by his Wisdom, whilest no actual communication of it hath been any way declared. This impiety of his is likewise of two kinds. For he giveth the [Page] Honour which God hath wholly reserved, to some other object, either with respect to some inherent Power with which he supposeth it to be indu'd by God; or with regard to some external Relation which he supposeth to be owned by him. In the first kind the barbarous Goths offended, whilst they worshipped Nocca Ol. worm. monum. Danic. l. 1. c. 4. [a kind of Neptune amongst them] as one to whom a superiour Power had committed the government of their Seas and Rivers; whil'st that Idol possibly, had not so much virtue communicated to him, as might still one puff of Wind, or crush a Bubble. In the second kind, they would have transgressed, who in the Temple of Dagon should have done Religious, though relative and inferiour, reverence to his shapeless Trunk, or even to his Statue in the perfection of its beauty; God having never own'd it as his Image, or the Image of any Deity, or Angel, substituted by him.

Lastly, The Idolater giveth Honour to an Object which God owneth and replenisheth sometimes with virtue, in the quality of the Fountain of that Virtue; whilst God hath not indued it with that constant Power in it self, but used it as the instrument of his Works. The Power which healeth Diseases not curable by Physick, doth not so essentially belong to the Prerogative of God, that he cannot communicate it perpetually to Angel or Man, and invest him in it, without diminution of his own Omnipotence. For it implyeth not a contradiction, for a creature to be able to alter the whole Texture of so little a frame as mans body: Neither is it impossible for man to be, by God, indued with a knowledg, which in a certain precinct, may, by signs in nature, to men unknown, and past their finding out, foretel several accidents which God determineth not to over-rule; such as [Page] Plagues, or healthful Seasons; Famine or Plenty: For this knowledg, though it is not mans natural Talent, is not Omniscience. Yet whil'st this is done by Gods immediate Power, and man is but instrumental in it, he becomes an Idolater, who owneth and thanketh man as the efficient cause. And he is guilty two ways: Either whilst he owneth the Instrument as the efficient Cause, during the time that God maketh use of it, or after God hath ceased to work by it. In the first kind, the Impotent people, who were healed at the Pool of Bethesda, had offended, if they had given thanks to the Angel as to the principal Physician. And against this kind of Idolatry St. Peter gave caution, when seeing the multitude transported with admiration at the recovery of the Cripple, Acts 3. 12. He thus bespake them, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look you so earnestly on us, as though by our own power, or holiness, we had made this man to walk? The offence of the second kind is much greater than this first, because it doth not only give to Gods Instrument the honour due to the Divine Efficient Cause; but it also giveth Divine honour to that, which is not now so much as the Instrument by which God worketh. And this becomes a very Idol indeed, a vanity or lie, or nothing at all of that which it is esteemed to be. The Magical Rod in the Temple of Isis, in imitation of that of Moses, was but an Idol, if it was an Instrument of any wonders; for it was not the Rod of God, but of a Demon. This matter may also be illustrated, both by the instance of the Brazen Serpent set up by one of Gods Vicegerents, and, upon its abuse, destroyed by another; and by that of the Cup of Joseph. This Cup by which he Divined, was, probably, an instrument used in some Sacrifice, some drink-offering; and in the use of [Page] which God vouchsafed him a Spirit of Prophesie, with relation to the affairs of Egypt. Now if the Egyptians afterward made use of this Cup, or any other in form of it, without any precept or promise from God Almighty; and trusted in it, as in the cause of Divination, they then were Idolaters in this last kind of that impiety. And this, one would think, was the Egyptian practice, who readeth Lucian in his Book of Sacrifices, Or rather in his Jupiter Tragaedus. p. 700. for I find nothing like it in his Book de Sacr. though Pignorius, in Exp. Mens. Isiac. p. 31. has thence cited it. and observeth him there deriding the Egyptians, because they made, [...], or, a drinking Pot, a God. And such a Cup may that be thought, which is described in the hand of Isis in her Mystical Table, rather than a Measure, as Pignorius contendeth; as likewise that mentioned by Arnobius Arnob. l. 6. p. 209.—In Liberi dextrâ pendens potorius Cantharus. in the right hand of Bacchus, who often makes a Figure in the forementioned. Table. But this, as it referreth to Joseph, is but conjecture; scarce so much as opinion: I therefore dismiss it. Yet I must not dismiss the Argument it self, till I have further distinguished both concerning the Objects or Idols of that Honour which is given from God; and the ways by which it is translated from the proper to the false Deity.

These Idols are either Personal, Internal, or External Objects. By Personal Objects, I mean the Idolaters themselves, who become their own Statues, and worship their very selves by the estimation they have of their Persons, as Christs, or of their Souls as real portions of the Essence of God; the fancy of some followers of Plotinus of old, who said, ‘Their Souls at death returned to the seminal Reason;’ and of some Quakers at this time, who say, as Edward Burroughs See. F. H. Testimony. the morning before he departed this Life, ‘That his Soul and Spirit was centred in its own being with God.’

[Page] Internal Objects are the false Idea's which are set up in the fancy, instead of God and his Divine perfections. For he who fancieth God under the Idea of Indefinite Amplitude or Extension of matter, or of Light or Flame; or under the notion of an irresistible Tyrant; and applies himself to him as such, without the use of any visible external Statue or Picture; is as certainly an Idolater, as he who worshippeth a Graven Image; for he giveth Divine Honour to an Idea which is not Divine. Only here, the Scene being internal in the Fancy, the scandal of the sin is thereby abated.

External Objects, are such which have a subsistence distinct from the Phantasms which are by motion impressed on the Brain. And the Catalogue of these is a kind of Inventory of nature. I will here give only a summary account of them, for the particulars are endless. Idolaters have worshipped Universal Nature, the Soul of the World, Angels, the Souls of men departed; either by themselves, or in union with some Star or other Body. They have likewise worshipped the Heavens, and in them both particular Luminaries and Constellations; the Atmosphere, and in it the Meteors and Fowls of the Air; the Earth, and in it Man, together with the accidents of which he is the subject, such as Fortitude and Justice, Peace and War. And further, on earth they have deified Beasts, Birds, Insects, Plants, Groves, Hills, artificial and artless Pillars and Statues, Pictures and Hieroglyphics [mean as that of the Scaribee Porphyr. d [...] Abstin. l. 4. p. 155, 156. it self, resembling the Sun so many ways, as Porphyrie fancieth] together with divers fossils and terrestrial Fire. They have furthermore adored the Water [particularly that fruitful one of the Nile] and in it, the Fishes and Serpents and Insects; as likewise the creatures which are doubtful [Page] Inhabitants of either Element; such as the Crocodile in Egypt. Kircher Kircher. in Oedip. AEg. Synt. 5. c. 3. P. 401. hath found the Temples of many of these Idols, even in that polite Nation of China: For he hath a Scheme containing the Temple ‘of the Queen of Heaven, the Temple of Heaven, the Altar of Heaven, the Temple of Demons and Spirits, the Temple of the Planet Mars, the Altar of the God of Rain, the Altar of the King of Birds, the Altar of the Earth, the Temple of the President of Woods, the Temple of Mountains and Rivers, the Temple of the Spirit of Medicine, the Temple of Gratitude, and of Peace, the Temple of the President of Mice, and of the Dragon of the Sea.’ Menander, from Epicharmus Epicharm. ap. Stobe [...]min serm. 89. p. 503.— [...]. summeth up the Idols of the World under these fewer heads, of the Wind, the Water, the Sun, the Earth, the Fire. But he is therefore deficient in his computation; neither was it his purpose to make it accurate. Thus the Image of God who made all things, has (as in a broken mirror) been beheld, without due attention, in the several parts of the frame of the World, and by the foolish Idolater distinctly adored: And this adoration being used towards external Objects, and not confined to mans secret thoughts, hath with the more success and scandalous dishonour to God, been propagated in the World. And this remindeth me of the distinction which I designed also to make, betwixt the ways by which Gods Honour is derived on creatures. For it is either done by the inward estimation of the mind, directing its intention in an Act or course of internal Worship; or by the external signs of Religious Reverence. It is done by both these together, or by either of them apart. There is no publick worship without manifest signs of it; the heart in it self not being discern'd by mans eye, but [Page] discovering it self by external tokens. ‘The Ifraelites (saith St. Cyril) worshipped the Calf; and they did it, by crying out these are thy gods (f).’ a St. Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian. l. 9. P. 308.. In them the mind and the outward signs of it went together. But others, by the meer outward shews of Adoration, how unconcern'd soever they may have kept their minds, have committed Idolatry: Such as the Thurificati in the Primitive Church, who believing the Gospel, offered Incense before an Heathen Idol; that being made a sign of their departure from Christianity, and their approbation of Gentilism. They thereby did an act of open dishonour to the true God; and they used external means apt to incline others, either to worship Idols instead of Him, or to confirm them, if they were already Idolaters, in their detestable profaneness. Such Idolaters (it may be) were some Englishmen, who went to Sea with Mr. Davis, in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, in order to the discovery of a North-West passage to Cataia, China, and East-India. On the 29th of July, in the year 1585, Hakluits Navigations. P. 778. they discovered Land in 64 degrees and 15 minutes of Latitude bearing North-East from them. They found this Land an heap of Islands, on one of which they went on shoar. There some few of the Natives made towards them; and amongst that little herd of barbarous people, one pointed first upwards wirh his hand to the Sun, and then smote his breast with very vehement force. The English aptly interpreting this sign as an acknowledgment of the Deity of the Sun, and an Oath by that Idol, of fidelity and peace, used the same sign themselves; gaining thereby Friendship and Traffick with a few Salvage People, at the expence of the most valuable thing, the Honour of God.

Of this external Honour, he is jealous, and he reserved [Page] it to himself, amongst the Jews whom he had espoused, by express command, saying, Lo tischtachaveh, Thou shalt not, before an Image or Idol, put thy Body into such a figure, as is a sign of worship. In the same sence ought to be interpreted the [...], of the Seventy [Thou shalt not bow down;] the word [...], not denoting there, a meer act of the mind, but of the body, either by bowing of its whole frame, or its head, or knee, or (which the notation of the word particularly importeth) by the kissing of the hand, [...]. Eustath. ad 5 Odyss. a common ceremony among the Gentile Idolaters; and ancient as the times of Job Job 31. 26, 27. Three ways of exhibiting such external reverence are suggested by the Psalmist Psal. 95. 6.—Prosternamur, Incurvemus nos, genuflectamus. See Petr. Picherell. de Imagin. P. 225, 226, 227, &c., where he calls upon the people, to worship with prostration, to bow, to kneel before God their Creator. For the sake of external worship, solemn Days and publick Assemblies have in great part been appointed: By it, our Light (which retained in the heart only, is as a Lamp burning in a Sepulchre,) doth so conspicuously shine before men, that it induceth them to an happy consent in glorifying God with us. By it, is maintain'd the visible Society of Gods Church, whose outward communion is preserved by the external signs of words, gestures and actions, relating to the Christian Religion, and making up the profession of it. This Communion he, in effect, renounceth, who pretending to the heart of a Christian, hath the tongue of a Blasphemer, or the gesture of an Idolater: who, whatsoever secret thoughts he entertaineth concerning God, saith openly of him, that he is not Supreme: or, what inward hatred soever he conceiveth against Idols, sitteth in their Temples, and eateth of their Sacrifice. ‘External Ceremonies (as is said Concil. Rhem. inter Conc. Max. P. 73. Externae Ceremoniae sunt institutae ad declarandam suam in Deum affectionem. by the Fathers of the Synod of Rhemes) are therefore appointed, [Page] that by them a declaration may be made of our affection towards God.’ And common Reason teacheth, that by giving away the outward signs of worship, we are prodigal of the internal Honour of God, which cannot be preserved or advanced amongst Societies of men, meerly by a secret and invisible Intention.

Hitherto I have pursued the notion of Idolatry in a positive way, according to the proper nature of Worship, in which the Act passeth towards the Object. But it may not be amiss to take a little notice of a kind of negative impiety, which precedeth this positive false-worship; and to which, some it may be would give the name of negative Idolatry. I mean by this, that denial of any thing in the Idea of God which is proper to it, succeeded by a Worship of Him according to that maimed and unagreeable Idea. For the Idea of God being so intire that, by any diminution, it becometh the Idea of something else; he that first removes part of the Idea, and then adores the remainder; adores, as God, that which is not like him. He, for instance sake, who denies the constancy of Gods knowledg of human affairs, yet worships him at certain times, in which he owneth him to have that knowledg (after the manner of those foolish Gentiles who worshipped the Sun by day, and revelled by night when they thought he saw not;) such a one, by breaking of such a necessary part of Gods Idea, as renders it not his Image, and yet adoring it as such, first makes an Idol, and then doth it homage. So the god of the Muggletonians rob'd of his Spirituality, immensity, subsistences; what is he but their Idol?

The Premisses being considered, it will thence follow That in giving the Honour of God, supreme or subordinate, to any other thing, be it internal Idea, or personal [Page] Principle, or outward Object, with respect to any supposed, inherent, Divine Power, original or derived, or to any external Relation, by internal worship, and by the external signs of it, or by either of them, consisteth the Notion of Idolatry; the thing designed in this Chapter.

CHAP. III. Of the Causes and Occasions of Idolatry in the World.

IT hath appeared in the foregoing Chapter, what kind of evil Idolatry is and how it hath spread it self into numberless branches. In this Chapter, my purpose is to proceed further, and to inquire into the Root of it, and to consider from what Causes and Occasions it hath sprung; and on what rotten and irrational grounds it is bottom'd. The general Cause of Idolatry, is the degenerate estate of the Soul, exerting it self in the headiness of the Will, which hurrieth men to folly, under the wild conduct of Imagination and Sense. The Scripture calleth this distemper, The vanity of the mind; and to it it ascribeth the Worship of Idols. Of such Worshippers St. Paul observeth, Rom. 1. 21. That when they knew God, [or had means of knowing him, by the reasoning of their minds, excited by the beauty, order, and excellence of his Works of Creation and Providence], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination, and their foolish heart was darkened. In this estate of moral darkness they mistook, and confounded the Objects they met [Page] with; and honoured the Creature instead of God.

It is difficult, if not impossible, at this distance from persons and things, to tell the causes and occasions of all their mistakes: Neither could it have been done fully by the wisest of those times. For the love of Idols in some, like that of Persons in others, was an unaccountable passion. That therefore which I here undertake, is not a full, certain, and manifest; but a competent, and probable account.

Those who worshipped Universal nature as an entire Object, or the several visible parts of it distinctly, were led to such adoration, by one more general Cause, and by divers which were more special. The more general cause of the worship of material nature, either in its own form, or in the shapes put upon it by Art, is the natural inclination of the mind in this body to help it self by sensible Objects. The substance of God Almighty is not an Object which our mind can comprehend, much less is our acutest sight able to reach it. This Principle many own'd amongst the Heathens. Such were they mention'd by Porphyrie Porphyr. ap. Euseb. de praep. Evangel. l. 3. c. 7. p. 98. who, that they might signify the invisibility of Gods Essence, painted his Statues with black. Such were the Egyptians, remembred by Plutarch, who did therefore make the Crocodile an emblem of God, because that creature, by the help of a pellucid membrane descending from his forehead, was able (as they vulgarly conceited) to see with closed eyes, without being seen. Now man living, as it were, in the confines of Heaven and Earth, his coelestial mind being united to a body of gross flesh and blood; his understanding receiveth instruction through the gates of the outward senses, and is, in especial manner, assisted by Phantasms which Light pictureth in the Brain. This frame of man rendreth him covetous in his speculations, [Page] of the help of some external and visible Object. And amongst the numerous progeny of mankind, there are very few heads metaphysical enough for that Proverb of the Arabians Erpen. Proverb. Arab. p. 2.; Shut up the five Windows, that the House may be fill'd with Light. It is the same thing to the vulgar, not to appear, and not to be; and they would therefore have a visible Deity, and one who might in a more bodily manner be present with them. For this Reason, when Osiris was worshipped throughout Egypt, and his living Image was visible only in the superior part of it, the Metropolis of Memphis; the Priests took occasion to set on foot a Schism; and those of Heliopolis would also have a sacred Bull, that their Deity might be as visible and present to them, as to the other Egyptians. This Reason the Brachman gave to Monsieur Bernier Bernier in his Letter to Mr. de la Mothe le Vayer. p. 171, 172. for the erection of the Statues of Brahma, and of other Deiitas or Deities: To wit, That something might be before the eyes of the worshipper, for the fixing of his mind. Of the like temper were the Heathens spoken of by Lactantius in his second Book of the Origine of Error, Lactant. p. 146. Sed [...]erentur nè omnis Religio eorum inanis sit, & vana, si nihil in praesenti videant, quod adorent. They were jealous lest all their Religion should be a vain beating of the Air, if they saw nothing present which they might adore.

This Affection then for Sense, this wisdom of the Flesh, is a general Cause of the Worship of material Idols. But they being of divers kinds, have accordingly divers more special Causes.

Such who worshipped Universal Nature, or the Systeme of the material World, perceived first that there was excellency in the several parts of it; and then, to make up the grandeur and perfection of the Idea, they joyned them alltogether into one Divine Being. Thus, probably, did Idolaters: But Atheists also serv'd themselves on this Pretence, as they do at this day, [Page] seldome receding from any profitable Art. Such a one of old, was Pliny, who maketh God and Nature the same Plin. nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 7. p. 4.—Per quae [nempe illa quae ne quidem Deus potest] declaratur haud dubi [...] naturae potentia, id (que) esse quod Deum vocamus.. And such a one, in these times, is the bold Author of Tractatus Theologico-politicus, Tract. Theol. polit. c. 6. de Mirac. p. 100. Ed. 2. virtus & potentia materiae ipsa Dei virtus & potentia; Leges autem & Regulae naturae, ipsa Dei Decreta, &c. who defineth God, the infinite power of matter.

Those who worshipped Nature in the parts of it, were such (as Pliny observeth) who laboured under a weakness and narrowness of imagination. It was his opinion Plin. ubi suprà. p. 3., That frail and wearied mortality, mindful of its own infirm condition, distributed Nature into its several parts, that every one might worship that portion of it which was useful to him. Usefulness, indeed, was a common motive; And Cicero affirmeth (in his first Book of the Nature of the Gods) That the Egyptians consecrated no Beast, from whence they did not derive some profit. And in his second Book of the same Argument, he citeth it, as the saying of Perseus the Scholar of Zeno, That they were held to be Gods, from whom great advantage accrued to mans life. Neither is there any name so commonly given, amongst all Nations, to Divine Power, as that which signifieth the Goodness of it. Such is the ancient Kod of the Germans, in the Vocabulary of Goldastus, and their more modern Gott, or God Gott a Teut. Gut, bonus. which we have borrowed from them. But Usefulness, though it was a very common motive, yet it was not the only one which inclined the World to Idolatry. For that which ravished with its Beauty [as the Rainbow, worshipped, saith Josephus Acosta, by the Peruvians; though not by those of Egypt who dwelt under a serene Heaven]: That which affrighted with its malignant Power, [as the Thunder, worshipped, saith the same Acosta, by the Yncas of Peru; and by the ancient Germans also, who as, Grotius noteth, Grotii Proleg. Histor. Gott. & Va [...] dal. p. 21 called their God of Heaven by the name of Thorn, which [Page] signifieth him that Thundereth]: That which astonish'd with its greatness [as the mighty swellings of the Earth in high Mountains, worshipped here by the ancient ush. de Primord. Eccles. Britan. p. 2. Britains]: That, I say, which was beautiful, hurtful, Consultwisd- 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7. or Majestick, became a Deity, as well as that which profited with its use. Now all these powers being united in the Sun, whose beauty is glorious, whose heat scorcheth and refresheth, and is the cause of barrenness in some places, and in others of fruitfulness; whose motion is admirable, whose Globe of Light appeareth highly exalted; That, of all other parts of the visible World, hath been the celebrated Idol.

For other parts of insensible nature, lesser virtues were discerned in them: But their motion, and the cause of it, being either not known, or not consider'd, the Gentiles esteemed of them as such Subjects, in which a coelestial vigor resided. Ignorance of nature was, in them, the Mother of Idolatry; as ignorance in Art was the cause of that admiration amongst the Caribbians, which ascribed the effect of Fire-locks Hist. of the Carib. Isl. p. 272. to a Demon. On the same account Garlick and Onions obtain'd the reputation of Deities in Egypt. Of such St. Chrysostom somewhere taketh notice, and of the Apology which they made, saying, That God was in the Onion, though the Onion was not God. By this Onion, they meant not the common and very delicious one among them, which they were not forbidden to violate, but did daily eat it; but a certain Scilla which poysoned Mice, and had a strange fiery virtue in it, and was called the Eye of Typhon. And I suppose it to be of the same kind with that, of which the juice was used in the Lustration of Menippus in Lucian, when he was initiated into the mysteries of Zoroaster Lucian. in Necyomantia. p. 159. Ad Tigridem me fl [...]vium ducens, purgavit simul at (que) abster fit, sace (que) lustravit, [...].. It decreased saith [saith [Page] Kircher Oedip. Egypt, Theatr. c. [...]. P. 74, 75.] in the increase of the Moon; and increased in the decrease of it: for the truth of which, let it rest upon the Relato.

Concerning Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and Insects, they, in like manner, were ador'd for their beauty, their beneficial, hurtful, or astonishing properties. They were sometimes worshipped, for these and other such reasons, in the whole species of them: For so Diana, being turn'd (as they feigned) into a Merula, [a Mearl, or Black-bird] the whole kind of them was made sacred, in the quality of her living Statues. Sometimes some one sort of them was worshipped by reason of a particular effect of theirs, esteemed of with high veneration by the World. So the Mice Sminthoi were deified, Clem. Alex. Admon. ad Gent. p. 25. which eat in sunder the Cables of the Enemies of Troas. Likewise, such living creatures were worshipped as Beings, which contained in them the Souls of some departed Hero's, Friends, and Benefactors; or which were, themselves, portions of the Soul of the World. Beasts at this day, are upon both these accounts idoliz'd by the Pendets of Indostan Berni [...]rs Memoirs. Tome. 3. p. 154, 155, 156.. And after this manner it is, that they explain the several appearances of their Deity; of which the first, they say, was in the nature of a Lion, the second of a Swine: a strange Cabbala, and such as the Jews themselves will disown.

Touching Artificial things, and lifeless Statues, the more Jgnorant sort worshipped them for their surprizing form, and costly matter. Such the Bramins in India moved to the worship of the great Idol Resora fixed nigh Jagrenate, which is one of the mouths of Ganges. For they fram'd him very curiously, and set him forth very richly; giving him two Diamonds Taverni [...]'s Travels into India. part 2. l. 3. c. 9. p. 173. for his Eyes, and hanging another about his Neck: And of these, the least weighed about Fourty Carats. [Page] Others, not so very ignorant as to think, with the former, that the Deity was Gold or precious Stones; Acts 17. venerated their Images, as the places of residence of Divine Powers, or perhaps, as their Bodies or Closets; their Temples being their Houses or common dwelling-places. These were sacred to their Gods, not as shelters of their Statues Arnob. adv. Gentes. l. 6. p. 192. from Sun, Wind, or Rain (as the Heathens in Arnobius cunningly apologize) but as instruments whereby they might have their Gods with them, behold them before their Eyes, speak immediately to them, and with them, as present persons, mingle, as it were, their Religious Colloquies.

Many Figures, Statues, and Images were made, at first, for very differing ends. They were made, as Memorials of a departed Child Wisd. 14. 15, 16., or Friend, or Hero See Mandeslo's Travels concern. the Pillars of the Japoneses. p. 154.: As Remembrancers of a living Friend or Governour, Wisd 14. 17. remaining at a distance from us on earth; as Monuments of some great Accidents in the World, and preservers of the memory of things to late posterity; the use (they say) of the Pillars of Seth. Likewise, they were made as Mathematical Instruments, as also as Hieroglyphicks, and mystical Emblems; such as a Dog, the emblem of Sagacity; and an Egg, the Hieroglyphick of the material World. The vanity of man, the Imposture of the Heathen Priests, the artifice and splendour of the Statues themselves Wisd. 14. 18. The singular diligence of the Artificer did help to set forward the ignorant to more superstition.; effects, apt to stir up admiration, which followed their setting up, or their remove, or their worship, though arising from other undiscerned Causes; together with a multitude of feigned stories concerning their original or their discovery: These things inclin'd the World to an opinion, that they were receptacles of Divinity. Each Temple of the Heathen was like that mentioned by Lucian in his Second Book of true Histories, a Temple of Imposture Luciani ver. Hist. l. 2. p. 403.— [...].: [Page] And many Images were but the Instruments of Juglers. Some of them were feigned to sweat and move [as those in the great Temple of Syria, mention'd by the Author Lucian. De deâ Syriâ. p. 1059. of the Syrian Goddess]. Some were made very beautifully; and some in such horrid shapes, that they almost affright us in their Pictures: Such are those Pictures which Lorenzo Pignoria has added Cart. Seconda parte delle Imagini de i Dei. p. 374, 375, 377, 378, 387, 390, 393, 394, 396, 397, 398, 399. to the Book of Cartari, concerning the Images of the ancient Gods. Some were in such manner contriv'd that they seem'd to hold immediate commerce with Heaven: Thus, in the Image of Serapis at Alexandria, See Kircher's Oëd. AEg. Synt. 3. c. 5. p. 199. a little Window was so framed by Art, that the Sun shone on the eyes, lips, and mouth of it; and that the people believed it to be kissed by that Deity. Some have been feigned to drop down from the Heavens [as those of Troy and Ephesus]: Some to have been transported from place to place, in the Air, [as the forementioned Image of Serapis, said to be translated, in a moment, from Pontus to Alexandria]: And some, by direction of Spirits, to have been digged out of the earth; or to have been miraculously pulled out of the Sea [as the Golden Tripos of Apollo]. And pity it is that such Arts should be used by them who profess the Christian Religion, which needeth no pious frauds for the support of it, but is best propagated, as it was from the beginning, by plain and sincere dealing. But some Roman-Catholicks have, too frequently, imitated the Sophistry of the Heathens; and particularly, in promoting the dangerous worship of our Lady, at Loreto and Guadalupa. It seems, that her Image lay concealed in this latter place, for the space of more than 600 years, till it was, by miracle (as they say), after this manner discovered See Bzov. ad Ann. 1313. & Hotting. Eccles. Histor. vol. 3. p. 789. See also themirac. discov. of our Ladies Image on Mount Serat, in Aug. Wichman's Sabbatismus Marianus. c. 5. p. 47, 48:. An Heardsman seeking his strayed Cow, found her at last, but to appearance [Page] dead. He went about, therefore, to take off her Skin; but whilst he was attempting of it, the Beast, to his great astonishment, did miraculously revive. Then, also, did the Holy Virgin appear to him in glorious splendor, and bid him not fear. And she, further, gave him order to call the Ecclesiasticks of the City, and in her name to promise them, that if they digged in that place, they should find her Image. The poor man fearing they would not believe his report, she promised to enable him with this sign: to wit, That he finding his Child dead at home, should be able, by his word, to raise it to life again before them. This being done, the Image is sought and found (for they that hide, have ill memories if they can't find again); and it is plac'd in a magnificent Temple, and it becomes famous for working Miracles [true as that of its own discovery]. By such Arts as these, the people being induced to think that Images were the dwelling-places of Divine Powers, it was difficult for them that had blind zeal, thenceforth, to suspend their Religious veneration. The like means inclin'd them to worship Beasts or Birds, as shrines and living Statues of some Deity. Thus the Egyptians made the figure of the Bird Ibis the emblem of their Delta, which it seems, by its open Bill it represented Schualenberg in Aphorism. Hieroglyphic. l. 17. p. 117, 118.; [though my fancy conceiveth not how it could represent the Basis of it] and therefore, under the favour of Schualenberg, it fixeth rather on the Passus Ibidis or Trigon it made at every step. To this they added, That a certain Medicine of extraordinary virtue was found out by those Birds; that a Feather of them stupified the Crocodile; that they were hatch'd out of the Egg of a Basilisk; that they defended Egypt from the flying Serpents of Arabia. And this was enough, with that Idolatrous Nation, to turn [Page] the bodies of those Birds, and the very figures of them likewise, into Receptacles and Treasuries of Celestial virtue; and to give Religious honour to them.

Concerning men on earth, the pride and pomp of the great, and the low and slavish dispositions of the mean, begat sometimes the flattery, sometimes the worship of them, as Gods in humane shape. This Honour was arrogated by Nebuchadnezzar, who erected a mighty Colossus of Gold to no other Deity than himself, requiring sacrifice and Religious adoration to be offered to it: which when Sidrac, Misach and Abednego refused to do, he expostulated with them after the manner of an eminent Deity, saying, What God is there potent enough to deliver you out of my hands? Of this blasphemous arrogance there were many instances in succeeding Ages, and that of Alexander cannot escape the common Reader; and he may find too many others in the Book of Political Idolatry, written by the Learned Filesacus. This kind of Idolatry flatterers helped forward, and promoted as much as in them laid, even amongst Christian Princes. They fram'd for them the heavenly stile of [their Divinity, and their Divine Precept:] words said to be used by Theodosius and Valentinian themselves. By Filesacus who referreth to l. 1. Cod. de sum. Trin. Tit. 1.—Ex Coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus. Though that may be meant of Arbitr. divinum. See Gothof. in 16. Cod. Theod. de Fide Cathol. p. 5. Pacatus Drepanius, in his Panegyric to Theodosius the Great, describes the Emperour, as one, from whom Navigators expect a calm Sea; Travellers, a safe return; and Soldiers Victory. And of Constantine the Son of Constantius, the uncertain Author of his Panegyrick affirmeth in deep Complement; That his Beauty was great as his Divinity was certain. But much of this flattery is so gross, that it can scarce be swallowed by the common people, who, in private, smile at their own publick fawnings.

[Page] For Spirits of all kinds; men have seen some Apparitions, and heard of more: They have also had notions in the brain, representing to them Images as spectres in the Air: They have rightly judged the Soul so Divine in its operations, as to superexist: They have seen many external effects, and could not guess at the Cause, or ascribe it with such probability to Nature, as to some higher invisible Power: They have seen appearances in the Heavens; and the very appearances have form'd in their fancy, the counterfeit Idea of a Spirit. For so the Heathen of the Eastern India Berniers Memoirs. Tom. 3. p. 180. believed the shadow of the Moon on the Eclipsed Sun, to be a black Demon contending with it. Men thus believing, partly from good, and partly from fanciful Reasons, the existence of Demons and Ghosts; and apprehending them, truly, as more spiritual, active, and superiour Beings; it is not to be admired that their weakness ador'd them as dispensers of good and evil here below.

Touching Souls departed in particular; Gratitude deified some, but Admiration put more names into the Calendar. The people were transported by their power and splendor on Earth, and they thought their Puissance would increase in higher Regions. Souls appeared otherwise to their mind, than Bodies do to the eye, to which they seem the lesser the higher they ascend. And to this end, the Devil was wont to represent Ghosts unto the eye or fancy of the Gentiles in vast proportions Juven. sat. 13. —Tua sacra & major Imago humanâ, turbat pavidum—Dido ap. Virg. AEn. 4. Et nun [...] magna mei sub Terras ibit Imago.. Such mighty figures Jamblichus, where he writeth of the Egyptian mysteries, ascribeth to Principalities and Archangels. So that Solomon Prov. 21. 16. Lxx. [...]. might aptly call the state of the dead, the Congregation of [Rephaim] or Gyants. Towards the advancement of the Souls of Heroes in the opinions of the Idolizers of them, much was contributed, [Page] by strange appearances, real or invented, at the time of their death. So the Soul of Paul the Hermite was the more divinely esteemed of, because S. Anthony (as they tell us) saw it flying to Heaven See Martyrol. Roman. in Jan. 10.. So Julius Caesar became one of the Roman gods, whilst a Comet C. Sueton. In vitâ Jul. Caes. ad fin. p. 70. shining for Seven days together, was judg'd to be his Soul receiv'd into Glory. And this conceit they further inculcated, by adding a Star to the top of his Statue. Such Canonization of Heroes hath likewise been promoted by strange effects, done or counterfeited at their Sepulchres; and sometimes by their obscure manner of going out of the World, which the people esteem'd an heavenly translation. Empedocles hoping this way to arrive at Divine honour, threw himself secretly into the flames of AEtna; but his two Pattens which that Gulf of Fire cast up, discovered his vain and miserable end.

Concerning the Soul of the World, men seeing in all parts of the Creation motion and virtue judged erroneously of the greater World, as they did truly of the lesser world of Man; and made one Soul to be the Sovereign principle which actuated every part of it. And some of the Stoicks Seneca, de Benef. l. 4. c. 7. p. 427.—Quid enim aliud est natura, quam Deus, toti mu [...] do & partib [...]s ejus inserta? esteem'd this Soul as a Form informing the Universe: But the Platonists judged it rather a Form assistant, imagining it unsutable to its Deity to be mixed with, or vitally united to the grossest subcelestial matter; and to have perception of all the motions of it. This conceit is driven very far by the Indian Cabalists, or Pendets Bernier's Memoirs, Tom. 3. p. 178, 179.. Creation (say those Doctors) is nothing else but an extraction and an extension which God maketh of his own substance, of those webs he draws from his own bowels; as destruction is nothing else but a reprisal, or taking back again of this Divine substance, and these Divine webs into himself; so that the last day of the World,[Page]which they call Maperle or Pralea, when they believe that all shall be destroyed, shall be nothing else but such a general Reprisal. This conceit, in the superstitious, maketh all things in nature adorable as parts of God: And in the Atheistical it deifieth nothing at all; for at the bottom of this imagination, they think they see not God but Nature. With them Pornut. de naturâ deorum, p. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8. Coelum is the material Heaven, Juno is the upper Air, Neptune is the natural cause of water in the Caverns of the Earth, Pluto is the thick Air next to this Globe, and Rhea is the natural cause of showers.

Towards all the Idolatries already mention'd, much was contributed by the figurative expressions of Orators, especially by their Apostrophe's in the Encomiums of departed Hero's; as also by the elegant fictions of Poets, whose invention hath been justly reputed one of the great store-houses of Idols. And for the Idolatry of Qualities, I know not whence to fetch it so readily as by going thither. For though the first ground of it was the consideration of many of these Qualities, in their eminent degree, as means by which the Pagan Heroes were Deified Lex 12: Tab. Tit. de Rel. Illos quos in Coelum merita vocâ [...]unt, Herculem, Liberum, AEseulapium, Castorem, Pollucem, Quirinum. Et Illa propter quae datur bujusmodi adscensus in Coelum: mentem, virtutem, pietatem, fidem; earum laudum delubra sunto:; yet Poetry helped on that cause, by shaping these Qualities into personal Powers, negotiating, as it were, betwixt Heaven and Earth, and conveighing them, as the Angels did the Soul of Lazarus, into a more heavenly habitation. Poets design to move, to surprize, to make deep impression on the People. They cannot do this so readily, by proposing abstracted Truths to the mind, as by cloathing them in such Metaphors and Pictures as may affect the brain. Hence it is that they have used such a variety of fictions, in which they have cloathed every thing they say, with the appearances of a Person. Peace, and War, Fame and Justice, have such personal shape and action given to them, as is [Page] necessary for the making a greater impression upon the Hearers. For (to give an ordinary instance in this matter) it doth not so much affect us when a man says barely, that a Kingdom shall want supplies of Bread, as when he describes famine riding towards us pale and meager upon a Sceleton of Man or Beast attended with thousands of such ghastly objects; from whence the uncloathed bones stare upon us, and tell us that we after the dreadful extremities of hunger and thirst, enforcing us to prey upon Toads and Serpents, upon our Relations, and our very selves, shall become lean, languishing, dying, as they.

By this transitory view of the Causes and Occasions of Idolatry, so full of folly, error, and mistake, it manifestly appeareth, upon what weak and clay-like feet the Idols stand, which the world hath worship'd with so vigorous a Devotion.

CHAP. IV. Of the Time in which the Vanity of Man introduced Idolatry into the World.

[Page]

THe Nature and Causes of Idolatry being considered, I intend in the next place to inquire into the time of its Birth, so far as the silence or uncertainty of Tradition will permit. It is one of the Aphorisms of Philo the Elder (if he were the Author of the Book of Wisdom), that Idols Wisd. 14. 13. were not from the beginning: And it is a question among the Learned, whether Idolatry was any of those pollutions which defiled the old World, and brought the deluge upon it. It doth not appear that it was extant before the flood; and many believe it to be no older than Cham. Tertullian, it is true, was of opinion that Idolatry began in the days of Seth, and that Enoch restored true Religion, and is for that Reason said in Scripture to have walked with God. He hath given us his opinion, but he hath concealed the grounds of it: And I can think of nothing so likely to move him to this belief, as the reverence he had for the fictitious Prophesie of Henoch, which he often citeth See Tertul. de Idolatr. Sect. 4. p. 87, &c.—Idem Enoch simul & cultores Idoli & fabricatores in comminatione praedamnat., and in which are contained severe Comminations, both against the makers, and worshippers of Idols.

S. Cyril of Alexandria is much of another mind, affirming in his first Book against Julian the Apostate, S. Cyr. Alex. l. 1. contr. Jul. p. 16. [...], &c. That all men, from Adam to the days of Noah, worshipped that God who by nature was one. And he strengtheneth his opinion with this Reason Cyr. Alex. Ibid. p. 17. A. & l. 3. p. 110. A., Because no man is[by Moses] accused as a worshipper of [Page]other gods, and impure Demons. If that false Religion had then set foot in the World, it would scarce have escaped that Divine Historian; but he would, in likelihood, both have mention'd it plainly, and severely reproved it. For this is no sin of a mean stature: It is, in the judgment of Tertullian Tertullian thus begins his Book de Idol. Principale crimen Generis bumani, summus seculi reatus, tota causa Judicii Idolatria., the principal crime of mankind, the chief guilt of the world; the total cause of Gods judgment, or displeasure. He meaneth that it is a kind of Mother-sin, containing in it all other evils, on which the Judg of the World passeth sentence of condemnation. Lactantius goeth higher still in his censure of it Lactant. lib. 1. Instit. c. 18. p. 94., giving to it the name of an inexpiable wickedness. And S. Gregory Nazianzen sheweth what apprehension he had of the greatness of this guilt, when he calleth it Greg. Naz. Orat. 38. de Idol. [...]. The last and first of evils. So monstrous a sin, if it had been in those early times committed, it would, a man would think, have been as soon reflected on by Moses, as the violence or injustice which then filled the earth, Gen. 6. 11, 12, 13. or the unclean mixtures of the sons of God Gen. 6. 1, 2. with the daughters of men: [That is, as I guess, (in the same sense in which the tall Trees of Lebanon are called the Cedars of God) the unbridled appetites of the High and Potent, who made their Power subservient to their lust.]

In the infancy of the World, there were many Causes which might prevent the sin of Idolatry. By the fresh date of it from the Creation, in which God, almost beyond miracle it self, discovered his Almighty Being and Oneness; by the appearance of the [...], or Son of God to Adam and others [of which appearance, largely afterwards]; by the long-lives of Adam and Seth, and the rest of the Holy Line, who could often inculcate to their families, what themselves were so abundantly assured of; and possibly also, by the [Page] conviction of him who was the head of the degenerate Line, unrighteous Cain himself, who having seen God in his Shechinah, could not propagate either direct Atheism or Idolatry, though he was the Father of evil manners: By these, and perhaps by other Causes to us unknown, it might come to pass, that the worship of Idols was either not in being, or at least, not in frequent exercise in those first Generations.

We know nothing of those times but by the Pen of Moses; and a doubtful word of his Gen. 4. 26. [...] hath inclin'd some to refer the Origine of Idolatry to the days of Enos. In his time (saith Moses) men began to Profane, as some would render his Text, instead of translating it as our Church doth, to call upon, the Name of the Lord. It is true that the Hebrew word, Hochal, doth sometimes signifie Prophaned: But there is no Reason which may enforce such an exposition of it in this place; the Name of God having been formerly profaned, and with great irreverence abused in the irreligious Families of Cain and Lamech. Neither is the termination of our worship on the creature, instead of the Sovereign God, the only prophanation of his Holy Name. A rude Tongue, and an immoral Life commit that offence; and not only an Idolatrous mind or body. Such profaneness the Arabian Metaphrast imputeth to that time, whilst he thus turneth the Hebrew of Moses: Then began men to recede from their obedience to God. But to me, the Chaldee Interpreter seemeth to come nigher to the scope of the Words, the sense of which he expresseth in this manner: In those days men began to make supplications in the name of the Lord. That is, the numbers of Families increasing in the days of Enos, they appointed more publick places for Gods service, in which at set-times, they might together, and in a more solemn Congregation, [Page] worship their great Creator. I must confess that this exposition doth much disagree with the mind of Maimonides. For he doth not only refer Maimon. de Idolatr. c. 1. p. 3. the beginning of Idolatry to the times of Enos, but he accuseth Enos himself of that gross and stupid wickedness. For thus he begins that short Book which he hath written on that Subject. In the days of Enos men erred very greatly; and the minds of the wise-men of that age were overborn with stupidness: Even Enos himself was one of them who thus erred. Now this was their error, the worship of the Stars. A very rash and rude reflexion upon so holy a Patriarch, and relishing of Rabbinical dotage. For certainly divers of those Writers, if any others, have had a flaw in their Imaginations; though Maimonides, amongst them all, may be allowed the largest intervals of sobriety.

From Cham, therefore, rather than from Enos, the Learned derive the beginning of Idolatry; though I know not whether, under him, it may not be dated a little too soon. The heart of Cham being before the flood deeply depraved, it was rather hardened by the escape, than warned by the mighty danger of that general Deluge. Insomuch that it was just with God to give him up to the further seducement of his sensuality, and to the visible power of the old Serpent, who may seem to have been, for a time, chained down by the Curse in Paradise, but was now (as I conjecture) let loose again for the punishment of those, whom Gods severe and miraculous discipline did not cleanse of their folly. He therefore is esteemed the Father of Idolatry, that Monster in Religion, which in his corrupt Loyn was, by degrees, multiplied into innumerable heads. But S. Cyril of Alexandria, in two places beginneth Idolatry at the confusion of Languages, and with Belus rather than Cham Cyril. Alex. contra Julian. l. 1. p. 17. & l. 3. p. 110.; esteeming [Page] the difference of their Dialects, and the distraction of their opinions concerning God, to have commenced together S. Cyr. ibid. [...]. See Elucidar. (inter Op. Anselm.) I. 2. c. 20. p. 475. de Orig. Idol.—Apud Babel, &c.. For the critical minute, it is uncertain; yet for the first objects of Idolatry, we may assent to him; and them he makes to be the Sun and the other heavenly bodies: But the Sun in the first place. That was the most glorious object which ravished the eye, and it shewed it self no-where more gloriously than in the plains of Chaldea. In those plains the Tower of Babel was built, and (as my private imagination leadeth me to think) consecrated by the builders to the Sun, as to the most probable Cause of drying up mighty Waters. This Tower is thought to have beenbuilt inPyramidal form, according to theScheme which we have of it in the frontispiece of Verstegan. And this form was not improper (though much unlike the figure of its Globe) because it expressed its fiery nature; the fire ascending in a conical shape. The Ancients (saith Porphyry Porphyr. ap. Euseb. de prap. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. p. 98. cited by Eusebius) did set forth the nature of Fire by Pyramids and Obelisks; and dedicated Statues of divers figures to the Olympick gods, as a Cone to the Sun, and a Cylinder to the Earth. But all will not allow this kind of reasoning to have place here; such Philosophical considerations being thought by them matters much later than the times of Babel. But for the building of Towers or Pyramids as Altaria, or high Altars, to the Sun and other heavenly bodies, the practice is ancient, and very general. The Sun was not, meerly, a god of the Hills; yet the Heathen thought it suitable to his advanced station, to ascend them, and to worship him upon ascents, either natural, or, as was necessary in such flat Countries, artificial; that they might come as nigh as they could to the Deity they worshipped. Accordingly Abenephius [Page] the Arabian, in Kircher Kircher in Oedip. Synt. 4. c. 12. p. 310., testifieth that the Pyramids of Egypt were called, by their Priests, the Altars of the Gods, and that they wrote on them Theological Mysteries. The same Kircher noteth, Kircher ibidem. See als [...] p. 308, 309. that the Coptites called them the Pillars and Altars of Deities: That Bama is said, by Vatallus, to signifie properly a very high place for sacrifice; that such a one is mentioned by Virgil, as sacred to Juno: And that Lucan Vota (que) Pyramidum celsas solvuntur ad aras. speaketh of Pyramids, as the Egyptian Priests and Coptites had done. The Pyramids of Egypt were raised upon certain square Platforms set one upon the other, and gradually lessening until they ended in one least and blunt square of Stone. Monsieur Vattier, the Arabick Professor of the French King, believed those blunt-tops to have been as Pedestals for some Colosses or Obelisks. They might be sometimes put to that use, though not at first designed for it. For Caligula was pleased to set his Head on the shoulders of the Statues of the Grecian gods; yet those Statues were not made to serve as such Supporters. That Learned Professor might, possibly, have made a truer conjecture from a short passage in the Arabian Murtadi, whose Book he translated. For Murtadi Murtadi of the Prodig. of Egypt acc. to the Arabians. p. 16. speaks of the Maritine Pyramid, as of a Temple of the Stars, on which were placed the figures of Sun and Moon. Such a Tower was that (as I suppose) which the Tausi of China built, of a sudden, in the Piazza of Pekin Alvarez Simedo in Hist. Chin. part. 1. c. 18. p. 87.. They built it in Pyramidal form, with Tables upon Tables, till it ended in one supreme Table: And on that they prayed for Rain, which the Sun, the Original Jupiter Pluvins, doth as a natural cause, both send and remove. The Corinthian Tower once belonged to Sol See Laurenb. Corinth. & Sicyon. p. 23.: And it is very probable, that the Sun was of old worshipped on a very high Mountain in Crete: The Hill, in the time of Peter Martyr [Page] of Angleria Pet. Mart. Legat. Babyl. l. 2. p. 80., was called by the name of the Hill of Jove, though the Cretians were then great strangers to their ancient Demonology. A late Traveller Gage in his new Survey of the West-Indies. c. 12. p. 113, 114. hath informed us of a Pyramidal Tower in Mexico, on the top of which the Heathen Priests worshipped towards the Sun, an American Deity. I should have thought that he had meant the same with Cortesius See Kircher's Oedip. Synt. 5. c. 5. p. 421, 422., and that which he called the Fane of the Id [...] Horcolivo's. But they differ much in their measu [...]: And the ascent of the former is said to be by 114 steps; the latter by no less than an Hundred and thirty. Among the Apalachites of Florida Hist. of the Carib. Isl. b. 2. c. 8. p. 236, 237, &c. See Kirch. Oëd. Tom. 3. p: 27. c. 3. of Mount Pagoda;, the Priests of the Sun, called by the remarkable name of Jaovas, worshipped their Idol on the top of a very high, round, steep and rocky Hill; a full league in its winding Ascent. The builders of the Hill or Tower of Babel, surely, designed that much higher yet; so high that it might hide its head in the Clouds, and would, it may be, have put it, had it been finished, to the like Idolatrous use. It is reasonable for me, here to expect an objection from the Scripture, which seemeth to impute the building of the Tower of Babel to another end. Come, say the builders in the Eleventh of Genesis Gen. 11. 4., let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth. To this objection two things may be replied; First, the end expressed is not exclusive of that which I supposed; and it is not a wonder, if vain men to encourage one another, how many ends soever they had, did propound that of their pomp and glory. Secondly, these builders designed a City, and not only a Tower which was but the Appendix to it, though such a necessary one as an Altar is to a Temple. And their design of getting them a Name, might rather refer to the City, than distinctly to the Tower. They [Page] intended to build a place of fixed Residence, which might be, as it were, the Head, and Center, and Metropolis of all Towns, whenever their Families should so encrease as to need further room for habitation. They were resolved against the incommodities of a wandring life, and they purposed to unite themselves into a more orderly body, and to become a Corporation instead of a multitude. And this was the way to get them a Name, to be the first City of the World, and to be owned as the Mother-Place of all Nations.

But I am not so fond of this private fancy, as to contend further about the Legitimacy of it. In this I am more assured, that the Lights of Heaven, which in the clear firmament of those Countries, appeared so often and in such lustre, (whilest the Sun by day shone gloriously; and the Moon and Stars shewed beautifully in the night, to them who lay either on the ground, or on flat Roofs, and found no evil influence from them); and which obtained afterwards the name of [...] from their continual motion, were the first Idols of the World. Amongst these, the Sun excelling, he was made the principal Idol, and was nowhere more in honour than at Babylon. Accordingly we read, so soon, of Bell, [the Babylonian] and Baal [the Phenician and Hebrew Name], in the Theology of the Gentiles, This Idol was originally, and principally, the Sun; though great men likewise, when deified after their deaths, obtained that Name, as a Title of highest renown. And from the many names of Canonized Heroes, given to the Sun, hath risen a great part of that uncertainty and confusion, with which the Reader is perplexed in the Labyrinths of Heathen Mythologers.

This, however, is generally confessed, that the Sun was the first Idol; instead of which why Jarchi [Page] Jarchi ap. Dionys. Voss. in Maimon. de Idol. c. 1. p. 4. hath put men or herbs into the first place, is hard to understand, till he come, and be his own Elias. Maimonides begins with the Stars, and he hath ground, not only from natural Reason, but from the Authority also of Job and Moses. Job Job 31. 26, 27, 28. thus expresseth the Idolatry of those ancient times in which he lived. If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the Moon walking in brightness. And my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand: [If, with devotion of Soul, or profession of outward Ceremony, I have worshipped those heavenly bodies which by their heighth, motion and lustre, ravish the senses]: This also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge; for I should have denied the God that is above. Moses giveth caution to the people of Israel Deut. 4. 19. who were coming out of that Idolatrous Land of Egypt, and were journeying towards Idolatrous Canaan [who were coming from temptation, and going likewise towards it]; That when they lifted up their eyes to the Heavens, they should arm their minds against that inchantment to which they were subject by the sensible glory of the Sun, Moon and Stars. Rabbi Levi Ben Gerson Ap. Dionys. Voss. in Maim. de Idol. p. 4. glossing upon this place in Moses, Observeth that the Sun is first named, because his vertues are most manifest. The most ancient inhabitants of the World (saith Diodorus Siculus, meaning them that lived soon after the Flood, and particularly the Diodor. Sicul. Bibl. Histor. l. 1. c. 11. p. 10. Egyptians) contemplating the World above them, and being astonished with high admiration at the nature of the Universe, believed that there were eternal Gods; and that the two principal of them were the Sun and the Moon: Of which they called the first Osiris, and the second Isis. And of late years, when the Mariners Compass directed men to a new World in America [peopled, no doubt, from several distant parts of the old;] many different [Page] Idols were found in peculiar places; but for the Sun, it was a Deity both in Mexico and Peru.

Babylon was the Mother of this kind of Idolatry; not Egypt, as the Author de Dea Syria Lucianus de deâ Syria. p. 1057. [...], &c., and some in Diodorus Siculus Diodor. Sicul. Biblioth. l. 1. c. 13. p. 12., who make Sol the first King of it, have erroneously conjectured. For Egypt was not a Nation when the Sun began to be worshipped in Chaldea, where Ur, it may be in aftertimes, with respect to the worship of that hot Luminary, was a kind of lesser Babylon. Babylon infected Egypt, Assyria, Phaenicia; and they spread the contagion throughout the World.

To the worship of the Sun, Moon and Stars, and other appearances in Heaven or the Air, such as Comets and Meteors, (for the worship of the former, was apt to draw on that of the latter) succeeded the false Religion towards Heroes, confounded, as I guess, with original Demons or Angels. And this came to pass in the days of Serug, according to Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Syncellus, The Sun was no sooner called Bel, Baal, or El, that is, Lord or Governour, but the souls of men of renown were also flattered with like Appellations, and became properly the Idols of the people. Nimrod and Osiris were Baals; and the King of Phaenicia was Bel; and they had Religious veneration payed to them. If other Demons were worshipped (as no doubt they were, being permitted to appear to them); it is a question whether the Gentiles did not, by them, misunderstand the deified Souls of some of their Ancestors, distinctly, or confusedly remembred; rather than natural Genii, or Angels: For such Beings owed much of their manifestation, as such, to the Tradition conveyed in the Loyn of Abraham and Moses.

The worship of Demons was followed by that of Pillars [Page] or Artless Monuments of remembrance See Mr. Selden's Prolegom. to Synt. de Diis Syris. p. 39.. Such a Monument was that Pillar anointed by Jacob. It was no Idol in the quality in which he made it, but a Record of the Divine presence: But it is commonly thought that others did take from it a pattern of their follies. Statues or Images were of a like antient date, as is plain from the History of the Teraphim, though Artists were then rare: The infancy of this new World being, also, the infancy both of Mechanical and Liberal Arts. Idolaters likewise chose for their Deities, living Statues, such as the Bull in Egypt for the heavenly Taurus, according to Lucian Lucian. de Astrologiâ. p. 540. D., or rather for the Deity of the Sun, or of an Hero, according to truth. Pausanias, in his Survey of Greece, findeth Stones sharpened at the top, to have been the earliest Symbols of their Gods. [They were, it may be, Cones relating to the Sun, the parent of fire, which, as was before noted, ascendeth a Pyramis,] and was thought to be an element of Triangular figure by the ancient Philosophers of Greece Plato ap. Laert. p. 228. l. 3, [...], &c..] Scaliger, in that learned Appendix of his to his Book of the Emendation of the accounts of time, doth mention Rude Stones, as the original Statues in Phenicia. What the first Symbols amongst the Romans were, is not distinctly understood. One would guess by Numa's Temple, they were Symbols of the Universe. But for particular Images, we have it upon the good authority of a most learned Roman Varro ap. S. August. de Civ. Dei. l. 4. c. 31. p. 272., That an Hundred and Seventy years were passed ere they came in amongst them. Under Christianity; the vanity and veneration of Images succeeded the Symbol of the Cross. At this day the Barbarians on the Coasts of Africa reverence Stones, like our greater Land-marks, as Fetiches or Divine Statues Villault's Rel. of a Voyage to Guinee. p. 174.; believing them to be as ancient as the World it self.

[Page] It appeareth by this short account of the Original of Idols, that they may plead antiquity: But still their age is nothing, if we compare it to his who is God everlasting.

CHAP. V. Of those who are charged with Idolatry; and of the conformity or inconformity of their worship to the Nature of Idolatry. Of Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Christians. Amongst them who have professed Christianity, of the Gnosticks, Manichees, Arrians, Socinians, Roman-Catholicks, the real Catholicks of the Communion of the Church of England. And first of the Idolatry charged on the Gentiles.

PART 1. How far the Gentiles were Ignorant of one Supreme God.

I Have insisted hitherto, on the Nature, Occasions, and Commencement of Idolatry. The next consideration shall extend to the persons charged with it, and in the first place, to them who have first and most generally transgressed; that is to say, the Gentiles.

Concerning their worship, it is here proper for me to attempt the resolution of three Questions.

First, Whether the Gentiles acknowledged one Supreme God.

Secondly, Whether they made Religious Application to him.

[Page] Thirdly, Whether upon the concession of such acknowledgment and Application, they may be, and really are chargeable with Idolatry.

First, then, I enquire how far the Gentiles owned one supreme God. This enquiry is not capable of any nice and accurate resolution. For there is no one Systeme of the Gentile Theology; as there is of Judaism, Mahometanism, and the Christian Religion. Divers persons, in divers places, had divers apprehensions concerning a Deity; and divers Rites of worship. And those distinct Rites, by the commerce of Nations, were often so mixed together, that they made a new kind of Religion.

It is not unlikely, that the dregs of the people among the Gentiles, whom God had given up to brutishness of mind, did rise little higher than Objects of sense. They worshipped many of them together; each as supreme in its kind, or no otherwise unequal than the Sun and the Moon, or the other coelestial bodies, by the adoration of which, the ancient Idolaters, as Job Job 31. 28. intimateth, denied [or excluded] the God that is above. Porphyry himself, one of the most plausible Apologists for the Religion of the Gentiles, doth own in some, the most gross and blockish Idolizing of mean Objects. He telleth us Porphyr. ap Euseb. de praepar. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. p. 98. that it is not a matter at which we should be amaz'd, if most ignorant men esteemed wood and stones Divine Statues, seeing they who are unlearned, look upon Monuments which have inscriptions on them, as ordinary Stones; and esteem valuable Tables as pieces of common wood; and regard Books no otherwise than as so many bundles of Paper. Sensible objects arrested the stupid and unactive minds of the vulgar, who (like those indevout Mandeslo in his Trav. p. 154. They have no knowledg of the worlds creation, &c. Idolaters of Japan) reason'd no further concerning the original, or Government of the [Page] World. For few Heads are exercised by Philosophy; and we meet not with one Peasant of a Thousand among our selves, who asks how the Sun enlightens this Globe, though he believes the body of it no bigger than his Bushel. Such Heads are inclined to turn the Truth of God into a Lie; to exchange the Sovereign Deity for that which is esteemed a God, but is not; and to multiply the kinds of it, according to the variety of considerable effects and appearances whose Causes are only known to the Secretaries of Nature.

It is more probable still, that many Gentiles reached no higher in their devotion than to Demons. Saint Paul taxeth them 1 Cor. 10. 20. with offering to Devils and not to God. The same Apostle inform'd the Lycaonians Acts 14. 15., that the design of his Preaching, was the converting of men from vanities [that is, from their many Idols which were not what they were judged to be: which being no Deities, were in that respect nothing, and vanity] unto one God, the true and living God; from whom therefore, these many Idols had withdrawn many of the Heathen. The Inferiour objects had thrust the Superiour out of possession, as in the Case of that woman under the Papacy, who is said to have forsaken God for the Virgin; and the Virgin in Heaven, for that Lady (as she called her) which she saw before her eyes in the Church D. M. Antid. ag. Idol. and Reply. p. 258. See Spal. de Rep. [...]ccl. l. 7. c. 12. p. 287.. Divers Idols (I say) might crowd the Sovereign God out of their minds, Jehovah might be banished whilst their imaginations were filled with many hundreds of Jupiters; with no fewer than Thirty thousand in the account of Hesiod, if he swelleth not the reckoning with Names, and Sir-names, instead of distinct Gods.

Some of the Gentiles who knew God [that is, had means by the things that are seen Rom; 1. 20, 21. of ascending to the knowledg of the invisible Creator] did notwithstanding [Page] not truly know him; nor reach him by that wisdom or vain sort of Philosophy 1 Cor. 1. 21. Psal. 79. 6. Jer. 10. 25. 1 Thes. 4. 5. which did not edifie them, though it puffed them up.

PART 2. Of their worship of Universal Nature, &c. as God.

THis is the common oppinion, concerning many of the Gentiles; but there is not sufficient reason to believe the same thing concerning them all. For it is evident from the History of ancient and modern Idolatry, and from the Writings of some of the Gentiles; that the acknowledgment of one supreme Deity was not wholly banished from all parts of the Pagan World. But herein, likewise, some of them greatly erred.

For, first, There were those amongst them who acknowledged Universal Nature, as that one supreme Deity. This Deity the Egyptians vailed, sometimes under the names of Minerva and Isis, before whose Temple Sai, as Plutarch witnesseth, this Inscription was to be read: I am all that which was, and is, and will be hereafter. And in her Image were placed the emblems of all the kinds of things with which Nature is furnished See the Statue of Ifis in Kirch. Oedip. Synt. 3. c. 4. p. 189.. Such a Deity the Arcadians worshipped under the proper Title of Pan, who as Pornutus contendeth Pornutus de Nat. Deor. c. [...], p. 69.— [...], &c., is the same with the Universe. The same Pornutus proceedeth, in shewing, that his lower part was shaggy, and after the fashion of a Goat; and that by it, was meant the asperity of the Earth. Bardesanes Syrus Bardes. Syr. ap. Porphyr. Fragm. at Styge, p. 283, 284. describeth at large the Statue of the Universe, by which the Brachmans worshipped Nature. It was an Image of Ten or Twelve Cubits in heighth: It had its hands extended in the form of a Cross. It had a face Masculine on the one [Page] side, and Feminine on the other. It had the Sun on one of its breasts, and on the other the Moon: And on the Arms were to be seen a very great number of Angels, together with the Heavens, Mountains, Seas, Rivers, the Ocean, Plants and Animals; and such other parts in Nature as make up the Universe. Yet I cannot say that this was the Statue of their supreme Deity: For they tell us, concerning it, that this was the Image which God set before his Son when he made the World, as a pattern by which he should form his Work. But I may say it more truly, of some worshippers of Isis, that they supposed her supreme, and did adore her, not, with others, as the inferiour Earth, but in the quality (as I just now noted) of universal Nature. So Pignorius hath taught us Pignor. de Mensâ Isiacâ. p. 2, 3., and before him, Servius and Macrobius. Hence was it that the Infcription on an Antient Marble at Capua, owneth Isis as all things T [...]. Tibi una. Quae es. omnia. dea. Isis. Arrius Babi [...]us V. C;. A like opinion may be, with ground, entertained concerning Vesta, and the [...], Fire, or Sun, in the midst of her Temple; as Plutarch in Numa hath suggested. Wherefore no Image was consecrated to her besides that of her Temple, which by its roundness, denoted the World, and by its sempiternal fire, the Sun in it. That fire was renewed, each year, on the first of March Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 12. p. 242., in allusion, sure, to the vigour of that Planet which then beginneth, in especial manner, to comfort those parts of the Earth. Others again, amongst the Gentiles, ador'd the Sun, as the one Sovereign Deity. Such were they in Julius Firmicus, who expressed their devotion in this form. O Sol! Thou best and greatest of things! Thou mind of the Universe▪ Thou Guide and Prince of all Sol. Opt. Max.—Mens mundi. Dux omnium Princepsq [...].. A like Egyptian form, translated out of that language, by Euphantus, is remembred by Porphyrie; and thus it beginneth Porphyr. de Abstinen. l. 4. p. 157. [...], &c.. O Sun thou [Page]Lord of all, and ye the rest of the Gods! There Euphantus (as may be probably imagined) found Baal, or some such word, in the original Egyptian; and gave us instead of it, the Greek [...]. Such honour of the Sun we find on the Antient Egyptian Obelisk interpreted by Hermapion See Marsh. Cron. Can. p. 433, 434., and restored to its antient beauty, by Sixtus Quintus. On it the Sun is set forth as God; as the Sovereign disposer of the World which, it seems, he committed to the Government of King Ramestes.

Others there were who mistook for the one supreme God, the Soul of the World, and, it may be, thought the Sun the Head in that great animated Body, or the place of that Souls principal residence. On this fashion, Osiris, in Macrobius Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 20. p. 299. [...], &c., describeth his Godhead. The Heavenly world is my head; my belly the Sea; my feet the Earth: In Heaven are my Ears, and for my allseeing Eye, it is the glorious Lamp of the Sun. Pornutus likewise, reciting the Dogmata of the Heathen Theology, discourseth Pornut. de Nat. deor. p. 4. de Jove. to this effect. As we [men] are governed by a Soul, so the world hath its Soul also, by which it is kept in frame: And this soul of the World is called Jupiter. Aristotle himself doth somewhere stile God, [...], a mighty Animal: So apt are the highest Aspirers in Philosophy to fall, sometimes into wild and desperate errors. Amongst the Romans who excelled Varro in knowledg? And yet S. Austin saith of him, that he believed no higher God than the Soul of the World S. Aug. de Ci [...]. Dei. l. 4, c. 31. p. 272, 273., but that by disgusting Images, as debasers of Religion, he approached nigh to the true God. Others, both in Egypt and Persia, worshipped for the true God, a part only of his Idea; whilst they removed from it, the justice and mercy of sending, preventing, or taking away, any temporal evils in which they thought the supreme [Page] Deity not concerned; whilst they believed certain Demons to be the chastizers of those who had not purged themselves sufficiently from matter See Porphyr. de Abstin..

PART 3. How far the Gentiles owned one true God.

BUT it is not fair to fight always on the blindside of Nature. I come therefore in the next place, to acknowledg, that some Gentiles used a Diviner Reason than others, and owned one supreme God, the King of the World, and a Being distinct from the Sun, or the Universe, or the Soul of it.

This appeareth from the Confession of many Christians; and from the words of the Gentiles themselves.

First, Divers of the Fathers, though they shew the generality of their gods to have been but creatures, yet they confess they had amongst them, some apprehension of one supreme, eternal Deity. S. Chrysostom, in a second Discourse in his sixth Tome concerning the Trinity S. Chrys. op, vol. 6. de Trin. p. 189. B. C., doth charge upon the Arians and Macedonians the crime of renewing Gentilism, whilst they professed one great God, and another Deity which was less, and created. For it is Gentilism (said that Father) which teacheth men to worship a creature, and to set up one Great[or greatest] God, and others of inferiour order. In this Discourse St. Chrysostom acknowledgeth that the Gentiles adored the one Sovereign God (for him the Arians believed in, and were in that point good Theists, though no Orthodox Christians), notwithstanding he accuseth them of Subordinate Polytheism. S. Cyril of Alexandria speaks the same thing, and in more plain and direct words Cyr. Alex. contra Julian. l. 1. p. 23. A.. It is manifest (said he) that they who Phylosophized [Page]after the Greecian manner, believed and professed one God, the builder of all things, and by nature superiour to all other Deities.

And (to come to the second way of proof above mentioned) S. Cyril is very copious in the authorities which he produceth out of the Heathen Writers, in order to the strengthening of his Assertion, that they believed in one infinite God. He introduceth Orpheus Cyr. ibid. p 26. [...] &c. speaking as Divinely as David himself. God is one, he is of himself, of him are all things born, and he ruleth over them all. He again, after he had cited many Philosophers, bringeth in the Poet Sophocles, as one that professed the true God; and the words which he there calleth to mind, are worth the Transcribing Cyr. Ib. p. 32.— [...], &c.—. Of a truth, There is one God, who made the Heavens, and the spatious Earth, and the goodly swelling of the Sea, and the force of the Wind. But many of us mortals, erring in our hearts, have erected Images of gods made of Wood, or Stone, or Gold, or Ivory, as supports of our grief: And to these we have offered sacrifices and vain Panegyricks; conceiting in that manner that we exercised Piety. He forbeareth not, after this, to cite Orpheus again Cyr. Ib. p. 33. [...], &c., and the Verses have their weight, and contain this sense in them. I adjure thee, O Heaven! Thou wise work of the great God! I adjure thee thou voice of the Father, which he first uttered, when he founded the whole World by his Counsels. The Father calls to mind, likewise, many sayings of Porphyry, and of the Author falsly called Trismegist. But they were too well acquainted with Christianity, to have Authority in this Argument of the one God of the Gentiles. Such a Gentile [one who dreamt not of any Gospel] was Anaxagoras, who (as Plutarch testifies) did set a pure and sincere mind over all things, instead of fate and fortune. In Laertius, we may hear him speaking in his [Page] own words; and they admit of this interpretation [...].. All things were together [or in a Chaos]: Then came the Mind and disposed them into order. But on this declaration of Anaxagoras I will not depend; because his [...] or mind, might be such as the Platonick [...] or Soul of the World. I like better the words of Architas the Pythagorean Arch. Pytbag, ap. Stobaeum, in Serm. 1. p. 15. [...] &c., who speaks of God in the singular, and says he is supreme, and governs the World. But nothing is more close to the purpose than that which hath so often been said by Plato. It is his opinion recited in Timaeus Locrus Tim. Locr. de An. Mundi. Inter op. Plat. v. 3. p. 96— [...], &c., That God is the Principal Author and Parent of all things. And this he adds, after an enumeration of the several Beings of which the Universe consisteth. He affirmeth in his Politicus, “That God Plat. Polit. Vol. 2. p. 269. C. E. and p. 270. A. made the great Animal of the World, and that he directeth all the motions of it: [...], and that there are not two Gods governing the World with differing Counsels. In his Sophista Plat. in Soph. vol. 1. p. 265. C. he determineth that God was the maker of things, which were not [that is, as such] before he framed them. In his Timaeus Plato in Timae [...]. vol. 3. p. 28. he calleth God [...], the Maker and Father of every being: Adding, that it is difficult to find out this Father of the Universe; and that when he is found out, it is not fit to declare him to the vulgar. He was, it seems, a Jehovah not ordinarily to be named. They who have read his works with care, know what distinction he maketh betwixt Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 2. p. 68. Plato ille divinus multa de Deo digna, nec communia sentiens multitudini,—Deos dicit—corruptibiles esse naturâ, sed voluntate Dei—vinctione in perpetuâ contineri. God and the gods: And how he extolleth the Divine goodness, and maketh it the very Essence of the supreme God. It is, indeed, to be acknowledged, that he set up other gods, in his Scheme of the Universe: Nay, that he owned a second, or third [...], or Artist of that great and noble frame of the visible World. But both he and his Disciples, what other Principle [Page] soever they taught or believed, They still maintained it to be distinct from the [ [...]] the one supreme uncompounded Good. Plato, in his Timaeus Plato ibid. p. 34. B.— [...]., teacheth expresly that the Soul of the World, which he calleth a blessed God, was made by the God who is eternal. Timaeus Locrus Tim. Locr. de An: Mun [...]i, inter Opufc. Graec. p. 6. supposeth the World to be framed by the supreme God, and the Soul to be put into the middle of it by him that framed it: As if God made the World after the manner in which he made Adam. And Sallustius the Platonist, in his Book of God and the World Sallust. de Diis & mundo, c. 5. [...], &c. [...], &c., treateth professedly of the first Cause; concludeth a necessity of its Oneness; and celebrateth its virtue as so eminent, that it can scarce be expressed by any words. The truth is, those Gentiles who, with Sallust, admired God as the first and incomprehensible Cause; and with Mercurius in Stobaeus Stobae. Serm. 78. de Diis. p. 466. [...]., declared him to be a Being abstruse to the Mind, and impossible to the Tongue; such Gentiles, I say, would have erred less, had they stopped there, and not gone about to explane the mode of his Essence and Operation, whereby they have fallen into many false Idea's, and particularly into that of the Soul of the World. But makers of Hypotheses, especially in Subjects of such extent, do commonly lose themselves in their own Labyrinths. That Hypothesis of the Soul of the World is frequent, at this day, amongst the Philosophers of India: And yet that Sect of the Benians which is called Samarath Mandesto's Travels into the Indies. l. 1. p. 55., maintaineth the notion of a superior God. They call him Permiseer, and believe Him to be the first Cause which created the World, and which governeth and preserveth the Universe, with a sovereign and unchangeable Power. Change here but names, and the matter may be applyed to the Philosophy of Plato, who believed in one God, though he idoliz'd his [...], or Universal Soul, [Page] and too many other Deities of inferiour rank.

This, in brief, was the state of the Greeks, in relation to the knowledg of God. Like to it was that of the Romans; and of them also, whence the Greeks and Romans borrowed some valuable notions, together with much dross, that is, the Egyptians. Also of the Arabians. See Abul Farajius and Sharestanius in not. Pocock. p. 143. and of the Gaurs or antient Persians, see the Trav. of Tavernier. l. 4. c. 8. p. 167. And they doubtless were beholding to Abraham, to Joseph, to Moses, to the Jews, who both before and after the Captivity came amongst them. By such means, and by the study of Nature, the [...] and Jove of the Greeks and Romans came nigh, as well in sense, as in similitude of Letters, to the Mosaic Jehovah. Numa Pompilius, whose Religion inclin'd the people to chuse him King after the death of Romulus, to the end that the Empire which was obtained by force, might be governed by Piety and Justice L. Ann. Florus. l. 1. c. 2. p. 4, 5. And Dion. Halicarn. l. 2, Sect. 78. p. 186, 187, 188, &c., as the Historian telleth us, it was in his Reign; Numa, I say, had studied in Egypt, and he brought some of its Religion into Italy some Ages before Pythagoras Dion. Hal. ibid. p. 183. set foot there. It was not pure Religion; for he introduced the worship of the immortal Gods, Flor. ibid. Ille sacra, & ceremonias, omnem (que) cultum deorum immortalium docuit: Ille Pontifices, Augures, &c. and the superstition of Augury. He, in the worship of Vesta, offered to them Universal Nature as the great Deity; but cannot be thought to have been ignorant himself of a Deity greater still, having learned the same Cabala with Pythagoras, though according to the reservedness See Dion. Halicarn. l. 2. p. 191, 192. of the unknown myst. of Numa. which he saw practiced by the Egyptian Priests, he did not divulge the mystery to the multitude. And manifest it is, that the Religion of the Romans, was in less measure adulterated in the age from Numa to Tarquinius Priscus, than after those times. For he corrupted the Religion of Numa with the vanity of the Greeks and Ethruscans: And he erected Images which Numa would not admit of. For Numa believed (saith Dionysius Halicarnassaeus) that [Page] God could not be represented See Lud. Viv. in S. Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 4. c. 31. p. 273. by any Figure. And Tertullian Tertul. Apolo. get. Sect. 25. p. 25.—nidor exilis, & Deus ipse nusquam. speaking of the debasement of Religion under Tarquinius Priscus, sheweth Numa to have been more chast in his Rites, and to have believed in a God to whom Ubiquity belonged. Plutarch also reporteth it concerning that wise Prince, that he forbade the People to think that God had the form of Man or Beast. And the notion of Numa, though much stifled, was not quite destroyed by the multitude of Gods and Statues. There were those, in the days of Cicero Cicero de nat. Deor. l. 1. Op. p. 1113.—fed nos deum, nisi sempiternum, Iutelligere quî possumus?, who recounting many Deities held by the Philosophy of Anaximander, professed themselves unable to understand any other than one eternal God.

This God was sometimes owned under the name of Jupiter, though that name was ambiguously applicable, to Him, to the Sun, to many Demons or Heroes. We may infer the eminency of the Deity, called by that name, from the Attributes given to him by sober and Philosophical men, when they argue about his Nature. Such a one was Diotogenes the Pythagorean Ap. Stobae. Serm. 46. de Regno. p. 330, 331, 332., who speaketh of God in the singular number; saith of him, that he is a King whose City is the World; calleth him by the name of Jupiter; and affirmeth that Jupiter is the supreme of all Powers, a God of Excellence, Goodness, Power, Justice; dispensing benefits to the World, and in that sense, the Father of Gods and Men.

It is true that the Fathers, and many others do esteem generally, of the Grecian and Roman Jupiter as of an Arch-Devil, and a Topical-god. And they deride his worship, as the adoration of a man, who was born and buried in Crete; at least born somewhere on earth, as Callimachus himself confesseth Callim. ap. Orig. Cont. Cels. l. 3. p. 137.— [...].—See Tertul. Apol. Sect. 25. p. 25. sed non [...]tatim & Jupiter Cretam suam, &c., though he denies the honour to the Cretians; and is [Page] confident that, though he was born, he never dyed. Jupiter, saith Arnobius Arnob. l. 1. p. 19., hath Father, and Mother, how can he then be a God? Tertullian also had no other thoughts of Jupiter than of an Idol: For thus he discourseth Tertul. de Idol. Sect. 21. p. 98.. I know one (whom God forgive) who when another, in the quarrel managed betwixt them, used this imprecation, let Jupiter be angry with you, answered again; nay, let him be avenged on you. What could have an Heathen man done more, who believed Jupiter to be a God? The Senate and People of Rome do in a late Inscription in the Capitol, give notice Chytr. Mon. Roman. A. 1568. p. 2., that the place was once dedicated unto Jove; but that they had made it sacred to the True God, to Jesus Christ the Author of all good things. And this opinion might well be entertained concerning Jupiter, for many Reasons: First, because the multitude, both in Greece, and Italy, did worship him in the quality of a Demon. The Poets of Greece set him forth as a Demon, though the Superior of them; and (as we read in the first Iliad of Homer) as a Power not perfectly Omnipotent, but subject to be bound by the rest of the Gods. And the Law of the Twelve Tables, before-cited, representeth him only as the President of the College of the sempiternal Demons, or Dii Consentes See the Inser. ap. Saubert. de Sacrific. c. 5. p. 101. I. O. M. caeteris (que) Dis consentib.. Nay, of Jove Plato himself saith Plato in Euthy. p. 5. Vol. 1.— [...], &c., that men esteemed him the best and most just of the Gods, and one who held his father in Chains for his unnatural cruelty to his Children. Secondly, Because the worship of Jupiter, in how high a notion soever he was sometimes taken, was not looked upon only by it felf, but as the principal worship in the Religion of the Gentiles, giving denomination to the other parts of it. For the worship of Jupiter was, in effect, an acknowledgment of the whole Gentilism of Rome Pagan: And he that had adored Jupiter, would by that [Page] have been judged, to have been likewise a devout Servant of Juno and Venus, and the rest of that Society of Grecian and Roman Idols. However, under this name, some of the wise Gentiles did mean the supreme Deity, distinct from their College of Demons: and I suppose Marcus Antoninus, that Philosophical Prince, to have been one of them. He says, indeed, concerning the thundering Legion, That they prayed to a God which himself knew not Marc. Anton. ap. Just. Mart. In sine Apol. 2. p. 102.— [...].—: Not that he owned not one supreme God, but that he understood him not in the subsistences of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in which quality the Christians applyed themselves to him. Thirdly, Jupiter, when thought of under the notion of one highest God, whatsoever he was in speculation, he was actually but an evil Demon. For the Persons and things which he countenanced could never be approved of by the true and righteous God.

Let it then be granted (for why should men oppose the evidence of plain words?) that some Gentiles entertained a notion of that God who is one and supreme.

PART 4. What Applications they made to one God.

THis being confessed, There is a Second inquiry to be made, whether such Gentiles worshipped him, or made Religious Application to him? And it is evident they did so, both by Prayers, Sacrifices, and Images.

Prayer to him was consequent to their Apprehensions of him as the Allsufficient and bountiful Governour of Mankind. And sometimes they prayed to him in the very form of [ [...], or] Lord have mercy, which the Ancient Christians used. Ennius, in Cicero, [Page] Cic. de nat. deor. l. 2. p. 1129, Adspice boc sublime Candens, Quem invocant omnes Jovem. declareth that Jove was invoked by All. He calleth him [Sublime Candens] not meaning the Sun, but the Power that causeth Lightning, and the Jove who, in Euripides (there also cited by Tully), is owned as [Summus divns] the supreme God. Simplicius, in the conclusion of his Notes on Epictetus Simplic. in Epict. Enchir. p. 331. [...], &c., useth this excellent form: I address my self humbly to thee, O Lord, thou Father and guide of our Reason, that we may be mindful of that nobility with which thou hast adorn'd us:—That we may be purged from the contagion of the body, and bruitish affections; governing them as becometh us, and using them as Instruments.—If Simplicius be said to learn this under Christianity, that cannot be objected against Socrates and Plato. Socrates prayeth Socr. ap. Platon. Phaedr. in fine. p. 279. [...] &c.

d Plat. Alcib. 2. p. 138. [...], &c., not only to the gods, but to the supreme God, under the Title of Pan, in the first place. ‘And he prayeth that he may be beautiful within; and that he may esteem the wise-man only to be the man truly wealthy: referring to the things before discoursed of in the Phaedrus of Plato.’ The same Plato begins his second Dialogue called Alcibiades (e) by this question (put to that Philosopher, by Socrates, who apprehended him to be in a deep contemplation); Whether he were going about to call on God? And thence occasion is taken of saying many wise things, on that Subject, in the sequel of that Dialogue. And about the middle of that Discourse, he repeateth a very prudent form of Prayer used by a Poet p. 143. [...], &c., who ‘beseecheth his God to give him the things which were good for him, though he should happen not to pray for them; and to keep from him such things as were hurtful, though through error he should make supplication for them. Again, in Timaeus, Plato observeth Plato in Timmaeo. Vol. 3. p. 27. that those who have any share of understanding, when they undertake any thing, be it of [Page] smaller or of greater concernment, do always invoke God.’ To such Invocation he exhorteth Plato de Legibus. l. 4. vol. 2. p. 712. [...]. at the constitution of any City or civil Body. And he urgeth Prayer in so many places, that I have not room for the repetition of them, in that compass to which I have design'd to confine my Discourse.

For Sacrifice, That also the Gentiles offered to God. Plato joyneth both together in the conclusion of his Theages. There Plato in The [...]g. Vol. 1. p. 131. Theages exhorteth to an appeasing of the Numen worshipped by Socrates, by Prayer and Sacrifice; and Demodocus and Socrates are consenting to it. And Porphyry supposeth some Gentiles to have offered Sacrifice to the supreme God, whilst he taxeth them for offering to him Animals, as unmeet oblations, or indeed, any thing besides a pure Mind. Martinius in the Fourth Book of his History of China Mart. Hist. Sin. l. 4. p. 149., thinketh that people to have worshipped the true supreme God under the name of Xangti: And he further observeth, that they offered Prayers and Sacrifices to him, though they used no Images in his worship.

For Images, The Gentiles used them in the worship of the one God, and not only whilst they Religiously observed their Demons. Origen supposeth Statues of both kinds in use amongst them, where he saith Orig. contr. Ce [...]s. l. 7. p. 362., that Those Heathens expose themselves to the derision of all men of sound mind, who, after their Philosophical disputations [ [...]] of God or gods, respect Statues, and either pray to them, or endeavour, by the contemplation of them, as by conspicuous signs, to raise their minds [ [...]] to the Intelligible Deity. In the mean time (as he continueth his Discourse) the meanest Christian is effectually perswaded that all the World is the Temple of God: And he prayeth to him, in all places, with closed eyes, but with the Lights of his [Page]Mind erected towards Heaven. This had been no refutation of Celsus, if the Gentiles had not worshipped the God that is every where, without Images, by Prayer and a pure intention. Origen, in the same Book Orig. contr. Cels. l. 7. p. 376., in answer to Celsus, who had denied Images to be worshipped as Gods, and affirmed them to be Divine Statues only; replyeth in this manner. We cannot think these Images to be so much as Divine Statues; seeing we circumscribe not the incorporeal and invisible God, with any figure. He supposeth the Heathen had done so; else he had in vain contended against their Statues by such an Argument, fetched from the spirituality and ubiquity, not of Demons, but of the true and Sovereign God. To him it appeareth, that some Gentiles did apply themselves in the three ways abovementioned, of Prayer, Sacrifice, and Imageworship.

PART 5. Whether they worshipping one God, could be guilty of that sin.

NOW that being proved, a third Question comes to be resolved; Whether the acknowledgment of one God by the Gentiles, and their Application to him, being granted, they are yet liable to the charge of Idolatry?

In answer to this enquiry, I purpose to shew, that they are still charged; that they might be guilty notwithstanding that concession of owning one God; and that in divers respects, that guilt was actually contracted by them. They are charged with this high offence, by Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Minucius Faelix, Origen against Celsus, S. Cyprian de vanitate Idolorum, Arnobius, Lactantius, Julius Firmicus Maternus, and [Page] a long order of others: And to cite them in all the places which are pertinent to this matter, were to repeat a great part of their works. The matter is so notorious, that I will illustrate it only by a single instance. Let that instance be made in Julian the Apostate [if he were ever a Christian, in whom the tares of Gentilism were sown so very early by Libanius; and appeared ripe so soon as ever the Glory of the Empire shone upon him]: This man hath been condemned by the common consent of the Christian Church in being since his time, as a manifest and infamous Idolater, and a very Bigot in Heathenism; and yet he acknowledged one God, and him who is truly the Lord of Lords. He declared this to be the opinion of his Sect Julian Apost. ap. S. Cyril. Alex. l. 4. ad Init. p. 115., That there was a common Parent and King of Men. He worshipped that Jupiter Julian in Fragm. p. 534. Oper. who is the giver of all kinds of good; who is Jul. ap. Cyr. Al. l. 10. cont. Jul. p. 354. the greatest and most powerful Being. He worshipped (though not without the intermixture of a false Religion) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He says so much in Terms, in one place Ap. Cyr. Al. l. 10. p. 354. [...]. and upon his Oath. He says the same elsewhere Jul. in Frag. Epist. p. 541. op. in effect, whilst he reports the pains he took (though perfectly in vain) to raise the Temple of Jerusalem out of its ruines; and thereby, as he pretended, to erect a Monument to him, to whom it was sacred. It is true, that S. Cyril doth bring his sincerity under question S. Cyr. l. 10. p. 355, 356., and believes that, in his heart, he placed the God of Abraham amongst his Topical deities: Yet, for Jupiter Ithometes Id. l 4. contr. Jul. p. 128. [...]. worshipped by Julian, S. Cyril granteth him to be esteemed the Prince of the Gods. And why he should think that Julian believed not the God of Abraham to be the true Jehovah, I cannot readily conjecture; seeing that Emperor had perufed the Old Testament, which declares him to be the Creator and [Page] Governour of all things, and not meerly, as the Nations transplanted into Samaria, grosly imagined, The God of the Land 2 Kings 17. 26, 27.. If now Julian and some other Heathens entertained so worthy a notion of God, they are, so far, acquitted of that sort of Idolatry which establisheth the Polytheism of some or many eoequal Gods; but still they might be, in other regards, the worshippers of Idols.

That they might be so, appeareth from the definition of Idolatry, in which it is shewed that the giving away the honour of God to another Object is a degree of that crime, though it be not his supreme honour: Though we do not take the Crown of incommunicable honour from him, and, by our fancy, place it on a creature. It appeareth again from the practice of the Jews, who are by God himself accused of Idolatry, even when they in part owned and worshipped him, and before they were wholly led into captivity, and mingled again among the Heathen. They had not forgotten, perfectly, the God of Israel in whose Law they read; though like Adulteresses, they shared their Love with Idols. Wherefore God Almighty required Hosea, not (as I think) in a literal sense, but according to the way of a Prophetical Scene, to take unto him an Adulteress Hosea 3. 1. 2, 3.; thereby personating the state betwixt himself and the Children of Israel, who, though they had not rejected him as their true and supreme Husband, yet they had gone a whoring after the inventions of the Gentiles, and provoked God to give them a Bill of Divorce.

Whilst I am here affirming, that a people who own one God, may yet commit Idolatry, I mean not this meerly of such who judge him to be, Nature, the Sun, or the Soul of the World, all which are finite or imaginary Objects, and by consequence, Idols, as often as they [Page] are adored in the place of God: But I speak even of the Gentiles who own'd one true incomprehensible Creator; who with Callicratidas the Pythagorean Callicr. ap. Stob. Serm. 83. p. 486. 20., acknowledged [ [...]] one best Being, [ [...]] and such as was the Beginning and Cause of all things. Some of these did actually commit Idolatry, in their worship of the Statues of God, of Demons, and of the Images of those subordinate Deities.

PART 6. Of their Idolatry in worshipping the Statues of God.

FIrst, their Idolatry consisted in the worship of the Statues of God. This, indeed, was not the highest degree of that false Religion, for they did not, hereby, dethrone God, and give to the creature his most essential perfections; but yet they gave away such honour as he had not bestowed who was the proprietor of it. They did so, in the worship, both of the natural, and of the artificial Statues of God. The Principal natural Statue was the Sun. For some of the Philosophical Gentiles made not the Sun it self the ultimate Object of their worship, but they adored God in it. Hence they gave to Vulcan [that is, the Sun] the Name, sometimes of God, and sometimes of Fire, as Plutarch (c) instructeth us out of Archilochus. b Plutarch. de audiend. Poet. p. 23. And Maximus Tyrius, being one of more refined Reason than the generality of the Heathens, would not confess that the Sun and the Fire were any further deified, than as they were Max. Tyr: Dissert. 38. utrum diis sint dicandae statuae. p. 371. [...], the Statues or Images of God. The same excellent Philosopher upbraideth the Persians for neglecting the Statues of the fruitful Earth, and the glorious Sun, and the great path of Commerce, the Sea; and chusing [Page] the devouring Fire as their Statue and their God. In which words, he supposeth the presence of a Deity in the Fire, and the Fire to be only the Statue or Image of it, according to the Persian Theology.

Now, in Two things, consisted the Idolatry of the Heathens, whilst they worshipped the natural Statues of God.

First, They were Idolatrous in setting up those natural Statues, as the places of Gods peculiar Residence. And this the Fathers objected to the Heathens; shewing them, that Christianity represented God, as one that filled the World, and not as one that dwelt (like a Star) in some coelestial Sphear; and taught them in their Prayers to him, to exalt their thoughts above all material Heavens: Or (as Origen Orig. contr. Cels. l. 7. p. 362. [...], &c. is pleased to express it) above even supercoelestial Places. And for this they had Reason: For the Gentiles, by worshipping creatures as Gods Statues, gave Gods relative honour to them, whilst he owned them only as his workmanship, and not as his especial Images or Temples. Thereby, likewise, they bred in their minds a dishonourable Idea of God, as of one who, like a finite Being, dwelt in certain places. This was not the notion of him amongst all, but the worship of him by natural Statues made all of them prone to it. Plato himself was under the Temptation. He was not come to any determinate belief concerning the Stars, whether they were Gods, or only the Statues of them. But, upon supposition that they were Statues (the part to which he is most inclined) he would have them honoured beyond all Statues on earth, as being made such by a Divine Power Plato in Epinom. p. 983, 984..

Secondly, The Gentiles were guilty of Idolatrous Worship, in making some, at least, of the natural Statues of God, voluntary and authoritative disposers [Page] of good and evil, under God, in the World; though not as the supreme dispensers of them. They believed the Stars to be animated [at least with an assistant form] and as Maimonides reporteth of them Maimon. de Idol. l. 1. c. 1. p. 3., created by God for the Government of the World. And we receive it upon the valuable Authority of Garcilasso de la Vega L. 2. c. 1: that the Ynca's of Peru adored the Sun as the visible Deity, by which the greater God, who was invisible, ruled this World.

A due confideration of this Fancy amongst the Gentiles, leadeth us to the true Original of Astrology, and to a right account of Talismanick Statues. The present Astrology pretendeth to be Natural and Philosophical, and to solve the effects it foretelleth (if any it doth, besides those of Light and Shadow, as in Eclipses) by the mechanical influence of the Stars, which variously combine their light and heat. But the Egyptian, Chaldean, and Grecian Astrology was, in truth, an Astrological Magick, built upon the hypothesis of their Demons, and the Heavens which they governed. And they did not think that the Stars wrought a mighty effect, or impregnated a Talisman, by their proper virtue, but as they were either Intelligences themselves, or divinely influenced and directed by the Demons which resided in them, and governed part of this lower World. The Chaldeans Diod. Sic. Bibl. Hift. l. 2. c. 30. p. 113. assigned Twelve Gods as Governours of the year, and apportioned to each of them one sign in the Zodiack. To these they added Thirty Auxiliary Gods in Thirty Stars, of which Fifteen were to have inspection on things below the earth; and Fifteen above it. And in the Kalendar of Julius Caesar Ap. Gassendum, in vol. 5. Op. l. 4. p. 560. & in Marm. Farnes. ap. Stew. Elect. p. 120., each God had a Month under him, and in it, the several Constellations. Juno governed January, Neptune February, Minerva March, Venus April, Apollo May, Mercury June, Jupiter[Page]Quintilis or July, Ceres Sextilis or August, Vulcan September, Mars October, Diana November, Vesta December. At this day the Astrological Judgments refer to demonology. Thus Saturn the severe Demon, is made to signifie malicious persons; Mars the Bloody Demon, furious, proud, valiant persons; and by their Influence to dispose to such Qualities. The Horoscope or Ascendant is made the principal of all Angles, or if not that, then the Culmen Coeli by Ptolomy; and this judgment at first came from the worship of the Sun the principal Demon, and most reverenced in those Angles.

In this worship then, although subordinate, The Gentiles placed Gods Authority where God himself had not done it; and their Hopes, and Fears, and Thanks, respected certain Creatures, when they were due to God, dispensing good and evil immediately by himself; or if by them, doing it by them as ministerial Causes, not as sharers in his Government. But of this, more, when I come to consider their worship of Demons; of which, the Stars themselves were one sort to some of them, whilst they ascribed to them a high degree of perception and voluntary Power. They thought of the Sun as of an Archangel; though the Disciples of the Philolaick Systeme called it only the Organ of God Dorylaits, ap. Censor. de die nat. c. 13. p. 57., and the Divine Harp, by reason of the Harmony which its motion gave to the rest of the coelestial Bodies.

Again, they erred in their worship, about the artificial and instituted Statues of God.

Some of these Statues were, possibly, at first, no more than monumental Pillars, and Records of some extraordinary work of God, discerned to be the effect of his finger, by proof of sufficient Reason: And so far the Gentiles were commendable, as well as Jacob [Page] of the Line of Abraham. For it is the nature of true and grateful devotion, to retain, and propagate the memory of Gods Acts, which by the eminent Wisdom, Mercy, Power and Justice of them, are proper for the exciting of admiration.

But I cannot go on in praising them, for the honour they gave to other kinds of Statues, which their fancy erected to the supreme God.

Of these, some had less Art bestowed on them, being great pieces of Wood or Stone, without any Imagery of Man or Beast, of Fish or Fowl, carved or painted on them. Some regular figure they sometimes had, as that of an Egg which they supposed in many things, and particularly in its figure, to resemble the World [...]. Porphyr. de Thebaidos Incolis. Coelum est Testa; item Vitellùm, Terra; inter illa duo humor quasi in sinum clusus aeri, in quo calor. Varro. See Voss. de Theol. Gentil. l. 1. c. 5. p. 17.. Such Statues they worshipped two ways, first, as the Symbols of Gods especial presence: Secondly, as pledges of his favour to them, wheresoever he was, so long as they held them in possession; and both ways they egregiously offended. They offended by worshipping such Statues as the Symbols of Gods especial presence. For thereby they ascribed the relative honour, due to Gods true Shechinah, to an Object which was exalted to that Divine condition, not by his approbation, but by their fancy. And if their fancy was moved to this false estimation, by some amazing effects wrought before them, upon the performance of their Religious Rites, they were Idolatrous in that case, by honouring the power of Demons asGods Omnipotence. For God permitted evil Spirits to seduce those Pagans, by strange and uncommon operations, wrought at their Statues, who refused to live in the use of their Reason. Further, They transgressed in using Statues as the pledges to assure them of Gods favour, so long as they remained with them. Such were the Ancilia, and the Palladium introduced by [Page] Numa, amongst the Romans. He did not celebrate them as Statues in which God dwelt, but as secret pledges of Empire L. A. Flor. l. 1. c. 2. de Numâ, P. p. 4. Ille Ancilia, at (que) Palladium, secreta quaedam ImperiiPignora, &c.. And this conceit, also, begat Idolatry amongst them; for they gave that honourable trust due to God and his Shechinah, and the pledges of his favour, to things devised by politick men, and such as God neither formed, nor sent, nor appointed as Instruments of defence amongst any people.

Other Statues they used as Images and representations of the supreme God. This practice Macrobius doth not deny, but he denieth it to be Antient Macr. in som [...] Scipion. l. 1. c. 2. p. 9. nullum ejus [h. e. summi dei] simulachrum, quod cum Dis aliis constitueretur, finxit Antiquitas.. And it is plain, by his Context, that he referreth to Plato, and to the Platonick notions which exalted God above all the parts of Nature. And for Plato, it was agreeable to his principles, to abstain from all representations of God, whom he believed to be incomprehensible. Viretus saith of him, Viret. de Orig. vet. & novae Idol. l. 3. c. 9. p. 84. that seeking after some matter fit for the Image of God, he could find none proper for that Divine purpose. But he here committeth a double mistake: For in the place which he meaneth, Plato speaketh not of any matter for the Image of God, but for the Statues of the Gods; and at last he pitcheth upon certain materials for that use. The Philosopher Plato de Legibus. l. 12. p. 955, 956. thought Gold and Silver unfit, because they were invidious things; and Brass and Iron, because they were instruments of War; and Ivory, because it was the Tooth of an Elephant, dead already, or obnoxious to death. But at last he concludeth (from what reason I know not), that an entire Tree or Stone might make a Mercury, or an Image of a Demon. [For the Europeans were not so costly and pompous in their Images Pl [...]n. nat. Hist. l. 34. c. 7. p. 870.—lignea, &c. deorsimul.—us (que) ad devictam Asiam.— till the Conquest of Asia, the Fountain of Luxuries.] But though Platonists contented themselves with inward Ideas, yet all the Gentile [Page] World did not; but divers of them made and worshipped external representations of God the Creator. So did the Egyptians who represented their supreme Cneph, though diversly; as appears from the description of him in Porphyry Porphyr. ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 11. p. 115. [...], &c., and his Image in Cartari Cartari Imag. Par. 1. p. 81, Imagine del dio creatore degli Egittii, &c.. So did the Greeks; Porphyry himself confessing that they worshipped God in the Image of a man, but making an excuse which Statuaries and Worshippers seldom thought of. By God he means the supreme Deity, and not some one only of the Divine Powers; for he mentions [ [...] Porph. ap. Eus. de praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. p. 97, 98. as well as [...]] God himself, and not only Divine Virtues, in offering his reason for their worship by Images. He, there, alloweth the Deity to be invisible, and he yet thinks him well represented in the form of a Man; not because he is like him in external shape, but [ [...],] because that which is Divine is Rational. That was not the common Cause, but an inclination to a sensible Object, and an apprehension of humane Figure as that which was most excellent, and which belongeth to a King and Governour; under which notion, in the grosser Idea of it, their reverence of earthly Potentates had pictured God in their heads. When Origen objected to Celsus Orig. Contr, Cels. l. 7. p. 376. the vanity of worshipping the invisible God in the visible form of man, Celsus neither denieth the matter of fact, nor apologizeth after the manner of Porphyry, but retorteth the objection on the Christians, who professed that man was made after the Image of God. And Origen observeth, that Celsus did not understand how to distinguish, here, betwixt being the Image of God, and being made after it: And, that, he ignorantly cited the Christians, as saying, “That God made Man his Image, and an appearance like himself Cels. ap. Orig. ibid.— [...].. And, at this day, Pagans, when they entertain a Phantasm [Page] of God, they are, most commonly, Anthropomorphites. A very late and principal Actor, in the ruine of the Town of Sacoe in New-England, was an Enthusiastick Indian called Squango J. Mather in Hist. of the War in New-England with the Indians. p. 13., who, some years before, pretended that God appeared to him in the form of a tall Man in Black Clothes. Now the Gentiles worshipping such Ideas or external Images, as forms of God, do misplace his Honour, by paying their relative veneration to Objects which were not like him, but infinitely unworthy of him. They turned the Glory of Gods Essence into vile and despicable similitudes.

A worse sort of Idolatry still (if worse can be) were those Gentiles guilty of, who, by Images (such as those of Baal and Pan) adored Nature, or the Sun, as the supreme God. The very Prototypes, here, were Idols. So that, in this kind of worship, both the ultimate and intermediate, the direct and the relative Honour of God, was devolved on the creature.

PART 7. Of the Idolatry of the Gentiles in their worship of Demons.

A Second branch of the Idolatry of the Gentiles, even of their Philosophers, and men of deep disputation, was the worship of Demons.

In this worship they were Idolatrous four ways.

First, By worshipping Demons as Powers which, under God, had a considerable share of the Government of the World, by Commission from him.

Secondly, By worshipping Demons which were Devils, or wicked and accursed Spirits.

Thirdly, By worshipping the Images of such Demons.

[Page] Fourthly, By their immoderate officiousness towards these inferior Deities, which left them little leisure for attendance on the supreme God.

First, The Gentiles committed Idolatry by worshipping Demons, as Powers which, with subordination to God, did, by his allowance, manage a great part of the Government of the World. They did not deny the supremacy of God, but they imagined that he ruled not the World by his immediate Providence, but by several Orders of Demons and Heroes, as his Substitutes and Lieutenants. Such as these were the Twelve Angels or Presidents, which the Egyptians believed Kirch. Oed. Synt. 1. c. 5. p. 118. to govern, by Ternaries, the four Quarters of the World. In the Flaminian Obelisk Ap. Kirch. Ibid. Synt. 3. c. 2. p. 218. the supreme Momphta, or supramundane Osiris, is represented, as ruling the Twelve parts of the World, by Tw [...]lve Solar Demons in the form of Twelve Hawks [that is, of Eagles, for of that kind were the sacred Accipitres of that Country]. There, as likewise in Greece and Italy, several inferiour Deities were appointed over several places, persons and things. He that is not otherwise furnished, may read in Kircher, of the Genius of Fire Id. ibid. Tom. 3. p. 277., Air p. 279., Water p. 2 [...]0., the Earth p. 281., Agriculture p. 282., of the Clouds p. 292., the Sun and Moon p. 295., of Heat and Moisture p. 344.; and of Fourty eight Asterisms as the stations of Fourty eight Deities p. 300.. Pythagoras and Plato themselves, S. Aug. de Civ. De [...]. l. 8. c. 12. Quod [...]tiam Platonici, licet de uno ve. ro Deo bene senserint, multis tamen Diis sa [...]ra facienda censuerunt. were, in this point, Authors of egregious Idolatry. Pythagoras, invented, or rather learned, from Egyptians, Chaldeans, Thracians, Persians, his two Demons or Principles; the one good, the Parent of Unity, Rest, Equality, Splendor; the other evil, the cause of Division, Motion, Inequality, Darkness; for such were the Terms which his School used in representing their nature. And these became Objects of [Page] much hope and fear, which ought to have been moved, not by mens devices, but by considerations taken from the Almighty Power, Justice and Goodness of God who is one. Plato seemeth to have ascribed much both of the frame and of the government of the World to the Genii next to God: By Principles whom he esteemed highly divine, but not by such as he judged three Subsistences of the same supreme numerical Substance. If that had been his Creed (as some would have it, who can find in him the mysteries of the Athanasian Articles), the earliest Hereticks, who denied the coequal Divinity of the Son of God, and therefore believed in another kind of Logos, had never come in such numbers out of his school; the place from whence the Fathers fetch them. Tertull. de Animâ. c. 23. p. 280. Doleo bonâ fide Platonem omnium haereticorum condimentarium sactum. With them agreeth Petavius that learned Jesuit, and in this Argument as learned as in any other. He saith it is most evident concerning Arius Petav. de Trin. l. 1. c. 8. Sect. 2., that he was a very genuine Platonist. Plato's principal Idea or Logos, was distinct in number and nature from his supreme Cause, or God. And those who follow the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, reason not with consistence, whilst they suppose this Idea to be the second Person, and yet find in Plato, such distinctness of Being, and (which to me seems very remarkable) a plain denial of his Generation. It is true, that Plato, cited by Porphyry Porphyr. ap. S. Cyr. contr. Jul. l. 1. p. 32., does call the second Principle, [...], the Word which is the Workman; [...], the first Power after the supreme God; [...], the genuine or only Son of God; [...], the Intellectual Word. And yet he says of the same Power, which he calls, [...], and [...], an eternal and imperceptible Mind, that it is Id. ib. p. 31. D. E. in l. 4. Philos. Hist. [...], unbegotten, and Parent to it self: He likewise calls it [...], a Mind subsisting by it self. And St. Cyril, who [Page] citeth Plato out of Porphyry, and is willing to make the Platonick Triad the same in effect with the Christian Trinity Cyril. Ibid. p. 34. B. C., confesseth the third Principle, which should answer to the Holy Ghost, to be no other than the Soul of the World, which all Platonists understand to be a distinct substance from the first Cause. Nay, Porphyry himself, in the place which St. Cyril would serve his purpose on, calleth Plato's three Principles, [ [...], Porph. Ib. p. 34. C. D.] not three Hypostases but three Gods. Plato in Parmen. p. 141. Vol. 3.— [...], &c. Et ap. Cyy. l. 1. cont. Jul. p. 32. [...], &c. Of his other Idea's I have little to say, I mean of those properly so called before the formation of the World. Parmenides is a Book, either so muddy, or so profoundly deep, that I cannot see to the bottom of it. Therein he discourseth of these matters with infinite subtlety, or rather perplexity of notion. One would imagin a man of his wit not so absurd as to think them eternal Substances, and models quite separated from the mind of God, but rather divine thoughts concerning the fashion of the World which he decreed to make. Yet Ammonius the Scholar of Proclus ascribeth to him that opinion, and followeth him in it: though herein Aristotle deserted his Master, and not without reason. And he sure, knew his meaning, and had a Key to his Mysteries. Other Idea's there were which Plato owned, and they were such as are more intelligible, and more proper for me to speak of in this Argument; they being Angels or Daemons. The uncertain Greek Author Anon. de Vitâ Pythag. p. 213. of the Life of Pythagoras, joined to that of Porphyry, discoursing of the World as consisting of twelve distinct Orbs, placeth in the first Sphere, God Almighty. After Him he rangeth the Inferior Deities, which from Plato he calleth Idea's, and from Aristotle, Intellectual Gods. He means the Intelligences of that Philosopher, though he made them to be but seven according to the number of the Planets [Page] which he set them to move. Of Plato Tertullian saith, Tertull. de Animâ, c. 18. p. 276. ‘That he held certain invisible, incorporeal, supermundial, divine, eternal, substances to which he gave the name of Idea's, as the causes of visible things.’ For his Archetypal Idea, it is manifest to the Reader of his Works, and particularly of his Timaeus, that he supposed him to be a Being as subsistent by it self as Matter, and distinct from the supreme Divinity. He speaks of it as a Thing, Being, or Person, not as a meer pattern of Things; and his [ [...]] or Platform, is held by him to be but the [ [...]] or Image of his principal Idea See Serran. in Arg. Timael Platon. pag. 6.. The next Power to his [ [...]] or God the pure and unmixed Good, was [ [...]] or Intellect, or [ [...]] Existence compounded of Intellect and Unity, and distinct in substance from the first Cause according to Plato; though [ [...]] was the first according to Anaxagoras (called [...] himself for this his Dogma) whom Plato outshot by one Principle. The third Platonick Power was distinct from both the former, and it was [ [...], or] the Soul of the World. Nous, Psyche, Logos, and the like Mystical terms, were but the names of certain eminent Demons placed by his Fancy at the right hand of God, and used in the works of Creation and Providence as Authorative Agents, and not as meer Instruments of the first Cause. They were therefore set up and reverenced with prejudice to the honour of the true God, who is the only Creator and Preserver of all things. By Creation the Platonists meant only the disposal of the Chaos into order: for their Philosophy supposed Matter See Sallust. de Diis & Mundo. c. 7. p. 15. to have been as Coeternal with God, as Light is coeval with the Sun. By Plato God is called [ [...]] the Maker and Father of All that is See Serran. in Arg. Timaei, p. 5.. But he means not this of Him as of the immediate Cause, but as the Cause of the higher Principles, Causes, or Powers, which, [Page] with subordination to him, produced in order such as are inferior to themselves. Sallust the Platonist openly confesseth it, and out of him I will transcribe the sense of part of a Chapter, concerning the modelling and governing of the visible World, by the power of Demons. He had in his first Chapter concerning the Gods and the World, discoursed about God, or the first Cause of all things. A while after in his sixth Chapter, Sallust. de Diis & Mundo. c. 6. p. 13, 14. [which according to its Title, treateth of the Cosmical and Encosmical, or of the Celestial and Worldly Gods;] he thus pursueth his Divine Subject. ‘Of the Gods, some are Worldly, and others Heavenly. I call those Worldly who make the World. For the Heavenly, some of them make the substances of the gods, [or Inferior Demons], some, the Mind; some, the Souls [...].. Wherefore, of these there are three Orders, and they may easily be found in the discourses which are made of them. For the Worldly gods, some make the World [or visible frame of things]; some animate it; some adjust the parts of it; and some govern or preserve it so composed. Here then being four things, and each of them consisting of first, middle and extreme; it is necessary that they who dispose them, be twelve in number. They therefore that make th [...] World are Jupiter, Neptune, and Vulcan. They who animate it, are Juno, Ceres, Diana. They who adjust the parts of it, are Apollo, Venus, and Mercury. They who preserve it, are Vesta, Pallas, and Mars.—These first possessing the World before others, [That is, the Pagan Heroes;] we may imagin the others in them: To wit, Bacchus in Jupiter; AEsculapius in Apollo; the Graces in Venus. We may also contemplate their [several] Spheres: The Earth, the Orb of Vesta; the Water, that of Neptune; the Air, that of Juno;’ the Fire, that of Vulcan. [Page]Plato himself, as he is cited by St. Cyril, Plato ap. S. Cyr. Alex. cont. Julian. l. 2. p. 61. supposeth God to have quitted, as it were, the care of things on Earth, and to have committed it to the Inferior gods for their diversion [...].. It is true, that in four places Plato asserteth a divine Providence, taking care of the things on Earth, even of the least things; and doing it with ease, and being no way prevented by sloth. He doth this in his Tenth Book of Laws Plato de Leg. lib. 10. Vol. 2. p. 899, 900, 901, 902, 903. 904.; in his Politicus Id. p. 273▪; in his Epinomis Id. p. 980.; and in his Phaedo Id. in Phaed. Vol. 1. p. 62, 63.: But where he asserteth this, he speaketh it as much of the gods, as of God. And in his Phaedo, after Cebes had affirmed in the singular of God, that he consulted better for man, than man could for himself, and was an excellent Lord; Simmias and Socrates in some sort consenting to him, turn his sentence into the plural of Lords and Gods Id. ibid. p. 63. A.— [...].. Julian likewise, though he professed the belief of one true God, yet he assigned several Countries and Cities to the care of several Tutelar Gods Jul. ap. S. Cyr. l. 4. p. 115.. So we find in Porphyry Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 1. sect. 57. p. 49. certain [ [...], or] Gods that were conceived to be Presidents of Regions; such amongst whom the Government of the lower World was parted. The Gentiles indeed did not wholly exclude the supreme God, but they worshipped him as one who had not reserved unto himself the greatest share of the Government. Hence is it that we find among their ancient Inscriptions, many such as that remembred by Elmenhorstius Elm. in Not. in Arnob. l. 1. p. 23. Jovi Opt. Max. & Geni [...] Loci.; TO JUPITER THE BEST AND GREATEST [Deity], AND TO THE GENIUS [or Demon] OF THE PLACE. They thought of the supreme Jove, but they seldom thought of him without his Deputy.

Such Philosophy concerning the Lieutenancy of Demons is at this day on foot in China. There the Litterati, or those of the Sect of Confusio, own one God Alv. Simed [...] in Hist. Sin. part. 1. c. 18. p. 86, 87.; and though they do not reverence him with any solemn [Page] worship, (as if he were a kind of unconcerned, Epicurean Deity), yet they have Temples for Tutelar Spirits. The Sect of the Tausi also acknowledg one Great God, and other lesser Ones, that is, Vicegerent Demons. The same sort of Philosophy is found amongst the Benjans, in the Eastern India. The Sect of them called Samarath, though it believeth one first Cause Mandesto's Travels, l. 1. p. 55., which created the World, yet it assigneth to him Three Subftitutes, Brama, Buffiuna, and Mais. ‘Brama (they fay) hath the disposal of Souls, which he sends into such Bodies as Permiseer [or the supreme God,] appointeth for them; whether they be the Bodies of Men or Beasts. Buffiuna teacheth the World the Laws of its God: He hath also the oversight of Provisions for common life, and advanceth the growth of Wheat, Herbs and Pulse, after Brama hath indu'd each of them with Souls. Mais exerciseth its power over the dead.’ This looks to me like a Tale of Jupiter, Ceres and Pluto.

This Opinion of the Gentiles, which ascribeth so much of the Government of this World to Demons, as Gods Commissioners in certain Precincts, and as Superintendents over Places, Persons, and Things, is manifestly contrary to the tenor of the Scriptures. They teach, See Isai. 41. 22, 23. c. 43. 11, 12, 13. c. 45. 5, 6, 7. That God is the great disposer of Good and Evil in all Cities and Places; and that his Providence extendeth to the fall of a little Sparrow, and of a lesser thing than that, an hair of our head. That sheweth us how he used great importunity for the turning of Jew and Gentile from the confidence which they placed in their Genii. This, saith St. Cyril S. Cyr. Alex. cont. Jul. l. 4. p: 124., he would never have attempted, if they had been Presidents of his own appointment. His Angels minister before him, but they do not properly govern under him, much less is that true of Superexisting Souls. The [Page] Angels of Graecia and Persia were such Spirits, as did at that time serve his will in that particular employment. But we have no cogent reason (I think) to perswade us, that they always enjoyed a setled Lieutenancy over those Countries. It was a rash conclusion which Vatablus drew from those Visions of Daniel Vatabl. in Dan. 10. 13. singulae Regi [...] nes habent Presides singulos., to wit, that to every Nation was assigned an Angel as President over it. The whole of that Discourse in Daniel is a Vision, and a representation of Heavenly things in a Scene upon Earth. And they who make particular application of every circumstance, without due attention to the main design of it, forget that they confound Earthly and Heavenly things, and lay their gross absurdities of fancy at the door of the Spirit of God. Such (for instance sake) would they be who should think from this Vision, that an Angel toucheth Gods Prophets with an hand at what time he inspireth them, because Daniel Dan. 10. 10. so expresseth himself as if it were so done to him; or who should believe that a good Angel ordained by God to comfort his Prophet, could be detained by an evil one for one and twenty days Vers. 1 [...], until he prevailed against him by the assistance of Michael; because the Scripture useth such an [...]umane Image, and alludeth to the impediments of good men on earth, who are not equal in power and motion to the ministring Angels, who are quick and vigorous as Spirits or Winds, and flames of Fire.

On such quickness and vigor God serveth his Purposes by the temporary Ministry of Angels; but by Himself still, and not by them as setled Delegates, He dispenseth favours and severities. Accordingly God inviting the Jews to renounce their Genii, or inferior Deities and Patrons, [and not meerly to turn from evil Angels, and to apply themselves to good ones;] [Page] promiseth by himself to send them that worldly plenty which they had sacrilegiously ascribed to their Idols. And St. Paul endeavouring to draw the Lycaonians from their Vanities, remindeth them Act. 14. 15, 16, 17. of the testimony which God had given them, of his Providence in sending them fruitful seasons. This if it had been done by Commissioned Demons, the Gentiles might have abated the force of the Apostles argument, which proveth the care of the supreme God by the supplies of outward blessings. The same St. Paul hath left us another Text, most worthy of our attention, in which he confirmeth the Government and the Providence of the supreme God; rejecteth the Lieutenancy of Demons, and owneth Christ alone as the Substitute of the Father. Though there be, said he 1 Cor. 8. 5., such as are called Gods; though there be many [Superior, and many Inferior Baalim] Gods or Lords; yet to us [Christians] there is but one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ. He is the true God, and Eternal life: He is Gods Vicegerent, who is the Everlasting [...] of the Father; and not the Platonick Demon called [...], or that of the Valentinians See Iren. l. 1. c. 12. p. 86, 87., which together with their Logos made the second Conjugation of their [...], the first whence they came, being [...] and [...], Mind and Truth Vide Iren. passim, & S. Aug. de Haer. in Haer. Val. c. 11. p. 33, 34..

If then God by his Providence dispenseth immediately Good and Evil; if his care reacheth to things below the Moon (whose Orb some made the limits of it, with equal vanity and boldness; whilst others, with Maimonides Maimon. More Neb. part. 3. c. 17. p. 381, 382, 383. allowed a Providence over man, but not over beasts:) If he useth his Angels as ministring, not governing spirits; as messengers of several kinds, and not as Commission-Officers of his Court, and administrators of the Affairs of his Kingdom; as the Attendants ordinary or extraordinary of his Substitute Jesus Christ, but not as fellow-Viceroys: if he thus far [Page] only useth his Angels, and it may be useth not departed Souls so far as this amounts to; it is plain Idolatry to worship Demons, as did the Gentiles, in that quality of divine Lieutenants. For from them they expect good and evil; them they fear, them they thank. When God sendeth fruitful Seasons, and by them Plenty, they send up their acknowledgments to the Queen of Heaven. When God healeth them, they sacrifice to AEsculapius, as to him that removed their distemper from them. This is a very great Iniquity, and the common grounds or occasions of it are highly unworthy of the true God. For most of them who believe not his immediate Providence, do measure his actions by those of worldly Potentates. They conceive him out of state, to do little by his own person; or out of ease and softness, to commit the management of his affairs to others, both by temporary command, and by standing Commission. As if the greatest variety of business could distract or weary him, who is Infinite in Knowledg, and Greatness, and Power. Thus St. Cyril S. Cyril. Al. cont. Jul. l. 2. p. 60. judged of ‘them who substituted lesser Deities under him that was supreme. He thought that they impeached God of Arrogance or floth, or want of Goodness, which envieth none the good it can do.’ And Isaiah tacitly upbraideth those who distrusted his Providence, of the like vile opinion concerning him, whilst he saith of the Creator Isa. 40. 28., that He fainteth not, neither is weary.

Secondly, The Gentiles were Idolaters through the worship they gave to such Demons as were evil spirits. It is true, that Plato owned no inferior Deities but such as were [by him esteemed] good. He maintaineth this in his Tenth Book of Laws, and St. Austin confesseth it to be his judgment Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. 8. p. 464. c. 13. de sententiâ Platonis quâ definivit Deos non esse nisi Bonos amicosque virtutum.. He saith in his Phaedo Plato in Phaedon. Vol. 1. p. 82. B. [...], &c., That none were to be registred among the gods but such who had studied Philosophy and departed pure [Page] out of this life. When he speaketh of Demons who afflict men, he is to be interpreted rather of good Spirits executing Justice, than of evil Angels venting their malice. But, whatsoever his opinion was, it is most evident that the generality of the Heathens worshipped such Demons as were morally malignant. And such Porphyry Porphyr. l. 2. de Abstin. Sect. 58. p. 96. esteemed those Genii who had bloody Sacrifices offered to them. The Gentiles sacrificed to Devils, to the Powers of the Kingdom of Darkness, which were not only not God, but enemies and professed Rebels against him 1 Cor. 10. 20.. They were in Porphyry's account, Terrestrial Demons; such who had gross Vehicles, and consequently were of the meaner and viler sort of their Genii, and (as they love to speak) sunk deepest into matter. Psellus and Porphyry represent them as united to a body of so gross contexture, A p. S. Cyril. Al. cont. Jul. l. 4. p. 124. See Porph. in l. 2. de Abstin. Sect. 42. p. 85, 86. [...], [vehiculum aereum, rather than, pars spiritalis, used by the Translator,] [...], &c. that they could smell the Odors of the Sacrifices, and be fat with the steam of human blood. Lucian in his Book de Sacrificiis, abounds with pleasant [or rather to them who pity the decays of human nature, with very sad] stories of the Revels of Demons. Whether they were Terrestrial ones or not, I here forbear to dispute: but I conclude concerning them, that they were evil. Their nature shews it self by the services which they accepted, by the persons whom they have favoured, and by the appearances and wonders with which they sometimes encouraged them. The Rites with which they were worshipped were bloody, rude, unclean; such as an honest man would be ashamed to observe See S. Cyril. contr. Jul. l 4. p. 129.. Porphyry, though a Gentile, hath recorded many of the bloody Sacrifices Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 2. p. 93, 94, 95, &c. offered by the Rhodians, Phoenicians, and Graecians; and he telleth of a man in his time sacrificed in Rome, at the Feast of Jupiter Latialis. The like barbarity was commonly used in the worship of Moloch, and Bellona. [Page] And he must have such a measure of Assurance as will suffer him no more to blush than his Ink, who writes down all the Obscenities used in her worship, whom they usually called the Mother of the Gods. Origen telleth Celsus concerning the Christians Orig. cont. cels. l. 3. p. 133., ‘That they had learned to judg of all the Gods of the Heathen as of Devils, by their greediness of the blood of their Sacrifices, and by their presence amidst the Nidors of them, by which they deceived those who made not God their refuge.’ And in another place, Id. ibid. p. 123. he proveth this truth out of their own Histories: and he instanceth particularly in their Deity Hercules; and he objecteth against him his immoral love, and that vile effeminacy which their own Authors record. I will not tell over again their foolish stories so very often told already; but offer to the Reader a Relation of fresher date, out of Idolatrous America. ‘In Mexico (saith an Author Gage in his Survey of the West-Ind. c. 12. p. 115. who had sojourned in that City), the Heathens had dark houses, full of Idols, great and small, and wrought of sundry Metals: these were all bathed and washed with blood,—the blood of men;—the walls of the houses were an inch thick with blood, and the floor a foot.—The Priests went daily into those Oratories, and suffered none other but great Personages to enter with them. And when any of such condition went in, they were bound to offer some man as a Sacrifice, that the Priests might wash their hands, and sprinkle the house with the blood of the Victim.’ With such Sacrifices no good Angel could be pleased: wherefore the worship of such being an honour done not to God, or his Ministers, but to the Devil and his Angels, who live in perfect defiance of true Religion, is an Idolatry so detestable, that I have not at hand a name of sufficient infamy to bestow upon it.

PART 8. Of their Idolatry in worshipping the Images of Demons.

[Page]

THirdly, The Gentiles were Idolaters in worshipping the Statues or Images of Demons or Heroe's, either as those Powers were reputed the Deputies of God; or as they were really evil spirits. The Religious Honour given to the Prototype was Idolatrous, and therefore the Honour done to the Image respecting the Prototype, was such also. So he that bows towards the Chair of an Usurper, does give away the honour of the true Soveraign; because the external sign of his submission is ultimately referred to the Usurper himself.

The Honour which the Gentiles did to their Statues, redounded generally to their Demons; for their Theology did not set up such Images (whatsoever vulgar fancy or practice did) as final objects of worship, or Gods in themselves. It set them up as places of Divine Residence, wherein the Genii were thought to dwell, or to afford their especial presence in Oracles, and other Supernatural aids; as the true God was said to dwell amidst the Cherubims. The Egyptians (as Ruffinus Ruffin. Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. storieth) entertained this superstitious perswasion, amongst a multitude of others, That if any man had laid violent hands on the Statue of Serapis, the Heavens and the Earth would have been mixed together in a new Chaos. Olympius the Sophist Olymp. Soph. ap. Soz. Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 15. p. 724. Ed. [...]ales. exhorteth the Gentiles still to adhere to the Religion of their Gods, notwithstanding the Christians defaced their Statues. And he gave them this as the reason of his counsel, Because (said he) though the Images be corruptible things, yet in them did dwell [...], &c. Virtues [or Demons] which from the ruins of [Page] their Statues, took their flight to Heaven. This Opinion Arnobius Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 6. p. 203, &c. and Lactantius Lact. l. 2. de Orig. Err. Sect. 2. p. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145. acknowledg to have been common among the Gentiles: and we may still read it in the writings of the wiser (shall I say, or the subtler and less excusable) sort of them. Of that number were Celsus and Julian. Celsus demandeth Cels. ap. Orig. l. 7. p. 373. [...];, Whether any man, besides a sottish Ideot who has not a grain of salt in his mind, can believe Stone, Wood, Brass, or Gold, formed by an Artificer, to be a God, and not rather a Statue sacred to the Gods? The Excuse of Julian is not unlike to that of Celsus. ‘We worship Images (said that Julian. in Fragm. inter Op. p. 537. [...]. Apostate Emperour), not that we think them to be very Gods themselves, but that by them [as Symbols] we may worship the Gods.’ This Petavius the Jesuit in his Note on the Margent, calleth a frigid Evasion. I grant it is so; but is not the like Apology used in justification of Imageworship, by that Society of which Petavius was a a Brother? So goes the world, even the Learned world: the same reason is by factious Partiality called a piller in one mans Cause, and a straw in anothers.

But let us return to our Argument from this short digression. In pursuit of it, it ought to be taken notice of, that the Writers of the Old Testament seem to speak very differently from Celsus and Julian, in this matter of the Worship of Images and Statues. They seem to upbraid the Gentiles as the Worshippers of the very Statues themselves, without further reference unto God or Demons. There stood in Zion, then a Fort of the Jebusites, certain brazen Images, as Talismanical Protectors of it See Mr. Greg. Notes on the place.; in them the people trusted, believing that David 2 Sam. 5. 6, 7, 8. could not take that Fort till he had removed those divine Guards. With these David reproached the people, calling them the Blind and the Lame, which his soul abhorred; that is, such [Page] Idols as had eyes and saw not; feet, and walked not. Other Prophets argue with Idolaters from their own experience; and appeal to them, whether their Idols could hear, or see, or help them? and whether they were not the works of mens hands which they adored Isa. 41. 7, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29. & 44. 9, to 20. & 45. 20. & 46. 6, 7. Hab. 2. 18, 19, 20. Zach. 10. 1, 2.? They mock them as such who prayed for a prosperous Journey, to an Idol that could not move; and who worshipped one part of a dead Tree, which by the other part of it, served for fuel; for fuel, not for their Altars but for the ordinary fires of their Kitchin. They do not deride them as vain men who trusted in a creature which had no power or virtue in it but what it derived from God, as a late French Author seems to suggest De la Recherche de la verite. Tom. 2. liv. 6. c. 8. p. 327, 328.; but as such who depended on an Idol; on a thing which neither in it self, nor from any foreign cause, supreme or subordinate, contained or dispensed the virtue they ascribed to it. One would be apt to conclude from such scoffs of the Prophets, that the Gentiles made their very Images their ultimate Gods.

They did so by interpretation, but not by direct intention of mind, unless they were the very scum of the scum of the world. Those who had any measure of understanding discoursed after the manner of Clinia in Plato's Eleventh Book of Laws Plato de Legibus, l. 11. p. 930, 931.. ‘Of the Gods (said Clinia) some are seen; to others, which we see not, we erect Images and Statues. And though these Statues be in themselves without life; yet we esteem them animated Deities, and believe whilst we worship them, that they are very favourable to us.’ The barbarous Americans made the same distinction with the Philosophical Clinia. They were upbraided by Frier Gage Gage in Survey of west-Ind. c. 20. p. 391, to p. 398. for worshipping an Idol of black wood which they had placed in a Cave of the Earth. But instead of putting them to silence, he received this [Page] answer from them. They told him that themselves believed the Image to be but wood of it self; but that they knew also by their own ears, that it had spoken to them: they thence concluded that a God was in it, and that on such a miraculous voice, they rightly founded their devotion. This excuse then was common, but so was not such extraordinary operation as the Americans spake of. If it had been vulgarly notorious among the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians, the Prophets would scarce have appealed to them, whilst they discoursed of the nullity and vanity of their Images; for then the people might have refuted their Argument by professing their experience of signs and wonders. But nothing was done Supernaturally by many of their Statues. Their Priests and Statesmen deluded them frequently with their Tales and Arts; and they sacrificed many of the Provisions for their BELS, to their own stomack. Haly speaketh Apud Reicheltum de Amuletis. p. 36. of Images in Egypt known to himself, which could move very strangely, as did the Dove of Archytas. Ruffinus mentioneth an Iron-Image of Serapis at Alexandria; and Pliny one of the same metal in the Temple of Arsinoe, sustained by Magnets See Pincieri AEnigm. l. 1. AEnig. 7. p. 17, 18.; to the intent that the people might behold them with admiration, as supported in the air by nothing but Miracles. Dionysius Halicarnassensis Dion. Halicarn. Rom. Ant. l. 8. sect. 10. p. 784, 785. telleth of the Mother of Marcius Coriolanus, and of other Women sent in Embassy to him by the Senate, when he had made defect to the Volsci; that prevailing with him to restrain his Forces, the Senate out of the publick Treasury built to Fortune a Temple and an Image, and the Women erected a second Image at their private charge. Of this second Image he reporteth out of the Pontifical Records (Registers of their own cheats under better names and colours); that it spake Latine in the audience of many. What it spake was it seems [Page] to this sense, O ye Matrons! ye, by the Holy Law of the Commonwealth, have made this dedication of me.

Where there was not this deeper art, much was contributed towards the delusion of the people, by the solemn worship, the costly and pompous dress, the stately Processions, the secret Repositories of the Idols of the Heathen. Distance procured reverence, and the splendor of Gold (of which some consisted, and the gilding by which others Tertull. de Idol. p. 89. Soccus & Baxa deaurantur, &c. See Isai. 40. 19. were made very glorious) created amusement Porphyr. de Stat. Brachman. ap. Bardes. Syr. p. 283. [...], &c. in the eyes and fancies of the Vulgar, who have scarce reason enough to correct their senses. The Statuaries were not masters of much true Art: we see little of proportion in their Images, or of Ordonance in their Tables. That of Isis shews an ill hand, and a worse judgment. But of such Art as might amuse and astonish, either with pleasant or frightful magnificence, there was enough among the rudest Gentiles. In Goa the Heathens of East-India Vincent le Blanc in his Travels, p. 50. built a Temple of black stone, and shaped their Pagods, or Idols, in figures of horror. In Pegu Le Blanc, p. 125. they abounded with Idols of pure gold, whose Crowns were enriched with valuable Jewels. One of these was of a prodigious heighth, and they called him Apalita, and supposed him to be a Guide to Pilgrims. They had also a statue of silver in the proportion of a Giant; and he was such a Patron among them as Mars was among the Greeks and Romans. Peter Della Valle Della Valle in his Travels, p. 114, 115. speaks of an Image in Ahineli in the same India, called Virena. It stood (as he describes it) at the upper-end of a Temple upon a Tribunal, in a dark and solemn place. It had many Candles set before it in the time of its worship. They carried it sometimes in Procession, under a rich Canopy, with noises of Musick, with Perfumes, and lighted Tapers. There were other inferior Idols serving as his Attendants. And they had Diadems [Page] like to those of the Images of Saints at Rome, or like to the Regno or Pontifical Crown of the Pope. He said it, who was both a Roman, and a Roman Catholick. And his description of Virena puts me in mind of that of the Virgin of Halla made by Lipsius Lips. Oper. Tom. 3. pag. 1250, 1251. Ed. Vesal. 1675.: It stands aloft, it is lighted with Tapers, it is of silver; the Image of Christ and of the Twelve Apostles are nigh it; an Angel stands on either side, a silver Lamp hangs by. This pomp amuseth; it is well if it hath not a more Idolatrous effect. The forecited Della Valle describes a Carr in Ikkeri P. D. Valle, p. 129., in which the Idols were carried in pompous Procession; the Carr was exceeding high, and so very great that scarce any but one of the widest Streets of Rome would (he saith) have been capable of receiving it, and giving it passage. Arnobius observeth concerning the Gentiles Arnob. contr. Gent. l. 6. p. 209., That they designed to create Fear by the manner in which they framed the Statues of the Gods. Hence (as he noteth) Sythes and Clubs, and Thunder-bolts were appendages to their Idols. I will end these Instances with a Discourse of St. Austin's in his fourth Epistle. ‘For Idols, who is there that doubts whether they be void of all perception? But when they are by an honourable sublimeness, placed on their Thrones, and observed by them who pray and offer Sacrifice; those Idols by the likeness of animated members, and of organs of sense (though indeed there be no life in them) do so affect the minds of vveak people, that they appear to them to live and to breathe: They do so especially through the veneration of the multitude, vvhilst so pompous and so divine a worship is bestovved on them.’

There being then in most of such Idols, no divine virtue, but an artificial form and motion; they vvho worshipped them, whatsoever they intended to worship [Page] in them, were truly said to worship them themselves. This I may illustrate by the confession of Arnobius who was once himself a Pagan Infidel Arnob. l. 1. p. 22, 23.. ‘I worshipped (said he), Oh my blindness! such Gods as came out of the Smith's Furnace, and such as were fashioned by the Hammer and Anvil. I worshipped the bones of Elephants:’ [for they, as Peireskius Gass. in vitâ Peiresk. l. 2. p. 90. l. 4. p. 151, 152. noteth, were honoured by mistake, for those of Giants.] ‘I adored a smooth stone, and a Wooden statue. I flattered the Image, as if there were a Deity present there: I spake to it, I asked benefits of it, though it perceived nothing.’

The Prophets therefore used an Argument most accommodable to the Gentiles, and tending the most ready way to their conviction. For if they vvould not have been most sottishly credulous See Isa. 46. 8. Remember this [viz. v. 7. that Idols can't move, or answer,] and shew your selves men, Isa. 44. 19. There is no understanding to say, I have burnt part of it in the fire., if they would not have permitted their fancies to have imposed upon their understandings; if they would but have examined matters of fact with any degree of diligence and impartiality, the generality of them might have known concerning their Images, that they had usually no more of Inspiration or Divinity in them, than the stones of their streets, or the posts of their doors See Isa. 46. 1, 2.. The Fathers in their Disputations with the Heathens, do frequently use this Argument against their Images, and deride them for worshipping things which can neither help men nor themselves Arnob. l. 1. p. 22, 23. Beneficia poscebam nihil sentiente de Trunco. L. 6. p. 200. Amentia Deum credere, quem tute ipse formaris? supplicare tremebundum fabricatae abs te rei? p. 202. Non videtis' sub istorum simulachrorum cavis—mures—babitare?—in ore—ab Araneis ordiri retia?. And thence by the way, I take leave to observe that if they believ'd the Bread to be Christs real natural body, they argued with Inconsistence. For then it would have been an obvious retort, that the object which they themselves worshipped in the Sacrament could not deliver it self from a contemptible Mouse.

From the importance of this Discourse, some answer may be returned to an Argument used by the [Page] Learned Mr. Thorndike Mr. Thorndike's Epilogue, part 3. p. 298., who supposed Idolatry to consist in Polytheism. He would prove the Calf or Idol of Samaria to have been the ultimate object of them who adored it; because in Amos Amos 8. 6. it is objected to them, That the Workman made it, and therefore it was not God. Here the Prophet only useth an Argument which appealeth to their own reason, and which they might have used themselves, but did not. Judg among your selves (said he in effect) whether this Statue thus framed can be a God, what divine power soever you think to reside in it; yet you do by interpretation, make it your God, because you worship that which is before you, and there is nothing but the Image it self; nothing in it, no virtue issuing from it. Wherefore, notwithstanding your imagination, which your common reason might correct, the thing it self is your Deity or your Idol. And the Prophet does not only argue against an Idol as against a thing made with hands, but also as a Statue which contained in it no more of Coelestial influence than a common Image. For he foretelleth in the sixth verse, that it was to be broken; and in the fifth, seventh, and eighth verses, he observeth, that it could not save them from Captivity, but on the other hand, exposed them to it.

PART 9. Of their Worshipping Daemons more than God.

LAst of all, the Gentiles were Idolaters by justling out the Worship of the Supreme God, or very much of it, through their officiousness in the service of Inferior Deities. They could not but be guilty if they gave away Gods honour, in whole, or in part. And in part at least, it is certain that they converted it to the use of Creatures. God who governeth the World [Page] ought to have received the honour of their devout Prayers, and becoming Sacrifices; and the greatest part of these, and sometimes the whole of them was offered to Daemons. For who esteemeth that Tenant faithful to the honour and interest of his Lord, who payeth the greatest rent to another, and offereth him a pepper-corn, though he hath reserved the whole propriety, and the very reception to himself. Divers Masters cannot be at the same time observed with equal duty: and Devotion cannot flow in the same plenty, in divers streams, as in one. Therefore when Tarquinius Priscus multiplied Deities, and introduced Statues among the Romans, their Religion was immediately much debased: when they had many Jupiters, and a great croud of other Deities, and every Deity had its Statue, its Altar, its Sacrifice, its Temple; little time was left, and as little zeal for the Worship of the God of Heaven and Earth. To him some of them scarce ever said a Prayer, or offered a Sacrifice. Porphyry thought not such services to be agreeable to the Supreme God See Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 1. Sect. 57. p. 49. & l. 2. Sect. 34. p. 78. And see upon his words there, S. Cyr. Alex. cont. Jul. l. 2. p. 60, 61., but he concluded that men were to adore him, ‘Without words, without Sacrifices, in silence, with a pure mind. But this was a Worship so abstracted,’ that few other Heathens either performed it, or so much as understood it. Yet some might do both. For Confusio the famed Philosopher of China Alvarez Simedo in Hist. Sin. Par. 1. c. 18. p. 86., acknowledg'd one Supreme God; but he did not serve him with Temples, Altars, Priests, or Prayers; though by such worship he Idolized the Heavens, the Earth, and Man.

Let this then from the Premises be the conclusion of the present Chapter, that the Gods of the Heathen are Idols and Vanities, and unworthy the submission of any reasonable creature Jer. 10. 8. They are altogether brutish, the stock is a doctrine of Vanities..

CHAP. VI. Concerning the Idolatry of the Jews, and particularly of their worshipping the Golden Calf. Also of the Egyptian Symbol of Apis, as at that time not extant. And of the probable Reasons which set up Moses as the Original Apis.

[Page]

PART 1. Of the Provisions made by God against Idolatry among the Jews.

THE Israelites by their Constitution were of all Nations a people the most averse to Idolatry. Their first Commandment prescribeth the Worship of one God. Their second forbiddeth external religious honour to graven Images; which by the exhibition of that honour, whatsoever they were before, become very Idols. Wherefore St. Cyprian De Exhort. Martyr. c. 1. p. 378. Non facies tibi Idolum. thus renders the sense of the Command, Thou shalt not make to thy self an Idol. And the contention about the Translation of Pesel, by Graven thing, Idol, or Image, is with respect to the design of Moses, an unnecessary Grammar-War. This second Command against the Worship of Images, the Jews have esteemed the great Command of all. Their very Moneys have had on the Obvers the name of Moses inscribed; and on the Revers, that second precept or prohibition Hottinger. in Cipp. Hebraic. p. 136.. Their third Command, [Thou shalt not take, or bear in thy mouth Grot. in Decal. p. 50. In Hebraeo, non feres, nempe in ore tuo, quod idem est cum illo, non sumes in os scilicet. the name of Jehovah thy God in vain,] may seem also to discountenance Idols, and to forbid all Oaths of promise made [Page] by them in the name of God, by which they often called their false Deities. It may seem to forbid not so directly the breach of Neder, a Vow to the Lord, as Schefugnah, (according to the distinction of the Jews) See Fagius on Numb. 30. 3. and see Deut. 20. 10., a Vow by the Lord, or by his Name, when that Name was used in signifying some Idol. I say it may seem so to do; for that it does so, I rather guess than affirm. In this conjecture I am helped by Tertullian: That Father discoursing concerning the unlawfulness of naming the Gods of the Gentile-world Tertull. de Idololat. Sect. 20. p. 97, 98., maketh use of this distinction; he teacheth that the bare naming of them is lawful, because it is necessary in Discourse, but he condemneth the naming of them in such manner as if they were really Gods. After this distinction he pursueth the Argument in this manner: ‘The Law saith Exod. 23. 13., You shall make no mention of the names of other gods, neither shall they be heard out of your mouths. This it commanded, that we should not call them gods. For it saith in the first part [or Table] of it, Thou shalt not take up the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, that is, in an Idol Id. ib.—in van [...], id [...]ft i [...] Ido [...] Aquilas [...] vers. Interlin. i [...] vanum.. He therefore fell into Idolatry who hononred an Idol with the name of God. But if they must be called gods, I should add something by which it may appear that I do not own them to be Gods. For the Scripture it self calls them gods, but then it addeth [by way of discrimination] their gods, or the gods of the Nations. In such manner David called them gods, when he said the gods of the Nations were Devils—It is a customary wickedness to say, Mehercule.—And it proceeds from the ignorance of some who know not that they swear by Hercules. Now what is swearing by those whom [in Baptism] you have forsworn [or renounced] but a corrupting of the Faith with Idolatry? For who does not honour [Page] those he swears by?’ To this purpose are those words in Hosea Hos. 4. 15.: Though thou Israel play the Harlot, yet let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Beth-aven, [or Bethel,] now become a house of iniquity, vanity, or Idolatry, So the vulg. Latine renders Aven in Hosea 6. 8. Galaad civitas opexa [...] tium Idolum., nor swear the Lord liveth. That is, seeing they worship the Golden Calves, which are really Idols, though they give to them the name of Jehovah, as setting them up for his Symbol; yet use not you that word there, or the form of their oath by Jehovah; for thereby you will take up the name of God, and the name by which he is most eminently distinguished, in vain, or in an Idol. Idols are Elilim, or vanities: they are very lyes, at once to use the terms the Prophet gives them, and to allude to the Syriack Version of the third Command, [Thou shalt not take up the name of the Lord thy God with a lye.] He therefore who sweareth by them without distinction, calling them gods, or giving them any names which signifie Divine Power; He that sweareth, or voweth by Coelum or Coelus, that is, the Heavens; by Pluto, or the Earth: such a one does not only dishonour the See Josh. 23. 7. Neither make mention os the name os their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow your selves unto them. See Jer. 5. 2, 7. name of the true God, but he doth also by interpretation forswear himself; for he sweareth by an Idol, lie, or vanity; vowing by its help to perform his Oath, which therefore he cannot by that means perform, because he trusteth to an helpless thing, though by his trust he honoureth it as a Divine Power.

Further, one great end of the fourth Command was the prevention of Idolatry. The seventh day was observed as a Memorial of that one God the Creator of the World, and the God of Israel; and they who kept it holy, kept it holy to Jehovah, and made profession hereby that they were not Gentiles, who worshipped many Gods, but the seed of Abraham who served but one, the God of that Patriarch, and of Isaac, and Jacob. ‘[Page] This (saith Mr. Mede) was the end of the Sabbath Mr. Mede's Discours. 15. of the Sabbath, p. 73., that thereby, as by a Symbolum, or sign, that people might testifie and profess what God they worshipped.’ He ought, it may be, to have spoken this with limitation, and called it a great end: and that it was such, is evident from the Text of Moses, than whom, no man better understood the Levitical Oeconomy. To him God spake Exod. 31. 12, 13, 16, 17. saying, Speak thou also to the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you, throughout your Generations, that ye may know that I am the Lord who doth sanctifie you, [or set you apart as my Worshippers, distinct from those who worship Idols.]—Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath to observe the Sabbath throughout their Generations, for a perpetual Covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever. For in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, and on the seventh day he rested [or ceased] and was refreshed, [or was pleased with that exceeding good and beautiful frame of things, which his Wisdom, Goodness and Power had made.]

A like end there was of the Levitical Sacrifices. God needed them not; the Sacrifice of a pure and humble mind was more agreeable to him who is an Intellectual Spirit. But the Israelites doted on such a gross manner of expressing their devotion. And seeing they must needs offer Sacrifice, it pleased God to give them a Law which might at once indulge them in their inclination, and restrain them from sacrificing unto Idols; whilft it appropriated that service to God alone, and denied it to Angels and Men. To this purpose St. Cyril discourseth S. Cyril. Alex. contr. Julian. [...]. p. 126., and this is the sense of the words of that Father. ‘God had no thirst which was to be quenched with blood. He required not of himself so gross and material a worship, but one more spiritual, perfected [Page] by universal virtue. He required a life honesty and integrity, and such as shone honourably with good works; a right contemplation of the Deity, and a true and blameless knowledg, and practice of that which is really good. But because the feeble and earthly minds of the Israelites could not without difficulty be brought off from the worship and ungodly manners, and detestable superstition of the Egyptians; therefore God by the Pedagogy of the Mosaic Law, gave them a spiritual command against many Gods, and yet permitted them, after the ancient manner of the worship to which they had been accustomed, to offer Eucharistical and Expiatory Oblations, duly and wisely appointed, and as types and shadows of good things to come.—For the beginnings Id. ibid. p. 126, 127. of Sciences are imperfect, and by the gradual additions of little and little, they arrive at their compleat stature.’

Touching the whole Law of Moses as Mosaical, Maimonides saith of it Maim. More Nevochim. par. 3. c. 29. p. 424. ‘That the principal design and intention of it was the removal of Idols.’

PART 2. Of the Idolatry of the Jews.

IT appeareth then that God gave the Jews sufficient antidotes against Idolatry; and it is as manifest that their folly rendred them very often ineffectual. They by their ritual inclination, by cohabitation, by commerce, by apish affectation of foreign modes, learned the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian Idolatries. Some of this leaven brake out in the Wilderness. There they began to lean towards the worship of false gods by adoring the true one (as shall be shewed) in the unmeet Symbol of the Golden Calf. Hence God in his just Judgment, [Page] gave some of them up to the direct worship of false gods Act. 7. 39, to 43. Amos 5. 25, 26., besides the true one, though not wholly without him. They worshipped Moloch (as some think See Thorndik. Epilogue, c. 25. p. 298. by the Tabernacle which the Priests took up, and Remphan by a Star, and the Host of Heaven. Amongst that Host of orderly Lights, some have placed the Prototype of Apis, and supposed him to be the Sun. But it seemeth absurd to say, that God permitted the people of the Jews to fall into the worship of the Sun afterwards, because they had worshipped him already.

At the entrance of the People into Canaan, that Generation who had seen the hand of God so remarkably upon their disobedient and Idolatrous Forefathers, and who by his Miraculous power and mercy were possessed of part of the good Land, did in pious manner adhere to him. And when Joshuah, under whose wise and successful conduct they had been brought over Jordan, advised them at his death, to renounce the Idols of their Fathers, and of the Amorites Josh. 24. 14, to 29., they with pious earnestness cried out, God forbid that we should forsake the Lord to serve other Gods. And they ratified this holy resolution of theirs by a solemn Covenant betwixt them and Joshuah.

Joshuah being dead, and that pious Generation being gathered to their Fathers, There arose Judg. 2. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. another Generation after them who knew not [or owned not] the Lord,—but served Baal and Ashtaroth. This Idolatrous disposition continued in the people under their Judges Judg. 2. 16, 17, 18, 19. e 1 Sam. 4., insomuch that in the time of Eli (e) the Palladium of Israel, the Ark of the Covenant, was permitted to fall into the hands of the Philistins. They were a very terrible enemy to the Israelites for many years: and in order to the removal of their yoke, and to the regaining the favour of God, Samuel 1 Sam. 7. 3, 4. spake [Page] unto all the house of Israel, saying, If you do return unto the Lord with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods, and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and serve him only; and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistins. Then the children of Israel did put away Baalim [The Idols of the Sun See Grotius on Judg. 2. 13. p. 2002. ap. Crit. maj.,] and Ashtaroth, [in the LXX. [...], the Idols in the Groves of Astarte, or the Earth] and served the Lord only. Such Piety of Samuel their Judg, and of David their King, and of Solomon also in the former part of his Reign, together with Gods Presence in that Magnificent Temple built by him, did much promote the true Religion, and stop the growth of Idolatrous worship. But at length Solomon himself gave them an unhappy Example of it in his own person, being seduced to Idols by the charms and softnesses of his many Heathen Women 1 King. 11. 1, to 8. So fatal an evil is Lust to the best Understandings, which whensoever it posfesseth them, it perfectly besotteth, and reigneth over them with uncontrouled power. This Impiety was manifest in Solomon about the thirtieth year of his Reign, as Chronologers commonly account. But the more secret beginning of his defection is by Josephus and other Jews dated from the Images of Oxen made at his command, as supporters of the Brazen Sea 1 King. 7. 25.. It is the common opinion of the Arabians, and particularly of Abulfarajus Abulsarajus, p. 55. Mortuus est [Solomon] sine poenitentiâ., that Solomon died in his Sin without Repentance. Of that God is judg. It is more certain that before he died, he persisted in it notwithstanding a repeated appearance of Gods Shechinah 1 King. 11. 9 [...] 10, 11, 12., and that God was highly displeased with him, and threatned to rend the Kingdom from him after his death. Of that Rent the Instrument was Jeroboam, by whose means one Kingdom became divided into two, rather Factions than Kingdoms, those of Judah and Israel. In the [Page] latter Jeroboam set up two Golden Calves which the people worshipped at Dan and Bethel; he being jealous 1 King. 12. 27. that if they sacrificed at Jerusalem, they would return to their Allegiance due to the King of Judah. For this and other sins God suffered the Ten Tribes to be for ever led captive. Judah also polluted it self with Idolatry. It began under Rehoboam after his three good years of Government, and came to its height under Athaliah, Ahaz, and Manasseh 2 Chron. 33. 3, to 7.; and at length Judah likewise was carried into Captivity. After her return from Captivity under the favour of Cyrus, many of the Jews were more faithful to the true God, being sensible that for their serving of Idols he had cast them out of his most safe Protection; and the Statue of Moses on an Ass, found by Antiochus in the Holiest, is one of the Tales of Diodorus Diod. Sic. ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 1150. de Statuâ Mosis Asino insidentis. Undè Judaei (forte) dicti Asinarii.. Yet after this great deliverance, divers of them relapsed, through that persecution against them, and that toleration of all Gentilism in Judea, of which Antiochus Epiphanes was the Author See 1 Mac. 1.. He set up the abomination of Desolation, the Idol of Jupiter Olympius, on the Altar of God; and Idol apt to move the pious Jews to forsake the City, and to leave it desolate. Many of the Israelites 1 Mach. 1. 43. [either through fear, or vain inclination] consented to his Religion, [...], (as the Seventy) to his worship; and they sacrificed to Idols, and profaned the Sabbath. But some Vers. 60, 61, 62, 63. chose rather to sacrifice their own lives than to offer to Idols. The Samaritans of all others were under this Tyrant the most disloyal to God; they send Letters of flattery to this impious Monster, of which Josephus in the Twelfth Book, and seventh Chapter of his Antiquities, hath given us a Copy. They inscribe them, [...], to Antiochus the illustrious God. They feign themselves to be the off-spring of the Sidonians and Persians, that they may not be taken for [Page] Jews, whom he hated. They consecrate a Temple on Mount Gerazim, to the Jupiter of Grece, and by such vile arts they insinuate themselves into the favour of Antiochus, who commandeth that they be esteemed, and used as Grecians. And yet a while after under Ptolomaeus Philometor, they abhor Idols, and contend with the Jews themselves about the sanctity of their Temple, which they preferred before that of Jerusalem it self. The Jews by this means, and by former commerce with Grecians, in divers of their Cities and Colonies, and particularly in their own Jerusalem, [which Alexander himself is said to have visited;] and in Alexandria, [where the Ptolomies had advanced the Worship of Grece, and in which Philo in his time numbered exceeding many Jews Philo Jud. in Flaccum, p. 971, 972, &c.;] became leavened with the Grecian Demonology See Diod. Sic. ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 1154. affirming concerning the Jews, that by reason of the Persian and Mac [...]donian Victories, they suffered many alterations, [...].. This Thales learnt in Egypt, and he enlarged and propagated it in the Regions of Grece. I cannot accuse the Jews of erecting Statues, or of offering solemn Prayers, or Sacrifices to them. Yet all who mark that Translation of the Seventy which is commonly in mens hands, may charge at least the Hellenistick Jews, with a false and dangerous estimation of Daemons; with an estimation of them as Presidents and Tutelar Spirits, who under God did govern the World. He that runs may read thus much in their Version of the eighth verse of the thirty-second of Deuteronomy: When the most High divided the Nations Deut. 32. 8. See R. Sal. Francu, p. 3., when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the People [ [...],] according to the number [not of the Children of Israel, as the Hebrew Copy readeth it, but according to the number] of the Angels of God; who (they say) were seventy, and whom they call the Sanedrim above. Such Angels many Jews imagined to have their Thrones in several Stars, whilst their footstools, or inferior places of Government [Page] were in several parts of the Earth. Hence Aben Ezra saith See Menasseh Ben Israel, in Quaest. 2. in Deut. p. 222., that it appeared by Experiments [he meaneth sure miraculous effects succeeding the worship of Patrons of Places,] that every Nation and every City hath its particular Planet to which it is subject. But he excepteth the people of Israel, who being subject only to the Government of God, had it seems no Planet for their Superintendent. Also with allusion to the Government of the Nations by Angels in Stars and Constellations, and not by immediate Providence, the Jews R. Sal. France, p. 2, [...]. in their Liturgy give to God the name of the King of the Kings of Kings; that is, the King of those Angelical Powers who rule over the Potentates on Earth. This belief of the Hellenists containeth in it a twofold error: That of the Lieutenancy of Angels, and that of the Innocency of those Spirits which Christianity calleth Daemons, in the most infamous signification of that name. This double error is found in one passage of Josephus, who recordeth it as one of the Precepts of Moses, [of Thales, he might have said more truly,] ‘That one Citizen ought not to blaspheme those Heavenly Powers [...]. which other Cities have in esteem as Gods.’

The Jews after the coming of the Messiah, had besides the motives of their Religion, Political Reasons against Images or Idols. For they have been forced by a just vengeance pursuing such bloody murtherers, to live dispersedly under both Christian and Mahometan Power. And in Dominions of both kinds the Worship of Graven Idols, (besides that their zeal against them, and for their Sabbath was instrumental, as the charracter of a Party, to keep them still in some sort of body), would have much obstructed their Toleration. The Mahometans would have been, from the other extreme, averse to them; their Law forbidding all Statues [Page] and graven or painted Images. In pursuance of this Law, their zeal defaced the Grecian and Roman Coins, which had upon them the Image of their Emperours. It did so formerly, but since that time it is so much cool'd, that they do not believe the Coin profaned by the Superscription. Nay, they prefer the Venetian Ducats which have Images upon them, before their own Sultanies which have none, but are stamped according to the will of their Prophet See Leonclav. Pand. Hist. Turcic. p. 139.. But so it is often seen, that the principle of Avarice becomes much stronger than that of false Religion.

In the days of Julian the Jews were noted amongst the Gentiles as the Worshippers of one God; and, whatsoever their opinion was concerning Angels, they were not observed for any external worship with which they honoured them. That Apostate maketh this difference betwixt the Jews and the Gentiles of his Age; that the Gentiles Julian. ap. Cyr. l. 9. 306. worshipped many Gods [or Daemons,] but the Jews one God only. And those unbelievers pretend, at this day, to the strictest observance of the second Command.

It may be here taken a little notice of, how the Jews have been often accused by the Gentiles, and amongst them by Juvenal, Petronius, and Strabo, as Worshippers of the Clouds. If this reproach had been cast upon that Religion whilst the Ark remained in the most holy place, I should have thought it occasioned by that miraculous Cloud which shadowed the Mercy-seat, and towards which the high-Priest did make his obeisance. But the scandal cannot be traced (so far as my knowledg leads me) beyond the days of Augustus. Mr. Selden Seld. de Diis Syris, Synt. 2. c. 17. p. 370, 371. once guessed that this reproach might arise from a mistake of the Idiom of the Jews, who called the Majesty of God, Heaven Rabbin. Prov. ap. H. Othon. Lex. c. Rabbin. in Judic. S. S. in Joh. 20. 4. Omnia ad Coelum, i. e. Omnia ad Gloriam Dei.. This Idiom Christ useth, whilst he demandeth concerning the Baptism of John, [Page]Whether it was of Heaven or of Men; of Divine or Humane Authority. Afterwards he was induced to think that the Slanderers of the Jews mistook them for the Gnosticks, who made so much noise about their Heavens and AEons. At last he rejected the accusation with scorn, and placed it amongst such groundless and extravagant forgeries as that of their worshipping an Ass, with which malicious ignorance had traduced them.

But it is not my purpose to write an entire History of the Jewish Worship, or to tell how often they served one God, and how often they worshipped many. I will only insist on one Instance, That Peccatum Maximum (as the Vulgar Exod. 32. 21, [...]0, 31. Latine calls it) their greatest sin; to wit, their Idolatry committed with the Golden Calf. It is an instance which themselves take especial notice of, thinking that in every Judgment sent to them by God See Moses Gerund. ap. Seld. Synt. de Diis Syris, C. de vit Aur. p. 155., there is, as they speak, an ounce of that Idol; and it is a subject which hath occasioned a Controversie betwixt the Papists and the Reformed.

PART 3. Of the Worship of the Golden Calf.

THE Golden Calf was, either the ultimate Object of the peoples Worship, or a Symbol of some Deity which they finally honoured. Cardinal Cajetan in his Commentary on Exodus, supposeth the former, and thinketh them to speak properly in that form which they used, These are thy Gods [or this Nehem. 9. 18. is thy God] who brought thee out of the land of Egypt. As if those Worshippers, though sufficiently brutish, were as stupid as the very Idol it self: As if they could believe that their deliverance was miraculously wrought for them, by a Statue which they saw formed after the time that they were delivered. Wherefore Cardinal [Page] Bellarmine contendeth, that the speech hath a Figure in it, and that the Calf was a Symbol of a Deity, yet not of the true God, but of the Idol Apis which they had seen honoured with singular reverence in Egypt. That it was not the ultimate Object, but a Symbol or Image, is suggested by Tertullian Tertull. de Idol. Sect. 3. p. 87., who calleth it, Simulachrum Vituli, not a God, but the Image or Idol of the Calf. Neither ought it to be dissembled that Philo Philo Jud. de vitâ Mosis. l. 3. p. 677. C.— [...], &c., Lactantius Lactant. l. 4. C. 10. de Vera Sap. p. 376., and St. Hierom S. Hieron. in Hos. c. 4. v. 15. Tom. 6. p. 20. D., believe the Calf to have been the Statue of Apis.

To the great name of Bellarmine I oppose that of Tostatus, who Tostat. in Exod. c. 32. Quaest. 7. affirmeth those words of the people, [These are thy gods,] to carry this sense with them: ‘O Israel, God who was without Body, and unseen, and who brought thee out of Egypt, and gave thee a passage through the Red Sea, is he whom thou now seest; that is, his Divine virtue resideth in that Golden body.’ Nay, I may oppose to Bellarmine the greater Authority of the Council of Trent: the Catechism set forth by order of that Council, doth teach (though not directly yet by consequence), that the Calf of Aaron was a Symbol of Jehovah, seeing it owneth the Calves of Dan and Bethel to have been worshipped as his Statues. Now this latter it acknowledgeth, because it owneth them in Israel, who halted betwixt God and Baal (as also the Samaritans) to have been divided betwixt the true God and false Deities or Idols Catech. Concil. Trident. in 1. Praec. Decal. p. 388.—Inter—Hebraeos, permulti fuerunt, quiz ut Helias iis obji [...] ciebat, in duas partes claudicabant: Quod & Samaritae fecerunt, qui Deum Israelis & DeosGentiunt colebant.. What Deities then were the extreams betwixt which these unstable and giddy Israelites did visibly stagger? Did not they stagger betwixt the new Religion of Baal 1 King. 16. 31, 32., learned from the Zidonians? and the more ancient and less corrupt, V. 30. Ahab did evil above all before him. V. 31. He outsin'd Jeroboam. yet too much depraved one of the God of Israel, who (as appeareth by his Name Hos. 4. 15. and Rites Amo▪ 4. 4, 5 [...] used there) was worshipped by those Symbols taken without Divine [Page] allowance, from the Cherubim on the Ark which were only Appendages of the Shechinah, and not intermediate Objects of the High Priests Reverence. If these Symbols had not been used as the Shechinah of the true God, Jeroboam would not have been so severely blamed for making the lowest of the people Priests of the high Places; for the vilest and meanest people, the lees and dreggs of the world had been the fittest instruments in the servicc of Idols. Like Deity, like Worshippers. Now to this Worship at Dan and Bethel Jeroboam was moved by his Political interest, which made it necessary for him to continue the Schism, not by dividing the Israelites from their God, whom they would not wholly renounce, but by setting apart distinct places and Symbols of his especial presence. There were in Israel secret Worshippers of God, after a right negative manner, no less than seven thousand, who served God only. But such as these were not visible to the Prophet who bemoaneth himself, as if the Church [the Church of Israel] was confined to his own person. He therefore meaneth not by his halters such as sometimes worshipped the true God in holier manner than Jeroboam prescribed, and sometimes Baal, [a name common both to the new and old Idols Hos. 13. 1, 2. Tobit. 1. 5. 1 King. 19. 18. compar. with Rom. 11. 4. [...], that is, (as Mr. Thornd. in Epil. Part. 3. p. 299.) [...]; or, it may be, [...], or [...].]: For them he could not openly upbraid of whom he had no knowledg. His meaning Jehu expoundeth when 2 King. 10. 23. he opposeth the Priests of Baal to the servants of the Lord: For what other servants than the Priests of Jeroboam did then publickly officiate in Israel? For Ahab succeeded his Father Omri who had established the Vanities or Idols 1 King. 16. 26. of the Calves, and sinned beyond Jeroboam himself Vers. 25.. And Ahab was so far from restoring Gods pure Worship, that he outwent his Father Omri in encouraging that which was false and degenerate. So properly may the AEtas Parentum in Horace, be here applied. [Page] Against the Authorities of Philo, Lactantius, and S. Hierom before-cited, I put into the ballance the words of Aaron. Aaron called the Idolatrous Festival, a Feast to Jehovah, making use (as Micah Judg. 17. 3. did afterwards) of the most Revered name of God. I argue not here from the bare imposition of that word, for Idolaters did learn to give to Creatures that incommunicable Name Wisd. 14. 21. Men serving either calamity or tyranny, did ascribe unto stones and stocks, the Incommunicable name.. But I argue from the reverence which is due to Aaron the select high Priest of the God of Israel. He offendeth extremely against charity and good manners, who thinketh of such a person, that he would pacifie a clamorous people with so vile a condescension. He had a better design, howsoever the madness of the people perverted it. It cannot be thought that the God whom he served in so Sacred an Office, should be so soon forgotten by him, and so ungratefully and wretchedly dishonoured in a base Egyptian Idol, passing under the most separate name of Jehovah. It was ill enough that he set up a Symbol of Gods presence where he had not appointed him Deut. 12. 13. Take heed to thy self that thou offerest not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest.. It was a crime sufficiently high that he had erected an undue Statue, or an arbitrarious external sign of Gods presence, though not an Image of him; for such the Cherubims were not. For I suppose he took his Pattern from part of what he saw in the Holy Mount, when the Shechinah of God came down upon it, attended with Angels. Of them some were Cherubims, or Angels appearing with the Faces of Oxen; as I afterwards shew In Chap. 14.. Now it was a great presumption to worship God in any other, than in his proper and allowed Symbol, (as rightly Altis. Sum. l. 1. c. 15. Non in quolibet signo adorandus eft Deus, sed in proprio; sicut Movses adoravit Deum in Rubo in quo loquebatur ei, &c. & Abraham in Angelo: undè non est adorandus in lapide, esset enim Idololatria, de non proprio signo Dei sacere proprium. Altisiodorus) though it happened to be a Cherub, and not Apis. The Sacrifices offered in the Worship of the Calf were not agreeable to any Egyptian Idol. For amongst them at that time the blood of a Bull was as great an abomination as was the blood of a Swine to the Hebrews. [Page] At that time I say, for after the Macedonian Conquest Secundum Horum ap. Macrob. Saturn. l. 1. c. 7. p. 215., the Idol Apis it self had in the Suburbs beasts solemnly offered in Sacrifice to it. Also before those times all the Egyptians sacrificed clean and male Bullocks, if Herodotus Herod. Euterpt. p. 117, 118. be an Author of credit. And it appeareth by the History of Elijah that Beasts were offered upon the Altars of the Zidonian 1 King. 18. 22, 23, &c. Baal, or Sun, from whom they had expectation of an answer by fire. But he was either asleep at that time, with his eye closed by the air, then in disposition for clouds, or in his journey of Diurnal motion, and did not, or rather could not mind their Sacrifice. However in those early times, and with reference to Egypt Exod. 8. 25, 26., the Sacrifices of Oxen which the people offered at the Golden Calf, do prove it to be something else than the Symbol of Apis: unless a man would say that they honoured old Idols with their new Rites, as afterwards they did, worshipping Moloch Act. 7. 42, 43. with the Rites of the Tabernacle of Jehovah. They did not, as I think, dethrone God, but joined that false God with him, and corrupted true Religion with mixtures of Gentilism.

PART 4. Of the Idol Apis.

APis the living Ox, was an Idol of ancient standing; for the Grecians who lived before the times of Alexander Herod. in Thal. p. 195, 196. make mention of it. Herodotus is one of them; and he recordeth the Slaughter of Apis by Cambyses, who was the second Monarch of Persia. He likewise introduceth the Egyptians alledging the Festivity of the Appearance of Apis as an ancient Holiday Herod. ibid.— [...].. They professed it to be a custom, that they might appease that vehement passion which a mistake had raised in him. For when he found them rejoycing [Page] at the Appearance of Apis, he imagined them triumphing at that defeat of his Forces which he had newly sustained. By this it is plain, that the Idol Apis was ancient, but to me it seemeth not to have existed at all as such before the death of Moses.

And this I here design to shew by reasons allowable in Philological matters, though I have not the vanity to call them infallible Proofs. If this can be done, the Controversie will of it self fall to the ground, seeing the very subject of it will be removed.

There are few stories more uncertain than the Antiquities of Chaldea and Egypt, of which Kingdoms the former seemeth to be the more ancient See Is. Voss. de AEt. Mundi. p. 41. by about forty years: And all that is said of either of them beyond the days of Phaleg, is vanity and imposture. Their vain and ignorant Priests, and men not much unlike them, the Mythologers of Grece, have set the Accounts of time backward and forward, and given feigned Pedigrees both to their Gods and their Princes. And they have so confounded Fable and History, that both have been swallowed by many without distinction. This confusion hath hapned in nothing more than in their Historical Theology; and I think the story of the Idol Apis may serve as a considerable example of it. Herodotus, Pliny, Strabo, Ammianus Marcellinus, all make different descriptions of it: And the Image of that Idol in the Table of Isis does still differ from each Character in those Writers See Pignor. de mens [...] Isiac [...]. p. 36, 37.. In all things I shall not be able at this distance of time, to separate falshood from Truth. But in the point of its Antiquity I do not despair of proving its common date to be fictitious.

Before the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, Oxen were very sacred among the Egyptians Exod. 8. 25, 26.. But they were then, if I mistake not, no otherwise sacred than [Page] many Creatures were afterward among the Pythagoreans Hence the Symbol of [...] is interpreted of not killing or not sacrificing Animals., and are at this day among the Brachmans of India. That is, they were not touched with violent hand, or weapon: They were not used for Food, or offered in Sacrifice. Hence Strabo speaking of Apis at Memphis Strabo l. 17. Geogr. p. 803., and Mnevis at Heliopolis [in times much nigher to us], does say of those Idols that they were reputed Deities, whilst the Oxen in other places were held as sacred Creatures, but not as gods See Vattier's Pref. to Muctadi's Prod. of Egypt, p. 25, 26.. Whether they were esteemed sacred Animals in memory of Joseph, or from their use in Tillage Ovid. l. 4. Fast. Bos aret, ignavam sacrificate suem., or for some deeper reason, I pretend not to tell: for, it seems, themselves could not agree about the original of their Superstitions Strab. l. 17. Geogr. p. 813.— [...].. Sacred then they were in some sense, before Moses became a Law-giver to Israel. But that there was any one Ox selected so early as an object of Religious worship, is an opinion taken up without ground from History. My eyes at least have not been able to espie so much as an imperfect footstep of it. Had such an Idol existed, and been imitated also by the Israelites in the Wilderness, St. Stephen in his Epitome of their History, and particularly in that part of it wherein he remembreth their Idolatry with the Calf, could as easily have upbraided them with the false Deity Apis, as he did with those Act. 7. 41, 43. of Moloch and Remphan.

The Learned Mr. Selden, who referreth the Golden Calf to the Egyptian Pattern, does two ways endeavour to obviate this Objection against the Antiquity of Apis Seld. de Diis Syris. Synt. 1. c. 4. de vit. Aur. p. 150..

First, He contendeth that this Worship of Apis or Osiris is sufficiently ancient, because it terminateth in the Sun, which was reputed a Divine Power at the very birth of Idolatry. Now this reason, if it proveth any thing, it proveth too much; much more than Mr. [Page] Selden himself will own as truth. For from hence it will follow, both that the Idolatry of Egypt was as ancient as that of Babylon, and that the whole almost of the Egyptian Idolatry, which was exceeding various, commenced at the same time. There was scarce any Idol set up there, but in one respect or other it was referred to that glorious body. It scarce shined upon any thing, which was not at some time or other consecrated to it. The Lion, the Hart, the Hare, the Eagle, the Hawk, the Crow, the Cock, the Goose, the Upupa; the Pine-Tree, the Nile; all these, and many others were sacred to the Sun, as may to those, who care not to turn the leaves of many Authors, appear compendiously in the Harpocrates of Cuperus Cuperi Harp [...] cr. p. 14, 16, 21, 27, 43, 44, 45, 55, 60, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95.. Yet these Idols were erected upon divers occasions, and as the humor at divers times possessed fanciful and superstitious men.

Secondly, Mr. Selden Seld. Ibid- de Aur. vit. p. 153: produceth in favour of the Antiquity of the Idol Apis, the Testimony of Eusebius. Eusebius (he says) affirmeth of Apis, that in the days of King Aseth, a Calf was deified and called by that name. And for King Aseth, Mr. Selden supposeth him to have reign'd in Egypt in the days of Isaac.

But he hath gained little strength to his Cause, by producing a witness who contradicteth himself. For Euseb. elsewhere Seld. Ibid. p. 154. Imò in Sec. post Cataclys. Dyn. sub Choo Rege, Api [...] & Mnevin & Mendesium Caprum, in Deos relatos, ex Manethone Sacerdote tradit [Eusebius]. relates that Apis and Mnevis were deified under Choos, who is said to have reigned in the 2d. Dynastie after the Flood. For this he citeth Manetho a Grecising Fabler, who disagreeth with Herodotus, and Diodorus, and fetcheth his Relation from pretended Pillars, uncertain both for the place, and the Inscriptions of them. Little credit is given by the Judicious to his Dynasties. He maketh in them contemporary persons to succeed each other; he maketh many Kings out of the several deputies of one. He maketh Egypt no ancient Monarchy, as the Scripture doth. For at the same [Page] time that Menis reigned at Thebes, he setteth up Saïtes as a King over other parts of Egypt Scalig. ap. Voss. l. 1. de Idol. c. 28. p. 109. Ex hâc Dyn. patet, diversos Reges, eod. temp. in AEg. divers. partib. Imperium obtinuisse. Nam quando Saïtes primus Dyn. 15. ex Latrunc. Pastor. circa Bucolia AEg. jam dec. Ann. regnabat [...] part. Theb. Regn. inivit Menes Theba [...]us.. It must indeed be granted, that though Eusebius contradicteth himself in assigning the particular time; yet it serveth the purpose of Mr. Selden, that in both instances he referreth to time ancient enough. He doth so in those Places. But in others which Mr. Selden hath not cited, he setteth a more modern date to the Apotheôsis of Apis. In his Book of Evangelical Preparation Eus. de praep. Evang. l. 9. ch. 27. p. 433., he ascribeth to Chenephren King of Egypt, both the Deification of their Ox, and the imposition of the name of Apis. He addeth, that thenceforth the people erected a Temple to that Idol. Now he maketh this King Kenephren Contemporary with Moses, and one who reverenced his person, and received from him the rite of Circumcision. All this Eusebius has taken from Artapanus in his History of the Jews. For Artapanus I cannot say much in confirmation of his fidelity. Yet I think him of weight enough to be put into the scale against Manetho the Sebennite, a writer so absurdly confident in his Fictions, that he maketh Menis equal to Adam See Is. Voss. de AEt. mundi. p. 36.. The same Eusebius in his Cronicon, sets down Epaphus, or Apis as born in the Reign of Chencres, that is, of the abovesaid Chenephren, as may be conjectured both from the affinity of the names, and the agreement of the time. For he reporteth of Chencres (called also [...], or the Rebel against Almighty God) that he perished in the Red Sea. He was therefore Contemporary with Moses, and no other than that Pharoah who bade defiance to the God of Israel, and fell as a Sacrifice to his Omnipotent Justice. That he was born in the Reign of Chencres, if it respecteth the Natural birth of Moses, is a mistake, yet such a one as is common in ancient Chronology, which is not exact to a day or a year; for he was about fourscore years old at his going forth from [Page] Egypt: but the time of his Civil birth may be then accounted when he began to head the Israelites, and to say to Pharoah, Let the people go that they may serve their God. Then God said to him in effect, Thou art my Son, a Prince and Lieutenant under me; this day have I begotten thee, or created thee a Ruler.

If then the person represented by an Ox was not more ancient than the deliverance by Moses, much less was the Golden Apis extant in Egypt at that time of his departure. Yet Mr. Selden will have this Golden Ox Seld. de vit. Aur [...]o, in Synt. 1. c. 4. p. 141. to be the Pattern of the Idolatrous Israelites, and not the living Beast. It is true, that Plutarch Plutarc. de Is. & Osyr. p. 366, D. mentioneth a Golden Ox, and telleth how for four days together it was exposed with great solemnity, during the disappearance of Apis, or, as he expoundeth it, at the decrease of Osiris, or the Nile. And in Pliny we read of a Golden Cat Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 29. p. 144. 22. worshipped by the Citizens of Rhadata in Egypt. I doubt not but that such a Golden Image was extant, many years before Plutarch wrote of Isis and Osiris. He is a grave Author, and a man of singular skill in the more modern affairs of Egypt. But it is not shewn by him, or by any other Historian, that such a Statue was framed at the beginning of the worship of that Idol. Of this Herodotus, the Father of Secular History, taketh no notice, though he had just occasion so to do in his Discourse of the disappearance of Apis, if any such thing had been then in being Herod. in Thaliâ. p. 195.. Also in his description of the Palace said to be built for Apis by Psammitichus Id. in Euterpe. p. 169., he drops not a word concerning any such Golden Calf, though he mentioneth divers Types [Hieroglyphical, or Ornamental Figures] with which that Palace abounded. Nay Lucian denieth that any Figures or Statues had place in the ancient Temples of Egypt Lucian. de D [...]â Syr. p. 1057..

PART 5. Of the Originals of Apis and Serapis.

[Page]

THE Objections of Mr. Selden being thus removed out of my way, I proceed in inquiring after the true and original Apis. Apis was not ultimately the living Ox, but some Deifi'd Person, of whom the Ox was the Symbol; or (as Diodorus (a) reporteth) the g Diod. Sic. l. 1. Bibl. Histor. c. 85. p. 74. Receptacle into which his soul passed in its transmigration. That he was a man all Writers agree, unless they be of the strain of Porphyry Porphyr. ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 13. p. 117.. He was unwilling to own so mean and dishonourable a thing of his Heathen Gods, as to acknowledg them to have been dead men; wherefore he would needs perswade the world that Apis was sacred to the Moon only. This he would infer from the white spot on the right side of Apis, in the form of the Moon. That Mark indeed is mentioned by Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus; but in more ancient times the Ox had no such Character on him. Herodotus is accurate in his description, and he omitteth not his minute marks, of which this of the Moon is none. ‘The Bullock (saith he) called Apis Herod. l. 3. p. 195. C. D. hath these signs: In its body it is all black, [for [...] in the Text of Herodotus is mistaken for [...]:] on its Forehead it hath a white spot of a four-square figure; on its back it hath the Image of an Eagle; on its tongue a Scarabee, and two hairs on its Tail.’ The Superstition of after-times encreased his Hieroglyphical Marks. To the Sun or Moon this Ox might be sacred, and also to some departed Hero, or Heroess, for so were the Idols of Osiris and Isis. But Historians are not agreed about the Hero called Apis. Each of them almost has a several conjecture.

Suidas [in the word [...]] supposeth him to have [Page] been a King of Egypt, bearing that name of Apis, and to have obtained after death Divine honour, for his Liberality to the Citizens of Alexandria, whom he supplied with Corn in time of Famine. The like confusion of Apis and Serapis is found in Ruffinus Ruffin. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 23.. He mentioneth the Famine at Alexandria, and the supply by Apis. But concerning him he knows not whether he were a King of Egypt, or a Father of a lesser Family at Memphis. Of this Apis, whoever he was, he reporteth further out of an uncertain Gentile Historian, that he had a Temple at Memphis built in honour of him: Also that within the Temple an Ox (the Symbol of a good Husbandman) was preserved, and honoured divinely by the name of Apis. The name of Serapis joined with that of Apis in Suidas, and that City of Alexandria mentioned by both of them, do plainly shew whence this Fable came, from modern Grece, not from ancient Egypt. Herodotus and Diodorus knew no such King of Egypt as Apis; neither is there any such Royal name before the days of Moyses, in the Chronology of Eratosthenes, or Manetho; though the latter had set it down, time enough, for the name of an Idol. It is true, that in Syncellus the seventh King of the Inferiour Egypt is called Serapis. But the Judicious Reader of Syncellus will have little regard to him in this point; both because he findeth the third King in his Catalogue set down by the late, and plainly Greek name of Aristarchus; and because he cannot but know that Serapis came very late out of Grece to Alexandria. As he was originally a Grecian Deity he was no other than Pluto, of whom the three-headed Cerberus was the Emblem; he having dominion (an Empire given him by their fancy) over the Water, gross Air, and Earth, though principally over the latter of them See Kirch. Oed. Synt. 3. c. 5. p. 194.. In Egypt he was received with great devotion, as if [Page] he had been a kind of husband to their Isis, when she signified the Earth; and a god proper for their Nilus, and their fertile soil. To this invention they soon added, and sometimes they confounded him with their Apis and Osiris; and sometimes they honoured him as the Sun, or Nature, or the Soul of the World. In the Temple of Alexandria his mighty Image reached one side of it with its right hand, and the other with its left; and it was made of all woods and metals; and by an artificial window (as has been said already) it admitted the Sun-beams. In some of its Statues he represented Jupiter in the Head, Neptune in the Belly, as also Pluto, and other Stygian Deities; in the Ears, Mercury, and Apollo in the Eyes Id. Ibid. p. 195.. Thus it fared with this Idol, which when Superstition had dressed it, was the least part of its former self.

There is something in the name AEsculapius which soundeth like Apis, and on him some have fixed. He indeed is of sufficient Antiquity, if he be (what a learned man D. Marsh. Chron. Canon. Secul. 1. p. 28, 39. thinks him) King Tosorthrus the successor of Menis. But I meet with no reason offered for the proof of these matters. The sound of the name in Latine and Greek I allow not as a reason: the ancient Egyptian name was neither AEsculapius, nor (which is further removed) [...], these being apparently of other Countrys. Add to this, that the Greeks in the Stromata of Clemens Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 307. A. & ap. Euseb. de Praep. Ev. l. 10. c. 6. p. 475., oppose Apis to AEsculapius, and make the first the Inventor, the second the Improver of Physick. Somewhat like to this is said by St. Cyril, who following the chase of Pagan Mythologers, doth make Apis the Inventor of Physick, and the Teacher of it to AEsculapius S. Cyr. cont. Julian. l. 6. p. 200.; who thenceforth it seems left Egypt, and travelled the World for the gaining of Riches by this useful Art, which in after-times was said Proverbially to give them. And to this Tale belongs another [Page] of Serapis and AEsculapius, as both meant by Pluto See Kirch. Oed. Synt. 3. c. 5. p. 195., who is conversant amongst Metals, Stones, Roots, Plants, Subterraneous Treasure, and whatsoever conduceth to the health and life of man. You see towards what Nation, and what times, this AEsculapius, Apis, or Serapis inclines, and that Moses never knew him.

There is still as little certainty in their opinion who confound the Egyptian Apis, with Apis the Argive, the Son of Phoroneus; which Apis, Gerard Vossius Ger. Voss. d [...] Idol. l. 1. c. 14. p. 59. supposeth to be that Jupiter who was incestuously familiar with Niobe. Of the number of them who make the Egyptian Apis the same with the Argive, Hecataeus is one Hecataeus ap: Clem. Alex. p. 322. See S. Aug. de Civit. Dei. l. 18. c. 5. p. 1003.. And he being himself an Argive, is tempted to a vain Fable in honour of his Country. Arnobius, out of mistake, rather than pride, confoundeth Times and Persons Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 1. p. 20., whilst he saith of Apis, that he was born in Peloponnesus, and called in Egypt, Serapis. They had spoken righter who called Serapis the [ [...], the] Coffin, or Grave of Apis; if they had meant this of Pluto as the God of the Earth, who as 'twere swallowed up the Worship of Apis in his own at Alexandria. Herodotus himself [though he never nameth the name of Serapis, it being not then invented,] is yet in a great error Herod. in Euterpe. p. 169. & in Thalia. p. 195. [...], &c. when he maketh Epaphus and Apis to be the same. For Epaphus, Great Grandfather to Cadmus, was (as AElian AElian. de Animal. l. 11. c. 10. noteth) some Ages after him. But we owe it to the Pride of Grece, that her Accounts are so antedated and corrupted. Little truth in the present Argument may we expect from Aristippus a Grecian Mythologer, in his Arcadian story; or from Aristeas the Argive Ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 10. c. 12. p. 499. ex Clem. Strom. prim.. Of them the first maketh Apis the Son of Phoroneus the Founder of Memphis; the other affirmeth him to be that very Serapis whom the Egyptians worshipped.

In the mean time Pausanias See D. Marsh. Chron. Can. p. 83. blotteth the very [Page] name of Apis out of the line of the Argives; and AEschylus will not allow him the place of a King Suppl. v. 266.. Apollodorus, who owneth him in that quality Apoll. Bibl. l. 2. c. 1. p. 67, 68., is so far from transporting him into Egypt, and honouring of him as the builder of Memphis, (a City built by Menis Herod. l. 2. p. 141., whose memory it retains in the very name of it;) that he finds both his Cradle and Grave in his Fathers Country. His Father left him too deeply engaged in a quarrel with Telxion and the Telchines Syncellus, p. 126. C., to become a Conquerour in Egypt: and it was by their Stratagems Apollod. l. 2. c. 1. p. 68. compar'd with Syncellus. that he died so immaturely and without issue in Apia or Peloponnesus. But if it were granted that the Argive were also the Egyptian Apis, I see not the advantage which it could give to them who make his Symbol the Pattern of the Golden Calf. For both Asricanus and Tatianus Ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 10. c. 10. p. 490, &c. 11. p. 494. prove it of Moses that he was equal with Inachus, whom Phoroneus the Father of Apis is said to succeed. The truth is, we are here fallen amongst dark and uncertain times, and can scarce tread with assurance in any path of Grecian story, till we are come to the times of Theseus. And so much Plutarch with singular honesty and truth hath openly acknowledged. For Inachus himself, some think him a Fiction, some a Man, others a River; and amongst these latter is Pausanias.

The Original Apis adored in Egypt, was no doubt a man; but who he was, it is hard to discover; so great is the perplexity which the blending as it were of his Worship with that of Serapis, after the Macedonian Conquest, has occasioned in this Argument. Bacchus, AEsculapius, and Serapis, each of them See Cuperi Harpocr. p. 102, 103, 104. in Coins, Marbles, and Books, have the form sometimes of a bearded or aged man, and sometimes of a child. And this variety of form teacheth us that there was a more ancient and more modern Bacchus, AEsculapius, [Page]Apis, or Serapis, though under other names. For the Grecian Serapis, whatsoever his Age was in Grece, his Worship was esteemed modern in Egypt. The Egyptians (saith Horus Horus apud Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 7. p. 215., meaning all the people of that Nation) received not either Saturn, or Serapis, into their Temples, till after the death of Alexander the Great. In his time they were admitted in his City of Alexandria, of which Pausanias saith, that it was famous for the Temple of Serapis, but could not with colour of reason pretend to the Antiquity of that in Memphis. Of the Naucratitae in Egypt, Celsus Cels. ap. Orig. cont. Cels. l. 5. p. 254. himself confesseth, that it was not long since they received the Deity of Serapis. Tacitus gives intimation of the union as it were of Apis and Serapis into one Idol, where he speaketh of a Temple built in Rhacotis [the place it may be taking its name from the Shrine] to the modern Serapis, in the very place where one had been anciently consecrated to Serapis and Isis. [That is, as he ought to have written it, of Apis or Osiris together with Isis.] After the death of Alexander, the Ptolomies advancing the Power of Grece, the Superstitions of Serapis were not confined to Alexandria, but were imposed on all Egypt. In this matter I find a very pertinent place in St. Cyril S. Cyril. A [...] cont. Jul. l. 1. p. 13.; and I will here insert it. ‘In the 124 Olympiad, Ptolomeus Philadelphus ruling in Egypt, they report of Serapis, that he was translated from Sinope to Alexandria; that he was the same, with Pluto; that they built a Shrine to his Image called by the Egyptians in their native tongue Racotis, by which word they meant nothing but Pluto; and that they erected a Temple nigh to these Monuments. But here the Greeks are at odds; some thinking him to be Osiris rather than Pluto, and others Apis. A mighty feud arising from hence, they composed the difference by giving to the Statue the [Page] name of Osirapis, both parties having a share in the name. In process of time Osi was disused in pronunciation, and Sarapis became the common name.’ Thus were Egyptian and Grecian matters then confounded, as the Roman were afterwards, of which we have a fit embleme in those ancient Coins Ap. Thomasium de Tesseris Hospital. c. 28. p. 202, 203., one side of which exhibited the Head of Augustus, and M. Agrippa; the other a Crocodile. It is then no wonder if those who have written in succeeding times, have not well distinguished betwixt the Egyptian Apis, and the Alexandrian Serapis, whilst they found their Rites and Titles so interwoven. It is plain from the Epistle of Julian to the Citizens of Alexandria Julian. ap. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 3. p. 171, 172, 173., That he mistook both Deities for one. For he speaks to the Alexandrians, as to men whom he supposed to be originally Grecians Id. Ibid. p. 173.— [...].: And he magnifieth their great God Serapis Ib. p. 171., and ascribeth to him the Gift of his Empire. And this I imagin to be the reason why Serapis or Pluto, above all the other gods of Grece, was set up in Egypt. For the Empire of it was the thing principally valued by Alexander; and Pluto being the god of this World in their opinion, and the deity that extended the Macedonian Power to Egypt; did therefore obtain the principal Return of the Gratitude of the Conquerour. Pluto (I say) or Serapis was by Heathen estimation, the god of this World: not the Prince of all Daemons, but the Prince of Terrestrial spirits inhabiting the Earth, and the gross Atmosphere that belongs to it. He was the Beelzebub, the god of durt or earth; the ruler of the Terrene Daemons, as they called them, and of Subcoelestial places. They who will not assent to this conjecture, may consult Porphyry Porphyr. ap. Euseb. de Praep. Evangel. l. 4. c. 22. &c. 23. p. 173, 174., who maketh Serapis and Pluto the same Deity; confineth not his Power to the Earth, but extendeth it to the air about it, (whieh it seems was vehemently beaten by his order, [Page] for the driving away of Daemons, and the introduction of his presence); and setteth him over [ [...],] evil spirits, or Daemons, who with gross Vehicles were hovering about the Earth.

PART 6. Of the Egyptian Apis; Whether he were Moses?

WHO the Grecian Apis or Serapis was, I will no further inquire. But concerning the Apis of Egypt, I will for once personate an Adventurer in Philology, and see if any new discovery may be made, or rather be guessed at. For in these Arguments he that looks for Demonstration is in the ready way of having his hopes deluded. Men here judg by Verisimilitude; and they judg persons in story to be the same by a few likenesses; such as those of name and place: and they seldom consider the many particulars in which they differ, but attend to those few in which they agree. He that hath but one mark is sometimes taken for the person by the Philological Huy and Cry: And 'tis a wonder that some Smatterer or other who has read of the Idol Semis in a Promontory nigh Lapland, has not thence found out Sem and his Off-spring in the North. I shall not argue here from the mere likeness of Names, for I am about to find out Moses in Apis.

The Learned and diligent Gerard Vossius believed Joseph to be Apis Voss. de Idol l. 1. c. 29. p. 110▪ 111, &c.; and before him, Abenezra. ‘Joseph (said he) spake to Pharaoh on this manner Abeneph. & Abenez. ap. Kirch. Oëd. Syn. 3. c. 5. p. 197., Set me over the Treasure of Egypt, for I will be a faithful Steward. And the King made him keeper of all the Repositories of the Land, and Joseph became in some sort a King over all the Country, and they called him Apis.’ I know not whence he had this Tale, yet fure I am that it maketh not much for the honour of [Page] Joseph's modesty. But it is not here my purpose to refute the conceits of other men; it will be well if I can any way establish my own, and shew with probability that Moses is Apis.

We have heard already from Eusebius, that Apis (miscalled Epaphus) was Contemporary with Chencres, and that Chencres was the Pharaoh that pursued Moses. And we may further observe, what is affirmed by Polemo See Euseb. de Praep. Ev. l. 10. c. 10. p. 490. in his first Book of the Grecian Story, ‘That in the time of Apis, a part of the Egyptian Forces made defection, and going forth, seated themselves in Palestine, called Syria, in the Neighbourhood of Arabia.’ Now it may seem probable that Moses was this Apis, and not Apis the Son of Phoroneus, as Polemo believed; if these three things be jointly considered:

First, That Moses was the ancient Egyptian or Arabian Bacchus.

Secondly, That Bacchus was the Egyptian Osiris.

Thirdly, That the ancient Egyptian Bacchus and Osiris was no other than Apis.

For the first, it may be argued with shew of probability, that Moses and Bacchus are the same persons under differing names, from the parallel circumstances of their Story. I speak still of the first Egyptian Bacchus; for concerning the Grecian Dionysius (or rather Dionysus), it is prov'd by Clemens of Alexandria, that he was not put into the Calendar of the gods till six hundred and four years Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 1. p. 321, 322. after the times of Moses. Now the Parallel betwixt Moses and Bacchus was drawn long ago, by our Learned Countryman Mr. Hugh Sanford Sanford. de descensu Christi adInf. l. 1. p. 28, 29, 30, 31, &c., and after him by Gerard Vossius Ger. Voss. de Idol. l. 1. c. 30. p. 116, 117, &c., and after both by the Lord Herbert of Cherbury Herb. de Relig. Gentil. in Baccho. p. 137, 138, 139..

Orpheus in his Hymn of Bacchus, celebrateth the Honour of Mises, whom he calleth Dionysius. He comes we see within a point, as it were, of the name of Moses.

[Page] Pausanias mentions an ancient Tradition concerning Bacchus, plucked in his Infancy out of the waters. So Moses we know escaped miraculously in his Ark of Rushes.

Bacchus is by the Poets called [ [...]] the Son of a double Mother. As such a one the holy History representeth Moses, to whom the second Mother was the daughter of Pharaoh.

Plutarch reporteth it from the Egyptians, that Isis was the Mother of Bacchus, (or, as Lactantius Lactant. l. 1. defals. Relig. Sect. 21. p. 117, 118, 119. will have it of Osiris.) Also that Isis being dejected with sorrow, and drowned in tears, was carried to the Queen by some of her maid-servants, and kindly received, and made Nurse to her Infant-son, whose name was Palestinus. And the story of Plutarch in his Isis and Osiris is the History in the Bible concerning Moses and his natural Mother, and the daughter of Pharaoh, in such little disguise, that the dullest eye (a man would think) might look thorough it.

Nothing is more common in the story of Bacchus, than his going into Arabia with a mixed multitude of Men and Women; his flight to the Red-Sea; his Wars in the Arabick India, (for by that name the ancient Europeans called those Regions which lay beyond the Midland-Sea); his fetching Water out of a Rock; a Miracle mentioned by Euripides; the Image of a Serpent carried in Procession in his Worship, and spoken of by Nonnius. All which Particulars seem to have relation to the Circumstances of Moses, to whom the ancient Bacchus would have appeared more like, if he had not been disfigured by the new strokes which the Mythological Painters of the Grecian Bacchus have touch'd him with.

These Particulars, together with many more, are named to my hand, by Sanford and Vossius. They insist [Page] in especial manner on the Education of Bacchus in a Mount of Arabia called Nysa, and supposed to be but a kind of Anagram of Sina. Against this there lies an Argument which I must not conceal, though I remember not that either Mr. Sanford or Vossius have taken notice of it. This Argument is grounded on a passage in Curtius. That Historian telleth, how Alexander entring India, came to Nysa, situate at the Root of the Mountain Meron, and that the Inhabitants of that place did pretend to be a people descended from Bacchus. Their Mountain (as he continueth his story) was all covered with Ivy and Vines Quint. Curt. L8. p. 203.. To this Objection I would answer, that the India which Alexander entred was not the Arabia or Arabick AEthiopia of the ancient Bacchus; and that his Nysa or Nyssa, was plainly another Town from that in Curtius, being called by Diodorus (both in his third and fourth Books of History) the Nyssa of Arabia; and by Herodotus Herod. l. 2. p: 165., the Nyssa of AEthiopia; and being said in Homer — [...]., to be nigh the Waters of Egypt. It was therefore situate in Arabia Petraea, called by the Hebrews Chus, which is generally translated AEthiopia. The place mentioned by Curtius by its name of Nysa, and by the quality of its Mountain, might fairly pretend to Bacchus, as many Cities did to one Homer; and as some Parisians do to St. Dennis the Areopagite, though one younger by many years was more truly their Apostle. And their pretence to Bacchus, especially as dressed with his Vines and Ivy in the Grecian mode, might the more reconcile them to the favour of a Conquerour who came from Macedon.

This being said in answer to the Argument taken from Curtius, I will add only two Remarks to the many of Mr. Sanford. The first, that Bacchus was nursed by the Hyades, the watry Constellation of Taurus Ovid. l. 5. Fast Ora micant Tauri septem radiantia flammis, Navita quas Hyadas Grajus ab imbrevocat. Pars Bacchum nutrisse putat.—. [Page] The second, that he was born (as Orpheus testifies in his Hymn on Mises) [— [...],] by the River, or Nilus, of Egypt.

Cuperus speaking in his Harpocrates Cuperus in Harpocr. p. 72., of the deities of Egypt, does bid his Reader not expect any concord in Fables. I pretend not to be a thorough-reconciler, or to adjust all differences betwixt the Heathen Mythologers. Each City almost had different gods, and a different Scheme of Theology; and yet they used common names, and thereby perplexed both the present and the succeeding Ages. Osiris is sometimes Pluto, Bacchus, Titan, Phoebus, Mithras, Serapis, Apis, Oceanus, Sol, Sirius. Isis, is Minerva, Proserpina, Luna, Thetis, Diana, Venus, Ceres, Juno, Bellona, Hecate, Rhamnusia See Pignor. Mens. Isiac. p. 4, 5. & Kircheri Oëd. Synt. 3. c. 4. p. 189.. Yet in this parallel betwixt Bacchus and Moses, so much concord appeareth, that a Philologer may be inclined to take them for the same, notwithstanding the disparity which hath been occasioned by the intermixture of Grecian and Egyptian Superstitions.

Be it then supposed as probable in the first place that Bacchus is Moses. I proceed in the next place to shew the less learned Reader, that Osiris is Bacchus.

Osiris is a name big with ambiguity, and hath been applied to vary many of the Heathen gods; and eminently Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 11. p. 10. Macr. Sat. l. 1. c. 21. p. 302, 303. to the Sun, (as also was Apis Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 21. p. 305. and Serv. ad AEn. l. 3. Ipse enim est Sol, & Liber Pater. Bacchus); and sometimes supereminently, as I may so speak, being used to signifie a superior god, whose eye the Sun was reputed Macr. Sat. Ib. p. 303.. Apis himself is referred by some, in Lucian Lucian. de Astrolog. pag. 540., to the Coelestial Bull, after the manner of the Modern Heathens, who being upbraided by the Fathers as Worshippers of dead and wicked men, reformed or disguised their ancient Theology, and explained their Superstitions by natural things. But the proper Egyptian Apis was a Prince. And so was [Page] their Osiris, or as Orpheus calleth Bacchus, [ [...],] a Legislator, and no other than Bacchus. This Herodotus testifieth in express words Herod. l. 2. p. 165.. Osiris (saith he in his Euterpe) is Dionysus, in the Appellation of the Greeks. Diodorus Siculus doth Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 11. p. 10. after the same manner give the name of Dionysus to Osiris; and he doth it upon the Authority of the ancient Greek Poets, Eumolpus and Orpheus. And he affirms a while after Id. ib. c. 13. p. 12. from ancient Tradition, that Osiris was Bacchus. And a man would guess as much, whilst he reads of the escape of Bacchus out of the Waters, and of his Education in the Arabian Nysa before remembred; and then compareth with these particulars, the Ark in which Osiris was cast into the River, by the Tanitick Plutare. in Is. & Osir. p. 356. C. mouth of Nilus; and the Education of Osiris in the same Nysa, according to Plutarch and Diodorus Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 15. p. 13, 14.. To these particulars a third may be added, of the Serpent in the Tables of Osiris and Bacchus Pignor. de Mens. Isia. p. 23.. Now these particulars seem also to relate to the Ark, the Holy Mountain, the Rod of Moses.

It remaineth that I shew in the third place that as Moses is Bacchus, and Ogygia me. Bacchum vocant, Osirin AEgyptus putat. Auson. See Plutarc. de Is. & Cuperi Harpocr. p. 70. Bacchus Osiris, so also that Osiris is Apis.

Apis hath been said to relate to the Sun, as did Osiris, but both were a deity sometimes of another kind. And in Memphis it self Herod. Euterp. p. 101. there were Priests of Vulcan, or the Sun, distinct from those of Apis. He was an Hero, and the same with Osiris. The Bull Apis is affirmed by Diodorus Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 21. p. 18. to be sacred to Osiris amongst the Egyptians. And again Strabo saith directly Strabo Geog. l. [...]7. p. 807., that Apis is Osiris. And to them we may add Plutarch, who asserteth, both that Osiris and Serapis are the same; and that the Bull Apis was worshipped as the animated Image of Osiris. And to this agreeth the story of the solemn mourning in Egypt at the disappearance, and [Page] the solemn joy there at the reappearance both of Osiris and Apis Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 21. p 303. Annot. 4. Pontani Satyr. &c. Exclamare libet populus quod clamat Osiri—Invento—Clamatum a [...]tem uti invenio in Glossis vetustis, [...]. De Ap. vide Herod. in Thal. p. 195, 196. de Osir. & Ap. vide Tibull. l. 1. Eleg. 8. p. 271. Te canit, at (que) suum, pubes, miratur Osirim, Barbara, Memphitem plangere docta bovem.. It is further observable, that Bacchus is said Anton. Liberal. Meta. c. 10. p. 422. to have appeared in the form of a Bull. That Mnevis the second Apis was called Bacis See AElian. l. 12. c. 11. & Pignor. mens. Isiac. 48, 49.. That Moses in Manetho See Marsh. Chron. Can. p. 196., cited by Josephus, hath the name Osarsyphus, which seems but a great depravation of Osiris, and scarce a greater one than that in Macrobius Macrob. Sat. l. 1. c. 21. p. 305., of Neton for Mnevis. That in the Coins of Elagabalus and Gallienus, Serapis carries a measure adorned with a Vine-leaf; and is therefore as Tristan concludeth, the same with Bacchus. Last of all, that Phylarchus in Plutarch Plutar [...]. de Is. & Osir. p. 362. reporteth of Bacchus, that he first brought out of India (or Arabia) two Bulls, the one called Apis, the other Osiris. In this last citation, some Goropius Becanus would confidently say, that the truth shineth so fairly through the Fable, that we may discern in it Moses, Bacchus, Osiris, Apis, to be one man under four several names. Other Particulars might still be added in this Argument; as that some Heathens imagined Bacchus to have been worshipped in the Temple of the Jews Seld. de Diis Syris Synt. 2. c. 17. p. 372., under the Emblem of the Vine; and that Osiris, as well as Harpocrates, is described Cuper. Harpocr. p. 33. Pignor. de mensâ Isiacâ. p. 4. with his finger upon his mouth, representing (as some would guess), the slow speech of Moses.

But enough (I think) has been said already to render it probable that Moses was Apis; the thing which by such proofs and reasons as Philology admitteth in other cases, was to be evinced.

PART 7. Why Moses might be Idolized among the Egyptians.

I Have been long already in this disquisition, but I am not yet at the end of it: For the curious may [Page] further offer to me with pertinence, these following Questions.

First, How Moses came to obtain such Divine Veneration among the Egyptians on whom he drew very grievous plagues, and from whom he removed a great Army of their necessary servants?

Secondly, Why Moses was honoured by an Ox?

Thirdly, Whence that Symbol received the name of Apis?

Fourthly, At what time this Idolatrous Worship of the Symbol of Moses commenced in Egypt?

Fifthly, When, and for what reason, it was divided into the Worship of Apis and Mnevis?

I shall return something in answer to each Query; but I do not sooth up my self with the vain hope of giving such an answer as shall fully satisfie others, or so much as my self.

This caution would have been the less necessary if all the other Queries had been as easie to be resolved as the first, concerning the Worship given in Egypt to the Symbol of Moses.

It is not my opinion alone that he was there honoured after death, with Religious Veneration. Saint Cyril of Alexandria said the same many ages ago. And it was not his bare opinion, but he proved it by the Authority of Diodorus Siculus. The place of St. Cyril which I here refer to is this S. Cyr. Alex. contr. Julian. l. 1. p. 15, 16.: ‘Moses was well known to the Greek Historians.—For Polemon in his first Book of Grecian History, maketh mention of him. So do Ptolemaeus Mendesius, Hellanicus, Pholochorus and Castor, and many others. Diodorus who inquired very curiously into the affairs of Egypt, says, he heard of him from their Wisemen; and of him he thus writeth: After the ancient way of living in Egypt, that (which they talk of) under their [Page] Deities and Heroes; the people (as they report) were first brought to live by written Laws, by a man of a very great mind, and of a most memorable new way of life among the Jews; one Moses who was called a God Diod. Sic. ap. S. Cyr. ibid. p. 15. E.— [...].. For (as St. Cyril proceedeth to note on this place of Diodorus) when they saw Moses most accomplished with every virtue, they called him a God, and, as I think of some of the Egyptians, they gave him divine honour, being ignorant that the supreme God had said thus to him, Behold I have given thee as a God to Pharaoh.’

Here we have it asserted that Moses was highly honoured in Egypt. And there were reasons enough for the honouring of him, and they might prove the occasions of making him an Idol. For Idolatry is veneration overmuch strained.

Moses was born and educated in Egypt; he was reputed the Son of Pharaoh's daughter; he was learned in all the Learning of the Egyptians; he shined in that Court as the Moon amongst the little and confused Lights of the Galaxie. He was the Instrument of God in doing mighty wonders; mighty beyond the power of Natural, Artificial, or Diabolical Magick. And these wonders God wrought by him in the eye of the African World. The holy Scripture reporteth of him Psal. 78. 12. that He did marvellous things in the fields of Zoan, or Tanis, the Metropolis of the lower Egypt. Also, that Exod. 11. 3. that he was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaohs servants, and in the sight of the people. The Son of Syrach Ecclus. 45. 1. calleth him, The beloved of God and man; and sheweth the favour of God towards him, in making him glorious in the sight of Kings Ver. 2.. And though he fled out of Egypt, he was even then a benefactor, removing a people whom the Egyptians dismissed with gifts; and causing their Plagues when [Page] himself disappeared to vanish away. And though he had no way proved a Benefactor, his very power of sending Plagues had been enough to deifie him with that people, who scarce distinguish'd as we do betwixt good and bad Angels; but looked on them that wrought temporal evil, as Ministers of Justice, and not as envious and malicious spirits. Power to do hurt was reverenced by them, and they worshipped Typhon as well as Osiris.

At the Red-sea he astonished Egypt with a Miracle too great and difficult for the united power of all their gods, who could neither oppose it, nor do any thing equal to it. And though hereby he conveighed Israel out of Egypt, yet that deliverance of them could not but represent him, to all that heard the fame of it, as a kind and compassionate man, who saved his own Nation from the tyranny of a Prince, whose rage swelled more than that of the waves in which he perished. Pharaoh certainly oppressed his own people as well as the Israelites. For a proud and cruel Prince is like a Wolf, who has no kindness for any beast, though he be fiercest towards the sheep. And the fall of a Tyrant makes an agreeable sound in the ears of all the slaves which he hath bored, whatsoever the hand be by which he is humbled.

Moses still grew in Eminence by his conversation with God, by his conduct, by his delivery of the Law, by the success of his arms (which Philo Philo Jud. de Praem. & P [...]n. p. 918. D. esteemeth very extraordinary, whilst he warred without money the nerve of War), and last of all by the power of his Miracles.

He was so eminent a person, that R. Josua the Son of Sohib R. Jos. ap. Com. in Main. de Fundam. Leg. p. 9. hath exalted him, not only above the Patriarchs, but even above all Creatures in Heaven and Earth, placing the very Angels at the feet of this [Page] Prophet. Artapanus likewise relateth concerning him Artap. ap. Eus. de Praep. Evang. l. 9. c. 27. p. 432.— [...]., that he was in singular favour with the people, and obtained the name of Hermes, and honour equal to their Deities. From the same authority of Artapanus, Eusebius reporteth Id. ibid. p. 435., that in memory of the Rod of Moses, a Rod was preserved with veneration in every Egyptian Temple, and particularly in the Temple of Isis.

Egypt then never enjoying so great a person as Moses, (if I except the Messiah, carried thither in the days of his Infancy, and there obscured); It is not exceeding strange that a Nation so apt to multiply her gods, should Canonize him. Neither is it on the other hand to be admired that in latter Ages their Reverence should be abated. In the days of Diodorus Siculus the Egyptians reviled Moses, so far were they from adoring him as a god. The cause is manifest. They were a new and mixed generation who either preferred the new Serapis before the ancient Apis; or mistook both whilst they were blended in one. And in the time of Diodorus Siculus, Ptolomaeus Auletes had less regard for Egypt than for Rome, a place where the Jews and their Legislator were then sufficiently despised.

If now so fair an account could not have been given concerning the occasions which rendred Moses an Idol in Egypt; yet that had not been a wa [...]antable reason for the denial of the thing it self. For Isis was worshipped amongst the Suevi; yet Tacitus professeth that he knew not the way by which that foreign Religion did travel thither.

PART 8. Why Moses might be honoured by the Symbol of an Ox.

[Page]

FOR the second Question, why Moses was honoured by the Symbol of an Ox; I must not dogmatize in the resolution of it. Idolatrous Priests were extremely fanciful, both in the names and in the Images of their Gods. And who can at this distance of time, and after so many revolutions, search every fold in their imagination? They described the Junior Bacchus with the face of a Bull De Bacch [...] [...]. See Iön. P—in Athen. Deipn. l. 2. p. 35. & Casaub. Not. p. 78., having respect to the strength of Wine, of which he was said (though falsly) to be the inventer. And who knows whether the Egyptians might not in such sort labour with their fancy, in bringing forth the Image of their more ancient Bacchus, whom we suspect to have been Moses. To him learn'd men have ascribed the Fable of the invention of Wine. And they think it might have occasion given to it by the clusters of Eschol, imperfectly understood. He that would indulge his fancy might still be fruitful in reasons: And he might say amongst other things, that the rays from the face of Moses might move them to the choice of this Symbol of the Ox. For they resembled Horns of strength, which were common Ensigns of Kingly Power, both in Egypt and Phoenicia See Pignor. de Mensâ Isiacâ. p. 30..

Artapanus Artap. ap. Eus. de Praep. Ev. l. 9. c. 27. p. 433. ascribeth to Moses the Invention of Tillage by the help of Oxen. And thence may again be offered a conjecture about the cause of this Symbol. And it is but a conjecture. For it is strange if from the time of Cain, till the days of Moses, so obvious and useful an invention should be unknown to the world. But if it was so long unknown, the discovery of it was of less advantage to Egypt than to most Countries of the World. For (to use the words of Monsieur [Page] Vattier M. Vatt. P [...] to Prod. of Egypt, p. 7, 8., in the Months of July and August the Fields of Egypt are changed into so many Seas, and the Cities and Villages, into so many Islands, by a fortunate Inundation, which spares the Inhabitants that trouble of Tilling and manuring them, which is elsewhere necessary. For the Egyptians have no more to do but to sow the seeds, when the waters are fallen away, and slightly to stir the slime which was spread on the Earth, that they might not lye uncovered. And this they did of old, [not by Oxen, but] as Herodotus relates, by herds of Swine driven after the sowers. And yet some Heathen Writers ascribe the invention of Tillage to Osiris See Natal. Com. p. 482.; and they make Isis Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 13. p. 12. to be Ceres; and the ancient Isis called Ceres, and said by Lactantius to be the mother of Osiris, seemeth no other than the Mother of Moses. If any thing of this nature be applicable to him, I should think it rather some way of getting the corn out of the ear by the help of Oxen, than the invention of Tillage it self by them; for to that use Oxen served in his time, and his Law forbiddeth the muzling of such serviceable Creatures. It may be, not withstanding the aforesaid guesses, that the story of Moses sacrificing Oxen to his God, and of Aaron making the Golden Calf; and again of Moses conducting the Israelites towards Palestine, the then Granary of the World; being received in Egypt, or in some other place of Commerce, in a confused and imperfect narration, after the manner of reports at distance of time and place, might give occasion to the worship of him in the form of a Bull.

But if I attribute this form to him, as the Embleme of his diligence and victorious strength, (for the Horn, as was just now said, served for such an Embleme;) I shall bring the nigher together, the reasons of his Symbol, and of the name of it, about which latter I am to say something in answer to the third Question above propounded.

PART 9. Why Moses might be called Apis.

[Page]

SOmething I would say concerning the name of Apis as relating to Moses; but what I have to produce is very little, and very uncertain. And nothing is more uncertain than the reason of the first imposition of names. It is at the pleasure of men, and they are often humoursome; and often a just occasion taken by them is worn out through time and new uses, which create new names. In an Egyptian word it is no wonder if men be at a loss, seeing the Language is perished. The Learned Gerard Vossius Voss. de Idol. l. 1. c. 29. p. 110, 111, &c. thinketh Joseph to be Apis, and deriveth the name from [ [...], or] A B in the Hebrew Language, which was possibly, but a distinct Dialect from the ancient Egyptian Tongue, as the Coptick, written from the left to the right hand, is but a Dialect of the Greek. Now [...] doth not only signifie a Father, Author, or Inventer; but is also attributed to Kings, Princes, and Lords, and is therefore a title not improper either for Joseph or Moses. My Conjecture fetcheth the name of Apis from [ [...], or] Abir, which signifieth strong and valiant, and is used by Synechdoche, for an Ox, a creature of strength Psal. 22. 13. Psal. 50. 13. LXX. [...].: Nay, it imports strength with such Emphasis, that it is applied to God himself Gen. 49. 24. Abir Jagnakob. In our Translation, the mighty God of Jacob.. Upon supposition that this were right, it ought to be added that the S in Apis, as in Mnevis, Memphis, Serapis, Osiris, Isis, is from the Greek, and not the Original Egyptian. But enough of a word concerning the derivation of which we are so much in the dark, and likely so to continue.

PART 10. VVhen the Worship of Apis commenced.

[Page]

TOuching the subject of the fourth inquiry, the Commencement of the Worship of Moses or Apis, we must still be contented with conjecture.

Much of the fame of Moses could not well arrive at the land of Egypt till after his death, the very manner of which might contribute much to his Deification. Of that it appears they had some kind of notice, by the story of Osiris Strab. Geogr. l. 17. p. 803., whose body was in vain sought for, after his soul had left it. The relation of this, and of many other particulars in the Wilderness, might come to Egypt, after the possession of Canaan, by the Merchants at Tyre or Joppa, or some other such Coasts as were frequented by Egyptians. Their Priests having had before them, by some such way, the Memorials of this great man, though in a rude and confused draught, might thenceforth advance him to the degree of an Heavenly power, and on earth appoint a fit Symbol by which he might be most solemnly reverenced.

This Symbol for many years was but one, the Ox at Memphis: but afterwards it was doubled, at Memphis the Ox Apis was worshipped, the Ox Mnevis at Heliopolis Plutarch. d [...] Is. & Osir. p. 364. C. See D. Marsh. Cron. Can. p 59. Diod. l. 1. c. 21. p. 18. Strab. l. 17. p. 805.. Macrobius Macrob. l. 1. Sat. c. 21. p. 305. speaks of a third Ox worshipped at Hermuntis in the Temple of Apollo, and called Pacis. A name differing very little from Apis, it being its plain Anagram after the casting away of a single letter. But this Pacis is mistaken for Bacis, a name by which, as was said already, Mnevis was called; and it is no other than Bacchus more gently pronounced. So that this third Ox is the same in effect with the first and second.

PART 11. Of the Idols Apis and Mnevis, and the Commencement of their Worship.

[Page]

Now in answer to the last Query, I am to say something about the time of the division of this Symbol of the Ox. Egypt, as a learned D. Marsh. p. 59, 60, &c. man observeth, was of old divided into two parts, the upper and the lower, of which the first (he saith) had Memphis, the other Heliopolis for its chief City. [Though Heliopolis be said by Pliny Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 29. p. 144., to have been built by the Arabians, and was therefore of no very ancient foundation, compared to Memphis. And Egypt was naturally divided into three parts, the upper, in which was Thebes; the middle, in which was Memphis; the lower in which was Heliopolis, and now Cairo, or Masre, nigh the place where Heliopolis once stood.]

Before the Invasion of the Pastors there was but one King over all Egypt, who would scarce have permitted so open a faction, and so plain an emulation of the glory of his Imperial City. If now I had a mind to make the multiplication of this Idol almost equal with that of the division of the Kingdom (a thing no way proved) I would refer this to the times of Amosis, called Tethmosis corruptly by Josephus, and supposed to be the Contemporary of Shamgar. Amosis was that Prince who first recovered Heliopolis from the Pastors, imagined to be a sort of Arab-Egyptians. He is reputed a Theban, and from him Manetho begins his order of the Theban Kings. He set himself industriously to improve Heliopolis, and he might grace it in the quality of a Rival of the ancient Memphis, which he had not such personal reason to be fond of. He might on this occasion set up Symbol after Symbol; for one part of [Page] his care, and a very great one, is said to be Religion. He it was who purged Heliopolis of the barbarous custom of sacrificing men; in the room of which he substituted three Images of Wax, [the Symbols it may be of Apis, in the three places of Memphis, Hermuntis, and Heliopolis; which rendred him properly a threeheaded Pluto.] What I said of his purging Heliopolis, is by Porphyry Porphyr. dt Abstin. l. 2. sect. 55. p. 94. related from Manetho, who, where he speaks of it, does mention Calves in the plural; for he says that men were offered to Juno, and proved after the manner of the selected, pure, and marked Calves of Egypt.

The truth is, there is little certainty in the story of Amosis, and least of all in the time of it. And I might say the like of that of the Pastors. And for the Bulls at Memphis and Heliopolis, I cannot but think them much later than the times of Jeroboam. If they had been extant long after; Herodotus who knew Egypt so well, and spake so often of Apis and of Heliopolis, whose Traditions he went to compare with those of Memphis Herod. Enter. p. 101. c. & p. 103., could as easily have mentioned Mnevis too, as Diodorus Siculus, Plutarch and Strabo, in aftertimes.

PART 12. Whence the Original of Apis might be obscured.

IF now at length a new Question should be started, and I should be askt by any curious man, how this discovery of Apis as Moses has not been made before? how it should come to pass that a Symbol so known in Egypt, should at length every-where be mistaken? I would answer him thus: The Priests of Egypt were very reserv'd in the grounds of their Theology; and they had great opportunity of concealing their Mysteries, [Page] whilst the Priesthood belonged only to some certain Families. Hence Herodotus Herod. l. 2. p. 101. [...], &c. is so sparing in his Relation of the state of Religion after inquiry made by him both at Memphis and Heliopolis. And we learn from Strabo how very shie the Egyptians were of communicating their Arts, much more of their Religion. And he telleth us Strab. in 1. 17. Geog. p. 806. C. that of the Thirteen years which Plato and Eudoxus spent at Heliopolis, much time was consumed, not so much in learning Astronomy, as in prevailing with the Priests to teach them something of their Mysteries.

Also they mixed the names and rites of their Deities; and when the Religion of Greece came in with its Arms they quite confounded them. Such confusion in part happened before, for Cambyses made alteration in their Rites. And time hath been so injurious to them, through the Invasion of Arabians, Persians and others; through the burning of the Ptolomean Library, and other such accidents, that the very names of their Princes, as well as their Gods, are either perfectly forgotten, or very imperfectly and indistinctly remembred. Their grand Tyrant is to few known by his name, but called Pharaoh, a title of Regal power common with him, to the rest of the Egyptian Princes. Of them who speak of his name, some call him Chenephren, and others, Chencres, Chencheres, or Cenchres; others Arenasis See Heylin. G [...]og. in Egypt. p. 934.; others, Bocchoris; others, Achernes; others, Petisonius; others, Tuthmosis, Philastrius Thammuz See Seld. de Diis Syr. Synt. 2. c. 2. p. 338..

But of this Argument enough, and too much it may be for the men of this Age; in some of which the love of ease, in others the pursuit of the appearances of nature, hath prevented the cultivation of Philology; which howsoever it be now the most neglected, is not the most barren and fruitless part of the field of Learning.

[Page] If any learned Philologer shall think all this a device of fancy, he may please still to abound in his own sense. There is not a more unjust tyranny than the imposition of Notions upon a free judgment. And for this notion of Apis as the same with Moses, I propose it only as my present conjecture, and not in the quality of my fixed perswasion. I will not contend about it, or immodestly contest it with any learned Opponent. I shall rather follow the advice of the Arabians in that Proverb of theirs Erpen. Prov. Arab. p. 3., which forbids me to shoot my soft Quills at a statue of Iron.

CHAP. VII. Of the Idolatry of the Mahometans.

MAhomet was descended of the Koreischites, a Tribe of the Arabians. The Arabians were great Idolaters De Idol. Arabvide Abul Farajium de Orig. & mor. Arab. & not. Pocock. p. 89, &c., and it does not appear that he embraced any other Religion for some years, than that to which his Education led him. With the Arabians then he worshipped Statues and Daemons. The Statues of the Arabians are those three mentioned in the Alchoran, Allath, Alozza, and Menath Alkor. Sur. 51., Idols of stone. What the two latter were, is not so well understood; but most agree that by the former, or Allath, was meant a Deess like Venus, or Urania See Seld. de Diis Syr. Synt. 2. c. 2. p. 253.. She had also among them the name of Cabar, or Cubar Hotting. Hist. Oriental. l. 1. c. 7. de Rel. vet. Arab. p. 153.. Herodotus remembreth this Arabian Urania by the name of Alilat, in his Thalia Herod. l. 3. p 185. D. [...]., though in his Clio Id. l. 1. p 62. D. [...]. he had called her Alitta.

Neither did they worship Statues alone, but they worshipped Daemons too, of which such Statues were generally the Symbols. There is mention in the Alchoran, [Page] in Suratâ Noachi, of Vodda, Seraha, Jaguth, Jauk, Neser. Beidavi Hotting. Hist. Orient. p. 156. tell us, that these were the names of good men who lived betwixt Adam and Noah; that after death Images were made of them, that from them a benediction might be obtained; that in process of time they began to be worshipped. That Vodda was represented in the figure of a Man; Seraha of a Woman; Jaguth of a Lion; Jauk of a Horse; Neser of an Eagle; and that this kind of Idolatry was translated to the Arabians. Other Authors make mention of their worship of Bacchus. Hesychius calleth him [...], Tertullian, Tertull. in Apolog. sect. 24. p. 24. Ed. Par. 1664. Unic [...]i (que) etiam Provinciae & Civitati suus Deus est, ut Syriae Astartes, ut Arabiae Disares, &c. Diasares, or Disares, as it is read in the late Edition of Paris. That name may be but the corruption of Osiris, though it is thought to be taken from a mountainous place in Arabia, called Dusares, and mentioned by Stephanus, de Urbibus.

The Arabians also worshipped Angels as well as Heroes, calling them Proverbially, the Daughters of God. The Alchoran chargeth them with this Idolatry, in Suratâ de Bestiis, saying, They joined Genii (that is Angels) as Companions to God.

Mahomet growing weary of this false worship, about the fortieth year of his age, and perhaps of all real Religion, invented a new one of his own, which hath grown exceeding rankly since the first planting of it, as is the manner of many deadly and poysonous weeds. In this new Religion of his he applaudeth himself as the Restorer of the Worship of one God, and declameth vehemently against Idols. And no wonder, for he took to him a Nestorian Monk as his Assistant, and he was himself the Son of a Jewess, to whose Religion he might have some respect, by reason of that Relation, though his mother died too soon to instil her Principles into him,

This Impostor in the Alchoran calleth the Gentiles [Page] Associators, [or such as join others with God as sharers and fellows in his government], because they worship Angels and men, in the place of Gods. He giveth the like name to the Jews, because of their high veneration for Ezra, whom in his uncharitable opinion they had set up as the fellow of the Deity. He also calleth the Christians Associators, by reason of the Trinity which they worship: His blasphemous pride dethroning Christ, and setting up himself as a greater Prophet.

He perpetually inculcated the worship of one God; and this is one of the forty conditions on which he promised Paradise to his Disciples. ‘If they bear witness, that there is no God but the one supreme God, and that he is his Apostle Muha [...]ed Ben Abibecher, (who receiv'd as is said, the forty Apothegms of Mahomet, from his mouth,) in Hott. de Pseud [...] Mah. Initlo. l. 2. c. 3. p. 249..’ His Ministers when they call the people to prayers, cry Alla, Achbar Alla; that is, God, the Highest God; not Alla oua Kubar Alla, God and Venus their Deity, as some have imagined Ap. Sold [...] de Diis Syr. Syntag. 2. c. 4. De Venere Syriac. p. 286, 287.; as if they had worshipped their Gentile Allath, Cabar or Cubar, after they had become the Disciples of Mahomet. Elmacinus Elmacin. Hist. Saracen. l. 1. c. 1. p. 3. summing up the precepts of Mahomet, beginneth in this manner: ‘Mahomet in the forty-fourth year of his age published his Call, [his pretended commission from God]; for before that time he had secretly invited the people to his Religion. In the publication of it, First, he taught them to believe in God alone. Secondly, to worship and adore him. Thirdly, he destroyed the worship of Idols.’ In the forty-first Surata of the Alchoran, he condemneth the worship of Angels. And this worship (saith Beidari Ap. Hott. de Rel. vet. Arab. p. 158.) he abolished first at Mecca. For Images he was so severe against the worship of them, that he forbad all Statues and Pictures; a Law by which the Grand Signior loseth much glory and ornament in his Empire. He brake in pieces Pocock. in Abul Phar. p. 98. with his own hands a wooden Dove found in Caaba; he sent Chaledus to [Page] destroy the Idol Alozza Id. ibid. p. 91. Chaledus pull'd down the house [or Temple], and burnt the Image or Tree with fire. Thence a Daemoness issued out with great exclamation, and he smote her with his sword; which when he had reported to Mahomet, he assured him that that Daemoness was Alozza, whose worship should thenceforth cease.

Notwithstanding all this, his Disciples are accused of a double Idolatry.

First, They are accused as worshippers of their Prophet in the quality of the highest Lieutenant of God. And Mahomet himself gave the occasion of this worship, by teaching them this Creed, That there is one God, and Mahomet his Prophet: setting himself as it were at Gods right hand. It is most notorious that they pray frequently to him; and they pray not only to him to intercede for them with God, but to give them present assistance by virtue of the commission which he hath received from God. For this it seems is one of their Forms in which they pray for the Grand Signior M. Guilla [...]ier's Voy. to Athens, p. 165.: ‘God make you victorious over your enemies, and may our good Prophet pour down his blessing into your heart.’ And in this worship they offend two ways, for they give the honour to Mahomet of a power which God hath not bestowed by commission upon him, and which he hath not in himself as he is a creature of his kind. And they give this honour not meerly to an Hero, but to the wicked soul of a vile Impostor.

Secondly, They are accused as worshippers of the Tomb of their Prophet. I have not read in any good Author that they bow or kneel to it as to an object of worship. And yet I find it said of them by Cornelius Curtius, Curt. de Clavis Dominicis. c. 12. p. 131. Mahumetani Prophetae sui urnam—colunt., That they worship the Urn of their Prophet. He (I confess) is not a competent witness, for a [Page] little before having asserted a summus cultus, that is, sure, supreme worship, to be merited by the Nails of the Cross; Id. ibid. Ai [...] at (que) iterùm ai [...], Sacratissimos Red. nostri Clavos cultum & eum summum mereri. Ità Hebraei olim virgam Aaronis, &c.; he saith of the Jews, that they in such manner venerated the rod of Aaron, the two Tables of stone, and the Ark of the Covenant. Yet this, methinks, may be pronounced against them as a righteous sentence: That if they expect (as they appear to do) some extraordinary blessing at the Tomb at Mecha, by virtue of the commission of their Prophet, and of the Mahometan Religion, they exercise a religious trust in that which is a lie; and they are tempted, as often as the event prayed for succeeds their Pilgrimage and Devotion, to give thanks to an Impostor, for whose sake God does not, will not hear them. And such trust and thanks are highly dishonourable to the true God, who dwells not in any Shrine, and delights not in any false Prophet. Such Idolatrous trust some of them seem to put in the Magical coins or gems which are used by them. Many of them are mentioned by Hottinger, Hotting ci [...]. Hebr. p. 150, 151, 152, 153, &c., and amongst them one which contained the names of twenty Surata's in circular form, and a prayer, of which the following words are a part. ‘Shew me—that which is hidden in thy bosom, Oh thou who art indu'd with majesty and honour.’

I see nothing of moment to be further said by me in this Argument; and therefore I here conclude it. And happy were it for the world if the superstition of Mahomet might have as speedy an end. The like may be said of that kind of Idolatry which hath infected many who profess the true or Christian Religion: And that false worship is my next Subject.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Idolatry with which some are charged, who profess and [...]all themselves Christians. And first of the Idolatry of the Gnosticks and Manichees.

[Page]

PART 1. Of the Idolatry of the Gnosticks.

WHen Christ was incarnate, he soon weakned the visible Empire of the Devil, removing his Idols, and putting his Oracles to silence. One of his great designs in coming in the flesh, was to perswade the World to leave Idols, and the Atheism of many gods, as Maximus speaketh Maxim. al. Orig. in Exhort. [...]d Martyr. p. 193.— [...]. Origen. contr. Cels. l. 1. p. 5.— [...].. He manifested the one true God in Trinity, declaring that there were three in Heaven, and that they Three were One. He revealed much of the nature of the Daemons which had been worshipped in the World, and decried them as wicked and malicious spirits. God in him gave to the World the greatest help against the worship of Daemons and Idols; as shall afterwards be shewed at large, if God permit. His Apostles and followers spake and wrote with zeal against Idols; and God be thanked, not without admirable success. Amongst them was St. John the Beloved Disciple. And he having shewn the Son (in one 1 Joh. 5. 20, 21. of his Epistles) to be the true Image of the Father, and very God of very God, does thence proceed to exclude all other Symbols in this dehortation, Little children, keep your selves from Idols. And with that as with advice of moment, and fit to be reserved [Page] for a word to take leave with, he closeth his Epistle. Idols also were with zeal declaimed against, after him by divers Christians; of whom some were converted Jews, who had lived under an express Law against Images; and others were converted Gentiles, who bent themselves quite another way from their former Rites. And these expressed their detestation of Idols in such severe manner, that they looked upon Statuaries and Painters as men of unlawful Callings.

Others there were Christians by profession, who though they worshipped not (unless by fear or stealth, as Epiphanius Epiphan. H [...]r: 27. noteth), the same Statues and Deities with the Gentiles; yet did they set up afresh an Idolatrous worship, which was in truth but disguised Heathenism. Such were the Scholars of Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, or according to Epiphanius, Carpocras; Valentinus, Cerdon, Marcion, Secundus, Ptolomaeus, Marcus, Colorbasus, Heracleon, Lucian, Apelles, and very many others, who from their arrogant boasting of a [...], or sublime and extraordinary sort of knowledg, obtained the name of Gnosticks. These I will consider as worshippers, firft of Daemons, and secondly, of Images.

The worship of Daemons they learned from the Cabala of Thales, Pythagoras, and Plato. It was the Dogma of Menander, and after him of Saturninus, that S. Aug. Cat. Hoeres. c. 2. p. 6, 7. &c. 3. p. 8, 9. this outward World was made by Angels; that is, that it was framed and composed by those Encosmical gods formerly mentioned, and spoken of by Sallust the Platonist. Alcinous a Disciple of the same School, in his Introduction to the Philosophy of Plato Alcin. de Doctr. Plat. c. 14. p. 35., professeth the same Doctrines. He teacheth it as a Dogma of his Master, That God did not properly make, but rather adorn and excite the Soul of the World, awakening it as it were out of its profound inactivity: that thenceforth [Page] (as an awakened man who stretcheth out his arms) it extended it self far and near, and joined and conserved Alcin. Ib. p. 35, 36.— [...].— the whole of Nature. And to this eternal Soul of the World, a principle which in some sort comprehended in it the inferior Angels, the Gnosticks perhaps alluded in their [...], or fulness of the Godhead, to which St. Paul opposeth the true principle, by which God made all things, his eternal co-essential Son. Beyond the Daemons Alcinous doth not extend the care of God, but setteth them as his Sons Id. ib. c. 15. p. 38.— [...].— over other things. And he ascribeth the formation of Animals, and even of man himself, to Junior Daemons Id. ib. c. 16. p. 39, &c..

Basilides was an Alexandrian where the Pythagorean Cabala had gotten deep footing; and it appeareth by the Errors of Origen, that the very preaching of St. Mark had not worn out the prints of it. Some of them are easily discerned in the writings of that Father, and especially in his Book which hath the Title of [...]. Basilides enjoin'd silence to them to whom his Mysteries were revealed Iren. l. 1. c. 23. p. 120., both in imitation of the silence in the School of Pythagoras, and as a means to avoid the trouble which might arise by the more open publication of them.

Carpocrates and Valentinus, both of them were professed Pythagorean Platonists. Valentinus placeth his Bythus, or Profundity, and Siges, or Silence, as the first conjugation of his [...], or Fullness. And by this he might mean the Soul of the World awakened out of that deep inactivity, which just now we heard of in the Jargon of Alcinous.

Marcion expresly maintained the two Principles of Pythagoras; and he taught that they were distinct, and without beginning, and infinite Orig. D [...]al. cont. M [...]rc. Sect. 2. p. 43..

These Hereticks worshipped a Deity under the mystical name of Abraxas, [or Abrasax, according to the [Page] inscription See Pigno Mens. Isiac. p. 93. on some Basilidian Gems.] This name, some think, they took up with respect to the imposition of that of Abraham. By it they understood a supreme Power, and seven subordinate Angels, the Presidents of the seven Heavens, together with their three hundred and sixtyfive Virtues, answering to the number of the days of the year; and by Basilides in Epiphanius, set over so many members of the body of man.

By the name as one word they understood their one Deity, and under it the Eighth Sphere, which the Platonists called the highest Power, by which all things were circumscribed Alcin. c. 14. p. 38. [...].. By the seven Letters of that one word they understood the seven Angels, and under them the seven Orbs. And therefore Gassendus (if the Printer hath not injured him) committeth a mistake Gassend. in vitâ Peireskii. l. 1. p. 16. Ed. Hagae-Com. 1655. in writing it ABRSAX, as sometimes he doth. He spoileth their Mystery by the diminution of one Letter. Such injury the Engravers have done them in their Gems, unless they designed by false Letters to render them still more mysterious See the Basil. Gem in Cuperi Harpocr. p. 14. ABPACA.—ZCIGI. If the disjoin'd Z belongs not to the first word: for Sigi needs it not.. By the Numeral Powers of their seven Letters in Greek (they amounting to the sum of 365 days), they understood the abovesaid Virtues, Members, and Days of the Year See Epiphan. Haer. 24. and Haer. 26. Th [...]od. de Haer. sab. l. 1. in Basilide. Et Iren. l. 1. c. 34. p. 134, 135.. St. Austin in his Catalogue of Heresies, seems in this matter to commit a mistake S. Aug. Cat. Haer. c. 4. p. 10, 11., for he representeth Basilides as one that held, 365 Heavens, and affirmed them to be the makers of this World. Whereas Basilides and Saturninus ascribed such power to the several Virtues of the seven Angels Id. ibid. c. 3. in Saturnino. p. [...], 9.. St. Hierom S. Hier. Tom. 6. p. 99. judged that this Abraxas was the Sun, or the Mithra of the Persians, because its Annual course doth make up the abovesaid number of days. But a good Reason ought to weigh down his Authority; and there is a reason sufficient to perswade us that they meant some [Page] other supreme God. For in the seven Spheres they included the Sun as one of the Planets, and therefore did not intend him as the Deity that was above Saturn himself, but their [...], or Logos Iren. l. 1. c. 12. p. 88., or Artist of all, or [...] himself. For he in Epiphanius Epiphan. Haer. 36. possesseth the place of the highest Orb. And in many of the Basilidian Gems, particularly in that in the custody of Baronius Baron. Annal. Tom. 2. p. 72., that name of [...] is inscribed, though the Omega be misrepresented in the form of a W.

They who consider this Systeme of their Deities will be apt to think them those Coelicolae which the Emperours condemned; their Religion being a sort of Astrological Magick.

Now this their worship of the Heavens or Angels, came (as I said) from the Schools of Thales and Plato; together with some tinctures from the Heathen Poets, and particularly from Hesiod in his [...]. But the Systeme of it was much further enlarged, and varied also with Mystical signs and interpretations. And they ran a kind of Enthusiastick descant upon a more natural or Geometrical ground. He that fixeth his attention on the Platonick Scheme of the World, observing the several proportions which Plato fancied in the adjusting of its parts when it was first framed: He that reads in Timaeus Locrus Timaeus Locr. de An. Mundi, p. 7., of the hundred and fourteen thousand, six hundred ninety and five divisions of the Soul of the World; and in Alcinous Alcin. de Doct. Plat. c. 13. p. 31, &c. of the Octoedral, Icosaedral, Duodecaedral figures in the composing of the Universe: He that readeth further in Irenaeus Irenaeus adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 1. p. 1, &c. c. 12. p. 85, &c. l. 2. c. 24. p. 178, &c. c. 38. p. 190. of the Principle called [...], or the Divine fulness, and of the Quaternations, Octonations, Decads, Dodecads, and numberless Conjugations of the AEons of the Gnosticks, who began their Fancies very early, though the Scheme of them was successively varied, as likewise the very wording of it, the Simonians changing [Page] their Masters [...] into St. John's Logos See Doctiss. Vind. Epist. S. Ignatii, par. 2. c. 6. p. 59, &c. p. 70, &c., after his Gospel became publick; such a one will guess without the gift of Prophesie, what Doctrines did set their imaginations on work. He will not wonder that the Disciples of Simon Magus worshipped in private the Image of Pythagoras S. Aug. de Haer. c. 7. p. 22. Iren. l. 1. c. 24. p. 122, 123.. They will not think it strange that the Valentinians in Irenaeus called their first Tetrad, the Pythagorick Tetractys.

Celsus mistaketh these Gnosticks for true Christians, and compareth Cels. ap. Orig. l. 6. p. 290. their Mystical scale of things with that of the Mithriacs, or Persian Divines. Origen Orig. contr. Cels. ib p. 291. supposeth those whom he pointeth at to be the Sect of the Ophians, a kind of spawn of the Gnosticks. And he mentioneth a Diagram of theirs Id. ib. p. 292. which had fallen into his hands; and in which they described the Soul of the World penetrating all things, under the name of Leviathan. If that Diagram had been preserved, it might have been compared with other Pythagorick and Magick Systemes; and a Torch might have been lighted from it, for further discoveries of that nature than can now be made. For the Ophites they were manifest Idolaters, worshipping a living Serpent for Christ See Epiphan. Haer. 37.. And the Gnosticks were no better whilst they worshipped their Angels as Rulers of the World. Hence Marcus the Gnostick is reproached expresly in Irenaeus Iren. l. 1. c. 12. p. 88. [...], &c., after the mention of the AEons, as a maker of Idols. Neither is St. Hierom of another mind; for on the third Chapter of Amos thus he discourseth: ‘Every Heretick feigneth what pleaseth himself, and then he worshippeth his own fiction. Thus did Marcion with his idle Deity, Valentinus with his thirty AEons, Basilides with his god Abraxas S. Hieron. Tom. 6. op. p. 99..’

As these were the sink of Hereticks, so were they the principal of Idolaters, giving to the Devil himself by way of honour, the title of Cosmocrator Iren. l. 1. c. 1. p. 24. See Feuardent. Annot. p. 47., [Page] or Ruler of this World: As if he had been such by the Commission of that Demiourgus, whose creature (they say) he was, and not by the consent of wicked men.

Idolaters then they were in the first place, with respect to the Daemons whom they worshipped. And in the second place I am inclined to think them such with respect to the Images of their Deitie and his Daemons. Some such things were the Gems See Joh. Macar. de Gemmis Basilid. cum Commentar. Joh. Chiffletii, 4. Antv. 1657. of the Basilidians, preserved till these late times. Joseph Scaliger had one of them in his possession See Epist. 119. to Is. Casaub., and the excellent Peireskius very many Gassend. in vitâ Peir. l. 1. p. 16.. Amulets they were See the Charm of Q. Serenus Sarmonicus a Disci. of Basil. in Baron. Annal. Tom. 2. A. C. 120. p. 72, 73., and Symbols too of their Deities, whose names of Abraxas, Michael, Gabriel, Ouriel, Raphael, Ananael, Prosoraiel, Yabsoe Consider well what is said (in Marian. ap. Card. Raspon. de Basil. Later. l. 2.) of the original of the Popes Agnus Dei's: The Masons digging in the Vatican, found a Lamb of Wax in a Golden Case, on which these words were engrav'd, Maria nostra florentissima, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael Archangel, & Uriel. Simon, itseems, hath been at Rome., (names of their god, and their seven Angels the Presidents of their seven Heavens) were inscribed on them, together with the Figures of Men, Beasts, Fowls, Plants, Stars; the Schemes of which may be seen in Pignorius Pignor. de Mensâ Isiacâ, p. 92.. Abraxas is represented with humane body, with buckler and whi [...], or sword in hand, as Ensigns of Power; and with Serpents, as feet. Of a like abuse of Magical Gems the Jews and Mahometans themselves have been guilty See Hotting. Cipp. Hebratc. p. 138, 150, &c.. And what are such Gems but Idols, when there is an expectation from them of supernatural virtue, which God hath not communicated to them?

Irenaeus reporteth of the Gnosticks Iren. adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 24. p. 122, 123., that they had Pictures and Images, and particularly one of Jesus made by Pilate; also that they crown'd them and set them with the Images of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, and other Gentile Philosophers, observing or worshipping them after the manner of the Heathens. The like is said by Epiphanius in his Twenty-seventh Heresie; and [Page] by Theodoret, in his first Book of Heretical Fables, where he informeth us, that Simon's Statue was like to that of Jupiter's, and Helen's like to that of Minerva's; and that they were worshipped with Sacrifice and Incense. The same is written by St. Austin S. Aug. Cat. Haer. c. [...]. p. 1:, who further mentions Id. ibid. c. 7. p. 22. de Carpocr. the Idolatry of Marcellina, one of that Sect, who worshipped together with the Images before remembred, the Statue of Homer. I will end this Discourse of the Idolatry of the Gnosticks, with the following words of the very learned Mr. Thorndike Mr Thorndike's just weights and measures, c. 2: p. 10.. ‘For the Idolatry of the Gnosticks (which I am confident is mentioned in divers Texts of the new Testament) it may well be counted the Idolatry of the Pagans, though pretending to be Christians. Because they did not stick to exercise the same Idolatry when occasion was offered; though they had their own Idolatries besides; whether peculiar to their several Religions, or as Magicians.’

PART 2. Of the Idolatry of the Manichees.

WIth the Gnosticks I will join the Manichees, both agreeing in obscene Superstitions Leo Max. Ser. 2. de Fest. Pent. Sect. 6. p. 75. Manichaeus—magister fals [...] tatis diabolicae & conditor superstitiouis obscaenae, &c., and in the worship of the principal evil Daemon; and both being branches from the same Magical Trunk of Pythagorean Philosophy. Cubricus or Manes took the occasion of his Heresie from his Marriage with the Widow of Terbinthus, who died in exercising his Magical Tricks. Terbinthus, who also disguis'd himself in Persia under the name of Budda, deriv'd his folly from his Master Scythianus a Saracen in Egypt. Scythianus was learned in the Writings of the Grecians, and wrote four Books of Pythagorean Magick. And Lucas Holstenius rightly observeth Lucus Holst. de vitâ & Script. P [...]rphyr. p. [...] ▪, that the twofold [...] of [Page] the Pythagoreans which comprehendeth [ [...]], the contrary combinations of the principles of unity and division, was the root of the two contrary Manichaean Powers. These Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians, who besides a good principle own'd Typhon (called also Seth, Bebon, and Smy) a principle of Evil and Tyranny.

For Manes, he strain'd the conceit of the Pythagorean Soul of the World to such a degree of extravagance, that he plac'd a perceptive spirit, (as Epiphanius noteth) in every Creature. He would not so much as break his Bread, or cut a Pot-herb, though he had cruelty enough to eat them. For certainly if Bread were still alive after grinding and baking, it remained so in the broken pieces of it. But how wild a flight does mans fancy take, when it moves it self only upon its own wings!

I do not recall any passage in History which sheweth concerning this monstrous Heretick, that he either prayed or sacrificed to this principle of evil. If he did neither, he yet made an Idol of it by exalting it in his mind, to that undue supremacy. And on the other hand, he turned the Author of all good into another Idol. For as we are instructed by Theodoret in his first Book of Heretical Fables, he confined that Principle to three quarters of the World, bestowing the Southern parts upon Matter, the dark Principle, or the Devil. He likewise sacrilegiously robbed God of that part of his Providence which dispenseth righteous judgments. Further, as the same Theodoret relateth, he sometimes called the Sun and Moon his Deities. Sometimes he called the Sun, Christ; and prov'd it as Enthusiasts prove their Dreams, by the Eclipse it suffered at his Crucifixion. Sometimes he maintained them to be two Ships which conveyed the Souls which depart hence, [Page] from Matter to Light. With reason then did St. Austin S. Aug. l. 4. Confess. c. 7. Vanum Phantasma & error meus, erat Deus meus. thus confess his Manichaean impiety; ‘My vain fantasm and my error was [then] my God.’ But of the Gnostick and Manichaean extravagance enough. I I come in the next place to speak of people much more sober, and yet not without a mixture of madness.

CHAP. IX. Of the Idolatry with which the Arians and Socinians are charged.

PART 1.

THE Honour of God under Christianity can be by none secured but by such who acknowledg the Godhead of his Son. The Gentiles not understanding this truth, but looking upon Christ as in the flesh, without any Personal union of it to a subsistence in the Godhead, reproached the Christians for their worship of him. And they made this to be the cause why the Heavenly Powers were angry with them, (as they judged) and afflicted them with persecution; because they put up daily prayers to one that had been a man, and one that died on a Cross Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 1. p. 19. 20,—Quod hominem natum, &c. Quotidianis supplicat. adoratis.; though the objection held against their Hercules, and many other of their Deities, who once were men, and died in pain and shame Arnob. Ib. p. 20.—Quinam sunt hi dii—&c.—Hercules—flammis concre-matus Oëtaeis.. What else was AEsculapius whom their Jove (themselves confessing it) smote with his Thunder Orig. contr. Cels. l. 3. p. 123. [...].? Had they known Christ to have been a Divine person incarnate, they would have worshipped him themselves, and own'd him as the only substitute whom the Father could have so used without diminution of the Divine honour. Hence St. Paul maketh the confessing of Jesus [Page] to be the supreme Lord, to whom all things in Heaven and Earth, and under the Earth are to do obeisance, to be a duty that promoteth the glory of God the Father Phil. 2. 10, 11..

This glory the Arians and Socinians are said to diminish; and they are the persons whom I am next to consider.

Arius the Lybian, a Priest of Alexandria is accused by the Fathers, both as an Heretick, and as an Idolater; and his Idolatry is charged upon him as the just [...]onsequence of his Heretical opinion. And Irenaeus hath observed concerning most Heresies Iren. l. 1. c. 19. p. 114., ‘That the maintainers of them do acknowledg one God, yet by their corrupt mind do so alter the notion of him, that they become ungrateful to him that made them, as did the Gentiles by their Idolatry.’ Arius heated by the Dispute betwixt Bishop Alexander and himself, maintained at length with obstinacy and uproar, that Christ had a beginning of his existence: That there was a time when he was not, though he was before the world: That he was not (what Origen or Maximus Maxim. in Dial. contr. Marcion. sect. 1. p. 3. See Socr. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 5, 6. p. 9, 10, &c. Ed. Vales, & Soz. H. Eccl. l. 1. c. 15. p. 425. called him) the [ [...], or] Consubstantial Word of the Father: That he was therefore not the one Deity, the God of Israel, but a made or created God: And that the Father, or true God, did by him, as by his instrument create all other things. Servetus, if I well remember his opinions, was a man yet much more extravagant than Arius, for he conceived Christ to be a Divine Light M. Serv. l. 2. de Trin. p. 87. which God used as his Instrument in making the World; and his flesh to be made out of the very substance of God Servet. Resp. ad Artic. Joh. Calvini. ad Art. 9. p. 221. Planè dico carnem Christi de coelo esse secundum essentiam Deitatis. Id. de Trin. l. 2. p. 87. Non solum in Anim [...] sed & in carne Christi est substantialis Deitas.. And by that which I have seen of his, I judg him fitter to have been chained up as a mad-man than burnt as an Heretick. Arius had his flaws too, but with much more consistence. He having thus degraded Christ into the condition of a [Page] creature, was for that reason condemned as an Heretick. And because he still worshipped Christ with Divine incommunicable honour, he was also accused of Idolatry. Amongst his Accusers See Procl. Episcop. C. P. ad Armen. de Fide. p. 24, &c. Athanasius is one of the principal, and he is frequent and earnest in his declamations against him.

In his first Oration against the Arians Athanas. Or. 1. cont. Arian. p. 296. B., there is a discourse which appertaineth to the present occasion; and this is the meaning of it: ‘The Apostle rebuketh the Gentiles for worshipping the Creation [...], using promiscuously Worship and Latria., saying, That they served the Creature besides [or, as the Translator renders it Servierunt creaturae priùs quàm Creatori., before] God For Athan. reads it, [...], though [...] be not in our Copies of the N. T. the Creator. And these [to wit, the Arians] affirming of the Lord that he is a creature, and serving him [or giving him [...], &c. Latria] as a creature, how differ they from the Gentiles? How can it be, if so they think, that the accusation of St. Paul before cited shall not also appertain unto them?’

Such again is his discourse in his fourth Oration Athan. Or. 4. cont. Arian. Tom. 1. p. 468, 469., and this is the scope of it: ‘If there be not such a Logos [or, co-essential Word] as we speak of; if, from not being it came into being, and was made a creature; it is either not true God (seeing 'tis in the number of created Beings); or, if by the power of Truth in Scripture they are forced to confess it to be true God, then they acknowledg two Deities, the one the Creator, the other a Creature: Then serve they two Masters, the one uncreated, the other created: Then have they two Creeds, one in which they profess to believe the true God, the other in which they own a Deity made and formed by themselves, and called God. It further of necessity followeth, that whilst in this blind manner they worship the uncreated God, they contend against him that is created; and that [on the other hand] whilst [Page] they turn to the Creature, they forget the Creator. For it is not possible, by reason of the different natures and powers of these two, to discern the one in the other. They therefore who are of this opinion, do plainly join [or confound] many Gods together. For this is the wickedness of them who depart from one God. Why then do not the Arians whilst they are of the same mind, number themselves among the Greeks [or Gentiles]? for they as well as these worship the Creature above [or besides] God who created all things. But they in order to the circumventing of the simple, avoid the name of Gentile [...], which the Translator has improperly rendred, Vocabulum AEthnicorum., yet are of the same mind with them. For that common Sophism of theirs, We profess not Two Uncreated, is plainly a delusion of the vulgar. For whilst they say, they do not maintain two Uncreated, they set up two Deities: Two of a different nature, one Uncreated, and one Created. Now if the Heathens worship one uncreated Deity, and many created ones; and these [Arians] one uncreated, and one created; neither is there in that respect any great difference betwixt them and the Heathens; whilst he that is thought by them to be created, is one of the multitude of the Heathen-gods; and the Heathen-gods are of the same [finite] nature with that one of theirs, and in like manner Creatures.’ The like Argument is maintained by this Father in that short Oration against the Arians, which we find about the beginning of his second Volume S. Athanas. p. 22. Tom. 2. B.. But the Transcription of every thing of this nature which occurreth in his Works, would be a burthen both to the Reader and my self; and a burthen so much the heavier, because the same sense is repeated so very often, though in variety of phrase.

The charge of Idolatry has been likewise drawn up [Page] against the Socinians, called the Modern Arians, the Ariano-Baptists (a), and the Arians of Poland. Both Arians and Socinians herein consent, that they deny the natural Divinity of Christ, though in other Doctrines they differ very widely; and very much in their explication of that opinion in which they principally agree. For Arius maintained the praeexistence of the Logos (b) before the foundation of the World; whilst Socinus dateth the very being of Christ from the Conception of the Virgin. Some Arians maintained a likeness in the substance of Christ to that of Gods; though others called him [ [...],] one of a different substance. Sandius Polon. Consens. in Corp. Confess. p. 230. Christ. Sand. l. 1. Hist. Eccl. Enucl. p. 219. Ed. 1. thinketh that Arius himself believed the Son and Spirit to be specifically [...] with the Father. That is his mistake, and it is not the only one which he has committed. We read otherwise of him in Socrates the Historian. In him Alexander Alex. Alexandriae Episc. in Gelas. Hist. conc. Nicaen. p. 145.— [...], &c. Socrat. l. 1. Eccl. Hist. c. 6. p. 11. reporteth this to be the Dogma of Arius, that Christ was not [...]. Also that the Son of God had liberty of sinning. This latter he might sometimes speak, when the heat of disputation inclined him to rave. But it was his fixed opinion, that the Essence of God was perfectly invisible; and that the Essence of the Son was visible, being created. [though in that he erred too, no spirit being so, nor the essence of the grossest body]; and consequently that his Essence was not of the same species with that of the Father See Hilar. de Syn. Advers. Arianos, p. 359, 360, &c.. Generally the Arians held it to be an Angelical, rather than a Divine nature. But Socinus doth degrade it further still, and will have Christ be a mere man, or innocent Prophet. And how wide soever the distance was betwixt Alexander or Athanasius, and the Heretick Arius; yet of this I am confident that they would all have joined, had that new Scheme of pretended Christianity been then extant, in suppressing or burning the [Page] Racovian Catechism. Arius had much the better Creed, Socinus somewhat the better temper, and the greater command over his passions. But both have much disturbed the Christian Church, and both have been accused of Heresie, Schism, and Idolatry.

That this last crime was charged on Arius, hath been shewed already. And I will further shew that Socinus also hath been accused of it. This being done, I will then consider of the justice of the charge, with respect both to Arius and Socinus.

When I speak of the Idolatry of the Arians and Socinians, I mean not the worship of Statues, or of Daemons; unless the Logos, as they have fashioned him, be to be reputed as one of them: For most true is that saying of St. Austin Quisquis talem cogitat Deum qualis non [...]st, alienum & falsum Deum corde suo portat. in his Questions on Joshuah: ‘Whosoever feigneth in his mind such a God as is not God, the same carrieth in his heart a strange and false God.’ And this I have called negative Idolatry, in the definition of that false worship.

The Socinians are so far from the worship of Hero's, their Christ excepted, that they maintain the sleep of the Soul; and Brenius some-where maketh its Dormitory some Particle of the Blood. The Author of the little Book called Disquisitio Brevis Disquis. Brev. c. 8. p. 41. Credunt[Evangelici] reipsâ mortuos vivere. [...]o nimirum modo, quo Petrum, Paulum, alios (que) demortuos in Coelis vivere asserunt; hoc autem fundamentum est, non tantum Purgatorii, sed & nesandae istius Idololatriae quae in sanctorum demortuorum invocatione apud Pontificios cernitur., proposeth the Doctrine of the Souls Insensibility as a means of removing those of Purgatory, and of the Invocation of Saints. And for the practice which conformeth it self to this latter Doctrine, he calleth it a very wicked Idolatry. In that crime if they offend, it is upon their account of the Invocation of Christ; whilst from a God they have changed him into a Saint of the highest order. And this is the Particular wherein Socinus is accused by Franciscus Davidis, who having swallow'd the first error, which rejecteth the Essential Divinity of Christ, did in pursuance of it (for one false way does [Page] mislead to many others) deny the lawfulness of his worship. And though Socinus hath against him very firmly proved the lawfulness of adoring Christ, yet for his consequence [that Christ being but a Creature by essence, is not to be worshipped as they pretend to adore him], he hath only evaded the force of it by the subtlety of his wit: A wit so able to turn it self into all shapes and figures See Socin. de Invocat. Christi, in vol. 2. oper. p. 713, &c. and his Disput. with Christian. Franken. p. 767., that it could scarce be held fast by demonstration it self.

PART 2. Of the Idolatry of the Arians.

WE see then that the Arians both ancient and modern have been accused as Idolaters. But because every man would be guilty if accusation were a crime; it will in the next place be a piece of justice, to inquire into the grounds upon which the Accusers usually proceed. And here I will first consider apart, the things with which they are severally charged; and then those things together in which they are together blamed; and declare the grounds and reasons on which they are in all these respects condemned.

That which seemeth to me in this point criminal in the Arians, and not in the Socinians, is the worship of Christ as Creator of the World. They took those places of Scripture which ascribe to the Son of God the making of the Universe, as they plainly sound; and either wanted such confidence as the Socinians, or rather such Grammatical subtlety, by which they wrested them to a very different sense. The places of Scripture which I mean, are such as these: All things were made Joh. 1. 3. by[the Word], and without him was not any thing made that was made. Christ is the Image of the invisible God Col. 1. 15, 16, 17., the first-born of every Creature. For in[or by] [Page]him were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth, visible and invisible; whether they be Thrones or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers. All things were created by him, and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. These words, together with all other places of a like nature, the Socinians do industriously and violently draw to a scope, at which they were never aimed Comp. Socin. C. 1. Sect. 7. p. 53.—Creatio—Christo tribuitur. Resp. Illic agi de secundâ, non de primâ rerum creatione, h. e. Mundi Innovatione, quoad Religionem & Regnum Christi.. It is true that the aim of St. Paul in the place now cited, has not been so particularly and critically discerned by some of the most Catholick Commentators. But in general all of them well understood that these Expressions, [The Worlds; Things visible and invisible; all things that were made; things in Heaven, and things on Earth], were such as no Jews or Christians commonly used, in speaking of the founding the Christian Church, and making the new world of the Gospel. And where it is said, That every house is built by some man, but he that built all things is God Heb. 3. 4.; there to interpret it after this fashion, of Gods revealing the Christian Oeconomy, as they may if they please; (for the same Key may serve for all such places), is an absurd Comment which hath no need of confutation. But with them, who have denied first the Satisfaction of Christ, and for the sake of that error, his Divinity; and then for the sake of that second error, his Praeexistence and Creative power; The beginning of the Logos is at the beginning of the Gospel; and the Creation of all things is the new Creation in Evangelical truth and righteousness; how harshly soever these Interpretations sound to the ears of the Judicious. Why go they not on, and say, that God is called the Creator of Israel, and therefore may mean the first words of the Book of Genesis of that people, and not of the Material World? Why do not they Comment in this manner on the words in the Acts, [Page]God that made the World Act. 17. 24., and all things therein, [that is, the Gospel with all its appurtenancies], seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and Earth, [that is, of the new Evangelical Heaven and Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness], dwelleth not in Temples made with hands.

They err who think the Apostle in that place to the Colossians, did in Allegorical manner allude to Moses. No, he plainly opposeth himself to Gnosticism, which was then on foot, though put afterwards into many new dresses; and to the Simonian Scheme of the world, more like to that of Pythagoras than that of Moses; though Moses has been thought to Platonize, as some speak; which to me does not so plainly appear from the words he has left us. St. Paul calleth Christ, the [ [...], or] Image of God, and the [ [...], the] first-born of every creature; not thereby affirming, that Christ was not very God but his first creature of a different substance; but opposing him to [the [...], and to the [...]] the Images and the Beginning of the Platonick Simonians See of the Gnostic [...] Iren. l. 1. c. 1. &c. 10. p. 76. and of the [...] of Megithius the Marcionite in Orig. Dial. con. Marc. Sect. 1. p. 3, 4, 14. And of [...] see Iren. l. 1. c. 10. p. 78. where of the [...] of the Elements of Marcus.. He therefore seems to me to speak to this effect. ‘You boast of I know not what first-borns and Beginnings, which created other things. Behold here the true First-born and Beginning, who indeed made the World.’ [Thus Ignatius Ign. Epist. Interpol. ad. Philadelph. p. 180. Ed. Voss. opposeth to the [...] of the Gnosticks, the Son of God; affirming that there was one God of the Old and New Testament, and one Mediator betwixt God and Men, [...], for the creating and governing of all things: and those who believe otherwise, he in the following Page condemneth as the Disciples of Simon Magus.] The Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, mentioned in the next Verse, are in like manner opposed to the Principles or Angels, [Page] which those Hereticks fancied to be subordinate Creators and Governours of the visible World. Epiphanius in his Twenty-third Heresie of the Saturnilians — [...], &c., declareth their odd opinion concerning one Unknown Father, and the [ [...],] the Virtues, Principalities and Powers, made by him; and of the inferior creatures made by them. And in his Twenty-sixth Heresie of the Gnosticks, he setteth down the order of their [ [...], or] Heavenly Principalities: How little now do these names differ from the [ [...], or] Dominions; the [ [...], or] Principalities; the [ [...], or] Powers, of St. Paul the Apostle? And that Apostle doth no more assert in this place the creation of such Orders, than he doth the making of the Gnostick AEons in the first Chapter to the Hebrews, where he affirmeth of Christ that he made [...]. In such places he said in effect that the Logos was the true Principle which they mistook in their notion, and miscalled by other names, though they were in a kind of pursuit of him, but in the dark, and in false ways: That it was he that made the World visible and intellectual, by what names soever they called it, or into what Classes soever they had disposed it; and that this was not the effect of any such powers as they dreamed of, they having no existence but in the shadows of their own imagination.

In the following Chapter Col. 2. 8., he opposeth the Principles of Christian Religion to the Elements of their Philosophy. And in the next Verse Vers. 9., he opposeth to the [...] of the Simonians, the fulness of the Deity which dwelt in Christ. And after that Ver. 10, 15. he twice mentioneth his Headship over all [ [...] and [...]] Principalities and Powers: And thence he most aptly proceedeth to the condemnation of the worship of Angels Vers. 18.: For of them the Gnosticks made egregious Idols.

[Page] I am the more confirmed in this Discourse upon St. Paul's words by those of Irenaeus: ‘God (said he in his refutation Irenaeus adv. Haer. l. 1. c. 9. p. 114. of the Gnostick Heresie) did make all things, both visible and invisible, sensible and intelligible,—not by Angels, or other Virtues,—But by his Word and Spirit.—This God is neither Beginning, nor Virtue, nor Fulness:’ That is (as I suppose it was read in the Greek Copy, which the Learned world much wanteth) ‘neither [...], nor [...], nor [...], no Gnostick Principle, but true and very God.’ Neither am I concerned at the Objection of those who ascribe these Terms to Valentinus; for 'tis plain he was not Iren. l. 1. c. 5. p. 58. [...], &c. the Inventer. It appeareth by the studiousness of Socinus, in order to the eluding of the force of such places, that he believed an acknowledgment of Christ as Creator, was in effect a confession of his Godhead. This then being by Arius granted, and by Socinus denied, that Christ created the Natural World; it is that single point in which Arius apart from Socinus, is chargeable with Idolatry. And certainly he is not accused upon slight and idle suspicion, if the charge be drawn up against him, either from Scripture or Reason.

In the Scripture God himself doth prove himself to the World, to be the true one God, by his making of all things. In what other sense will any man, whose prejudice does not bend him a contrary way, interpret the following places? Who hath measured out Isa. 40. 12, 13. See also Verses 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28. the waters in the hollow of his hand? and meted out the Heavens with a span; and comprehended the dust of the Earth in a measure; and weighed the Mountains in scales, and the Hills in a ballance? Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord, or being his counseller hath taught Him?

Thus saith Isa. 42. 5, 8. the God, the Lord, he that created the [Page]Heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth the Earth, and that which cometh out of it. He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein. I am the Lord, that is my name, and my Glory I will not give to another.—Thus saith Isa, 43. 1, 10. the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and formed thee, O Israel! Fear not.—Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

The Lord Jer. 10. 10, 11, 12. is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King, [or, the King of Eternity.]—Thus shall ye say unto them, [the Nations,] The gods that have not made the Heavens and the Earth, even they shall perish from the Earth, and from under these Heavens. He hath made the Earth by his Power; he hath established the World by his Wisdom, and hath stretched out the Heavens by his Discretion.

Thus speaketh the Scripture: In the next place let it be considered whether Reason can dissent from it. What notion will Reason give us of the true God, if it supposeth such wisdom and power in a creature as can make the World? For does not Reason thence collect her Idea of God, conceiving of him as of the mighty and wise framer of the Universe? thus the very Americans themselves, I mean the Peruvians, did call their supreme God by the name of Pachaia Chacic See Gerard. Voss. de Idol. l. 1. p. 14. which signifies as they tell us, the Creator of Heaven and Earth.

In this then Arius is particularly to be condemned, in that he supposeth the Creator a Creature, and yet professeth to worship him under the notion of the Maker of all things.

It is true, that Arius gave not to Christ the very same honour he did to the Father. And his Disciples in their Doxologies, were wont in cunning manner, to give Glory to the Father by the [Page] Son Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. ad fin. p. 388.— [...].. And such a Form Eusebius himself used Id. contra Sabell. l. 1. p. 22. Ed. Sirmond.; and we find it at the end of one of his Books against Sabellius: ‘Glory be to the one unbegotten God, by the one only begotten God the Son of God, in one holy Spirit, both now and always, and through all Ages of Ages, Amen.’

Neither do the Arians give any glory to Christ, but that which they pretend to think enjoined by God the Father. But if Christ had been a Creature, the Creator would not by any stamp of his Authority have raised him to the value of a natural God; and such a God they honour, whatsoever the terms be with which they darken their sense; for he is honoured by them as Creator and Governour, and dispenser of Grace.

PART 3. Of the Idolatry of the Socinians.

THe point in which Socinus offendeth by himself, is the Worship he giveth Christ whilst he maketh him but a man; and such a man as is but a machine of animated and thinking Matter: for though he declineth not the word, soul or spirit, I cannot find at the bottom of his Hypothesis, any distinct substance of a Soul in Christ. If that Principle had been believed by him, why doth he suppose the Lord Jesus bereaved of all Perception as long as his Body remained lifeless in the Grave Compendiolum Socinianismi, c. 8. Sect. 7. p. 142.—Hinc colligunt animas post mortem nihil sentire aut agere, imo ne quidem in se reipsâ subsistere ut personas: atque hoc esse quod passim dicitur in V. T. mortuos non habere memoriam Dei.—Item hunc esse descensum ad inferos, cum quis in Statum mortuorum redigitur.? Why do his Followers maintain that the dead do no otherwise live to God than as there is in him a firm purpose of their Resurrection Vind. Conses. Eccles. Polon. p. 150.? for so the Vindicator of the Confession of the Churches of Poland, written by Shlichtingius, is pleased to discourse: ‘We believe (said he) not only that the Soul of Christ supervived his Body, but also that the Souls of other men do the like. But if Cichovius thinketh [Page] that the dead do otherwise live to God, than as it is always in the hand and power of God to raise them up, and restore them to life; let him go and confute Christ, where he saith, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.’ Now Reason (the great Diana of Socinus, though he often took a cloud of fancy for his Goddess) can't but judg it a disparagement to the Idea of a God, to suppose such Divinity as can govern the World, and hear and act in all places at once, (as Christ is by Socinus confessed to do); in a portion of living Matter, not six-foot square, reserved in the Heavens; and perceiving by the help of motion on its organs. Arius advanced the Idea of Divinity to a much higher and more becoming pitch; for he, overcome with the plain evidence of Scripture, maintained the Praeexistence of the Logos, and supposed him to be a distinct substance from Matter. And he might consequently affirm with consistence to his Principles, that Christ could know without the mere help of motion, and be spread in his substance to an amplitude equal with that of the Material World. For the Material World is but a Creature, one Body of many Creatures; and it implieth no contradiction to say of God, that he can make one Creature as big as the collection of all the rest. But notwithstanding such amplitude, there would still be wanting infinite Wisdom. For in the Idea of God we have no other notion of it than as of such a Wisdom as sufficeth to frame the World, and to govern it after it hath been framed.

Now this latter Point is that in which both Arius and Socinus are together condemned, whilst both worship Christ as one who under God disposeth and governeth all things. It is true, that he is such: but such [Page] he had not been if he had not been consubstantial with the Father. In that sense he is the Father's Wisdom: and whilst Arius and Socinus adore him as Gods Wisdom, yet not as God; they ascribe to the Creature, the Attribute by which the Creator is known. For the Scriptures, they in opposition to all other gods, do as well ascribe the Government, as the Creation of the World, to that one God of Israel. Hear them speaking in this matter, with so loud and plain a voice, that he who is dull of hearing cannot mistake them, unless he by obstinacy make himself deafer still, and will not distinctly hear them. In them we find this Prayer made by the pious King Hezekiah, when he was distressed by Sennacherib Isa. 37. 16, 1 [...], 18, 19, 20.. O Lord of Hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the Cherubims! Thou art the God, even thou alone of all the Kingdoms of the Earth. Thou hast made Heaven and Earth. Incline thine ear, O Lord, and hear, open thine eyes, O Lord, and see; and hear all the words of Sennacherib who hath sent to reproach the living God. Of a truth, Lord, the Kings of Assyria have laid wast all the Nations and their Countries, and have cast their Gods into the fire; for they were no gods but the work of mens hands, wood and stone; therefore they have destroyed them. Now therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the Kingdoms of the Earth may know that thou art the Lord, even thou only. Other places there are to the same purpose See Isa. 41. from 1, to 29. &c. 43. 1, to 6., and amongst them these: Let them [the Nations or Gentiles] give glory unto the Lord Isa. 42. 12, 13., and declare his praise in the Islands. The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man;—He shall prevail against his enemies.

I have declared Isa. 43. 12, 13. and I have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God. Yea, before the day I was he,—I will work, and who shall let it?

[Page] Thus saith the Lord Isa. 43. 14, 15, 16. the Redeemer,—I am the Lord your holy one, the Creato [...] of Israel, your King. [He that raiseth you out of mean estate, and ruleth over you.] Thus saith the Lord who maketh a way in the Sea, and a path in the mighty waters.

Who would not fear thee, O King of Nations Jer. 10. 7, 8, 9.! The stock is a doctrine of vanities; but the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King.

Ask ye of the Lord rain Zach. 10, 1, 2., in the time of the latter rain; so the Lord shall make bright clouds, and give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field. For the Idols have spoken vanity.—The eyes of the Lord Zach. 4. 10. run to and fro through the whole Earth. [The King of Chaldea] Hab. 1. 9, 10, 11, 12. shall gather the captivity as the sand, and shall scoff at Kings.—Then shall his mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend imputing this his power unto his god. Art thou not he from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die: O Lord, thou hast ordained them [the Powers of Chaldea] for judgment; and, O mighty God! Thou hast established them for correction. Who hath (f) directed the Spirit of the Isa. 40. 13, 14, 15. Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? with whom took he counsel? and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment?—Behold the Nations are as a drop of a bucket.

See here the Spirit of God asserting the Divinity of the one God of Israel, against Idols, by displaying his Wisdom and Power in the Natural and Political Government of the World. But lest the evidence of these places should be weakened by any, as Scriptures of the Old Testament, relating to times before our Lord was actually made by the Eternal Father, the King of the World; I will add a few more which may tend to the preventing of such an Evasion. Isaiah Isa. 40. 9, 10, 11. prophesying of the Baptist, and of the blessed times of the Gospel, [Page] introduceth that voice thus crying out to Jerusalem and Judah: Behold your God. Behold the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him.—He shall feed his flock like a shepherd.

In the same Isaiah (for I scarce seek further than that Evangelical Prophet) the God of Israel repeateth this profession Isa. 43. 10, 11, See Ch. 44. 8.: Before me there was no God framed, neither shall there be after me. Thus Isa. 44. 6. & 48. 12. saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts, I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

And yet of the Logos, the Socinians will profess as did Nathaniel, Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel; and as doth the Book of the Revelation, that he is, Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.

The God of Israel had said also in the foregoing Chapter, I, even I, am the Lord, and besides me there is no Saviour.—Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no God. I know not any. See Ch. 43: 11. & Ch. 45. 5. Yet, of the Logos, Socinians and Arians make confession in the words of St. John, saying, That he was in the beginning with God the Father.

The design of all these places ought not in reason to be baffled, by saying with confidence Confess. Schlicht. Vind. c. 1. p, 54. Multorum Deorum cultores non sumus.—Christum, enim colimus, tanquam à summo potestatem Rerum Omnium adeptum, &, sicut nomine illius, sic ad gloriam illius, imperantem. these two things: First, That the Power which Christ had was given him by God, and in order to his Glory. Secondly, That it is not unlawful, but our duty, to worship a Creature by Gods command, though without his permission it be Idolatry. If Christ had not been more than a creature, God would not have enjoined us so high a Worship of Him: neither would it have been consistent with his incommunicable Omnipotence and Wisdom to have given him all power in Heaven and in Earth. ‘This (as S. Athan. op. vol. 2. p. 581. A. Athanasius speaketh) were to turn his Humane Nature into a second Almighty.’ [Page] The Logos was so before all Worlds, and ceased not to be so by assuming the Humane Nature into Unity of Subsistence.

To say then that Christ is a Creature, yet made such a God who can hear all Prayers, supply all wants, give all Graces needful to his Body the Church, know all the secrets of all Thoughts not directed to him, govern and judg with Wisdom all the World, and to Worship him under this Divine Notion; what is it else than the paying an homage to a presumed Creature, which is due only to the one very God? for what apprehensions greater than these do we entertain concerning the true God, when we call upon him, confide in him, or revere him?

He then that meeteth such an Inscription in Racovia as he may find often In Templo Afrano. ap. Nath. Chytraei Monumenta Misnica. p. 362, 363. in Misna, in this manner, D. O. S. and at length, Deo Omnipotenti Sacrum, and meant of Christ, to whom, in the Verses set Victor Cbriste.—In te Credo unum.— underneath, the application is particularly made; How must he expound it? He must either interpret it of Christ Transubstantiated as 'twere by their fancy into the Father, or worshipped like Neptune Ap. Saubertum de Sacrificiis. c. 2. p. 27. D. M. [i. e. Deo Maximo] Neptuno Sacrum. in the D. M. at Rome, in the quality of the true God, whilst he is confessed to be but a Creature. For they will own but one God in nature and person, and yet will give to Christ, not acknowledged as a coeternal Subsistence, that which belongeth in eminent manner to his Idea. His Idea sure it is; for that Being appeareth to our mind as the best and greatest, which with such mighty Goodness, Power and Wisdom, governs the insensible, sensible, rational, and Christian World.

I end this Chapter with the sense of St. Cyprian's words in his conclusion of the Book de Bono Patientiae S. Cypr. de bono Patientiae, Sect. 14, 15. p. 368. Hic est qui cum in passione tacuerit, &c. Hic est Deus noster, &c.: ‘[Jesus] Is he who was silent in his sufferings, but will not be so afterwards when he executeth [Page] vengeance. This is our God; not the God of all, but the God of the Faithful, and of them who believe.—Him, most dear Brethren, let us expect as our Judg and Avenger.—God the Father commanded this his Son to be adored. And Saint Paul the Apostle, mindful of his command, saith, That God hath exalted him, and given him a name above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow; of things Coelestial, Terrestrial and Infernal. And in the Revelation, the Angel forbiddeth John who was willing to worship him Rev. 22. 9., and saith, See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant and of thy Brethren. Adore the Lord Jesus Jesum Dominum adora. So S. Cyprian readeth the Text, We, [...] worship God..’

CHAP. X. Of the Idolatry with which the Roman-Catholicks are charged; and how far they are justly, or unjustly accused.

[Page]

PART 1. Of the Charge which is drawn up against them.

BY Roman-Catholicks, I mean those who pretending to own the Doctrine of the Universal Church, and to submit to the Discipline of it, as it is derived from the supposed Fountain and Head of it, the Bishop of Rome, do confess the Faith of the Council of Trent.

These also are guilty of worshipping Idols, if the multitude of Accusers createth guilt; to omit as yet the Arguments which move so many to that accusation. Mr. Thorndike supposeth them accused, when he affirmeth Mr. Thorndike in just Weights and Measures, c. 1. p. 6, 7., ‘That they who separate from them as Idolaters, are thereby Schismaticks before God.’ As also when he saith Ch, 2. p. 11., ‘They who charge the Papists to be Idolaters,—let them not lead the people by the Nose, to believe that they can prove their Supposition when they cannot.’

Accused then they are; and their Accusers are neither few, nor of inconsiderable quality. I mean not here the Mahometans and Jews so much as the Christians, who are of this judgment. The Mahometans are the professed enemies of visible Idols; and in some places where they have unhappily succeeded in their Invasions of Christendom, they have been as fierce [Page] and zealous Iconoclasts Leonclav. Pandect. Hist. Turc. p. 139. as any to whom that name has been given. And of such zeal the Jews would give external signs, if they had equal power. Of both the learned Grotius saith Grotius i [...] Annot. ad Co [...] sult. Cassand. p. 314.—Et Jud [...]i ac Mabumetistae earum [h. e. Imaginum] aspect [...] multum avertantur à Christianism [...]., That they are much diverted from Christianity by the Images which they see cast in the way before them.

The Christians of the Greek Church use painted Tables. But many of them [if many there be of the same faith with their late Patriarch of Alexandria, S. Cyril] do think of the Images of Roman-Catholicks, as of so many Idols. That Patriarch being askt what the Grecians thought of Images, returned this Answer, not as his private opinion, but as the Faith of the Oriental Church See the Preface of St. Cyril to his Conf. ap. Hotting. p. 399. [...], &c., the members of which he personateth in that Confession. ‘We do not reprobate S. Cyr. in. Res [...] ad Interrog. 4. p. 531. the noble Art of Painting. So far are we from that [extreme] that we allow to such as please, the Pictures of Jesus and his Saints. But for the adoration and worship of them, we detest it, as contrary to the Scripture, and lest, instead of God, we should ignorantly worship Colour, Artifice, Creatures.’ He indeed useth the word [...], which I rend'red Adoration; but he joineth it with the word [...], which I translate Worship; and which St. Paul useth in setting forth the Idolatrous adoration of Angels by the Gnosticks Col. 2. 18. [...].. And it is certain by his scope, that he meaneth the Worship of Rome Modern; and he elsewhere Ap. Hotting. p. 550., calleth it superstitious and that which smelleth rank of Idolatry.

Touching those Christians who are known by the Title of the Reformed, they judg it one great part of their Reformation, that they have purged their Churches of Romish Idols.

The Confession of Helvetia Conf. Helv. in Corp. Confess. c. 4. p. 5.—Rejicimus itaque non modo Gentium Idola, sed & Christianorum simulachra. rejecteth as Idolatrous, not only the Idols of the Heathens, but the [Page] Images also of those who have taken upon them the Christian name.

The general Confession of Scotland Scot. Consaff. ap. Synt. Conf. p. 126, 127., to which the Royal Family, and many others of condition, subscribed, calleth Transubstantiation a blasphemous opinion; meaning thereby that blasphemy, which saith, a Creature is God, and supposing that the Object, under the shews of bread, is bread, though set apart to a Religious use.

The Confession called the Consent of Poland Polon. Conf. p. 169, 168., having declamed against many of the Usages of Rome, and imputed much of the Turks success in Christendom to Gods displeasure at them; proceedeth to an ‘Address to Christ, by a Prayer, in which he is beseeehed to blot out Idols, Errors, and Abominations.’

The Confession of Strasburg Consessio Argentin. [id est Civ. 4. Imper. Arg. Conf [...]. Mem. Lindav.] c. 22. p. 196, 197. rejecteth that Worship of Images which is practised in the Roman Church, as contrary to the Scripture, and to the sense of the ancient Church; citing to this purpose the Epistle of Epiphanius, and its Translation by St. Hierom, as also the Authorities of Lactantius and Athanasius.

The Augustan Confession Confess. Aug. c. 21. p. 22. Hic mos gloriam soli Deo debitam transfert ad homines, &c. condemneth the Invocation of Saints as a custom which transferreth to men the honour which is due to God only; and which ascribeth Omnipotence to the dead, by attributing to them the knowledg of the Heart.

The Confession of Saxony Conf. Saxon. p. 87, 88. [...] hanc corrupte. [...]am athnicam, &c. saith, of the Invocation of Saints, both that it leadeth from God, and that it ascribeth Omnipotence to the Creature. And it seteth, upon the Worship both of Saints and Images, the reproachful brand of an Heathenish corruption.

The Confession of Wirtemburgh Conf. Wirt. de Euchar. p. 115. de Invoc. Sanct. p. 121, 122., though being mindful of the difficulties of its own absurd Consubstantiation, it condemneth not the Worship of Christ under the shews of Bread in the Church of Rome as [Page] an Idolatrous practice; though it granteth that it is possible with God to change the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ; yet it doth not express such favour towards their Worship of Saints. It condemneth the Invocation of them according to the Roman Litanies, as a practice which ascribeth to them such ubiquity and such knowledg of the Heart as belongeth to God only.

The Confession of Bohemia Conf. Bohem. Art. 17. de cultu Sanct. p. 201.—Insuper docent honorem & cultum De [...] debitum, non esse ad Sanctos, nec eorum Imagines transferendum, &c. allowing some publick Festivals in memory of the Virgin and other Saints, does yet suppose that Worship of them which is used in the Church of Rome to be an honour and adoration due to God.

The Confession of Basil Conf. Bas. Art. 11. de illicitis permiss. Papanis, atque in specie de cultu Rel. Sanct. &c. p. 18, 19 speaking of such precepts and permissions under the Papacy as it esteemeth unlawful; doth number the Invocation of Saints, and Veneration of Images amongst those things which by virtue of the second Commandment are prohibited by God.

In the French Synods of the Reformed, there is frequent mention of Romish Idolatry See Synode de Lion. A. 1563. de Rochel. A. 1571. de Gergeau. A. 1601. in the Book of J. d Huisseau. called la Discipt. des Eg [...]ises Refformees de France. c. 12. p. 308, 309..

For the Church of England, she designed in her Articles briefness, and avoidance of disputes; and having professed the Faith of one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ, she doth not insist particularly on the Invocation of Saints, or the Worship of Images. Yet in her twenty-second Article concerning Purgatory, she saith of that and of the Romish Doctrine, touching Pardons, Worship and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relicks, and also of Invocation of Saints, ‘That it is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.’ Now what can we judg of that Worship which hath for its object something else besides God, and is contrary to the Scripture? We cannot [Page] but think it not a mere impertinence, but a wicked act; an act which by contradicting his Authority, diminisheth his honour: and being an act of Worship, nothing less than one degree of Idolatry. Again, in its twenty-eighth Article it teacheth concerning the consecrated Elements, ‘That they were not by Christs institution or ordinance, reserved, carried about, lifted up and worshipped.’ By which words it noteth the Adoration of the Host in the Church of Rome, not as an innocent circumstance added by the discretion of that Church, but as an unlawful worship; though it doth not expresly brand it with the name of Idolatry.

In the Rubrick after the Communion, the Adoration of the consecrated Elements is upon this reason forbidden, ‘Because the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances.’ And it is there added, ‘That they so remaining, the Adoration of them would be Idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians.’

This Rubrick doth in effect charge the Church of Rome with gross Idolatry; for it supposeth the Object which they materially worship, to be in its natural substance still a creature, and a creature disjoined from Personal union with Christ, and not (according to the words of their St. Thomas Missal. Rom. in Orat. post Missam. Ador [...] [...] devotè latens Deit as! Quae sub his Figuris verè latitas. inserted into their Missal) a Deity latent under the accidents of Bread and Wine. And it concludeth that the worship of such a substance is such Idolatry as Christian Religion abhorreth.

It doth not indeed affirm in terms, that the worship of such a substance by a Romanist who verily thinks it to be not bread, but a Divine body, is Idolatry; but it saith that, whence such a conclusion may be inferred. It saith that the bread is still bread in its substance, and [Page] if it be really such whilst it is worshipped, the mistake of the worshipper cannot alter the nature of the thing, though according to the degrees of unavoidableness in the causes of his ignorance, it may extenuate the crime. Upon supposition that still 'tis very bread in its substance, Costerus, and it may be Bellarmine himself, would have condemned the Latria of it as the Idolatrous worship of a Creature, even in Paul the simple, of whom stories say that he was extreamly devout; but withal, that he knew not which were first, the Apostles or the Prophets. And here it ought to be well noted, that there is a wide distance betwixt this saying, That Idolatry is a damnable sin; and this assertion, That Idolatry in any degree of it, and in a person under any kind of circumstances, actually damneth.

I would here also commend it to the observation of the Reader, that the Church of England speaketh this of the worship of the corporal substance of the Elements present in the Eucharist after consecration; and not of the real and essential presence of Christ. And for this reason it left out the terms of Real and Essential, used in the Book of King Edward the sixth See L'estranges Alliance of Div. Offices, p. 207, 208. c. 7.—Not—that any adoration is done to the Bread and Wine there bodily received, or unto any real or essential presence there being of Christs natural flesh and blood. 2. Book of E. 6., as subject to misconstruction. Real it is, if it be present in its real effects, and they are the essence of it so far as a Communicant doth receive it: for he receiveth it not so much in the nature of a thing, as in the nature of a priviledg Juellus in Apol. Eccl. Ang. Sect. 14. p. 50, 51—Christum enim asserimus verè se praesentem exhibere in Sacramentis suis: in Baptismo, ut eum Induamus: in caenâ, ut eum fide & spiritu comedamus, & de ejus cruce ac sanguine habeamus vita [...] aeternam.. But I comprehend not the whole of this Mystery; and therefore I leave it to the explication of others who have better skill in untying of knots.

In the Commination used by the Church of England, 'till God be pleased to restore the Discipline of Penance, a curse is denounced against all those who make any carved or molten Image to worship it. And it is the curse which is in the first place denounced on [Page] Ash-Wednesday. It is true that it is taken out of the Book of Deuteronomy Deut. 27. 15., and it is the sense of a verse in that Book used at large in the former Common-Prayer-Book, in these words, Cursed is the man that maketh any carved or molten Image, an abomination to the Lord, the work of the hands of the craftsman: and putteth it in a secret place, [to worship it.] That is, though it be done without scandal to men, and in such private manner as to avoid the punishment which the Law inflicteth on known and publick offenders. But the Church of England repeating this Law in its Commination, doth thereby own it to be still of validity, and to oblige Christian men.

The Homilies which are an Appendage to our Church, do expresly arraign the Roman-Catholicks as Idolaters in the learned Discourses of the peril of Idolatry.

Also English Princes and Bishops have declared themselves to be of the same perswasion.

King Edward the sixth in his Injunctions Ed. 6. Injunct. A. 1547. ap. D. Epise. Nordov. Ed. 1. p 9., reckoneth Pictures and Paintings in the Churches of England [as adorned by the Romanists] amongst the Monuments of Idolatry. Of the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth this is the Thirty-fifth Q. Eliz. Injunct. A. 1559. p. 73., ‘That no persons keep in their houses any abused Images, Tables, Pictures, Paintings, or other Monuments of feigned Miracles, Pilgrimages, Idolatry and Superstition.’ Of the Articles of Inquiry in the first year of her Reign Art. of Inquiry, p. 238., this is one, and pertinent to our present Discourse. ‘Whether you know any that keep in their Houses any undefaced Images, Tables, Pictures, Paintings, or other Monuments of feigned and false Miracles, Pilgrimages, Idolatry and Superstition, and do adore them; especially such as have been set up in Churches, Chappels, and Oratories.’

[Page] This likewise is one of the Articles of Visitation set forth by Cranmer Arch-bishop of Canterbury, in the second year of Edward the sixth: ‘Whether Parsons, &c. have not removed and taken away and utterly extincted and destroyed in their Churches, Chappels, and Houses, all Images, all Shrines,—Pictures, Paintings, and all other Monuments of—Idolatry and Superstition—.’

Bishop Jewel's opinion is so well known, that his words may be spared: And that Confession of Faith which he penned, and which maketh a part of his Apology for the Church of England [and in which he calleth Corp. Confess. 1. part. p. 95. and Jewel's Apol. Eccl. Anglic. Sect. 18. p. 56. Turpe autem & planè aethnicum est quod in istorum Ecclefiis videmus, &c. the Invocation of Saints in the Church of Rome, a practice vile, and plainly Heathenish] is put into the collection of the Confessions of the Reformed, under the Title of the English Confession Confessio Anglica ap. Synt. Conf. p. 89, &c.. But the Churches Confession it cannot be called with respect to her Authority, which did not frame it; whatsoever it be in its substance, and in its conformity to her Articles.

For others of the Church of England, a very Learned person, the Hannibal and Terrour of Modern Rome Dr. Stillingfleet in Pref. to his Disc conc. the Idol. pract. in the Church of Rome. hath named enough. T. G. hath indeed excepted against many of the Jury: but whether he hath not illegally challenged so many of them, remaineth a Question; or rather it is with the Judicious out of dispute.

The sentences of private men spoken on this occasion, both here and beyond the Seas, either broadly Auth. Queremoniae Europae p. 230. Roma Babel quondam, sed nunc es facta Bethaven, &c., or indirectly, are scarce to be numbered. Amongst them beyond the Seas I will name only Danaeus and Hottinger.

Daneus in his Appendix to the Catalogue of Heresies written by St. Austin, recounteth the Hereticks who had offended, as he thought, in particular manner [Page] against the several precepts of the Decalogue. And under the second Commandment he placeth the Simonians, the Armenians, the Papists, and some others, as notorious violaters of it. Hottinger Hottinger. in Dissert. 1. de Necess. Reform. p 39. distributeth the false worship of the Papists into six kinds of Idolatry, under the Greek names of [...], or Breadworship; [...], or Marian-worship, to wit, that of the Blessed Virgin; [...], or Saint-worship; [...], or Angel-worship; [...], or Relick-worship; and lastly, [...], or the worship of Images.

PART 2. Of the mitigation of the charge of Idolatry against the Papists.

THE learned Hugo Grotius, especially in his Annotations on the consultation of Cassander, in his Animadversions on the Animadversions of Rivet, and in his Votum pro Pace; The learned Mr. Thorndike in his Epilogue, and in his Just Weights and Measures; Curcellaeus in his Epistle to Adrian Patius Curcell. Ep. ad Adr. Pat. inter Epist. Ecclesiast. p. 859.: These three, together with some others have pronounced a milder sentence in this cause, though they approved not of such Invocation of Saints, and worship of Images, as is practised in the Church of Rome. But it is not my design to decide the controversie by the greater number of modern Authorities, but rather to look into the merits of the cause.

And this I purpose to do so far only, as Angels, or rather Saints and Images, are the Objects of this Disquisition.

Of Relicks, and the Sacramental bread, I forbear to say more than that little which follows.

For the first, that which will be said concerning the [Page] worship of Images will help us sufficiently in judging of the worship of Relicks. If they be made Objects of Religious adoration; if they be honoured as pledges of Divine protection; if they be trusted in as Shrines of Divine virtue; at adventure, and in all ages; they become as the Manna which was laid up for any other than the Sabbath-day, useless to the preservers, offensive to God, and unsavory to men of sagacious Noses. Concerning that substance which after Sacramental consecration, appeareth as Bread, that excellent Church, in whose safe communion I have always lived, doth still call it Bread. For the Priest, after having consecrated the Elements, and received the Communion himself in both ‘kinds, is required by the Rubrick of that Office, to administer to others, and when he delivereth the Bread to any one, to use this Form, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy Body and Soul to Everlasting life.’ Now a Discourse concerning the worship of that Substance which appeareth as Bread, will in effect be a Discourse about the Corporal presence of Christ under the shews of that creature, and run the Disputant into another Question which hath been industriously sifted by Thousands. Neither are the printed Volumes touching this subject few or small. There is a great heap of them written by the learned Messieurs, Arnaud and Claud; and Monsieur Aubertin hath obliged the World with a very large and laborious work, about Transubstantiation, in which may be seen the sense of the Ancients.

Forbearing then any further Discourse about the Worship of Relicks, or the Sacramental bread, I proceed to the Worship of Saints, Angels, and Images; inquiring how far the Church of Rome doth by her Veneration render them Idols.

At the entrance of this Inquiry, the trueness of her [Page] Faith in one God and three Persons, is to be acknowledged and observed. The Creed which is formed by order of the Council of Trent, beginneth with the Articles of that of Nice; though it endeth not without Additions. And Dr. Rivet in his Reflections on those excellent Notes with which the acute Grotius adorned the consultation of Cassander And Riv. in Animad. in Annot. H. Grot. p. 2., doth in this point, own the Orthodoxy of the Roman Faith. ‘In the Article of the Divine Trin-unity, there is nothing (saith he) controverted betwixt Papists and Protestants.’ And thus much is true, if spoken of the generality of them; for they herein adhere to Catholick Doctrine. Thus do the Protestants of the Church of England; but all do not so, either here, or beyond the Seas, who commonly pass under the name of Protestants. Curcellaeus, for instance sake, is called a Protestant, yet may seem no other than a Tritheite, as may appear by the first of those four Disputations which he wrote against his sharp Adversary Maresius.

The Romanists then professing the true Catholick Faith in the Article of the blessed Trinity, and owning the second Synod of Nice, (which though it favoured Images so very highly, yet it ascribed Latria to God only Verba Anast. Episc. Theop. probata à Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 4. p. 758. C. D. Nemo autem. offendatur in Adorationis vocabulo. Si quidem & Homines, & Sanctos Angelos adoramus, non autem quod [...], hoc est, divinum cultum exhibeamus. Inquit enim Moses, Deum tuum adorabis, &c.,) they seem injurious to them who do not only charge them with Idolatry, but also aggravate that Idolatry as equal to the false Worship of the most barbarous Gentiles. They seem unjust, I say, in so doing, unless this be their meaning, that the least degree of that crime under the light of Christianity, be equal to the greatest under the disadvantages of Heathenism.

It is certain that the Romanists who worship the true God, do not worship Universal Nature, or the Sun, or the Soul of the World in place of the Supreme Deity, as did millions of Pagans.

[Page] Also for the Angels which they worship, they justifie only the adoration of those Spirits, who persisted in their first estate of unspotted Holiness: and they renounce in Baptism Rituale Rom. de Sacr. Bapt. p. 28. Inter. Abrenuntias Satanae? Resp. Abrenuntio. Int. Et omnibus operibus ejus? Resp. Abrenuntio. Int. Et omnibus pompis ejus? Resp. Abrenuntio. the Devil and his Angels, after the manner of the Catholick Church. And when an Heathen is by them baptized, the Priest Rit. Rom. ib! p. 29. Horresce Idola, respue simulacra. after having signed him, first on the Forehead, and then on the Breast, with the sign of the Cross, does exhort him in this Form: Abhor Idols. Reject [their] Images. But the Gentiles sacrificed to Devils, and to such who by the light of nature, might be known to be evil Daemons; because they accepted of such Sacrifices as were unagreeable to the justice and charity, and piety of mankind; Sacrifices vile and bloody; such whose smoke might be discerned by a common nostril, to smell of the stench of the bottomless pit. Yet some of the Heathens expresly denied the practice of such worship, and made to the Christians this following profession S. Aug. in Psal. 96. Non colimus mala Daemonia: Angelos quos dicitis, ipsos & nos colimus, virtutes Dei magni, & ministeri [...] Dei magni.: ‘We worship not evil Daemons. Those Spirits which you call Angels, those we also worship; the Powers of the Great God, and the Ministeries of the Great God.’

For Hero's, they worship those only whom they believe to have professed Christian Religion, and to have been visible Members of the Catholick Church: For into that (whatsoever particular communion it was which afterwards they visibly owned) they were at first Baptized. Whereas the Gentiles worshipped many who had been worshippers of false gods. Such worshippers were Castor, Pollux, Quirinus, among the Romans. These first worshipped false Deities, and were afterwards worshipped themselves with the like undue honour.

For Images, they venerate (for so the Council of Trent loves to speak rather than to say adore or worship, [Page] with the second Synod In Conc. 2. Nic. Act. 4. p. 247. Sic Tharas. Omnes qui sacras Imagines se venerari confitentur, adorationem autem recusant, a sancto Patre [h. e. Anastasio Episc. Theopol.] tanquam hypocritae redarguuntur. of Nice) those of Christ the true God, and of such as they esteem real Saints in Heaven; and not the Statues of the Sun, or of Universal Nature, or of the Soul of the World; or intentionally those of Devils, or damned spirits.

In the Worship of Angels, Saints, Images, they forbear Sacrifice, as proper to God: Whereas the Heathen did not appropriate it to Him; for some of them offer'd only their Minds to the Supreme Deity, and their Beasts to inferior gods. And the greater number offer'd Victims, and their [...], or Prayers used in sacrificing, both to God and Daemons Hor. Serm. l. 2. Sat. 3.—Prudens placavi sanguine Divos.. Yet it must be confessed, that thus far the Church of Rome hath gone towards Sacrifice to Saints. It hath appointed Masses, which it esteemeth proper Sacrifices or Offerings of the Body of Christ to the Father, in honour of her Saints: Insomuch that such Masses bear the names of their Hero's; and nothing is said more commonly than the Mass of St. Anthony; the Mass of this or the other Saint. But in this case the Council of Trent hath given caution; and would not have it believ'd that the Sacrifice is offered to the Saint, but to God only Concil: Trid. Sess. 22. c. 3. de Missis in Hon. Sanct. p. 853. Quamvis in hon. & mem. Sanctorum nonnullas interdum Miss as Ecclesia celebrare consueverit, non tamen illis Sacrificium offerri decet, sed Deo soli qui illos [...]oronavit..

Now that which I have hitherto shewed, is the fair side of the Church of Rome, in reference to the Idolatry with which she is charged. Neither hath my Pen dawbed in the representation; it hath done her but justice.

But there is, besides this already exposed to view, a cloudy side of that Church which calleth her self the Pillar of Christian Truth. This that we may the better discern, let us first view it in the Council of Trent, (or in any later Popish Synods), and then in its own subsequent Acts; and see how far [first in the point of Invocation of Saints, and next of Images] it doth directly, [Page] or by plain consequence, and not meerly by accidental abuse, usurp any honour which belongeth to God.

PART 3. Of the Idolatry charged on the Papists in their Worship of Saints.

FIrst, touching the Invocation of Saints, the Council of Trent determineth Concil. Trid. Inter Conc. Max. p. 895. See the Bull of Pius the 4th. p. 944. that the spirits of holy ‘men reigning with Christ, are to be venerated, and invoked: And that they offer Prayers to God for us. Also, that it is good and lawful to pray to them, and to flie to their Prayers; their help and aid through Christ the only Saviour and Redeemer of men.’

In pursuance of this Decree, the Church of Rome hath continued her practice of worshipping Saints according to certain Forms of words prescribed in such Books as her Breviary and Missal, which the Popes by virtue of another Decree Conc. Trid. de Indice Librorum, &c. p. 918. See Conc. Aqu. p. 135. of the same Council have revised, and for common use established.

Now the forms and signs of Worship used in that Church are of such a nature, that they seem at first view at least, to give to the Saints, if not that honour which is incommunicable, yet that which God, though he might have given it, hath reserved to himself. It may suffice to illustrate this matter, if I select some Forms used in the Officium Parvum of the holy Virgin, which maketh a part of the Romish Breviary, set out in pursuance of the Decree of Trent, by Pius the fifth. In that Office the Virgin is worshipped in these Forms Offic. Parv. B. M. p. 89. Ed: Antverp. Anno 1583, & p. 96, &c..

Establish us in peace.—Unloose the bonds of the guilty. Bring forth light to the blind. Drive away our evils. Make us, absolved of our faults, meek and chaste. Vouchsafe us a spotless life.

[Page] Thou art most worthy Ib. p. 90. of all praise.—Let all who commemorate thee, have experience of thy assistance.—

Vouchsafe Ib. p. 102, & 107. that I may praise thee, O Sacred Virgin, give me power against thy Enemies.

Let Ib. p. 103. the Virgin Mary bless us, and our pious offspring.

Mary, Mother of Grace Ib. p. 107., Mother of Mercy! do thou defend us from the Enemy, and receive us at the hour of death.

We also find in that little Office this Exhortation ascribed to Bernard Ibid. p. 94. Lect. 3. Mens. Octob.: Let us embrace, my Brethren, the footsteps of Mary, and let us cast our selves at her blessed feet with most devout supplication. Let us hold her and not let her go till she bless us; for she is able.

These Forms are agreeable to many others in the former part of the Roman Breviary, out of which I will transcribe only the following Suffrages.

Holy Mary Brev. Rom. in Commem. de Sanctâ Mariâ, p. 103. succour the miserable, help the weakhearted, refresh the weeping, pray for the people, mediate for the Clergy, intercede for devout women. Let all who celebrate thy Commemoration, feel Thy Aid See this Form with Additions in Serm. 2. de Annun. which some ascribe to St. Austin..

Hail, O Queen Brev. Rom. ad Completor. p. 107.! Thou Mother of mercy, life, sweetness, and our Hope, we salute thee. To thee we the banished children of Eve, do make our supplication. To thee we sigh, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Go to therefore our Advocatress; turn towards us those thy merciful eyes; and shew us after this our banishment, Jesus, the blessed fruit of thy womb: O mild, O pious, O sweet Virgin Mary!

Many of these Suffrages taken in their plain and common meaning, do manifestly intrench upon the Prerogative of God. And of this kind also are those Romish Prayers which are mentioned by Mr. Thorndike in the last part of his Epilogue Mr. Thornd. Epil. part. 3. p. 356, 357., in which he treateth of the Laws of the Church. ‘The third sort (said he) [Page] of [the Prayers of Romanists unto Saints] is, when they desire immediately of them the same blessings, spiritual and temporal, which all Christians desire of God. There is (as he proceeds) a Psalter to be seen with the name of God [or rather Lord] changed, every-where into the name of Virgin. There is a Book of Devotion in French with this Title, Moyen de bien Servir, prier, & adorer la Vierge Marie: The way well to serve Servir answers to [...]., pray to, and adore the blessed Virgin. The [Prayers of this] third [sort] taking them at the foot of the Letter, and valuing the intent of those that use them by nothing but the words of them, are meer Idolatries. As desiring of the creature that which God only gives, which is the worship of the creature for the Creator, God blessed for evermore. And were we bound to make the Acts of them that teach these Prayers the Acts of the Church, because it tolerates them, and maintains Consider whether the Church of Rome doth not make such Prayers it self, by making th e foregoing publick Forms. them in it, instead of casting them out, it would be hard to free that Church from Idolatry, which whoso admitteth can by no means grant it to be a Church.’

The Letter then of Romish Forms being very scandalous, those who justifie the use of them must shew some other words wherein the Romish Church hath so explained her self to the World, that men may plainly know she never intended them in their common and native acception, but in a sense agreeable to the tenure of Scripture; and of such a sense Mr. Thorndike in the place before cited, hath judged them capable.

If such an Interpretation be by her promulgated to the World, the force of the Objection against such Forms will be abated: abated I say, but not quite removed. For still such Forms are perilous amongst the vulgar, who follow the received sense of words notwithstanding [Page] their contrary Interpretations. There may indeed be a very arbitrarious use of signs; and if an Humorist will give this caution to his neighbour that when he useth the word, black, he must be interpreted as meaning, white, he shall not lye to him when he tells him that the Snow is black, and that the Crow is white; or when he writes himself Blacklous instead of Thomas Albius. But amongst others, to whom such caution is not given, and who understand nothing of this absurd humor, his reserved meaning will not salve the veracity of his word.

Now let it be examined, Whether the Church of Rome hath made before the world, a plain interpretation of the abovesaid Forms, in such sort, that men cannot, without breach of charity, put upon them any other than this or the like construction, avowed by many Doctors See S. Cressy's Exomolog. Sect. 3. c. 3. p. 438. Ed. 3. This is only that they would intercede for us, &c. In his Answer to Dr. Pierce's Serm. c. 16. of the Invoc. of Saints, p. 196. this only accord, to Card. Perron, Prier pour Prier. i. e. to desire them to pray for us.: Holy Mary, pray for us in order to the obtaining these or other blessings from the alsufficient God. Otherwise that Church is answerable for the common and scandalous meaning of the Latine words, which are not now proper to Rome, but the language of the World.

If such an Interpretation be divulged we must look for it either in the Council of Trent, or in some following Synods, or in the Decrees of the Popes, or in the Catechism, Breviaries, Missals, or some other such Books which are publickly authorized by that Church.

For the Breviarie and Missal, their Forms have been already produced; neither have I omitted any Antecedents and consequents which may decipher some hidden meaning in them. It is true, some Litanies subjoin the [...], or, Have mercy, only to the Persons of the Sacred Trinity; using to Saints and Angels, the Form of Orate pro nobis, or pray for us. But they who [Page] in one Prayer desire the Saints only to pray for them, do not barely by that one Prayer manifest to the World that they still mean no more than the requesting of their Intercessions, when in an hundred other Forms they call upon them to bestow this and that benefit upon them; and sometimes a benefit which is not to be expected but from the Almightiness of God.

For the Council of Trent, such Forms, in the ratification at least of their common use, following by virtue of its Decree, they seem rather to be Explications of the sense of the Council, than to be by it explained. For that were to make the Key first, and the Lock which it should open afterwards. But if the Breviary and Missal be explained by the Council, they receive a very dark Interpretation, and therefore next to insufficient. For the common sense of its Forms is naturally, or by custom plain; and therefore their Explication in a forced sense, though exceeding open, will scarce be admitted by the vulgar, who judg by that which is just before them. They like ordinary Travellers plod on in the common road which is before their eyes, and mind not the directions which are engraven or written on Pillars which stand on their right or left hand. That Church should have been careful of the scandalous sound of Idolatrous Forms, considering how tender Religion is of the Honour of God: and it should have taken further care against the peril of that Idolatry which attendeth them; considering the weak capacities of the people, who will construe Idolatrous Forms in an Idolatrous sense. If the Pope shall set forth a thousand Declarations concerning the Worship of one true God, and yet shall pray in this Form, [...], Baal have mercy, instead of this ancient one, [...], Lord have mercy; the World would judg of him as of a well-wisher to Baal, though the name [Page] does signifie no more than Lord; because the common acceptance of it hath rendred it the sign of a false god. In such manner the World would judg, if he should call on God by the name of [...], though it be but the word DEUS, or God, with a very little alteration.

It appeareth then that in some Forms a forced Interpretation doth not effectually shew the sense which is vail'd under the Letter, or rather where the Letter looks a contrary way. And for the Forms of the Church of Rome, the Council of Trent does not give any open Interpretation of them, or so much as suggest that nothing is meant by them but an Ora pro nobis.

For the Council where it treateth of the Invocation of Saints Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. Decr. de Invocat. &c. Sanct. p. 895.—bonum—atque utile—ad eorum Orationes, opem, auxiliumque consugere., it doth not only mention the usefulness of their Prayers, but also of their help and assistance; which assistance if it be no other than that of their Prayers, the addition of the words, Help and Aid, to that of Prayers may seem very superfluous.

Something else that Church meaneth, and it is elsewhere expressed by Patrocinium, the aid of a Patron, or rather of a Guardian; for that it intendeth. In the little Office of the blessed Virgin this Collect is prescribed Offic. parv. B. Virg. p. 97., We pray thee, Lord, let all thy Saints everywhere help us, that whilst we celebrate their merits, we may feel their Patrocini [...], [or Protection.] I here interpret Patrocinie by Guardianship, aid, and protection, not only because the word will bear that sense [for in Festus, Patrocinium, is, Tutela & defensio; and in Cicero, Patronus, is, Custos & defensor Coloniae], but because those prayers refer to their Saints as to Patrons and Patronesses of persons, places and things; of which more at large, in the pursuit of this Argument. In the sixth Council of Milan Conc. Milev: 6. c. 3. de cultu Sanctorum, p. 717., it is said, ‘To be agreeable to [Page] pious Reason, by Divine Offices, and Litanies, to implore the Intercession or Patrocinie of the Patrons of Cities and Provinces.’ From such Patrons they expect other aids besides those of their prayers; and they tell how they appear in times of danger, and how active they are in effecting their deliverance. In the Catechism of Trent Catech. ex Decr. Conc. Trid. p. 392., that Church owneth Christ as the only [that is, as they mean it, the principal] Patron. And as it intends not to signifie by that word that Christ doth no otherwise give aid to his Church than by his Intercession; so neither doth it mean the like by the Patrocinie of the Saints. The Council of Trent mentions their Aids, besides their Prayers, and accordingly the people pray for them in such Forms as these: O holy Mary In the Manual of John Heigham in our Ladies Litany for Saturday. p. 380. —stretch abroad the hand of thy mercy—graciously Ibid. p. 382. hear us in all our needs and necessities, and leave us not comfortless, nor alone without help in that dreadful day and hour, when our souls shall go out of our bodies, but assist and help us, that we may then safely come and enter in at the gates of Paradise—To thy Ibid. Prayers for Women travelling with child. p. 519, 520. help, O Virgin, Mother of God, poor women labouring in childbirth do fly: refuse them not in their necessities, but help them in all their distress, O blessed Virgin.

Vers. In all our Tribulations and Anguishes.

Resp. The blessed Virgin-Mother succour us. [Where we have a Miserere, not an Ora.]

Sometimes indeed the Romanists call the very prayer of the Virgin a protection, as in this form Ibid. the Lit. for Saturday, p. 386.: We beseech thee, O Lord, that the glorious Intercession of the ever-blessed and glorious Virgin Mary may protect us, and bring us to everlasting life. But it is certain that they generally mean some further assistance than that of fupplication when they call for it; for they are taught that the Saints are endued with such a power. Hence [Page] John Heigham in his Popish Manual J. H. Man. Pr. at S. Omers, An. 1620. p. 584., hath this Advertisement as preparatory to Confession. ‘Commend thy self unto Almighty God, to his blessed Mother, and to thy good Angel, praying, that thou maist no way be seduced, or deceived by the fraud of the Devil. Also to St. Mary Magdalene, and to St. Barbara: who as it is written, have obtained most effectual grace and favour of God to assist in confession, all such as pray unto them for their help and assistance.’

If we proceed to other Councils later than that of the Council of Trent, inquiring in them for interpretations of Romish Offices; they are not in pretence any more than Provincial or National Synods, not general Councils. Wherefore the Interpretations of such Synods (if any be found in them) are not sufficient for the enlightning and manifesting the sense of the whole Church. But so far as my observation in the perusal of them, may be of validity, I avouch that there is not in them such an interpretation as referreth the sense of the abovesaid Forms, meerly to a praying to the Saints to pray for us. In many of them Concil. Rhem. sub Pio Quarto, p. 139. Tolet. p. 757. Rothom p. 823. Rhem. sub Greg. 13. p. 886. Burdig. p. 946. Turon. p. 1005. Biturg. p. 1069, & p. 1075. Aquens p. 1122. Mexic. p. 1351. Tolos. p. 1380. Mechlin. p. 1542. Narbon. p. 1576, 1580. the Doctrine of Trent, in this Article is owned and reinforced but not, that I know of, further explained.

That which I find most opposite to the thing in hand, amidst so vast an heap of Decrees, is a certain place in the Synod of Cambray: a Synod held, somewhat more than an hundred years ago Concil. Camer. Ann. 1565. p. 176. under Maximilian a Bergis, Archbishop and Duke of Cambray. The place which I mean is in the third Chapter, under the Title, de sanctis; and thus it runs:

‘Let the Prayers of the Faithful follow the analogy and proportion of Faith. Wherefore let the less learned Populace be admonished, that when they visit the Memorials of the Saints, and implore their [Page] aid, and according to Christian custom, repeat the Lords-prayer, that they understand that they direct them not to the Saints but unto God; the Saints being joined with them as Comprecators.’

This sounds somewhat like a Plea from the Roman Church-men to the Populace of Cambray, if care be taken that they be instructed according to that Decree of their Synod. But that being a Decree enacted in a corner of the world, and in a private Synod, it cannot suffice in all those places where the Roman Offices are enjoined, and where the use of them is continual. Further, two things are here to be observed in reference to this Decree: First, That the Invocation of Saints as Patrons contradicteth not the analogy of the Roman-Faith. Secondly, That the bringing of the Forms of Invocation to the Analogy of Faith in this Decree does not so much respect the Prayers in the Missal and Breviarie, as the Lords-prayer repeated more privately in the Litanies of the Saints See Modum recitandi Oratdomin. una cum memori [...] & veneratione sanctorum; in Horst. Parad. Animae. Sect. 2. c. 4 p. 107. &c..

Proceed we next to the Roman Decretals. In the new Decretals, which make the seventh Book in the body of their Canon-law, I can find nothing after the Creed of Trent urged upon all their Ecclesiasticks, in the Bull of Pius the fourth Corp. Jur. Can. l. 7. c. 4. p. 3., besides the pressing of the same Form or Oath anew by Pius the fifth, upon the Doctors and Professors of all Faculties L. 7. Decret. c. 3. Tit. 5. p. 126..

For the Catechism of Trent, I meet indeed with such an Interpretation of the forementioned Offices, as soundeth to them that do not well attend, as if all were meant of requesting the Prayers of Saints on our behalf. The place of that Catechism Catech. [...]x Decr. Conc. Tridpart. 4. c. 6. Sect. 1. num. 3. p. 512. is this which I am going to mention. ‘We do not after the same manner pray to God and to the Saints. For we pray to God, that he would give good things, and deliver us from evil; but we beg of the Saints, because they [Page] are gracious with God, that they would take us into their Patronage, and procure of God the things we need. Hence we use two different Forms; for we say properly to God, Have mercy on us, Hear us: to a Saint, Pray for us: though upon another account we may pray to the Saints themselves to have mercy on us, for they are very merciful.’

On this place it may not be amiss if I bestow these Animadversions.

First, When it is said that Roman-Catholicks pray not to the Saints for the bestowing of good, or the averting or removing of evil, this is meant of absolute Prayer, (to use the terms of Cardinal Perron) by which we address our selves to the first Cause, who is God; not of Relative supplication, by which they call on the Saints as subordinate conveyers of good, and averters of evil. So in the Hymn, Ave Mari's stella, the Virgin is desired to give light to the blind, and to drive away our evils Brev. Rom. in Fest. Pur. p. 721 In Offic. B. M. p. 89, &c..

Secondly, When Papists desire the Saints to pray for them, because they are gracious with God, they mean not this only of their desire that the Saints would use their interest as Saints in their present case, for the procuring of Gods immediate help; but they also intreat them either to procure of God commission to be their Patrons, or to continue his Grace to them in executing the commission formerly given them. This, I suppose, is meant in those Collects, ‘where they desire God to protect his people who trust in the Patronage of Peter and Paul, and other Apostles’ Offic. B. M. p. 97. See Miss. Rom. in Oct. [...]mn. Sanct. p. 527. Fac nos, quae sumus, &c.. And this Horstius means in this form of Prayer to the Virgin Horst. Par. An. Sect. 2: p. 105.: I beseech thee by that mighty favour granted thee by Christ, that thou wilt obtain for me more grace to please God.

Thirdly, Though in the Litany where the Trinity [Page] is invoked with the form of, Have mercy; the Saints are called on with that of, Pray for us; (for the same form so nigh would have sounded ill, as if the Saints were equal with God); yet when the Saints are addressed to in distinct Collects or Hymns, the form is, Help us, as well as, Pray for us. Thus in the Hymn, Alma Redemptoris Mater. They (a) pray to the Virgin in the form of, Peccatorum miserere.

Fourthly, Here is own'd a request both for Patronage and Prayer.

And further, in that Catechism (b), the Saints are e Catech. Conc. Trid. Lugd. 1569. p. 390. called ‘Mediators and Patrons; and there is mention (c) of their Aids; and their Worship Brev. Rom. ad Complet. p. 106, 107. is confounded f Ibid. p. 392. with that of Angels under the name of Angelical g Ibid. p. 389. Spirits. And of them it is there affirmed, that God hath appointed them to be his Ministers; that he useth their Ministration in the Government, both of his Church, and of other things; and that by their help we are daily delivered from the greatest dangers of Soul and Body.’

For the Books of publick Offices, their Forms have been already produced; neither can I see where the Comment of any Rubrick removeth the scandal of their Text.

Concerning Manuals, they are usually composed by private Doctors, or devout Students, who often intermix the Glosses of their own Reason. But nothing less than the Church it self can authentickly explain its Universal practice. And for such Manuals as are authorized by the Church, to me they seem to transcend, rather than to come short of, the Forms of the Missal and Breviarie. Such a Manual is that of the Hours of of the Blessed Virgin, in which if there had been any such Explication of the Forms used to her, it had been shut up together with other Manuals, from the common [Page] view of the Christian world, by the Interdict of any vulgar translation of it Concil Mediolan. 3. p. 379. Tolos. c. 11. de llb. prohib. p. 1423. Aven. p. 1440, 1441, comp. with Concil. Trid. Decret. de Edit. & usu Sacr. Libr. p. 747.. For to every Country has not been granted the Sclavonian priviledg See Concil. Aqu. p. 1482. of the Books permitted in the Illyrican Tougue.: That people have been allowed the Books of their Religion in their vulgar tongue, with advice notwithstanding, to embrace the Latin, though to them an unknown language.

In the Province of Mexico it was decreed by the Synod Syn. Mexic. p. 1201, 1203, 1204., That no Books of Religion should be read without the permission of the Ordinary. And the Manuals which were appointed for the use of the people, whether Spanish or Indian, were not likely to expound to them the meaning of the Roman Forms; for their Contents were these: ‘The Lords-prayer; The Salutation by the Angel; The Apostles Creed; The Articles of Faith, [those in the Creed of Trent]; The Precepts of the Decalogue; The Precepts of the Church; The seven Sacraments; the seven deadly Sins; and the Salve Regina.’

This Antiphona called Salve Regina, has been already repeated; and it is one of the higher Forms of the Worship of the Virgin. And Father Paul did in some measure shew his dislike of it Fulgentio in the Life of Father Paul the Venetian, p. 43., in forbearing to repeat it, as did his Brethren at the end of the Mass. But it is true, that he coloured his aversness with such an excuse as this, that he was not to observe a Decree of Thirty Fryars against the Order of the whole Church. Now in the abovesaid Synod of Mexico Syn. Mexic. Sect. 12. p. 1298., there is a special inforcement of the singing of Salve Regina daily, and with all solemnity, during a great part of Lent. And the Bishops are there much pressed to procure in this manner, with all solicitude, the increase of pious devotion towards the holy Virgin.

The English Romanists have had often in their hands the Manual of Godly Prayers, published at St. Omers [Page] by John Heigham. In the sixth Edition of that Book, I find no Explication of the Worship of Saints, but much which seemeth to advance it to a degree too high for it. Under the first (or in our account the second Commandment) the Penitent is there Manual of J. H. p. 596. taught to confess this as one breach of it, that he hath not daily recommended himself to God and his Saints. In the Litany of our Lady he hath these Forms:

O holy Mary Man. of J. H. p. 380., stretch abroad the hand of thy mercy, and deliver our hearts from all wicked thoughts, hurtful speeches, and evil deeds.—O holy Mary Ibid. p. 381. we worship thee, we glorifie thee. Words which are a part of that Religious Thanksgiving which the ancient Church offered to God, and called the Angelical Hymn.

Horstius in his Manual called the Paradise of the Soul, reprinted lately at Colen, and adorned with Sculptures, seems as devout as Heigham now cited; for thus he prays Horst. Paradis. An. Sect. 7. Sect. 7. de B. Virg. p. 446., or comments on Gratia Plena: O blessed Virgin, be graciously pleased to pour forth that Grace of which thou art full; that the vein of thy benignity overflowing, the guilty may receive absolution; the sick, medicine; the weak in heart, strength; the afflicted, consolation; those that are in danger, help and deliverance. O that I could but deserve one drop of such great fulness, for the refreshing of my dry and parched heart!

For the private Oral Instructions of the Romish Ecclesiasticks concerning the use and intent of such Forms, I pretend not to be well acquainted with them. But as to their publick Preaching I am not ignorant of one very common and no less scandalous usage. For the Preacher after a short Preface which introduceth his Text or Subject, exhorts the Congregation to say Ave Maria, in order to a blessing upon that holy business about which they are assembled. And this the Reader may see not only in the more private Sermons of Monsieur[Page]de Lingendes, but likewise in the more publick one of John Carthenius a Carmelite, at the Provincial Synod of Cambray Concil. Camer. p. 225. Et vos Reverendissimi Domini mei, & Patres optimi, und mecum, obsecro, summi Patris filiam speciosam, summi filii matrem formosam, summi Paracleti sponsam gratiosam, totiusque coelestis ac terrenae Ecclefiae Reginam, Gratiae ac misericordiae matrem, salutare dignemini, dicsntes, Ave Maria, &c..

By this Discourse it plainly appeareth that the Letter of the Roman Forms in the Invocation of Saints, does to the most vulgar ears, sound as Idolatrous: as also that that Church hath not provided any publick, direct, clear Interpretation of them, in its subsequent Synods, Missals, Breviaries, Catechism, Decretals, Authentick Manuals, or what I likewise may add, in its Bullarium, which (as shall anon be shewed) exalteth the Canonized into the condition of Patrons and Guardians of men.

There then remaineth this only to be said by the learned of that Communion: That they who hear the Church professing plainly its Faith in one supreme God in Trinity, cannot think it meaneth by any words whatsoever to give to the Creature the supreme Honour of that Trinity which it so solemnly acknowledgeth. And indeed seeing all the Romanists believe the Apostles Creed, seeing many of them appropriate all Latria to God; seeing they teach in their Manuals Abridg. of Christ. Doctr. in the Expos. of the Mass. p. 294. that therefore all Prayers are ended with [Through Jesus Christ our Lord] ‘to signifie that whatsoever we beg of God the Father, we must beg it in the name of Jesus Christ, by whom he hath given us all things;’ some allowance is to be made them in the Exposition of those Forms, which sound as if the Saints were invoked with Latria. But yet it may be demanded, whether the Forms and practice of a corrupt Church may not contradict their general Rule of Faith? Whether the Roman Forms be applied to that Rule of Faith by any but prudent Ecclesiasticks and Laicks, who are not the greater number? Whether amongst them they take not away some honour from God, though not that [Page] which is absolutely incommunicable? And whether a Church which calleth it self Christian and Catholick, should not be more careful of publick Forms of speaking in Prayer, (such as may render the Supplicants Idolaters, in themselves in the ignorant use of them; and to others by the external scandal) whatsoever license the world takes in phrases of common speech. And here it were well if those who so often alledg Mr. Thorndike, in favour of their cause, would weigh the words of a Letter of his, said to be written about a year before he died Dr. H. M. of the Idol. of the Church of Rome, p. 321, 322.. ‘To pray to the Saints (saith he) for those things which only God can give, as all Papists do, is in the proper sense of the words, Idolatry. If they say, their meaning is by a figure only to desire them to procure their requests of God, how dare any Christian trust his soul with that Church which teacheth that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not that figure?’ They who believe not that these are his words, are sure unacquainted with the writings of the Author See the like sense in Mr. Thornd. Epil. part. 3. p. 356, 357. cited here c. 10. part. 3., and the great Integrity of the Reporter. It is certain that among our selves in our more ordinary conversation, such forms of speech are used towards men, which in their extent are applicable to God. We say that such Students had their Grace in the Senate-house; or that there they have been created Doctors, [a phrase it seems too crude for the digestion of some Ass. Annot. in Gen. 1. 1. The Hebrew word Bara is a word in its proper sense, proper and peculiar to God: and therefore should not be attributed to men, how great soever. Yet it is a familiar phrase in the stile of the Court to say, such a one was created Earl or Marquess, or Duke, &c. nice stomacks.] When the weak are pursued by a savage Beast, or by a man cruel as such a creature, they run into the arms of kinder persons, and desire them to save them and deliver them. And because these Forms are used to men by those who own nothing but what is humane in them, and because the matter of their request is apparently such too, and in the power of man; these equivocal phrases are by general acknowledgment, determined [Page] to one sense. But were civil Forms more liable to mistake, a Church, sure, should exercise a more tender care in those of Religion; and chuse such as might be apter to edifie than mislead the meanest in her Communion.

Now in such Forms of common speech as I have mentioned, though there is not any proper worship of men, yet there is more desired of them, than that they would pray to God for us. When Esau beseeched his Father to bless him, he did not merely request him to pray for a blessing, but to pronounce over him that sentence of Benediction, which he as the Father of that Family had commission from God to pronounce with authority and to effect. And when an importunate widow does by her repeated crys for vengeance, or publick justice for deliverance and safeguard, render the very ears of an unjust Judg attentive; she intreats more of him than that he would speak for her to the King. She supposeth him in commission, and indued with power to help her, though she knows him in this very point of his assistance to be subordinate to his Prince.

There is more in the Forms of the Roman Church than the bare indiscretion of them. And though the incommunicable honour of God be not by their measure, the rule of Faith, devolved on the creature (for a Papist so interpreting those Forms, should by that Church be condemned as an Heretick, and a violater of the fundamental Article of one God in Trinity;) yet still to me it seemeth, that the honour which God hath not actually communicated, is by them misplaced on Angels, at least on Saints.

I do not, in saying this, ground my perswasion barely on the common Argument of that Ubiquity which many conclude to be ascribed to Saints and Angels in [Page] the Invocation of them Confess. Wirtemb. p. 122. Talis—Petitio exigit, ut is qui rogatur, sit ubique praesens, & exaudiat pelitionem. Haec autem Majestas soli Deo competit; & si tribuitur Creaturae, creatura adoratur.. The foundation of that Argument is laid on a matter which is disputed. For they who contend that the Angels hear or know what is done on Earth, do expresly deny Ubiquity to them. Though some private Romanists have mentioned appearances of the person of the Virgin in distant places at the same time; and others have represented her or some other Saint as dwelling in a particular statue. And to such it is proper to put the question of Arnobius: ‘Let us suppose (said he) that there are ten thousand Statues of Vulcan in all the world, can that one Deity b Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 6. p. 204. be in so many thousand habitations at one time?’ But others infer this knowledg in the Saints and Angels, partly from the perfection of their spiritual nature, by which (saith Holden in Div. Fid. Analy [...]i. l 2. c. 7. p. 294. Dr. Holden) they know all the natures, motions, and actions of Corporeal things; partly from their personal presence as Guardians of men, and as Gods Retinue in Religious Assemblies; and partly from the Revelation of God, and from what they call the Glass of the Trinity, [a mirrour of which I profess my self very ignorant, and which my curiosity desires not to look into; and which the inventers might in reverence have spared, rather than to have exposed the essence of God as a substance reflecting all visible Ideas]. They gather this also in part from the Intelligence given by some Angels unto the rest, who are of the same community.

This they say plausibly concerning Angels; for of Saints they have much less ground thus to speak. Only this may be allowed them concerning both; that being spirits, we know not whether such distance as that of this world does hinder communication. For if it be not done by motion, they may (possibly) as well understand at the distance of an hundred miles, as at that of a furlong. This only I observe by the way as an Objection, [Page] That the Ancients, who are said to Platonize, held neither Angels nor Souls departed to be uncloathed Spirits, but united to Bodies of AEther or AEr. Wherefore it seemeth that their knowledg of external, material objects, must depend on Physical motion, which by distance is scattered or diverted from the streightness of its lines, and consequently from the exact truth of its intelligence.

It is most probable that Angels are often absent from grown men, especially whilst they remain in ordinary circumstances. And the Scripture speaks of the Angels as being, on this or the other occasion, sent to men, and then removed from them. This is manifest in the known cases of Abraham, Daniel, S. Peter, S. John, and the blessed Virgin her self. More probable still it is, that the same Angel hath not intelligence, not only of all the affairs of the world, but of all the prayers that are addressed to him. For many such Addresses being very improper, and sometimes immoral, we must not think that God or other good Angels are concerned in telling him the news of them, unless it be in order to punishment.

And for the Saints whom God hath not (that we know of) made ministring spirits; who are not, before the Resurrection and final Judgment, in complete glory; of whose appearing after death, the Scripture hath given us, in the Old Testament, but one instance, and that a very doubtful one (it not being certain whether it was the Apparition of Samuel, or of the Devil, or the Imposture of the Witch of Endor speaking inwardly:) And, in the New, but that one (as I remember) of Moses and Elias when Christ was transfigured. It is not so much as by probable arguments yet evinced, that they know our particular estate, though it is evident that they wish well to the world [Page] of mankind, and especially to the body of the Christian Church. For sure they lose not their affection in Heaven, where, whilst some other Graces cease, Charity is eternal and in perfection.

Wherefore, though the praying to Saints and Angels may not necessarily infer their Ubiquity; and for that reason be called Idolatrous; yet if they hear us not, it may be called an unwarranted, impertinent, idle labour. It is, as Saint Paul Col. 2. 18. speaketh, an intruding into the things which we have not seen. And certainly when we pray not only to those that do not hear us, but to such as have no existence but in fiction; it is emphatical impertinence. What else are the seven sleepers, considered as such? And yet in the institutions of a spiritual life Instit. spirit. l. 2. c. 2. p. 54.—Visum fuit memoriam instituere sanctorum, non omnium sed quorundam, quos selegi, majore quadam devotione & cultu prosequendos, &c. p. 58. S. Bernardin. Alex. SS. Sept. Dor [...]ient. S. Placid. &c. published with Elogy, by Sfondratus (afterwards a Pope by the name of Gregory the fourteenth), and composed by a nameless Virgin, those seven are selected together with a few othere, as Saints to be venerated with especial devotion. What else are S. Sulpitius, and S. Severus, considered as distinct persons? and yet in an ancient and fair Romish Manual Ms. ap: M. R. W. de S. J., I find this to be part of a Litany: Holy Sulpitius, pray for me: Holy Severus, pray for me. Also, Holy Faith, pray for me: Holy Hope, pray for me: Holy Charity, pray for me. The learned Bishop Montague Bish. Mont. in his Treatis. of the Invoc. of Saints, p. 98. doth call the ‘Romish Invocation of Saints a Point of Foolery: It being (he saith) at least uncertain, whether they are, and in what manner they can be acquainted with our wants, seeing their condition is not to attend us, and they are removed far above our reach and call.’ He entertained the like opinion of praying to such Angels as are not Guardians. But of them that are such, he supposeth them to be ever in procinctu, nigh at hand to men, and in attendance on them all their days. Hence he seeth no impiety [Page] in this Address Bish. Mont. Ibid. p. 97, 98., Sancte Angele custos ora pro me, Holy Guardian-Angel pray for me. [He had put the matter more out of doubt, if he had supposed the Angel appearing, and certainly known to be an holy spirit of that quality.] But for the Invocation of ‘other Angels he thinketh it as foolish and ridiculous, as his praying to a friend at Constantinople to help him, whilst he himself is at London.’

Others have gone further in their censure, and they have called the Invocation of Saints more than an impertinent, that is, a sinful, though not an Idolatrous practice. And indeed so plain a misuse of a mans reason cannot but be offensive to the Creator, who gave it not to man that he should trifle with it. But this is not their manner of arguing. They tell us such Invocation is not of Faith; and that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But what Art of thinking teacheth them to draw consequences on this fashion? ‘Whatsoever is done by man against the present perswasion of his Conscience, which admits it with great reluctancy as irreligious, is in him sinful: Therefore the Invocation of Saints or Angels by Papists, who desire them to pray for them when they do not hear, though they in their Conscience believe they do; is a wicked practice, because it ariseth not from faith or perswasion.’ Had they said every thing in such weak and unconcluding Logick, they had wounded their own cause more than that of their Adversaries.

If now there were nothing in this Romish Invocation besides their desire of Angels and Saints to pray for them to God Almighty, I should forbear to call it Idolatry, and give it the softer names of misperswasion, impertinence, irrational or fruitless beating the air. For they amongst them who are the more prudent, suppose the Saints to hear them by other means than [Page] by Divine Omnipresence, and infiniteness of Understanding; and they call upon them for such an Office as a good man on earth would do for them, much more a Saint or Angel in Heaven. For what Christian will deny the Petition of his Neighbour, when he desireth him only to pray to God for him? unless perhaps he neglecteth Prayer himself, and appeareth to have sinned a sin unto death, of which they are scarce guilty, who beg the Prayers of others; such piety being seldom discerned either in presumptuous Christians, or in Apostates.

But in the Romish Invocation there is much more than a praying to Saints and Angels to pray for us. It is not indeed intentionally the worship of any of them under the notion of a supreme God, how high a note soever doth sound in their Forms; for that their own Church renounceth as Idolatry. And the Church-men teach the people Abridg. of Christ. Doctr. in Expos. of 1. Command. p. 123., ‘That it is lawful to worship Angels and Saints with Dulia, or inferior honour, proportioned to their Excellency, but not as God, or with Gods honour.’ They give not to them Gods incommunicable honour, if they understand the Rule of their Faith; but to me they seem to give them honour beyond the proportion of their Excellency, even that which God hath to himself reserved. This is plain by the natural construction of their Forms, which they have not otherwise interpreted, but confirmed this meaning of them by their Doctrines, and by their daily practice. This is that which I here mean, and think I shall evince: That though they make not any Saint or Angel the supreme Governour of the World, yet they constitute the Spirits of either kind, Deputies or Lieutenants under God, and suppose him not only as occasion serveth, to use their Ministry, but to make them Guardians, Patrons, and Patronesses; and to [Page] allow them for such upon the choice of Worshippers on Earth. They instruct the people in their Manuals, not only how to address themselves to their Guardian-Angels Horst. Parad. Animae, de cultu & Ven. SS. Ang. & Praecip. Ang. Cust. Admon. Sect. 2. c. 2. p. 94, &c., but also to chuse and worship their Guardian Saints Instit. Spirit. l. 2. c. 2. p. 58.—Cum iis quos mihi in Patronos & Patronas elegi, singularis, quantum quisque posset, totis viribus, cultus & rever. debeatur, &c. Horst. Parad. [...]. Sect. 2. [...]. 3. de Patronis è Sanctorum num [...]ro [...]ligendis & indies peculiari devotione colendis. p. 100, 101, &c.. ‘They teach them (c) in their daily Exercises to remember such Saints, that for every office of life they may take to them particular Assistants; that so they may pray with this Saint, and sleep with that: That one Saint may be present at their Canonical Hours when they read; that another may be by when they hear a sacred Lecture; when they work, when they dine, when they sup. They teach them Horst. Parad. An. Sect. 2. p. 100. Patronum è Sanctorum numero, &c. to select one or more out of the number of the Saints as their Patron; to love them, to imitate them; through their hands to offer daily all their works to God; to commend themselves to their protection morning and evening, and at other times, especially in difficulties and tentations; to use them as witnesses and directors of their Actions.’

They give to this Spirit this precinct, and that to another. They give to some Authority over this disease, to others over that. They substitute some over one part of nature, and others over another part of it; though I think they do not quite tye them from intermedling in one anothers Diocesses or Precincts. And St. Paul the Patron of Mariners may be called upon in a Fever; and St. Luke the Patron of Physicians, may have his aid implored in a Tempest Instit. Spir. p. 63. Docebar Sanctorum, &c. See Cardin. Perron. in res. Resp. Reg. Ja [...]obi. l. 5. c. 3..

This is an opinion maintained by them without imputation of Heresie: This they conceive to be consistent with the Worship of one supreme God; to this they conform their daily practice. This Lieutenancy of Saints if they do not really hold, their Church is a [Page] very Roma Subterranea, and there is nothing of its meaning to be discerned above ground.

This opinion and practice had been the more tolerable if they had restrained it unto Angels, of whose presence, knowledg, ministration, the Scripture hath spoken; but they extend it to Saints, and for the holy Virgin, their devotion is greater towards her, than towards the highest Angel; she being called the Queen of those Heavenly Powers Horst. Parad. p. 101. Sancta T [...]in. miserere nobis. Sancta Maria, Ora pro nobis. Sancte Michael, Arch angele, Ora.. The Authoress of the Spiritual Institutions Instit. Spir. P. 55. prays not only to the Angels, to the Angel-Guardian of her Person, and to the Angel-Guardian of her Religion, [that is, of her Order], but likewise to St. Bernardine, St. Placidus, and other Saints Ead. ibid. P. 58., as to her selected Patrons. And Horstius (a man of rank devotion towards Spirits, and often to be remembred by me) treateth first of the Worship of Saints, and of them as Patrons; and then of the Worship of Angels and Angel-Guardians. Concerning Angels he sheweth that holy men, such as he so esteemeth, did both pray to their Guardian-spirit Horst. Parad. An. Sect. 2. P. 95, 96., and to such ‘Angels as were Presidents of Kingdoms, Provinces, Cities, Towns, with solioitous zeal; and he nameth St. Xavier, St. Aloysius, and St. Francis; and calleth to mind the singular devotion of the last towards St. Michael the Archangel.’

Then for the Saints he celebrates them as such Horst. ib. in Dedic. ante Sect. 2. p. 87. Fideles olim servi—nunc constituti super omnia bona domini in terrâ viventium., ‘Who being formerly servants and stewards, are now set over all the Goods of their Lord in the land of the living. He saith Ibid. p. 90.—ut invocentur in auxilium, & in necessitate nos protegant. that it belongeth to their praise and glory that their Aid be invoked, and that they protect us in necessity. And he teacheth his Reader thus to worship the Virgin: Holy Mary, Mother of God, and Virgin, I, though unworthy to serve thee, yet trusting in the clemency of thy Motherly heart, chuse thee this day before my Guardian-Angel[Page]and the whole Court of Heaven, for my Mother and peculiar Lady, Patroness, and Advocatrix. And I firmly resolve henceforth to serve Tibi & filio tuo, worse than Ego & Rex meus. thee and thy Son, with fidelity, and perpetually to adhere to you. I beseech thee by that love by which thy Son when he was giving up the Ghost upon the Cross, commended himself to his Father, and thee to his true Disciple, and him again to thee; to take me into thy care and protection; and be thou with me in all the straits and dangers of my whole life; but especially help me in the hour of my death. Amen.’

I have said that it is more tolerable to pray thus to Angels, than it is to Saints; but I can find little ground in Reason or Scripture thus to worship the Angels themselves. Reason teacheth that God who made the World is the Governour of it. The Scripture teacheth that there are distinct Orders of Angels, but it disalloweth of such Lieutenancy under God, as men have ascribed to them. It mentioneth Thrones, and Powers, and Dominions, and Principalities; yet rather in allusion to the Gnosticks (as was above conjectured) than by way of assertion of such Orders. Those Hereticks Irenaeus provoketh to tell what Iren. l. 2. adv. Haer. cap. 54. p. 212. Dicant nobis quae sit Invisib. nat. &c. Sed non babent dicere. is the nature of ‘Invisible Beings, what is the number and order of Angels, what are the Mysteries of Thrones, and the diversities of Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Virtues;’ and he assureth us they were at a loss. So ignorant was the Christian World in his time of the Nine Orders of the feigned Dionysius the Areopagite. That there are distinct Orders of Spirits; that there are Angels and Archangels, I firmly believe. But it does not thence follow, that the Government of the World is shared amongst them, though they have a Ministerial part in the affairs of it. Archangels seem no other than the seven Spirits typified by the seven [Page] Lamps in the Temple Rev. 4. 5. & 8. 2.. Their Office was as elect and eminent Spirits, to minister before the Throne of God, and on solemn occasions to be sent in Embassie to the World. Such a one was Gabriel, who stood in the Presence of God; and was sent to the Blessed Virgin. Nothing of this inferreth their distinct Provinces committed to them, but it sheweth only the dignity of their station, and their occasional Ministry. Neither doth it follow from the seven Angels mentioned as Presidents of the seven Churches of Asia, that they, as some have taught, were under the Charge and Patronage of seven Spirits. For St. John is required to write to these Angels Rev. 1. 19, 20. & 2. 1, 2, 3, 4., and to reprove their faults, [as the abatement of Love in the Angel of Ephesus and his Church.] And he makes distinct mention Chap. 3. 1. of the seven Spirits, and the seven Stars, which latter he had shewed to be the Angels of those Churches Chap. 1. 20., and who were therefore no other than the Bishops of them, called by a name which is given the High Priest, in the Prophet Malachy Mal. 2. 7.— [...]., and by the Jews in Diodorus Diod. Sic. ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 1154..

Christian Religion owneth but one proper Substitute under God, one Paraclete or Patron, (for so See Doctiss. D. Outram de Sacrificiis. l. 2. c 7. p. 360, 361, &c. that title signifies) one proper Mediator, the glorified Jesus; the Spirits under him are but Angels or Messengers, though sent abroad on different Embassies, Wherefore I know not how to approve of the expression of a late very grave and learned Author, ‘who Contemplat. Divin. & Mor. 2. part. p. 98. speaketh of the Invisible Regiment of the World by the subordinate Government of good and evil Angels.’ It is true that the good are a Community [and so in some sort are the bad] but their divers Orders concern their own society most; and they are not to be construed as the Orders and Powers in the frame of Gods Government of the whole World. It is also to be [Page] confessed that Elisha's servant (to reflect a little on his instance) saw fiery Chariots and Horsmen in the Mount: and that this was a representation of Gods Angels in the scene of a Camp. But no other Argument ought to be fetched thence, besides that which concludeth that there is a greater power in God and his Coelestial Ministers than in the Armies of the World. He that will torture this Vision, and make it confess commission-Officers amongst them, ought also to make them ride on Horses and Chariots. For evil Angels, their dominion is oftner mentioned than that of the good. But certainly, though they are called in Scripture, Principalities and Powers, no man that carefully attendeth to his words, will call them also subordinate Governours of the World. For they are professed Rebels against God, who doth not own or treat them as his subjects; but he being provoked by the perverseness of wicked men, permitteth those rebellious Daemons to exercise great power amongst the children of disobedience, who are in indirect Covenant with them.

It is worse still to say, that God ruleth the World by Saints, than to affirm so much of him in reference to his holy Angels: yet this the Romanists openly maintain Bellar. l. 1. c. 18. de Beat. Sanct. endeavors to prove, non solum ab Angelis sed etiam à spiritibus beatorum hominum regi & gubernari fideles viventes., and some also who have not only disputed, but even raved against the Church of Rome. For so it is said by Thomas Goodwin in his Sermon of the fifth Monarchy T. G. on Rev. 5. 9, 10. p. 6. Lond. 16 54., ‘That the Saints on earth have by their Prayers an influence in the managing the affairs of the World, and into the accomplishment of all the great things that Christ doth for his Church. That though it may be, and it is certain, they have not in all Ages known (according to what is in the Prophesie of St. John) what Jesus Christ will do next; yet that still by the spirit of Prophesie, [Page] as it were, the Saints have been guided to seek for those things at the hands of God and Christ, which he was about to accomplish. Also, that the Saints in Heaven, before the day of Judgment, have a share and an hand in Christs government of the world: and that they have a knowledg T. G. p. 8. (by the Angels that are continually Messengers from Heaven to Earth) of the great things that are done here.’ And he that writeth the Epistle to the Reader, maketh this Application of Mr. Goodwins Doctrine: ‘Now (saith he) what may we think the Saints in Heaven (who within these ten years last past, lost their lives in the Cause of Christ [he meaneth the Army-Saints, from the year fortyfour, to that of fifty-four, who dy'd in maintenance of the Bad Old Cause]) are EMPLOYED ABOUT at this time; they understanding by the Angels what great—[changes] are come to pass on our Earth?’

Those of whose Saintship we have better assurance, though in a state of rest and light, are esteemed by the Fathers but a kind of Free Prisoners, not being acquitted by the publick Sentence of the General Judgment See Iren. l. 5. c. 31. p. 431.—Animae abibunt in invisibilem locum,—& ibi usque ad Resurrectionem commorabuntur, &c.. And their opinion who give them a Lieutenancy under God in the Government of the World before that day, does recall to my mind the Argument used by that truly great man Sir Walter Raleigh, in his own unhappy Case: He pleaded that the grant of a Commission from the King, did argue him to be absolved; and that he who had power given him over others, was no longer under a sentence against his own life. Abraham and Isaac do not now rule us, and it may be, they are ignorantt of us: which whilst I affirm, I do not wholly ground my Assertion on the Text in Isaiah Isa. 63. 16.. That soundeth otherwise, whether we take it in its positive or hypothetical sense. Its positive sense [Page] may be this: ‘Doubtless thou art our Father, notwithstanding we live not under the care of Abraham or Isaac, but are by many generations removed from them, who therefore knew us not LXX. [...]., or own'd us not, we being not men of their times; we are their seed however, though at a great distance; and to such also was thy promise made. And for the Hypothetical sense it may be this: Be it supposed that Abraham knows nothing of us, yet certain we are that thou art the God of Israel whose knowledg and care of thy people never faileth.’

I admit here, that the Saints pray for the Church in general, that Angels are concerned in particular Ministrations; but that Angels and even Saints have shares of the Government of the World, though in subordination to God, so as to be Commission-Officers under the King of Heaven, and not only Attendants on his Throne, and as it were Yeomen and Messengers of his Court, (the general condition of the Angels) I cannot admit without peril of Idolatry.

This in my conceit is the great resemblance betwixt the Romanists and the Gentiles: Both of them suppose the World to be ruled under God, by several Orders of Daemons and Heroes; though I have confessed already that they are not so exactly alike but that Rome-Christian may be distinguished from Rome-Pagan. For the Gentiles, so much hath been shewn already; and it may appear further, from the place of the Greek Historian cited in the Margent Dion. Hali-carnass. l. 8— [...].. And for the Romanists, that too hath already been manifested in part, and shall be further decl [...]red: and Rivallius in his History of the Civil Law, or Commentary on the Twelve Tables Ay [...]. Rivallii Hist. Jur. Civ. 1 2. p. 45. Christian [...] similem huic Religionem servant, nam Deam immortalem colunt, & virtute praeditos miraculisque fulgentes magnâ pompâ & inquisitione, primo in in Divos reserunt, deindè venerantur, post Templa eis construunt; ut de divis Joanne, Petro, Catharinâ, Nicolao, Magdalenâ, & aliis videmus., does very honestly confess it. He having commented on that Law which ordereth the worship of the Heathen gods, both Daemons and Heroes, letteth [Page] fall words not unfit to be here gathered up by us. ‘Christians (saith he, meaning those of the Roman Communion) retain a Religion like to this; for they worship God immortal: and for those that excel in Virtue, and shine with Miracles, first with great pomp and inquisition they register them among the Deities [or Saints] and then they worship them, and after that they erect Temples to them; as we see in the case of S. John, S. Peter, S. Catherine, S. Nicholas, S. Magdalen, and other Deities.’

In this point, then, let us join issue, and offer on our side the manifestation of these particulars.

First, On what occasions this worship of Ruling-spirits came into the Church.

Secondly, How it derogateth from the honour of God as Governour of the World.

Thirdly, How it derogateth from the honour of Jesus as the Mediator and King ordained by God.

First, For the occasions of this Worship, I conceive them to be especially these two; The Celebration of the Memory of the Martyrs at their Tombs; and the compliance of the Christians with the Northern Nations when they invaded Italy and other places, in hope of appeasing them, and effecting their conversion.

First, I reckon as an occasion of this Worship, the celebration of the memory of the Martyrs at their Tombs, and Monuments, and Reliques, and in the Churches sacred to God, in thankfulness for their Examples. The thankful and honourable commemoration of the Martyrs, was very ancient and innocent at the beginning. For, as the Epistle of the Church of Smyrna, concerning the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, testifies Ep. Ec. cles. Smyrn. ap. Eus. Eccles. Hist. l. 4. c. 15. p. 134, 135., ‘They esteemed the bones of the Martyrs more precious than Jewels; They kept their Birth-days [that is, the days of their Martyrdom on [Page] which they began most eminently to live]; they pursu'd them with a worthy affection, as Disciples and Imitators of Christ, but they worshipped none but Christ, believing him to be the Son of God — [...]. p. 134. D..’ But laudable Customs degenerate through time. And this, in the fourth Century, began to be stretched beyond the reason of its first institution, as appeareth by the Apostrophe's of St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and others of that Age. Afterwards the vanity of men ran this Usage into a dangerous extreme; and those who had been commemorated as excellent and glorified Spirits, and whose Prayers were wished, were directly invoked and worshipped as the subordinate Governours of Gods Church.

This Veneration of the Martyrs, which superstition thus strained, was occasioned by the Miracles which God wrought where his Martyrs were honoured. Times of Persecution at home, and of Invasion from abroad, required such aids for the Encouragement of Catholick Christians, and the Conversion of Infidels and misbelievers. Thus in the days of St. Austin, [in whose Age the Getae or Goths sacked Rome, and many of the barbarous people imputed the present misfortunes of Italy to the Christian Religion See Ludov. Viv. Praes. in Comm. suos in Civ. Dei. p. 22, &c.,] God pleased to work Miracles at the Bodies of the Martyrs, Protasius and Gervasius S. Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 22. c. 8. De miraculis quae, ut mundus in Christum crederet, facta sunt, &c. p. 1339., in the City of Milan. Thus (as is reported by Procopius and Egnatius) he miraculously saved those Christians at Rome, and Pagans also S. Aug. de Civ. Dei. l. 1. c. 1. p. 34. Testantur hoc Martyrum loca, & Basilicae Apostolorum, quae in illâ vastatione Urbis ad se confugientes suos [h. e. Christianos] alienos (que) [h. e. Paganos] receperunt., both in the time of Alaricus and Theudoricus, who fled to the Churches of St. Paul, and St. Peter. And he did it, saith Grotius Grotius in Append. ad Comment. de Antichristo. p. 126, 127., by a Providence like to that by which they were saved in Jerusalem, who had kept the Law, which was signified by the Letter Thau [that is, Thorah the Law,] written on their foreheads, as is said in Ezekiel. They went out of Babylon, [Page] or Rome, to the holy places which stood without the City, and there remained in undisturbed peace, more by Gods protection, than the Gothick Clemency; though by the Edict of Alarick, such Churches were made the Sanctuaries of Christians See Lud. Viv. Praes. in Com. suos. de Getis seu Gothis. p. 27, 28..

This Instance, no doubt, heightned the veneration of many towards the Martyrs, though God wrought such things, not as testimonies of the power of the Martyrs, but as supports to the Christian Religion. And this being an Instance in the Gothick story, it reminds me of

The second occasion of the worship of Spirits as Rulers of the World in certain Precincts, especially in this Western Church; to wit, the Invasion of the Northern Nations, who sought their preferment by quitting their own Country. In Rome it self a great number of the Senators worshipped Idols in the very reign of Theodosius the Great. And many worshippers of false gods, upon the Sack of Rome by the Goths under Alaricus, did, saith St. Austin in the Argument of his Book of the City of God, charge the calamity on the Christian Religion, and blaspheme the true God with bitterer words than it was their custome to use. And this (as he declareth) stirred up his zeal, and moved him for the stopping of their ungodly mouths, and refuting their Errors, to write that Book. For the Goths themselves, the general body of them was barbarously Idolatrous, (though some of that people had received betimes the Christian Faith; for Theophilus a Gothick Bishop was at the Council of Nice) and the Vandals were wholly Pagans. Neither were there under Heaven a people more zealously devoted to Daemons than the Scythians, Getes, or Goths See Adam Bremensis de de superstit. Sueon. among the Elogia of Grotius before Hist. Goth. p. 104., Of the Thracian Getes, Pausanias saith in his Baeoticks, that they were a more acute Nation than the Macedonians, and — [...]. by [Page] no means so negligent in the worship of their gods. Schedius in his Dissertations concerning the German-gods, hath remembred very many Gothick Deities▪ and there is a Learned man of our own Nation Doctiss. Sheringh. de Angl. Gent. Orig. Discept. p. 320., who tells us that he hath not numbred the half of them. Of Herald the first King of Norway, it is reported by Crantzius Crantz. Not. Hist. l. 3. c. 3., that he offered two of his own Sons unto his Daemons, for the obtaining at Sea, such a Tempest as might disperse that Armado of Herald the sixth, King of Denmark, which was prepared against him; and that he obtained that for which he had bidden so dear and bloody a rate.

After the further Conversion of those Northern people none more corrupted their worship, than they with the observance of Tutelar Saints. In the Chronicle of Swedeland, the inferior Deities of that place exceed the number of the Villages; and I need no further instance than that which I find in Felix Faber Fel. Fab. Hist. Suev. l. 2. c. 17. p. 315. a Monk of Ulma. ‘A Town (saith he) night to Ulma is Seflingen, in which is the Blessed Virgin presiding in the Garden of Virgins, and keeping on the West the Walls of that City. On the South is situate the Village of Wiblingen, in which St. Martin armed both with the Temporal and Spiritual Militia, is the Patron of the Church, and the Guardian of the Ulmenses. Nigh also is Schuvekhofen, an ancient Town, where at this day standeth a Church in which S. John the Evangelist watcheth over Ulma. On the East is the Village Pful, where standeth the Mausoleum of the Blessed Virgin in the publick street. There she demonstrates by certain Miracles, that she dwells in that place. Thence she looks upon Ulma with the eyes of mercy, and defends it. In that Village S. Udalricus is Patron of the Church; an excellent Guardian of the Citizens who implore his Aid. On the [Page] North, on the Royal Mountain of Elchingen is placed a lofty Throne of the Blessed Virgin, to the terror of all that have evil will at Ulma. He further mentions St. George, St. Leonard, all Saints with the Virgin in the midst of them, St. James, and St. Michael, as Patrons and defendants of that place. And for St. Michael, he is placed on a Mountain on the West-side, as a Watchman looking over the whole City, and in Armour as the Protector of it.’

Now the Northern Barbarians being so inclined to the worship of Tutelar Daemons, it is no wonder if many Christian-Romans, to mollifie their savageness, and to induce them to Christianity, so far complied as to offer them Tutelar Saints and holy Angels instead of their evil Guardian Spirits. This, I suppose, they did, because I find the Concurrence of their Invasion and stay in Italy, and of the rise and growth of Daemonworship there, both happening in the fourth and fifth Centuries. And it may not be unworthy the Observation of the Reader, that in the fifth Century, St. Michael the Archangel, a most eminent Patron (as we just now heard from Felix Faber) among the Northern Christians, was first Commemorated in the Western Church, by a solemn Feast Baron. Annal. Tom 6. A. C. 493. Sect. 43, 44. p. 537.. I would here further note, that Woden (not the Mercury, but the Mars of the Northern Idolaters) was in highest esteem among them: That Michael answereth to him, being, as the Roman Litanies Lit. de Sanct. Ang. op. Horstii Paradis. An. Sect. 2. p. 96: S. Michael Princeps coelestis exercitus.— stile him, the Prince of the Heavenly Host: That this Feast of St. Michael was then instituted when Peace was desired betwixt Odoacer King of the Heruli, (who came first from Scandanivia, and were called afterwards Lombards); and Theodorick the first King of the Goths in Italy.

Having thus aimed at the resolution of the fiast Inquiry, the occasion of Daemon-worship in the Church; [Page] I proceed to shew in the second place, That this worship derogateth from the Honour of God as Governour of the World by his immediate self, though also by a Substitute; for he is likewise the same Essential God.

It is both by the Romanists and the Reformed acknowledged, that God is the Governour of the World; That in him we live, and move, and have our being: That he giveth us life, and breath, and all things: That to him all glory is to be referred. Neither hath he anywhere declared that he hath divided the Regiment of the World into several Lieutenancies of Angels or Saints. He hath no-where shewed us, that he hath given to this Angel, and that Saint (not to a Saint especially) a Commission to rule in such a Precinct; or a Patent to practice as a Supernatural Physician, in such a City or Town, or any-where, in the cure of such a disease; or Orders to assist at this Mass, and that Confession. If therefore such effects of Protection, Health and assistance follow, and are believed Becan. Compend. Man. Controv. l. 1. c 7. de Invoc. Sanct. p. 290. Quotidiè sructum inde experimur, nam multi, invocatione bujus vel illius Sancti, consequuntur, sanitatem corporis, alii donum castitatis, &c. to comefrom this or the other Saint, though as subordinate to God the supreme Governour, and infinite Physician; yet a degree of Trust is put in them Canis. Man. Cathol. p. 258. ad Beat. Mich. Archang. Precatio. Coelestis Militiae Princeps—veni in adjutorium populo Dei, & militantis Ecclesiae contra Impios procura victoriam, nos (que) simul odversus Diabolicos insultus in vit â & morte Patrocinio tuo desende & sub. leva. as Plenipotentiaries or Substitutes of the King of the World; and a degree of thanks is given to them as to such Delegates. And God seemeth robbed of the honour of dispensing particular favours, though the general Grant be derived from him. Whereas it may be in many cases God himself hath done all without so much as the Ministry of an Angel, much less of a Saint; and consequently ought to have received the whole honour, of which good part being (though by mistake, a mistake soon rectified by them who examine things) ascribed to the Creature, is therefore in that degree Idolatrous. A good part is in these cases generally ascribed to Saints; [Page] and it is well if some look up any higher at the time of their deliverance. We see, in the administration of political affairs, that Subjects, though owning, notionally, the supremacy of their Prince, yet go, often, no further, in their trust, or thanks, than to those men, who by their Place, and Office, and deputed Authority, can, very effectually, dispatch their affairs without higher Application. And he that is protected as a servant to a Senator, pays all his acknowledgment to his Master who received him, kindly, into his service; and not to the King who is but the more remote, though the supreme Author of this priviledg. And it is plain, from Romish History it self, that the pay goes to that Saint who is believed in Commission, whilst God is, by supine inadvertence, scarce remembred. So the Liber Festivalis Lib. Fest. in die Annunc. B. M. p. 234. tells us, That when S. Gilbert was afflicted with a soar Throat, ‘The Virgin took her, feyre pappe, and milked on his Throat, and went her way, and anon therewith he was hole, and thanked our Lady ever after.’ I will clear my meaning a little further by proposing more instances, of which the first shall be made in the Annalist Baronius, and applied unto the present occasion. This laborious Writer is looked upon as the very Champion of the Papacy. His Twelve Tomes of Ecclesiastical story are reputed so many Pillars of the Roman Cause. That Great man in the Papacy, Sixtus Quintus, gave great encouragement to the Author and his work. The Archbishop of Gnesna in Poland, as likewise other great and zealous men, who were Bygots for the Papacy, thought it fit to be translated into all languages; and set on foot a Polonian, Italian, and German Version. If he speaks not like a true Roman Catholick, from whom shall we hear the words of a son of that Church? Hear him, then, at the end of [Page] his several Tomes, and you will find him, owning indeed the supremacy of God, for that was an Article of his Faith: But withal you will find him zealously asserting a delegation of considerable power to the Blessed Virgin; as also making very thankful remembrances of her favours, in the guidance and success of his Pen. And these remembrances are in such manner expressed, that if, by them, nothing is meant of Assistance from the Virgin, besides the help of her prayers for him, I must search out some new Dictionary for the Interpretation of his Latin.

At the end of the first Tome of those his Annals, he doth, as it were, hang up a Table, in acknowledgment of those powers who had conducted him through that vast Sea, (as he rhetorically calls it) of the matters of the first Age. ‘His Doxology Baron. Annal. Tom. 1. p. 817. Ed. Colon. is offered to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and likewise to the most holy Virgin, under the Title of the Conciliatrix of the Deity. For to her (saith he) as we refer all these our works, they being received from her; so likewise to her we offer them: That the same —ut ipsa Eadem, qualiacun (que) sint, dilecto filio suo porrigat, ut impartitâ benedictione sanctificet; illam (que) pro munere gratiam poscat; ut Ipse sit nobis portio in Terrâ viventium. Virgin may offer them, how mean soever, to her beloved Son; That she may sanctifie them with the vouchsafe of her blessing, and obtain that favour for the oblation; that he may be to us a portion in the Land of the living.’ And over the words of this Address she is pictured Crowned, and with her Son, as an Infant, in her Arms, and with a Retinue not only of Angels in General, but of Cherubims, the Attendants on Gods throne.

For his Second Tome, this is a part of the Conclusion of it. ‘Here then Bar. Annal. Tom. 2. p. 863. let our Discourse, wearied with a longer journey, opportunely repose it self: And, being mindful of the benefit, let it thankfully cast it self (as is our custom) at the feet of [Page] the most holy Mary the Mother of God: That it may offer to her, from whom it acknowledgeth the whole to be received, whatsoever it understandeth it hath obtained of God by her Prayers. And let it cast into her as into a most holy and living Treasury, after the manner of the Widow, two mites, collected in poverty, with great labour; the two Tomes, I mean, of the Annals now finished. Let that very Virgin be to us the most safe Ark in which our labours may be kept, and in safe custody protected; lest a thief breaking thorough (to wit, the appetite of vainglory), steal them away; or the moth and rust adhering to them (to wit, vain and fallacious hopes) corrupt them, or eat through them. For she is the true and divine Ark made of Shittim-wood, which preserveth from corruption, those things which are committed to her care.—’

In his third Tome this is his Peroration: ‘Seeing now Baron. Annal. Tom. 3. p. 894. (as saith Ecclestastes) Rivers return to the place whence they came, that they may flow again; it is plainly fit that to that Fountain, whence all our labours have flowed, they be recalled as to their proper Original, and by reciprocal flux be thither refunded; that thence they may be poured forth upon us in greater plenty. To her therefore by whom the whole of this gift comes to us from God; to the most holy Virgin (I say) Mary the Mother of God, we offer very humbly this third Tome of Annals, as we have already done those other which we have published.’

His Peroration in his fourth Tome, thus beginneth: ‘Now Baron. Annal. Tom. 4. p. 787. by your Aid (Virgin Mary, Mother of God) pay we down the fourth part of our Task; and to you we pay it, from whence we received it. For you have found it Wool and Flax, and wrought [Page] it with the counsel of your hands. Wherefore, for the rest of the work, perform it your self; and weave those threds, whatsoever they be (and in your hand undoubtedly they will be golden) into those Sacerdotal garments, of which David thus speaketh: Let thy Priests be clothed with righteousness.—I will deck her Priests with salvation. I beseech thee make for us those two Garments; for those of thy Family are said to be doubly clothed.’

The fifth Tome hath a like conclusion, to this sense. ‘This Baron. Annal. Tom. 5. p. 771. fifth issue, Mother of God, received from your favour, conceived by your Prayers, I [here] bring for a thankful acknowledgment, as Anna did Samuel to you the living Tabernacle of God.—’

The sixth Tome endeth thus: ‘We are now in the Haven Baron. Annal. Tom. 6 p. 772. in which men sail not. We contract our sails, and we fasten our Cable to a solid Rock; intending in due time to set sail again. Now then what remaineth but that we betake our selves by humble supplication, to that Temple of God which is always open, the very Mother of God; giving thanks to God by her, and paying our vows for the victory we have obtained over the waves that opposed us. And as Mariners are wont to offer their Oar; so let us offer to her our Pen, that it may obtain that rich benediction from her, by which (after the manner of the rod of Aaron which devoured the rods of the Magicians) it may resist all the endeavours of gain-sayers, and like to that, flourish; whilst the other rods, brought by rebellious Controvertists, wither away: Lastly, That like that in the Tabernacle of the Covenant, it may be perpetually preserved in the Church, as a witness of the truth of God. These very ample blessings bestowed on the Rod, we ask of thee (O Virgin) coming to thee [Page] Magnâ fiduciâ accendentes [for accedentes, sure by mistake of the Press.] with great affiance; for thou performing these things, crownest no other than thine own gifts.’

The seventh Tome endeth on this fashion.

‘Go to now Baron. Annal. Tom. 7. p. 812. let us give thanks to God, as we are wont, for the finishing of this seventh Tome of Annals; and let us offer the work in like manner to Mary the Mother of God; that by whose help it was begun and perfected, by the merits of the same it may be rendred spotless, worthy the Divine aspect; it being justly refusable in respect of the imperfection of the Author that offers it.’ [Having said this, and added a complaint of his troubles and interruptions in the writing of this Volume, which he calleth his Benoni; he thus proceeds.] ‘One thing more only I have to ask; that seeing these very unquiet, sad, lamentable, fearful and dangerous things have happened to me, O Mother of God, not without Non nisi te curante. your Providence; you your self would daily bring help to me, journeying in a slippery path, exposed to great danger, and every moment in hazard of losing eternal salvation; and give protection to an unsetled man.—’

In the Conclusion of the Eighth Tome, he giveth thanks to some Martyrs, together with the Virgin Baron. Annal. Tom. 8. p. 753, 754. Jure ergo nos iisdem, quos nacti sumus Ducem & Comites, omnia ista pro gratiarum actione rependimus, imperdinus (que) nosipsos simul.; offering to them all his Tomes in gratitude, and which was much more, his very self.

Of the ninth he saith Baron. Annal. Tom. 9. p. 935, That he brought it to an end by the favour of God, and the aid of the Virgin who helped him by her Prayers.

In the end of the Tenth Id. Tom. 10. p. 964., he prayeth to God for ‘eternal happiness by the Intervention of the Mother of God with the Father for him; further beseeching him that she which always helped him in his work, might be the Conciliatrix of eternal reward in the glory of the blessed.’

[Page] In the end of the Eleventh Tome Id. Tom. 11. P. 758., he ‘acknowledgeth that the entireness of his net, after his having cast it so often, that the continuance of his strength fresh and green in his old age; that all this was from the grace of Abisag, their Shunamite, cherishing his aged bones; to wit the most holy and pure Virgin, favouring the work begun and taking care of, and happily promoting all his affairs.—’

Last of all he endeth in a like note, but a little lower and sweeter than that with which he begun and continued his Perorations; for he concludeth his whole work of Twelve Tomes Id. Tom. 12. p. 916. with an humble supplication to the “Blessed Virgin: and therein he beseecheth, ‘That by her means he might be made worthy to obtain that benediction from the Father of Lights by which he might be partaker of an eternal inheritance through the Grace and Mercy of Jesus Christ.’

The whole of this which I have cited, and cited at such length, by reason of that credit which this Author hath obtained under the Papacy; the whole, I say, of it, both beginning, middle, and end, representeth the Virgin as a Patroness; and as one who had prevailed with God to commit to her care Baronius and his Labours, as her especial Province. He owneth God and Christ as the Fountains of Grace; but he supposeth her the Conduit, conveying them to himself. On her he trusteth; to her he offereth solemn, and repeated thanks. And though he often mentioneth her Prayers for him; yet it appeareth by the tenor of his other expressions, and of the common Roman Doctrine, that he meaneth not barely them; but the Guardianship which by them she had from the beginning obtained of God in behalf of the Annalist.

If then according to his own belief he was divinely assisted in this great work, these Twelve Labours of [Page] the Roman Hercules (which others, considering the partiality of the Author, believe to have been undergone more by the aids of the Court of Rome, than those of Heaven); if, I say, he was assisted from above (which is his own persuasion); and God, who is wont to dictate to Christians, rather by his Spirit, than by his Angels, much less by his Saints, did give him immediately the understanding, memory, strength, and other abilities by which he wrote; has he not then sacrilegiously kept back a very great part of that Honour which was wholly due to God, and ought to have been devoted to Him, and then paid it in wrongful and idolatrous manner unto the blessed Virgin?

Now what think you was the occasion of this excess of Marian-zeal? Why, the Mother of Caesar Baronius Aug. Wichmans in Sab. Marian. C. 6. p. 62. (as they tell us *) going when big of him, to the Temple of the Virgin, felt the Babe, like a second John the Baptist, leap in her womb. As soon as he was born, she offer'd him to the Patronage of the same Blessed Virgin. When he was two years old, and afflicted with a very dangerous Disease, she pray'd to her three days, and then received him restor'd from the very article of death, together with a voice saying to her, Be of good comfort, your son shall not dye. Baronius mindful of this benefit, always honour'd the Virgin with singular observance; and he marked his Books, his Tables, his Images, every thing with a device, which signifies Caesar servus Mariae? And at his death (which it seems was on Saturday, our Ladys weekly day) he expressed much devotion towards her; and in his last agony kiss'd her Image with the greatest piety of mind.

The Devotion of Lipsius is so like to that of the Cardinal Baronius, that I may not improperly here subjoin it.

[Page] In the first chapter Lips. Virg. Hallens. c. 1. p. 1243. Op. Ed. in 8vo. vesal. A. 1675. of his Virgo Hallensis, he calleth Blessed Mary the tutelar goddess of Halla; that is, of Halle in Heinalt, seated on the Seine; and he ‘professeth, that from his youth he had devoted himself to her Worship, and chosen her as his Patroness and Guide in all the dangers and molestations of his whole life.’

In his second chapter Id. ibid. p. 1245. he maketh to his Patroness this supplication: Grant to me, O my Goddess, whom I contemplate as present in my mind, That what I have piously design'd, I may happily accomplish.

In his sixth chapter Id. ibid. p. 1254, 1255. he mentions a miraculous victory obtain'd by that City over her enemies, who had with powerful arms entred into her. And this deliverance he supposeth to be wrought by the Patronage of the Virgin, who was invok'd. And he accordingly taketh notice of the Praises of Heart and Voice Quis non tum laudes grates (que) sacrae Virgine Corde, Ore, plausu, dixit?, which every preserved Citizen did offer to that Goddess.

In his eleventh chapter Id. ibid. p. 1260. he telleth how a man possessed with the Devil, was, by this Tutelar Deity (as he there calls her), delivered from so wicked and dangerous an Inhabitant. And after having told his story, he falleth to his Prayers in this manner: O powerful, O merciful Goddess! defend us also from this subtil Serpent. And thou, who didst once bruise his head in thy Conception, assist us so effectually, that his tail may neither scourge us, nor throw us on the ground.

Then, after having ended his Legend consisting of divers Miracles wrought at her shrine, he falls again to his Prayers in his thirty-sixth or last Chapter; and this is the form of his Address Lips. Op. p. 1288..

O Goddess! thou art the Queen of Heaven, of the Sea, of the Earth, above whom there is nothing but God. Thou Moon (next to him the Sun) whom I implore and [Page]invocate; Protect and take care of us both in publick and private. Thou hast seen us these forty years tossed in a publick storm: O Mary! calm this tumultuous Sea—

He concludeth with a Poetical Consecration of a silver-Pen —Hanc Pennam tibi Nunc, Diva, merito, consecravit Lipsius. Nam Numine Isthaec inchoata sunt Tuo, Et numine Isthaec absoluta sunt Tuo. to her, who had (as he believ'd) been the author and finisher of his studies.

Now then, such kind of Worshippers do in part revive one degree of the Idolatry of the Gentiles, who divided Places, Persons, Things, Actions, subject to the Supreme God, amongst Sempiternal or Canoniz'd Spirits. The chief Architect of the Egyptian Pharos, put upon his Workmanship this Inscription, Sostratus of Gnidos, the Son of Dexiphanes, to the Gods Protectors for the safeguard of Sailers. What, now, is the difference betwixt this Inscription and one made by a Papist in honour of S. Nicholas, upon the little Church nigh the Wurbel in the Danube? None sure, unless it be this, that the first is in veneration of a Christian Saint, the other of good Genii: For we are told by those whose credit is as unquestionable as their Learning D. B. in his second Vol. of Travels, p. 69., and who have been upon the place, that the Church is dedicated to S. Nicholas, ‘That he is the supposed Patron of that dangerous Whirlpool in that River; that he is believ'd to take peculiar care of such as pass that way; and that a little Boat comes to you as soon as you are out of danger, and receives what acknowledgment you please, or what perhaps you may have promised to give when you were in some fear.’ It may be God alone calmeth those waves, at least without a Saint; and S. Nicholas receiveth much of the acknowledgment; the whole, possibly, from the common men of the Vessel, whom danger teacheth to pray, whilst superstitious ignorance misleadeth them from praying aright.

Martinus de Roa, though a learned Jesuit, and a [Page] Spaniard, does openly declare the nature of this Romish practice; he does not seek to give a false colour to it, but he shews it as a Practice which plainly agree [...]th with the worship of the Gentiles. ‘He speaketh out, saying Martin. de Roa de Die Natali Sacro & Prof. p. 11—acclamato Tuteiari aliquo Gentis Divo, ut B. Jacobo apud Hisparo [...], praelia committuntur, &c. that it is a Rite amongst them to call upon the tutelar Deity of the Nation (as upon St. James in Spain,) at the beginning of their Battels.’ And this custom he parrallels with that of the Macedonians in Justin, who in their battels called sometimes upon Alexander, and sometimes upon Philip, as upon Gods; invoking their aid for the success of their Armes. And then he subjoyneth the practice of the Germans, who (as Tacitus reporteth) joyned not in fight with their enemies, 'till they had solemnly prayed to Hercules.

This kind of worship the Pope continueth to encourage, by setting up new Saints, as Tutelar Spirits, in his Canonizations of them. Thus for inscance sake, Pope Clement the Tenth confirmed the decree of Pope Clement the ninth, in which St. Rosa is created Patroness of the City Lima Bullar. de Can. B. Rosae. p. 499, &c., the chief Town and the Archiepiscopal seat in Peru; and principal Protectress of the same Kingdom of Peru, and of all the Provinces and Kingdoms of the Terra firma of all the Peruvian America, and of the Philippine Islands. And this it seems was done to this end Bullar. ib. ut venerationis fiat accessio, &c., that an addition might be made to the veneration of that Saint: ‘and that through her intercession the People of those parts might the more strongly hope for Patronage or Protection.’ So S. Thomas de Villanova is canonized by Alexander the seventh Bullar. de Can. S. Thomae de villanovâ, p. 278., who whilst he registreth him in the Calendar of his gods, useth this Exhortation: ‘Wherefore let us go with boldness to the throne of the Divine mercy, praying with heart and voice, that S. Thomas may preside over Christian people by [Page] his Merit and Example; that he may assist them with his Prayers and Patronage; and that in the time of wrath he may become their Reconciliation.’

Such Deities the Papacy setteth up; and nothing is more common than for the people of that Church to fall down and worship them in that quality. Neither can Travellers shun such Statues and Inscriptions, as give them advertisement of this worship of Tutelar Saints. Such an Inscription is that at Brussels betwixt the Quire and the Sacristy of the Cathedral D. Br. Trau. 2. part. p. 169. D. O. M. Intem [...]ratae Virgini Mariae, Sancto Lamberto, Eccles [...]ae & Patri [...] Divis Tutelaribus, Max▪ Henr. &c. po [...] bat. A. 1658.: The Monument is dedicated by Maximilian Duke of Bavaria, and Archbishop and Elector of Colen, to the immaculate Virgin, and to S. Lambert, as to the Tutelar Deities of that Church and Countrey. S. Michael also is the special Protector of that City, and upon the top of its Townhouse stands his Statue in brass. Who can go into Lentini, and not have notice of the three French Brethren and Martyrs, Alsio, Philadelfo, and Cirino, venerated there as its Patrons and Guardians See Peter della Valle's Travel. p. 307.? Who travelleth to Utopolis or S. Veit, and seeth not the four Chappels on the four Hills of S. Veit, S. Ulrick, S. Laurence, S. Helena? or heareth not of St. Veit, or St. Faith, as of one that cureth the Dancing-sickness known by the name of Chorea sancti viti? Who entreth Paris and heareth not St. Geneviefve celebrated as the Protectress of it? And is not she called the Guardian of France, and the North-star See Garnerius's Hymne de Sainte Genevi [...]sve Patrone de Paris. Par. A. 1603. and before it, by Morrell. these Verses. Tu flos siderei chori,—Francorum Imperii pii Regum tibi cura assidua, & Franci populi probi. And in it these p. 2.—Etoile singuliere Sous qui la Nef de la ville premiere Vogue sans crainte.— of her Imperial City? Who understandeth the ancient estate of England, and is ignorant of the Veneration which it hath had for its presumed Patron St. George? So great it was, that when certain Holy-days were abrogated in the Reign of Henry the Eighth, the Feast of St. George Ann. 1536. See Bishop Sparrow's Collect. p. 225, 226. was excepted, as well as those of the Apostles and our Lady. Who crosseth the Ocean, and visiteth the Mexican America, and observeth not that [Page] St. Joseph is made the Patron of new Spain? The Synod of Mexico confirmed at Rome, hath declared him to be such Syn. Mexic. Stat. par. 1. c. 14. p. 1354., and given particular order for the celebration of his Holy-day.

I am not able to recount to how many places, persons and things the Protection of the holy Virgin is said to extend Aug. wich. in Epist. ad omnes Marianos Cultores.—Urbs Antverpia, cui tu praesides, ut sacra Marchionissa, seu medio Regina foro—. The fancy of the eloquent Jesuit Rapine hath made her Ren. Rap. Ecl. Sacr. in Virg. Assump. Eclo. 13. p. 41, 42, 43. Ed. Lug. Bat. An. 1672. to preside over Clouds and Tempests Postquam illam coeli Tempestatumque potentem esse de-dit.—, over Tillage and Pasturage —Virgo—Respice nos facilis.—Interea largo proventu plenior Annus Contingat, veniat (que) suo seges ampla colono. Da Glebâ Agricolis faelices [...]ere campos. Pascua da Greglbus, pingues da matribus Agnos. Et qua tuta dabas Pastoribus otia, serva., over Flocks and Herds. To her as Queen of Heaven, the Author of the Monument of Galeacius Caracciolus Chytr. Monumenta Neopol. p. 50. Tibi Regina Coeli, &c., dedicateth it in the quality of a Marble-Chappel, in thankful acknowledgment, of the many favours she conferred on that Marquis, and of the many evils from which she secured him. At Rome in the Church Mariae S. Angeli, the Inscription seemeth to install the Virgin into that Presidency over it, which before was held by some god of the Gentiles Chytr. Mon. Roman▪ p. 20. Quod [...]uit Idolum, nunc Templum est Virginis, Auctor est Pius [...]pse pater: Daemones aufugite.. A like change is insinuated in the Inscription found in the AEdes Martis, turned into the Temple of St. Martina Id. ibid. p. 22. Martyrii, Virgo, gestans, Martina, Coronam; Ejecto hinc Martis nomine, Templa tenet.. Now what seemeth all this but refined Heathenism? When men trust in St. Hubert as the Patron of Hunters; do not they the like to those who trusted in Diana the Goddess of that Game, and the Patroness of Forests? upon which account she was of old the celebrated Deity of this Island, which then was a kind of continued Wood Gildas Poëta Brit. ap. Pont. Virunnium. l. 1. c. 1. p. 1. Diva potens nemorum terror sylvestribus Apris,—&c.. When they apply themselves in a strom to the Virgin Mary; do not they the like to those who in perils by water called on Venus Grot. ad Johan. Reigersb. ex vero navigantem. Epigram. l. 2. p. 301.—At Pelago Venus orta, metu desistite, dixit, non erit in nostris tam grave crimen aquis.—? When they put confidence in St. Margaret, or the Virgin Mary See J. H. Manual. Prayers in Travel. p. 519, 520. as [Page] the Patronesses of Women in Travail, and Children in Infancy, do they not follow their pattern who relied on Diana Hence they called her [...], quasi partûs Arbitra., Statina See T. Bartholin. de Puerperio vet. p. 72. or Cunina See Pignor. de Servis. p. 380, 381. in such cases? When they pay their Vows to the Virgin for the safety of their Children, do they not like Bassa or Sulpitia in the Inscriptions of Gruter Grut. Inscr. p. 24., who paid theirs in the same case to Lucina or Juno; and to Castor and Pollux Id. ib. p. 98. Cast. & Poll. Diis Magnis Sulpitia, &c. ob fil. saluti restitutum. ? And is there so vast a difference betwixt the devotion of a Heathen Conquerour who offened his Sword to Mars; and of Henry of Valois, who obtaining a great Victory over the Rebels in Flanders, consecrated to the Virgin the Horse on which he charged, and the Arms with which he so successfully fought? On both sides here is confidence in a Coelestial creature as a substitute of the supreme God, and thanks most solemnly paid to it. Only for the Objects, the one sort of them is Christian, the other Pagan; but both kinds were reputed Divine, and worthy, by their Adorers; both were judged Coelestial Magistrates Catech. ex Decr. Conc. Trid. p. 389: Quòd si Reges, per quos Deus mundum gubernat, tanto honore afficiuntur: Angelicis spiritibus, quos Deus ministros suos esse voluit, &c. and Senators Hor. Par. An. Sect. 2. Hymn: Commun. in Festo cujuscunque Sancti. p. 118, 119. Gaude Felix N—Inter Coeli Senatores jam locatus, fac exores Christum mundi Judicem: ut quam sontes, beu, timemus, Te Patrono declinemus, Iram Dei vindicem. Culpas lava, carnem froena, &c., as the Saints are called by Horstius, and the Catechism of Trent. And by the Intercession of such Senators, is often meant in the Church of Rome, their prevalence with God in executing the office of their Patronage. Hence they sometimes pray to God J. H. Manual, p. 386., ‘That the glorious Intercession of the ever-blessed and glorious Virgin Mary may protect them, and bring them to life everlasting.’

The particular Instances of the Romish Patrons and Patronesses are too many to be here Historically spoken of. I find enough of them together in the learned Homily against the peril of Idolatry, and with them I will at present content my self. ‘What, I pray you, saith that Homily Third part of the Hom. against Idol. p. 46, 47, 48., be such Saints with us to [Page] whom we attribute the defence of certain Countries, spoiling God of his due honour herein, but Dii Tutelares of the Gentile Idolaters? such as were Belus to the Babylonians and Asfyrians; Osiris and Isis to the Egyptians; Vulcan to the Lemnians; and to such other. What be such Saints to whom the safe-guard of such Cities are appointed, but Dii Praesides with the Gentiles Idolaters? such as were at Delphos, Apollo; at Athens, Minerva; at Carthage, Juno; at Rome, Quirinus, &c. What be such Saints to whom, contrary to the use of the Primitive Church, Temples and Churches be builded, and Altars erected; but Dii Patroni of the Gentiles Idolaters? such as were in the Capitol, Jupiter; in Paphus-Temple, Venus; in Ephesus-Temple, Diana; and such like.—When you hear of our Lady of Walsingham, our Lady of Ipswich, our Lady of Wilsdon, and such other; what is it but an imitation of the Gentiles Idolaters; Diana Agrotera, Diana Coriphea, Diana Ephesia, &c. Venus Cypria, Venus Paphia, Venus Gnidia?—Terentius Varro sheweth that there were three hundred Jupiters in his time. There were no fewer Veneres and Dianae. We had no fewer Christophers, Ladies, and Mary Magdalens, and other Saints.—They have not only spoiled the true Living God of his due Honour in Temples, Cities, Countries and Lands, by such devices and inventions as the Gentiles Idolaters have done before them; but the Sea and Waters have as well especial Saints with them, as they have had gods with the Gentiles; Neptune, Triton, Nereus, Castor and Pollux, Venus, and such other; in whose places be come St. Christopher, Clement, and divers others, and specially our Lady to whom Shipmen sing, Ave Maris stella. Neither hath the fire scaped the Idolatrous Inventions; for instead of Vulcan [Page] and Vesta, the Gentiles gods of the Fire, our men have placed St. Agatha, and make Letters on her day for to quench fire with. Every Artificer and Profession hath his special Saint, as a peculiar God. As for example, Schollars have St. Nicholas, and St. Gregory; Painters, St. Luke; neither lack Soldiers their Mars, nor Lovers their Venus, amongst Christians. All Diseases have their special Saints, as gods the curers of them. The Pox St. Roche, the Falling-evil St. Cornelis, the Toothach St. Appolin, &c. Neither do beasts and cattel lack their gods with us; for St. Loy is the Horseleach, St. Anthony the Swineherd, &c. Where is Gods Providence and due Honour in the mean season? Who saith, The Heavens be mine, and the Earth is mine, the whole World and all that in it is. I do give victory, and I put to flight. Of me be all counsels and help, &c. Except I keep the city, in vain doth he watch that keepeth it. Thou Lord shalt save both men and beasts. But we have left him neither Heaven, nor Earth, nor Water, nor Country, nor City, Peace nor War, to rule and governn, either men nor beasts, nor their diseases to cure.—We join to him another helper, as [if] he were a Noun Adjective; using these sayings: Such as learn, God and S. Nicholas be my speed. Such as neese, God help, and S. John. To the Harse, God and S. Loy save thee—’

The Papists have read such Discourses as these; and they endeavour to abate the force of them by the following evasion: ‘The reasonableness of making addresses to one particular Saint T. G. Cath. no Idol. pax. 3. ch. 2. p. 364, 365, 366, 367, 368. rather than another in some particular occasions, will appear from the consideration upon which it is usually done: And that is not a division of Offices among the Saints, every one of whom may equally intercede without entrenching upon the propriety of another; and [Page] their intercession may be implored by us in all kinds of necessities whatsoever: But it is grounded upon a reflexion which the Suppliant makes either upon some signal Grace which shined in that Saint above others, as Patience, Humility, Chastity, &c. (for which reason the Church saith of every one of them, Non est inventus similis Illi, there was no other found like to him) or upon the particular manner of his suffering Martyrdom, or some particular Miracle, or such like remarkable passage in his life and actions, which may serve to excite the hope of the Suppliant to obtain redress by means of his intercession, in a case which he conceives to bear a sutableness and conformity to something acted or suffered by him. Now the efficacy of Prayer being grounded on hope, and it being natural to us to hope for redress where others have found it, or where it may more reasonably be expected, by reason of some particular qualification we apprehend in the person to whom we address; it is manifest, that as the abovesaid reflexion serves to erect our hope, so also it conduceth to the end of Prayer, that is, the obtaining of what we pray for. Hence it is, that although all the Divine Attributes are really one and the same indivisible Perfection in God; yet for pardon we flye to his Mercy; for knowledg, to his Wisdom; for protection, to his Power, &c. And S. Paul assigns the remission of our sins to the Passion of Christ; but our Justification (by which we rise to newness of life) to his Resurrection. He was Rom. 4. 25. delivered to death for our sins, and rose again for our justification. The reason whereof he gives in the Epistle to the Hebrews, c. 2. v. 18, where he saith, That it behoved Christ to be made like his brethren in all things, that he might be a merciful and faithful High-priest in things [Page]pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people: For, saith he, in that he suffered himself, being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted: That is, by what he suffered himself, he is made prompt and ready to succour those who are in affliction and temptation. For it was true even of his most Sacred Humanity, what the Poet out of the very nature of humanity made another say, Hand Ignara mali, miseris succurrere disco; that by his own sufferings he had learnt how to compassionate the sufferings of others. And this was laid down by S. Paul as a powerful argument to perswade the Hebrews to put their hope in him for their reconciliation with God, because he was so particularly qualified and fitted for that work, by what he had suffered. Why then may not a like consideration of the fitness or qualification of one Saint above others, as so conceived by us (either for his eminent perfection in such a particular virtue, or some other remarkable passage in his life), be taken as a motive to invite us to address for the obtaining what we stand in need of, to his intercession before others? The Scripture, we know, to persuade us to patience in adversity, bids us James 5. 10. reflect upon the sufferings of Job; and why may not his eminence in that virtue, as it serves for an example of our imitation, be also taken as a particular motive of our having recourse to his intercession? And when Jacob blessed the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasses, among so many Angels whose assistance he might have implored, he begs for that Angel in particular to be their Guardian, who had delivered him out of all his troubles Gen. 48. 16.. The Angel (said he) who delivered me from all evils, bless these children: And why, but because he thought that he who had been so careful to [Page] deliver him, would be as careful to deliver them? And upon this account, were I in danger of being shipwrackt, I should sooner flye to the Intercession of S. Paul, who had saved by his prayers all his fellow-passengers in the ship from being drowned, than to another who had never been in the like danger. Behold here, then, the crime of Catholicks in calling particularly upon the Angel Raphael when they travel, because he protected young Tobias in his journey; upon S. Roch against the Plague, because his charity was signal in assisting those who were infected with it; upon S. Nicholas against Tempests, because he saved some by his prayers, who in a storm at Sea invoked him, while yet alive; upon S. Apollonia for the Tooth-ach, because all her teeth were struck out for her free confession of Christ; and upon S. Michael and S. George against Enemies, because the latter was by profession a Soldier, and a most valiant Martyr; and the former is recorded in Scripture Dan. 10. 21. and 12. 1. to be the Protector of the people of God.’

This excuse hath much more of ingenuity in it, than that of Alexander Hales Alex. de Hales, summ. part. 4. quaest. 26. memb. 3. Art. 5.. ‘Because (said he) we miserable men, or some of us at least, are more affected sometimes towards some certain Saint, than towards our Lord himself; therefore God, having compassion on our misery, is pleased that we should pray unto his Saints.’

As if God would indulge us in so unworthy and irreligious a passion.

The former excuse (I say) is much more plausible, yet it is invalid, and may be shewn to be so, by these following Considerations.

First, It is acknowledged that Christs sympathy is one motive of our trust when we pray to him; but [Page] it is the Divinity which he possesseth, and not the infirmity which he suffered, which inviteth us at this distance to call upon him.

Secondly, If there were as much ground to think that the Saints know our particular states, as there is to believe their charity for the Church in general, it might not be improper to apply our selves to such, whose former circumstances do best befit our present ones.

Thirdly, Though the sympathy of the Saint be a direction to him or her, how doth this direct Mariners to the Virgin Mary in a Tempest? She was never, that they are assured of, in peril by Sea; neither know they that she ever crossed a greater Water than that of Jordan or Nilus. If they take their ground from the derivation of the Name Mary, as signifying (saith Xaver. Hist. Christi Pers. p. 18. Xaverius) Ruler of the Sea; on what an uncertain foundation do they build? Nothing is more apt to deceive us, than fanciful Etymology. And for this word, Xaverius confesseth it may signifie High, or the bitterness of the Sea also. And L. de Dieu hath shewed, De Dieu in Animadvers. in excerpta ex Hist. Christi. p. 540. that it may as well denote a drop of the Sea.

If they answer with this Author, That not only the sympathy of the Saint, but some miracle wrought after supplication, exciteth our hope, and encourageth to pray; That subterfuge shall be anon consider'd. In the mean time I only put this short question, What was it that excited the first man that pray'd to such a Saint? Not a miracle in answer of prayer; for the first prayer is sure before its answer.

Fourthly, Though many Saints have a like sympathy, and may by license of the Roman Church be allowed to be prayed to apart or together Yet herein T. G. contradicts Gabriel Biel, who saith in this matter, Nou omnia possumus omnes; meaning that every Saint can't give that aid which some other can. G. Biel in Ca [...]. Missae, Lect. 32. N.: though they do not shut these Coelestial Patrons out of one anothers Provinces, but suffer St. James to be prayed [Page] to in England, and St. George in Spain; yet this doth not hinder the impiety of praying to any of them as subordinate rulers under God. They are still Patrons, though some of them be a kind of joint-Patentees; and one or other of them has in all cases such power by commission, that little motive is left for immediate application unto God; and much trust and gratitude due to him is paid to these Delegates.

Fifthly, The Angel whose protection Jacob implored for the safeguard of Ephraim and Manasses, as having had himself experience of his aid, was a Diviner Spirit than either Michael or Gabriel, even the Logos of God. This is the opinion of Novatianus, declared once and again in his Novat. de Trin. c. 27. p. 725. ad Calc. op. Tertull. Book of the Trinity. This is the opinion of many of the Fathers, whose Testimonies shall be produced in my Fourteenth Chapter. At present it may suffice to bring forth that plain one of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus S. Cyril. Alex. Tom. 5. par. 1. p. 116, 117.. ‘An Angel is said to have striven with the Patriarch Jacob, and this Divine Writ testifies; but the holy man retaining him, said, I will not let thee go unless thou bless me. Now this Angel was God; which the words of the Patriarch shew, whilst he saith, I have seen God face to face. Him (appearing to him as an Angel) he desireth to bless the Children.’

And a while after he thus discourseth.

‘When Esau his Brother designed against him, he did not invoke an Angel, but God, saying, Take me, O Lord, out of the hands of my brother Esau, for I stand in fear of him.’

Sixthly, The story of Raphael protecting Tobias is not found in Canonical Scripture. But if it be, notwithstanding, a true report, this being a peculiar favour of God in an extraordinary case, it doth not encourage men in all emergencies to pray for the like, [Page] without a promise from God. He sendeth not all to be our guides, who may sympathize with our estate. The Angels who never sustain'd infirmity, do not so; neither doth the ministration of an Angel argue that of a Saint. Nor doth it follow that God doth use such ministrations so frequently and visibly under the Gospel, as under the Law, in which dispensation his Shechinah, in which the Angels attended, was shewn often on Earth.

Seventhly, If St. Roch once assisted the infected, it is not proved thence that God sends him where-ever he sends that heavy judgment. And how appeareth it that he ever helped at a distance in that dreadful sickness, which requires a Domine Miserere? Why, because (say they) the infected prayed to him, and were healed. But the event is not always the effect; and God in pursuance of his own greater and mysterious ends, doth often answer the matter of the requests of the superstitious and the wicked. And often there are other ordinary second Causes, which men fancy by the event to have been more extraordinary and divine. They who among the Heathens prayed to Lavina for her assistance in a cleanly cheat, might impute the effect unto their Goddess, though she never understood them, and their own cunning brain and slight of hand brought the couzenage to pass with such undiscovered Art. S. Austin will furnish us with a better instance, a matter of fact. In his Eleventh Chapter de Curâ pro mortuis, he telleth of one Eulogius a Master of Rhetorick in Carthage, who was perplexed with a knotty place in the Rhetoricks of Cicero, which he was next day to interpret to his Schollars: ‘And in that night, saith the Father, I interpreted unto him in his dream, that which he understood not. Nay, not I, but my Image, I being wholly ignorant of this affair, and being so far beyond [Page] the Sea, doing or dreaming some other thing, and being wholly careless of his cares.’ The mans brain was heated, and amongst other Images that of S. Austin came in his mind, he being then the fam'd Schollar in Africa; and his dreams (as often it happens) were luckier than his waking thoughts; and he imputed to St. Austin that which followed his Apparition in the brain, though that was not the cause of it.

Eighthly, if St. Michael was once sent to succour the Jews, it is not to be thence concluded, that Saints do the like, or that he himself hath always the same Office, in reference to the quality or the object of it; or that Angels appear alike under the dispensation of the Logos substituted without union to manhood, and that of him incarnate, and installed King of the World; nor do all the Learned think that by Michael is always meant an Angel.

In sum, the Romanists are not so much charged with Idolatry, for praying to such Saints as most sympathize (in their conjecture) with their present conditions; as for trusting in them as such whom God hath impower'd to succour all Christians in equal circumstances and like places; and for returning the thanks to them which are oftenest due to the immediate Providence of the Omnipresent God. If they do not apply themselves to them as such, why do they use such Forms in their Prayers? Why do they give them the name of Patron, and Guardian-Saints? Why do they as well call on the Virgin, as on the highest Angel for Guardianship? Why do the Popes in their many Bulls declare them to be Patrons of such places, and helpers in such particular cases? Why are the people directed in the choice of them, and advis'd to an especial affiance in them Horst. Par. An. Sect. 5. p. 294. Sanctos, maximè Patronos, invoca, &c.? Why is there mention in their Authors, of their appearance in person to [Page] their Supplicants, with present aid, and further assistance? This is done by Bernardin de Bustis, and recited in a Manual Printed at Paris with approbation L'office de la vierge, &c. ou sont adjoutees—Allegresses de la vierge, &c. A Paris, 1659. p. 340, 341, &c., in a Discourse of the seven Joys of the Virgin; to wit (in their account) her Annunciation by the Angel; her Visitation by Elizabeth; the glorious Birth of Christ; the Adoration of the Magi; the Retrieve of her Son in the Temple; the appearance of Christ after his Resurrection; and her happy departure and Assumption into Heaven. With these Joys, saith Bernardin, St. Thomas of Canierbury, a devout servant of the Virgins, did every day salute our Lady. To him (as he proceeds) she one day appeared when he was at his Prayers; and she assured him, that his saluting her with her seven Joys on earth [which sometimes were In lib. Festiviali. in Annunc. B. M. p. 233. said to be but five] was very agreeable to her; but that the saluting of her with her seven Joys in Heaven, [to wit, her Exaltation above the Angels; her illuminating Paradise as the Sun does the World; the reverence paid her by Angels, Archangels, Thrones and Dominions; her being the Conveyer of all the Graces which Christ bestoweth; her sitting at the right hand of her Son; her being the hope of sinners in such sort, that all who praise and reverence her, are by the Father recompenced with eternal Glory; the augmentation of her graces and favours in Paradice until the Day of Judgment] was acceptable to her in a higher degree. And she promised to him, and to others also who should daily repeat these Salutations, adjoining to each an Ave Maria, that she would be present with them at the hour of death; and that for her sake they should be saved. In which instance we have the Patronage of the Virgin asserted, and also a proof of the Imposture of such Appearances, from the Story it self, which representeth not a blessed Saint ascribing [Page] all Glory to the great God, but a vain perfon delighted with the unjust flatteries of her self.

This, then, is the way in which I conceive the Church of Rome giveth away a degree of the Honour of God the Father; to wit, by her disposal of the Government of the World, though in subordination to his Supremacy, unto Angels and Saints, without any sufficient declaration from him, that he hath been willing so to prefer them; and by her worshipping of them in that quality which her own imagination hath enstated them in.

I am next to consider how the Church of Rome doth by such estimation and worship, entrench on the Divine Honour with respect to Christ as Mediator. God hath not owned any Substitute besides his Son, who hath all power given to him, being as God-man most capable of it. And though the Church of Rome doth acknowledg Christ to be the Author of Salvation, and the Supreme Patron and Mediator; yet still it doth entrench upon his Honour, in its worship of Saints, three several ways.

First, More particularly, in that Worship which is given to the Virgin.

In the second place, More generally, in the worship given to so many Saints and Angels.

Thirdly, In the frequency of the worship given, both to the Virgin, and to the other Heavenly spirits.

First, The Honour of Christ is particularly abated in the customary worship of the blessed Virgin. Abated, I say, not quite removed. For the Prayers to her are still per Dominum, through Christ her Son [though it seemeth sometimes to be intimated (as in the Monstra Te esse Matrem, Shew thy Mother-hood, in the Hymn Ave Maris stella) that she can command his Answers]. And when God is invoked by her Merits, her [Page] Merits are supposed to be derived from his Ex. gr. in Miss. Rom. in F [...]st. Praes. B. M. p. 532. Deus, Qui B. Mariam—hodierno die in Templo praesentari voluisti; praesta, quaesumus, ut ejus Intercessione in Templo gloriae Tuae praesentari mereamur per Dominum nostrum—. But an abatement there is of Christs Honour, by that supereminent Advancement which is given to her by the practice of that Church, without any declaration contrary to it. For that Church doth set her, as Solomon did his Mother, in the Throne with himself, though on that hand which signifies that he is still the Supreme. Now it is manifest that Honour is diminished, both where it is equally shared, and where a second keepeth not distance, but doth obtain a point next to the first. For from degrees of Power and Distance, arise degrees of Honour; and a Prince that sitteth alone in the Chair of State, is thereby in possession of higher Honour, than he who hath a Second sitting next him, though on the less honourable hand. And accordingly it was esteemed a defect in Policy, both through the occasion given by it of being supplanted, and through the diminution it made of Supreme Honour (of which each degree is a degree of Power), when any Princes in the Roman Empire [such as AElius Adrianus, and Antoninus the Philosopher] admitted Seconds to sit with them in the Throne of Government, though themselves reserved still the first Place, and remained, as it were, the Heads of the Empire.

Now it is the practice of the Church of Rome to celebrate the Virgin as a kind of Co-Ruler with her Son; to salute her (as we heard but now from the Office of her Seven Allegresses) as a Queen on the right hand of Christ in his Throne.

The Scripture hath in it this Prophecy of the Messiah Isa. 11. 1., There shall come forth a Rod out of the stem of Jess, and a branch, or flower, shall grow or rise out of his roots. Hierom Xaverius hath wrested this place, even from the sense of the Vulgar Translation; and he thus readeth it in his Persic Gofpel Xaver. Evangel. Pers. p. 33.: A true [Page]branch shall rise out of the root of Jesse, and out of that branch a flower shall be born: Misapplying the first to the Virgin, and the second to Christ, whilst both are spoken of him. To this misinterpretation he might be led by the Hymn in the Breviary Brev. Rom. Ave Regina—Salve Radix Sancta. Ad Completor. p. 107., which saluteth her by the Title of the Holy Root. And it is evident by the Psalter of Bonaventure, which is known to turn Lord into Lady, throughout the Psalms (not omitting to Travest that place of, The Lord said unto my Lord; into, Our Lady said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand); and by Salazar, who in his Commentary on the Proverbs interpreteth Wisdom of the Virgin; that the Marians would scrue up the sense of the Old Testament into the assertion of a kind of coequality of the Virgin with Christ. Hence Baronius himself calleth her the Ark, in one place Baron. Annal. Tom 2. p. 863.; and in another Bar. Tom. 5. p. 771. Wichm. Sab. Mar. p. 192. Ecquod istud Tabe [...]naculum (Levit. 26.) nise Illa de Quâ Psaltes (Psal. 45.) sanctificavit Tab [...]rnaculum su [...]m Altissimus., the Tabernacle.

The things relating to Christ under the New Testament, are equally perverted by this inordinate devotion to that Virgin, who cannot give those a welcome reception, who with such affront to her Son, make their Court to her.

As the Scripture mentioneth the Nativity of Christ celebrated by a Quire of Angels, so doth the Roman Church observe the Nativity of the Virgin, from a story of melody heard from Heaven by a devout man in a Desart, on her birth-day. Hierom Xaverius Xiv. Hist. Christi. par. 1. p. 20, 21. hath set down this Story for Gospel among the Indians; and Innocent the fourth, upon that report, caus'd the dav to be Sacred.

As Christs triumphant Ascension is spoken of in the Scripture, and observed in our Church; so in the Legends of Rome there is frequent mention of her Assumption, and it is in that Church celebrated with pomp. Before that Office she is pictur'd, in the Missal [Page] lately Printed at Paris Missal. Rom. Par. 1660. p. 473., ascending with a glory about her head, in equal shew of triumph with Christ.

As Christ is said in the Te Deum, to have opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all Believers; so is the Virgin called by them, the Gate In Hymno, Av [...] Maris stella.—Coeli Porta. and the Hall-gate of Heaven J. Heigham in his manual. p. 384.. As he is called Gods beloved Son, so is she called Gods beloved Daughter Horst. Par. Animae. in Dedic. ante Sect. 7. p. 415.—Dilectae. aeterni Patris Filiae..

As Christ is said to be exalted above all things in Heaven and Earth; so is the Virgin called the Queen of Heaven, and sometimes the Queen of the Heavens, in reference to the Angels Missal. Rom. in Miss. Sacratiss. Rosarii B. V. M. p. 120. Ave Regina Coelorum, mater Regis Angelorum, &c., and sometimes the Queen of Heaven and Earth Horst. Par: An. p. 415. Angelorum dominae; Hominum Tutrici; Coeli Terraeque Reginae.. Nay the Jesuit Rapine hath enstated her in that Empire without any mention of the King her Son as above her R. Rapin. Eclog. Sacr. Ecl. 13. p. 41, 42. Postquam illam Coeli potestatumque potentem esse dedit, summoque Deus praefecit Olympo..

As Christ is acknowledged by Christians to be the Head of the Church, and the only Mediator and Advocate; so the Virgin is stil'd in the Synod of Mexico Concil. Mexic. Romae Confirmat. An. 1589. l. 3. Tit. 18. Sect. 12. p. 1298. Quid omnes speciali devotione gloriosissimam Virginem Mariam universalem Patronam & Advocatam prosequi debemus, &c., the Universal Patroness and Advocatress.

As the day has been divided into several portions in which devout people have prayed to God and Christ; so seven Canonical Hours have been appointed for the worship of the Virgin Genebrard. A C. 1088. Cum jam esset statutum ut Clerici Sept. hor as' canon. quotidiè dicerent; totidem jussit in concilio apud Claromontem A. C. 1096. recitare quotidie in laudem Virginis, & instituit ipsius officium in Sabbathis. See Hotting. Hist. Eccl. c. 11. vol. 2. p. 376..

As God and Christ have the Sunday sacred to them, so in the Roman Church the Virgin hath Saturday Horst. Par. An. Sect. 7. p. 417. Diem Sabbathi Deiparae Virginis Honori peculiariter dicavit Ecclesia. &c.. ‘On that day therefore, saith Augustine Wichmans In Sabb. Marian. c. 6. p. 63, 64., more Requests of miserable mortals are sealed by her the Chancelaress of the greatest King, in the Court of Heaven, than on all the other days of the week, though put together, [the Lords day not excepted.]’

[Page] On that day [rather than on our Lords,] Martin Navarre, and Lewis the Eleventh of France, desired to die Wichm. ibid. p, 61..

As it is said of the Father, that no man cometh to Christ except he draw him. So it is said of the Virgin, by Augustine Wichmans Id. ibid. c. 13. p. 191., who calleth her the Treasuress of Graces, that no man cometh to her Son, unless she draw him by her most holy Aids. As in the Litany, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Three Persons and one God are invoked; so in the next place, they pray thrice to the Virgin, saying Offic. B. M. p. 133, 134. S. M. ora, &c., Holy Mary pray for us; Holy Mother of God pray for us; Holy Virgin of Virgins pray for us. Other Saints, as also Angels, have there but one compellation.

The Jesuit Canisius in his Manual for Catholicks P. Canis. Man. Cath. Antv. A. 1588. p. 332. Aug. Wich. in Sabb. Mar. c. 13. p. 193. Si Maria non oraret, mundus totus non diu staret., hath made up his fifteenth Exercise of three Litanies, of which the third is that of the Missal. But the first is the Litany of Christ, who in it is addressed to in fourty-four compellations: And the second is the Litany of the Virgin, who hath just so many, and these amongst them: Thou cause of our joy! Thou seat of Wisdom! Thou Ark of the Covenant! Thou Gate of Heaven! Thou Refuge of Sinners! Thou Comforter of the afflicted! Thou help of Christians! Thou Queen of Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins, All Saints.

As in the Bible the Lord hath one hundred and fifty Psalmes, so (saith the Pope's Bull Bulla Sext. 4.) the Lady hath an hundred and fifty Salutations in her Rosary, which was therefore at first called her Psalter.

As Christ is the Lord in whom the Church hopeth; so the Virgin is called in the Roman Offices Octav. Rom. Edv. Antv. A. 1628. infra Octav. Fest. B. M. V. p. 50.—Tu es spes unica peccatorum, &c., The only hope of Sinners.

As Christ is said to be in Scripture, the Life; so the Virgin is called by the Marians, the Mother of Life Horst. Par. An. Sect. 7. p. 417. Non mireris si Matrem vitae, &c.. As devout Christians commend their souls, when they [Page] leave this world, into the hands of Christ; so these Marians commend theirs into the hands of the Virgin, being taught a form of so doing Maria mater Gratiae, &c. & horâ mortis suscipe.. ‘And they tell us, that upon this account Horst. ibid. hoc potiss. nomine cult. V. Deip. Commend. quod Clientibus suis in mortis agone fidelis semper Patron [...] & mater adsistat. &c. the worship of the Virgin is chiefly to be commended, that she is always present with her Clients in the agony of death, as a faithful Patroness and Mother.’ This is said by Horstius, who immediately crys out thus in a pang of Marian devotion, “O how many hath she snatched out of the Jaws of death! O how many hath she restored to “the favour of her Son, and unto Heaven! Such another Suppliant was the late Jesuit Labbee, who when he was dying, applied those words to the Virgin, which are used of Christ Labbe in Carm. in Praef. ante Op. Mar. Mercat p. 28. Ad Virg. Orat. Hic te ad sider [...] spiritus sequatur, in terris fuit usque qui secutus, Mariam Ducem & Auspicem Mariam..

I need not here add the Litany added to the Psalter of Bonaventure Psaltet of our Lady published with license, in F [...]ench at Paris, by C. Chappelet, A. 1601., in which our Lady, instead of God, is desired to have mercy, to deliver us from all evil, and from particular evils in such Forms as this: From the anger of God, from despair, pride, luxury, good Lady deliver us.

That which I have mentioned before this is such hyperdulia, or excess of Veneration, that by ascribing too much to a particular Saint, it diminisheth the Honour of our common Saviour. Thus it was not from the beginning; but the superstitious world hath departed from the first measures of the reverence due to the Virgin, and run into this insufferable extreme. And how this has come to pass, one of that Church, and one of the most judicious and disinteressed amongst them, has faithfully told us Father Paul in his Hist. of the Conc. of Trent. l. 2. A. 1546. p. 170.. After that the impiety of Nestorius had divided Christ, making two Sons, and denying him to be God, who was born of the Blessed Virgin; the Church, to inculcate the Catholick Truth in the minds of the Faithful, made mention of her in the Churches as well of the East as of the West, with [Page] this short form of words, in Greek, [...], in Latin, Maria Mater Dei; that is, Mary the Mother of God. This being instituted only for the Honour of Christ, was by little and little communicated also to the Mother, and finally applied to her alone. So when Images began to multiply, Christ was painted as a Babe in his Mothers arms, to put us in mind of the worship due unto him even in that Age: But in progress of time, it was turned into the worship of the Mother without the Son, he remaining as an Appendix in the Picture. The Writers and Preachers, especially those that were contemplative, carried with the torrent of the Vulgar, which is able to do much in these matters, leaving to mention Christ, invented with one accord new Praises, Epithetes, and Religious services; insomuch that about the year 1050, a daily Office was instituted to the Blessed Virgin, distinguished by seven Canonical hours, in a Form which anciently was ever used to the honour of the Divine Majesty: And in the next hundred years the worship so increased, that it came to the heigth, even to attribute that unto her, which the Scriptures speak of the Divine Wisdom. And amongst these invented Novities this was one, her total exemption from Original sin; yet this remained only in the breasts of some few private men, having no place in Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, or amongst the Learned. At last about the year 1136, the Canons of Lions dared to bring it into the Ecclesiastical Offices.

Secondly, The Honour of Christ is diminished by that Veneration, though of an inferior nature, which is given to so many Angels and Saints, as Presidents and Patrons in the Government of the Church. It is true, that the Honour of a Prince is increased by the multitude of his Attendants: Our Church therefore reverently declareth of Christ, That ten thousand times ten [Page]thousand minister unto him. But delegation of Power to many by commission as Presidents, and not as Angels and Messengers, Ministers and Attendants, is a diminution of Honour by cantonizing of Power. And he is most absolute, and reserveth most of dependance, and thanks, and trust, and reverence, to himself, who dispatcheth all things by his immediate Authority. For Commissions cut power into many channels, and import either love of ease, or want of power to execute in person. The Roman Emperors were, in their Dominions, high and mighty Potentates, and their Vassals flattered them as Deities in flesh. But they would have appeared greater still, if they had not cut their Empire into its Eastern and Western parts, and administred affairs by Prefects, Vicars, Counts, Dukes, Consuls, Correctors, Presidents and others, executing power by subordinate Lieutenancy. And doubtless the Praefectus Praetorio of Italy had many thanks paid him for his favours, without any acknowledgment made to the Emperor, though the fountain of his Power. In such cases, men look not beyond the State-officer, who befriends them, by virtue of his Patent and his derived Authority. But they would look to the Prince, if he immediately dispensed all honours and favours, though attended with a numerous guard, and employing many messengers and ministring Spirits.

A Caviller would, here, say, that by this Argument it may be concluded, that all Governours in this world, Ecclesiastical and Civil; all Princes and Magistrates; all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Superintendents and Presidents, are so many Idols, and Ordinances dishonourable to God and his Son. But judicious men will consider, that the Governments on earth are not the patterns of the invisible world. Here God ruleth, [Page] in this manner, not for his own sake, but for ours, we being mortal men, and needing the aids of men like our selves, whilst we sojourn in this body: and for him to administer immediately to our outward infirmities in this world, were for him to be always grosly incarnate.

This conceit of the invisible world as modelled like the visible, hath brought forth that excuse of a voluntary humility in the Romish Suppliants, who, as if the Court of Heaven were like that on Earth, dare not presume to come immediately to the King, but apply themselves to him by the mediation of some of his Officers. A King is but a man, and cannot hear all complaints in person, and redress all grievances. Could he do it with the Power, and Wisdom, and Grace, and easie operation of a Deity, all might then have immediate access to him, or to him by the Prince his Son, supposed to be of a like nature and quality. And who, on earth, when he is invited by the Monarch himself to apply himself to him immediately, or to him by his Son; addresseth himself to neither, but to some meaner Favourite, of whose interest, for the dispatch of his Affair, he hath no assurance given him?

Thirdly, should we lay aside this consideration of that Presidentship and Patronage, to which the Romanists entitle so many Saints; yet the very frequency used in addresses to them, though by mere request of their Praiers for us, would, not a little, tend to the diminution of the honour of God and Christ. It is notorious to those who pass the Seas in the same Bottoms with Romish Mariners, that those Seamen, in a storm, apply not themselves immediately to God, but repeat the Hymn, to the holy Virgin, of, Hail, Star of the Sea! To this purpose is that which Lipsius telleth Lips. Virg. Hallens. p. 1261. Op. of Thirteen men in peril by a Tempest, in their [Page] passage to Antwerp. Amongst them, the Master, conceiving no hope of saving the Vessel, or the lives of the Passangers, exhorted them to submit themselves wholly to God, and so to pass to a better state, after the loss of this. But, it seems, one amongst them suggested Vows and Invocations to the Lady of Halla; and his counsel is embraced. Straightway (says he) a light shone on the Vessel, and the Tempest ceased, and the Vessel arrived at the Haven, with loss of goods, but not of the Passengers, who repaired to Halla, and profesled themselves to owe their life to the Virgin, and paid with faithfulness, the Vows they had made. It had been more pious, surely, to have thanked God and the Virgin, or rather God alone, who, it may be, by other means, or by himself, was their deliverer. But superstitious men judg of Causes by the concomitancie of the effects, and not by the virtue which produceth them. And this is not only the fruit of superstition in the rude and ignorant, but in the politest of the Ecclesiastics. The very Jesuites (for so did Father Garnet See Proceed. ag. Traytors. pag. ult. crossing himself, he said, In nom. Patr. &c, then Maria mater Gratiae, &c. then in manus tuas, &c. then per crucis hoc signum fugiat procul omne malignum. Then he concludes with, Maria mater Gratiae, &c. at his execution) afford God the less of their Application by being so busied, at their last hour, with their aforesaid, Mary, Mother of Grace, Mother of Mercy, defend us from the enemy, and protect us in the hour of death: which Versicles (say the composers Confes. Saxon, in corp. Confes. p. 88. de Invoc. Hom, Pior. &c. of the confession of Saxony) we heard a Monk, a Professor of Divinity, inculcate, very often, to a dying man, without any mention of Christ Jesus. And it hath been commonly observed, as a great blot in the Romish devotions, That they use many Ave Maria's to one Pater Noster. [Which Collects, by the way, being repeated by them with such careless haste; the jabbering of any thing, in an indistinct, heedless way, is by us called patering]. Labbe a learned Jesuite, though in his sickness he was not forgetful of [Page] Christ his Saviour, yet he mentions the frequency of his addresses to the Virgin, during the rage of his Feaver See Garnerius in his Pref. to M. Mercator. p. 27, 28. Orat. ad Virg. Nec tu non mihi sae. pius vocata, Ardores faebris inter aestuosae, &c.. This a stander by, not knowing his principles, would have judged to have been the effect of his distemper. Thus, then, this new Marian devotion much diminisheth, and sometimes quite justleth out, the ancient and unquestionable worship of Jesus; as they say, S. Ambrose is almost forgotten, already, at Milan Spalatens. de Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5, p 93. Carolus prosecto M [...]diolani Ambrosii nomen ferme extinxit., through the newer veneration of S. Charles Borromee.

Two things now may be, perhaps, jointly pretended towards the disabling the foregoing Discourse; and I will return a brief answer to them.

First, It is taken for confessed, That those to whom the Romanists pray as unto Patrons and Patronesses, are real Saints in Heaven.

Secondly, The Romanists pretend to prove that God hath declared himself to have conferred such honourable office, place, and power upon these Patrons; by the miracles they have wrought for the behoof of their Clients.

For the first suggestion; It is confessed that they worship none but such as have been thought professors of Christianity, and such who are reputed to be exalted above either Hell or Purgatory. Notwithstanding this, I dare not avouch the eminent Saintship, and glorified estate of all that are canonized. They who read, without partiality, the History of S. Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, will be inclined to think him put into the Kalender by as much mistake, as many other things are put into our vulgar Almanacks. I see that, even some of the Roman Communion, do impute his saintship Essais de morale vol. 3. des d [...]faults des Gens de bien. Sect. 17. p. 318. Il y á g [...]ns de bien Qui examinant la vie de S. Thomas de Cantorbie, &c Dieu jugera de ce dif [...]erent plûtost par la pureté du coëur Du Saint, & par la mechan. ceté de son Adversaire, que par la fond de la [...]se. rather to the fervour of his zeal, than to the ground of his Cause.

[Page] What can a man that reverenceth God, think of the Saintship of St. Bernardin of Siena, when he considereth of his Doctrine, apt to give pain to the modesty of the Virgin, almost in Heaven it self? This Saint, after a logn comparison betwixt God and Blessed Mary See A. Rivet. l. 2. Apol. pro S. V. M. & Car. Drelinc [...]rtium de Honore B. V. M. debito., thus (thus blasphemously) concludeth. ‘If then we give to each their due, in that which God hath done for man, and which the Virgin hath done for God himself; you see for your comfort, that Mary hath done more for God, than God for man; whence God for the Virgins sake, is much obliged to us.’ Methinks by these words he is just such another Saint as the Author of the Conformities See He [...]r. Apol. for Herod. l. 1. c. 25. p. 205., who writes the parallel of Christ and St. Francis, and giveth to St. Francis, the preheminence. What can a peaceable Christian think of the Saintship of Pope Hildebrand, or St. Gregory the seventh? Was it not he who imbroiled the World; who taught Greg. 7. l. 8. Ep. 21. that Kings and ‘Dukes had their original from those who not knowing God, did by pride, rapines, perfidiousness, murthers, and by almost all manner of wickednesses (through the instigation of the Devil, the Prince of this world) affect to domineer over their equals, or other men, with blind ambition, and intolerable presumption;’ who deposed Henry the fourth King of the Germans, and absolved his Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance, and who endeavour'd to set up a Papal Monarchy to the disquiet of all Nations? Neither is it for the Honour of the Gospel of Peace to Saint either Pope Victor, or Pope Stephen, who first took upon them to be Bishops, or rather Censurers, out of the Diocess that belonged to them. Nor did the ancient Church own them as Saints or Martyrs, as doth the modern one of Rome See Consid. touching the true way to suppress Popery; in the Hist. acc. of the Reform. p. 81, 82, &c..

Interest of State hath oftentimes exalted them to [Page] the Honour of Saints, who had never obtained that high Title by their meer piety of life. It hapned tolerably in respect of the person, when Thomas Aquinas was registred among the Saints; for he was a man of great Scholastick Learning, and of a mighty zeal in the Roman way. But for the true reason of his being Canonized, it was secular enough. For Pope John the Two and twentieth, to depress the Franciscans, who did for the most part adhere to the Emperour Lewis of Bavaria, Excommunicated by him Father Paul in Hist. of Counc. of Tr. p. 170, 171. l. 2. Ed. ult., did canonize that Doctor and his Doctrine directly opposite to that of the Followers of St. Francis, in the Article of the Virgins Immaculate Conception.

Money also maketh such gods, being first made one it self. And who knows whether it hath not sometimes Canonized evil men? For they whom it thus bribeth, are not usually beyond the outward colour and pretence, respecters of Saintship. Canonization (they say) secureth Christians from worshipping the damned instead of the blessed. I wish (saith the Archbishop of Spalat: de Repub. Eccl. l. 7. c. 5. p. 94. Spalato) that it brings not to pass that very thing which they think it preventeth. ‘In this (as he goes on) are the faithful safe, if they reduce their worship to the sole worship of God.’ And here it is worthy our observation, that Gregory the ninth complained on his death-bed of that vicious easiness of his, whereby he listned to the dreams and visions of such who pretended to great sanctity, and occasioned great schisms and disturbances in the Church See Gerson. de Exam. Doct. par. 2. Cons. 3.. He meaneth this in all likelihood, of Catherine of Siena, by whom he was deluded, and thereby drawn into a desperate schism; yet she is St. Catherine, and her Clients are many. It is a strange infallibility with which the Pope is invested, if he can judg without error, of the manners of such whom he has seldom in his eye, and who [Page] want not their flatterers, whatsoever is their party. It is therefore much safer to own the ancient Saints, such as St. Chrysostome, and St. Ambrose, whom the whole Church Canonized by its consent, than such Modern ones as St. Catherine, and St. Thomas of Canterbury, whom the Authority of the Pope hath put into the Calendar. Of some then the Saintship is doubtful; and of some the very existence. For are not the three Kings of Colen as such, a very fiction? yet are they worshipped in the Roman Church, as Guardian-Saints Horst. Par. An. Sect. 2. p. 103. Commend. & Ubl. ad Sanctos tres magos & Reges, quorum sacra corpora religiosè asservat & colit Agr. Colonia. O sancti magi, &c.. And Horstius ‘prayeth them to obtain for him the frankincense of devout Prayer, the myrrh of Mortification, and the gold of Charity.’ Is not think you St. Almachius a substantial Patron? yet such a one there is in some Roman Calendars Baron. Mart. Rom. 1. Jan. p. 1., the title of Sanctum Almanacum, being first by mistake written too low against the first day of January; yet a Saint he must be. And Baronius is loth to part with him, and in his Martyrology he will have him to be the same with St. Telemachus Bar. ibid. p. 5..

But secondly, They will prove their Saints to be both Saints and Patrons by the miracles they work upon Invocation See Syn. Nicen. 2. Act. 4. p. 249, &c.. Thus the Popes in the Bullarium, recite the many miracles wrought by their Saints, and then they decree them a place in the Calendar. Thus the Catechism of Trent proves the honour of Patrocinie Cat. ex Decr. Conc. Trid. ad Parochos. in 1. Praec. p. 392. to be due to the Saints, by the wonders seen at their Sepulchres and Relicks. Thus Baronius Baron. Ann. A. C. 1085. N. 13. p. 612. Tom. 11. telleth of the Saintship and Miracles of the abovesaid Gregory the seventh, and of a virtue in his Garments equal to that in the handkerchers of the Primitive Christians, mentioned in the Acts. Thus Mr. White T. W. (under the borrowed name of Fran. Covent) in his Enchiridion of Faith, at the end of his Catechetical Dialogue. boasteth of the restitution of a leg (cut off and buried four years) to a young man who prayed to our Lady of Pilar; affirming the story to be sufficient to convert the whole world.

[Page] To this second Allegation many things may be returned.

First, When God wrought Miracles at the Tombs of the Martyrs, he wrought them not as answers to them who invoked Martyrs, (for in those times they were honoured as Saints, and as Soldiers dying in Christs cause, and not invoked as Patrons); but he thereby encouraged Christians in times of Persecution, and honoured their Religion in the sight of the Heathen.

Secondly, There is no reason to expect such Miracles in the setled Ages of Christian Religion, though there might be at the first planting of it. And,

Thirdly, We have had a long time, a fixed rule from whence we may learn the practical truth and duties of our Religion, the Word of God. Neither hath God left so great a part of his Worship as Prayer, to be derived from the dreams of the Melancholy, or the delusions of Satan, or the Tales of men who write Legends for the advantage of their cause, or other tricks of politick persons. He hath required us in Scripture to call upon him through Jesus Christ: and he hath confirmed this and his whole Gospel, by the real Miracles of his Apostles, after those of his Son; and the Gospel being thus fixed, we are not to expect any new discoveries of Evangelical duty by the voice or miracle of an Angel from Heaven, who if he should be in such manner sent to us, with any new Doctrinal or Moral Revelation, ought to be looked on by us as one that trieth our Faith, and not as one from whom a new rule of faith or manners is to be received.

Fourthly, Many Romish Miracles are events not effects. A Popish woman is extremely sick in body, she causeth an Image of the Virgin, as is the fashion now among some Romanists in England, to be hanged within [Page] her curtains, at the feet of her bed. She invoketh the Virgin, and useth Physick; she recovers by Art, by strength of nature, by any other way of Gods Providence; and the Virgin is entituled to the Cure, because the event followed their Invocation of her.

Fifthly, Many of the Miracles, are too light to be ascribed to the Saints of Heaven. The credulous Lipsius confirms the Invocation of our Lady of Halla by stories, some of them very strange, and some very ludicrous. He tells of a Boy raised by her from the dead after three days Lips. Virg. Hall. c. 19. p. 1264.. Of a Taylor whom she helped to his needle and thread Lips. ibid. c. 25. p. 1272., after they had been swallowed down by him. Of a Soldier who by Miracle lost his nose Id. ibid. c. 7. p 1256., having threatned to cut off that of her Image. So Cantapratanus and Antoninus See Aug. Wichmans Sab. Mar. P. 73. tell at large, how the Virgin mended the hairy shirt of Saint Thomas of Canterbury.

Sixthly, Many of them are mere cheats performed by cunning men under the notion of pious frauds. A Priest skilled as much in Physick as Divinity, knows the sick Romanist to whom he is Confessor, to need a vomit. He exhorteth him to invoke the holy Virgin; he biddeth him view well her Image which he hath put into an Antimonial cup; he adviseth him to drink of that liquor into which her Image and her blessing hath infused virtue, and to repeat his devotions to the Virgin his Patroness. The sick ignorant man obeys, believes him, dischargeth his stomack, and is presently eased. He crys out, a Miracle, a Miracle; he is constant to his Aves all his days.

There are some who know this to be an History, though I have told it in the form of a supposition.

Seventhly, Many Wonders and Apparitions are the delusions of the Devil, and dangerous snares in which he entangleth the commonalty of that Church. By this [Page] means he often reconciles himself to their favour, and they take him in this disguise for a real Angel of Light. What other construction can a wise man make of the story in Mathew Paris concerning the Specter said to appear to the Earl of Cornwall Mat. Paris in A. C. 1100.? ‘The same hour, saith the Reporter, that William Rufus fell by the hand of Sir Walter Tyrrell, the Earl of Cornwall being alone in the Forrest, met with a great hairy black Goat, carrying the King black and naked, and wounded through the midst of his breast. He adjuring the Goat by the holy Trinity to tell what this meant, the Goat made him this reply: I carry to his doom your King, or rather your Tyrant, William Rufus. For I am an evil spirit, and an avenger of that malice of his with which he raged against the Church of Christ; and I procured his murther.’

They who believe these Legends, and take such Apparitions as measures of their Faith, will think the Devil good-natur'd towards Christianity, and an executor of vengeance on the enemies of it; though in truth he himself is its greatest and most inveterate foe, and wounds it deepest when he strikes at it in the disguise of a friend.

The stories concerning the appearance of the Virgin to her Clients are very numerous, and of them too many represent her in unbecoming postures. And such appear [...]nces should rather move the dread and abhorrence, than encourage the Invocation of the Romanists, being either the Images of an unclean brain, or the Specters of impure Devils.

Lastly, Let not the Papists prove their worship of Saints, as the Heathen did their worship of Daemons.

And here I end my Discourse concerning the Worship of Saints in the Roman Church, as Patrons, and Patronesses, as Presidents and Lieutenants in the Government [Page] of the World, with the sense of the judicious and moderate Archbishop of Spalato Spalat. de Republ. Ecclesiast. l. 7. c. 12. p. 287..

‘This in my judgment is the great objection against the Invocation of Angels, the Holy Virgin, or other Saints whose souls are with God in Heaven, that it is in the nighest degree of peril to become Religious Worship; for it is out of doubt that the ruder people do religiously invoke the Saints; and that many are internally more affected with religious passion towards the Virgin, or some Saint, than towards Christ himself. For they invoke not a Saint as one that prayeth for them, but as the principal Helper. Neither say they, Pray for me; but help me; Come to my Aid; Save me. Nor do they express it in words, or understand it in their minds, that these things be done for them by the Saints praying for them; but that the Saints themselves do immediately perform these things. And in invocating of them, many wholly devote themselves, all their soul, and and spirit, to the Virgin Mary and the Saints; and subject themselves wholly to them in Spirituals: which is a kind of formed Idolatry.’

Now though by this Discourse, I may have given offence unto the Marians; or rather said that which will be made an offence by their misconstruction; I am not jealous that I have at all offended those blessed spirits, if they have knowledg of that which I write. For they are not covetous of undue honour; but cast those Crowns with high indignation under their feet, which are set on their heads to the dishonour of God, by the Idolatrous flatteries of foolish men.

CHAP. XI. Of the Idolatry Charged on the Papists in their Worship of Images. And first of the Worship of an Image of God.

[Page]

IT still remaineth that I speak of the Worship of Images in the Roman Church, and of that degree of Idolatry with which it seemeth to be stained.

And for Images I will briefly consider, those of the Trinity, of God, of Christ, of the Saints, and under that of Christs, the statue of the Cross.

For the Image of the Trinity we must not charge either the making or the worshipping of it upon the very constitution of the Church of Rome, though men of that Communion have often done both, and the Missals, Breviaries, and Manuals Printed with license in these times See the Front. of de Sales of the Love of God, &c. abound with such Pictures. Formerly that Church was very severe against such practices. And Pope John the 22d Aventin. Annal. Bojor. l. 7. p. 751. See Epist. 32. Alexandri P. 3. ad Soldanum Iconii baptizari cuplentem. ap. Concil. Max. Tom. 10. p. 1214. B.—Licet nihil invenire possimus, quod expressam babeat unitatis, quae in Deo est, & summae Trinitatis Imaginem, &c. arraigned certain people in Bohemia and Austria, who had painted God the Father as an old man, and the Son as a young man, and the Holy Ghost as a Dove, as violaters of Religion: And he pronounced them Anthropomorphites, and condemned some of them to the Fire. It seems the modern Popes are not so strict: neither did the late Printers of the Missal at Paris, or of the Manual of Horstius at Colen, dread their Fire; they having adorned the Copies of those Books with such dangerous Sculptures. And it should seem by what Mr. Baxter hath said Mr. Baxter in his Commonwealth, c. 13. p. 457., ‘That some among our selves have had a zeal for such Pictures; for he tells of a Tumult raised where he [Page] had dwelt, upon a false rumour, that the Churchwardens were about to obey the Parliaments Order, in taking down the Images of the Trinity about the Church.’ But most probable it is, that the zeal of the multitude was ready to defend such Images, or paintings in windows, rather as the ornaments of the place, in general; than, distinctly, as Pictures of the mysterious Trin-unity.

Concerning the Image of God, I find not now, as in former times, in the publick Books of the Church of Rome, any forms of Benediction, by which it should be consecrated; though there be forms enough of the consecration of Crosses, and of the Images of Christ and his Saints. Neither doth the Council of Trent ordain, either the making, or the veneration of the Image of God, though it supposeth that it is, sometimes, painted in sacred story, for the use of their people. For it giveth order Conc. Trid. de Invocat. vener, &c. p. 896. quod si aliquando Historias, &c. that the people be instructed so far, as not to take such a Picture for Divinity figured. Nay the Catechism, by Decree of that Council, speaketh thus, in the explication of their first Commandment Catech. ex Decr. Conc. Trident. p. 394.. ‘Moses, when he would turn the people from Idolatry, said to them, You saw no similitude, on the day in which the Lord spake to you in Horeb from the midst of the fire: which that most wise Lawgiver, therefore said, lest, being seduced by error or mistake, they should make an Image of the Divinity, and so give the honour due to God unto a creature.’ Yet that such Images are made, and honoured in the Roman Church, is very notorious. And it is not long since, here in England, some Protestants saw a silver Image of God the Father, carried in Procession, in the Passionweek, and venerated with shews of high devotion. The Learned, who are cautious, forbear the open defence [Page] of such Images; yet they call them Judaizers who esteem the worship of God, by them, to be Idolatry. And, in their discourses, they seem to favour this Practice, so far as the tenderness of that subject will suffer it to be touched, by saying there is no. express Text against it See T. G. Catholicks no Idolaters. c. 3. P. 33, &c., together with other very kind expressions, which discover their inclination. Also the frequency and allowance of such Pictures, which under their strict Discipline is scarce to be imputed to the liberty of Painters and Engravers, she weth many Ecclesiasticks to be well-willers to them; [though not as true representations; the heresie of the gross Anthropomorphites being, as such, renounced by them]. I instance only in that frontispiece which is put before every of the three parts of the Roman Pontifical, Printed at Lyons. There, on the Top, in a very wooden cut, is pictured an old man with a Globe in his hand, and a glory streaming from all parts of him. On his head there is a Triple Crown, or Miter, and over it this Motto, Holy-Trinity, one God, have mercy upon us. At the bottom, the Pope is plac'd, in a like Garb, with Miter, and Key; and a glory about his head.

I do not say that the worship of such Images is Idolatry, by virtue of the first (or, with us) the second command, considered as a Mosaical precept. The Tables of stone themselves have, long ago, been broken in funder in that sense; even by the very finger of God: For we are not under the Law of Moses, but under the Covenant of the Gospel. But if there be any natural reason in that Law, it is eternal and unalterable, like the great Author of it. By virtue of that precept, it was (as many think) unlawful for any Jew to make any protuberant statue, either of God, or Demon; or Man, or Animal; and much more to exhibit signs of reverence before them. For the [Page] very making of Images would have induced that ritual people to the worship of them; they wanting little besides an outward object to receive the signs of their inward inclination. And, if they had exhibited such signs before an Image, the Gentiles would have expounded them as a compliance with their worship. Of these things God was jealous, and therefore gave command that the Monster of Idolatry should not ex [...]t, so much [...] in any seed or Embrio of it. And when [...]ever men are in such circumstances, that an Image is a snare to themselves, and to others an apparent scandal, or a confirmation of them in their evil way; this command doth oblige them by parity of Reason. And, in the days of Tertullian Tertull. de Idol. Sect. 15. p. 94. at [...] [...]cent Tab [...] & Januae [...] strae, &c. The Christians seem to have been nigh such circumstances, being [...]ngled amongst the Heathen, and so prone to their works, that (as he, in an holy indignation, professeth) there were more lights hung out at the doors of the Christians, then at those of the Heathen themselves: Lights, not for the direction of the passengers, but for the honour of Idols. He, therefore, sutably to the exigence of that time, urged the second command with a kind of Mosaick strictness; and declamed against all Statuaries and Painte [...], as Artists of the Commonwealth of darkness.

But, a Reason there is, in that command, which doth always oblige, and the force of it reacheth to mankind. Two things, I suppose, are perpetually forbidden by it.

The first is, the making of any Image of any false God, and the honouring of it, in that quality, when it is made. I say in that quality, for it is not unlawful to carve or paint the Images of false gods, by way of story, or in order to the exposing of them in the particulars in which they are ridiculous; or to value [Page] them, if they be ancient, and done by good hands, as rarities of price; and he hath little of judgment or charity, who condemns every Antiquary as an Idolater. The Genevians have, usually, here, in their Houses, the Pictures of Calvin and Luther, and such others, together with those of the Pope and the Devil, spending vainly, their breath against the Light which they had set up. And we suffer, in England, the Pictures of false gods in the Ovid of Mr. Sandys, as well as they do, in Italy, the Images of Cartari.

The second thing is, the attempting the representation of the true God, and the worshipping of it as his Image. I say the attempting of it, to avoid the Cavil of the Author of [...]; for he mocketh at this ground of the command I. V. C. [...]. Stilling [...]leeton. p. 45, 46., namely, because Gods infinite essence cannot be represented, as a reason which idly establisheth a Law from the impossibility of the breaking of it. And he, profanely, compares it to the reason of the Monsieur, who forbad his Bowyer to make him shafts of a Pigs Tail, because no shafts could be made of it. And yet it is a reason insisted on by the very Catechism of the Council of Trent above-cited Cat. ex decr. Couc. Trid. p. 394. cited here p. 265.. But who knows not that such an Image was forbidden not properly to be made or perfected, but to be attempted to be made; because the workman would fail in his attempt, not only to his own shame, but the dishonour of the true God?

The Idols of the Heathen might be represented: For being nothing but creatures of God, or Phantasms, the creatures of their brains; they were capable of some resemblance. They appeared to the eye, and in a Picture in the fancy; and, consequently, might be imitated by mans Art. But the essence of God is like nothing that is finite; neither like Man, nor like the Heavens, which latter Diodorus most falsly and ‘[Page] irrationally maketh to be the God of Moses; adding that therefore he forbad all Images of him in humane figure Diod. Sic. ap. Photii Biblioth. p. 1151.;’ whilst he forbad the likeness of any thing in the Heavens, Earth, or Waters. Nor can Gods essence so appear by it self, as to shew its very self. We have a notion of God, but no proper Idea of him, for that importeth in the force of the word, an object with its Imagery perceived in the brain. Hence the Synod of Nice it self did not favour any Images of the Divinity Syn. Nic. 2. Act. 3. p. 184, 185. a Theodoro Patr. Hierosol.— [...] h. e. [...]..

But ere I proceed further in this Argument, I think it necessary to premise a distinction of Images, and to consider how much or how little of the Idol is in each of them.

Of Images then I consider four sorts, taking the liberty to call them Images of Analogy, of Memory, of Representation, of Presence.

By Images of Analogy, I mean such Objects as bear some Metaphorical proportion to some excellencies of God, though they be not the proper Images, Statues, or Pictures of them. Such an Image was that of Jupiters, remembred by Vignola in his Discourse of the five Orders in Building. He mentioneth there a Capital, in which were the Images of four Eagles instead of Stalks; and instead of Fruits and Flowers, four Jupiters faces with Thunderbolts under them. A Representation this may be judged of the power, piercing eye, quick execution of will, in their own Jove, in the four Quarters of the World. Such an Analogical Image of the true God do some Papists T. G. Catholicks no Idolaters. c. 4. p. 61. esteem, the Statue or Picture of an aged man, whose years and experience, are apt to signifie the Eternity and Wisdom of God; and that of a Dove, to signifie his purity and simplicity, in a manner suitable to our conception. In both these Instances, I think they are mistaken. Daniel (as [Page] shall be shewed in the last Chapter) did not mean the Godhead, or the Father, by the Ancient of Days. Neither ought his transient Vision which had something humane mixt with it, be made a standing-pattern in Religion. Such Visions being impressed on the fancy, could not be there represented without some earthly Imagery, which the enlightned reason of the Prophet could separate from the Diviner part, which is the thing principally intended. Now to bring the whole scene with its glory and its imperfection, before the eyes of the people, in Gods standing-worship, is to confound in their Imaginations, things sacred and secular, and to adulterate their Devotion. Then for the Image of a Dove, the Text in the Gospels proveth no more, than that the Spirit imitated the gentle hovering of that Bird: And the learned think it did so in the appearance of a bright cloud, hovering with gentle motion over the waters, and the Person of our Lord baptized in them.

It is plain by the words of St. Austine S. Aug. de Fide & Symb. c. 7., that he thought it Idolatrous to contemplate God in our mind, according to the extent of those expressions which we use in speaking of him. And the like certainly he judged of contemplating God according to Dreams and Visions, which are partly humane, and partly divine. Thus then that great Light of Africa discourseth: ‘We believe—that [Christ] sitteth at the right hand of the Father. Yet thence are we not to think that the Father is circumscribed with humane form, so as to occur to our mind contemplating of him as one that has a right and a left hand, or as one sitting with bended knees; left we fall into that sacriledg for which the Apostle condemneth those who turned the glory of the Incorruptible God into the similitude of corruptible man. Such a Statue [Page] is not without impiety, erected to God in a Christian Temple, much more in the heart, where the Temple of God is truly situate, if it be purged from earthly concupiscence and error.’

St. Austin then (as Spalatensis Spal. de Republicâ Eccles. vol. 3. l. 7. c. 12. p. 293. reflecteth on these words) would have advised that the Visions of Daniel, and other of that nature, produced by Bellarmine, should be contemplated with the mind, and not be pictured, especially in Churches; that they should be resolved into their ‘true signification, and not impressed upon the brain; lest through the Picture of an Old man, or Dove, the defects of Age, wings and bill, possess the imagination.’

There is danger in using any Images of Animals, as Statues or Pictures of God; for they will be made not Images only of Analogy, but of representation, by the ignorant; whilst shape and life are personally set forth. But there is not so great danger in the Images of things without life, especially if they be flat Pictures, not Protuberant Statues, nor Pictures which the Artist hath expressed with roundness. The worse and the more flat the work is, the less danger there is of its abuse. Titian hath painted the Virgin and the Child Jesus so very roundly, that (as Sir Henry Wotton a very good judg both of the pictures and dispositions of men, saith Sir Hen. Wottons Letters. p. 315. of it) a man knows not whether to call it a piece of Sculpture of Picture.

In some kinds of Pictures, if there be found analogy, and that analogy be discreetly expressed [as by the name Jehovah, or according to the Jewish modesty, Adonai, incircled with clouds and rays of glorious Light;] I know no sin in the making of it, or contemplating in it, in a Metaphorical way, some of the Perfections of the infinite God, in such manner expressed. A devout man would not put a Paper with such an impression, [Page] to vile uses: He would think it fitter for his Closet than for his Chamber of Grimaces; though he would not think it the representation of God, or give it Divine honour, by inward estimation, or outward signs.

By Images of memory, I mean such Objects as contain in them no analogy to the Divine Perfections, nor any pretended representation of them; but yet are apt to put us in mind of God, being erected as Pillars or Monuments in places where he has done some great and excellent work. Such was the Pillar of Jacob; and in the making of such there is no unlawfulness; nor in exhibiting before them such signs of honour as are proper to be shewed before a monument of Divine Wisdom, Power, or Goodness; unless in times and places where other such Statues are erected to false gods, and the erection and honour of them, is by common construction, the mark of their Worshippers. Such Images of memory are often exhibited by God himself. Such was the pillar of Salt, into which the body of Lots Wife was converted; a pillar of Remembrance of Gods justice, and of admonition to them who look back towards the pollutions which they have escaped. Such was the adust earth which Solinus speaks of, in those places where the inhabitants of Sodom were destroyed by Sulphureous flames from Heaven: though it was no pillar, yet was it a monument of Divine power, and severity towards their unnatural lusts. And he that carves, engraves, or paints these holy Histories, may be an useful Artist.

By Images of Representation, I mean Statues or Pictures made by art, with intent to exhibit the likeness of the person. The making and worshipping such Images of him, God himself condemneth; appealing to the world, whether there be any thing in nature to which he can be resembled. Such a Representation is [Page] undue, though made according to the best pattern in the visible world; and much more if it be made in viler, and as the Heathen were wont to do, in the Images of Priapus and Attis See Pign. de Magn. Deûm. Matr. &c. p. 1., in immoral figures. And the Worshipper who gives to it veneration as to an Image of God, does highly dishonour him, by changing his essential glory into such similitudes. And it is not so ignominious for Caesar to be painted in the similitude of an Ass, or of the worst Monster in the Sculptures of Licetus, as for God to be represented in the pretended likeness of his Deity, by David or Solomon. Such Images, therefore, the Council of Trent expresly disowneth, professing the spirituality, invisibility, and infinity of God, which nothing visible can represent. By such Images (as rightly S. Athan. Vol. 1. op p. 15: S. Athanasius) the mean Arts of the Painter and Statuary are exalted above the Maker of this beautiful Universe. Remarkable, here, is that of Pliny, as the sense of a very Atheist. ‘It is a weakness (said he) to search after the Effigies or Form of God Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 7. p. 2, 3.. Whoever is God (if there be any other than Nature) he is every-where, all sense, all sight, all hearing, all soul, all spirit, All Himself.’

By Images of Presence, I mean Pictures or Statues fram'd and honour'd as places of the especial residence and nighness of the Divine Power. Such I have shew'd the Statues of the Heathen to be. I know not whether they judg'd them to resemble Jupiter or Juno, Mars or Venus (for the resemblance has been generally such as pleas'd the Statuary or Painter): but it is certain that they esteem'd them Shechinah's of God, or Daemons. The Poet Excessere O [...] nes adytis aris (que) relictis, Dii quibus Imperium hoc steterat— describeth the Roman Empire as forsaken by its Coelestial Patrons, when he representeth them flying from their Altars and Temples. And the Ambrachienses (in Livy Tit. Liv. Hist. l. 38. See Herald. Annot. ad Arnob. l. 6. p. 252.) complaining in the [Page] Senate against Fulvius Nobilior, who had spoil'd their Temples and Images; protest with lamentation, That they had no Gods left them whom they might adore, and to whom they might present their requests. And the Oracle at Delphos confess'd to Augustus, That it was a vain thing for any thenceforth to repair thither, because Me P [...]er Hebraeus—Cedere sede jubet—Aris ergo dehinc Tacitus discedito nostris. an Hebrew Child had commanded the Daemon back to Hell. And sometimes in their superstitious folly, they chain'd down their Statues, that their gods might not remove.

Now such Images are condemned by S. Paul, who, by telling the Gentiles, that God dwelt not in Temples made with hands; did both intimate that they thought them his Mansion-houses, and plainly reprove their erroneous practice.

The making of such Houses or Statues of Presence to the Infinite Godhead, which filleth all things, and operateth when and where it pleaseth See Arnob. l. 6. p. 203, 204., is an high presumption; a confinement of the Deity, or his operation, by our will and fancy. Wherefore the worship of them, being the worship of an object for Gods Shechinah, which is not his Shechinah, is idolatrous, or a robbing of the Creator, by paying homage to the Creature.

Of the like Idolatry are they guilty, who pretend to some kinds of natural Magic. They think God has put certain signatures on his creatures, or suffer'd such to be put on them by Art, as tokens of his miraculous operation by them. Thus did the Author of that Book which the credulous Camillus Camill. Leonardus de Lapid. l. 3. c. 17. p. 223. believeth to be Solomons. He thought that a stone, with the figure of a man sitting on a Plough with a little neck, and long beard, with four men lying in his neck, and a Fox in one hand, and a Vultur in another; being hanged about ones neck, would be efficacious to the fruitfulness [Page] of Plantations, and the finding of Treasures. Now by what other name can we truly call that Trust he placed in such Figures, than that of Superstitious and Idolatrous Hope, whilst God was no more present at them, than at the most formless stone in the streets, unless by his Malediction?

And Protestants have a suspition of some such Trust (though not put in an Image of the Godhead, forbidden at Trent) yet put in the creatures consecrated in the Roman Church; whilst they set them apart in such forms as this: Bless and sanctifie this creature, that See Bened. Cruc. Sal. Aqu. Alt. portat. &c. by it [that is, sure, by thy virtue in it] Devils may repell'd, and Tempests scatter'd.

CHAP. XII. Of the Idolatry charged on the Papists in the worship of Images.

[Page]

PART. 1. Of the worship of the Image of Christ.

THUS much, then, of the Image of the Godhead, or of God the Father and its worship. I pass to the consideration of an Image, the making and veneration of which, admitteth of more apology, That of the Word Incarnate.

This Image has been made, sometimes by way of Analogy, and sometimes by way of Representation. An Analogical Picture of Christ was made by Paulinus, who caus'd him to be figur'd in the form of a Lamb, as a type of his meek and innocent sufferings. A Picture harmless in it self, as the creature whence 'twas taken; yet apt to beget, in weak and foolish minds, not the meer notion of Christs humility and innocence, but a phantasm of him in the form of a beast. Wherefore, though this way of painting Christ was most usual before the sixth Synod, or third Council of Constantinople; yet the Fathers of that Council saw reason to forbid it Concil. 3. Const. in Can. 82. ap. Conc. Quinisext p. 1177. vol. 5. c. Max. See Consult. Cass. de Imag. &c. p. 165 and Taras. in Syn. Nic. 2 p. 165. Act. 3. C. D., and to require the Governours of the Church to take care for the future, that the Image of Christ might be expressed in human portraict.

And, in such Form, some Pictures of Christ might have place in Churches in the Sixth or Seventh Centuries. But Statues, it may be, were not so soon received as Pictures; and it is manifest, that in the earlier [Page] times of St. Austin, they were no part of the Inventory of the Church. For after this manner it is that he argueth against the Heathens, where he Commenteth on those words of David, The Idols of the Gentiles are silver and gold the work of mens hands. ‘They (saith he) worship that which themselves made of Gold and Silver. For our selves we indeed have many Utensils of this matter or metal which we use in the celebration of the holy Sacraments. And being consecrated, they are called holy in honour of him, whom to our souls health we serve by them. And we must confess these instruments or vessels are the work of mens hands; but have they mouths and speak not, eyes and see not? do we pray to them; though in the use of them we supplicate God?’

However, seeing Christ was made in the form of a man, I know not why that form which appeared to the eye might not be painted by St. Luke himself without any immoral stain to his Pencil. He that found no fault with the Image of Caesar stamped on his Coin, hath said nothing which forbiddeth his own representation; with respect, I mean, to his state of manhood here on earth. For that is not pretended to be the picture or image of God-man, any more than the image of any of the Caesars, is pretended to be the picture of their souls; but it is the external resemblance of so much of his person as was visible in flesh.

The Controversie then is not so much about the making as about the worshipping of the Image of Christ, either as his Image in his state on earth, or which seemeth very absurd, as his portraict now in Glory. For though the signs of his Passion may prepare us for Prayers, yet the addresses themselves are made to him as he is glorious in the Heavens, where his estate is unduly typified by a Crucifix which representeth [Page] him in Golgotha, and not in triumph at Gods right hand, where his brightness cannot be expressed by a pencil of light it self; though one very lately reviving the error of the Manichees, hath made the Sun, his Throne, and the right hand of God R. O Mans Mortality. Amstera. 1643. p. 33, 34. Without doubt Christ must be in the most excellent, glorious, and heavenly part of [Heaven] which is the Sum.—Fitly may that be called the Righthand of God, by which through Christ in him we live, & move, and have our being, &c..

The Crucifix was made of old, and admitted into private houses, and at last into Churches. But it was first used as a Picture for the help of memory, not as a statue in formal place, on a Pedestal, at which it might be worshipped. Hear in this matter St. Gregory the great, a man of some insight into the practice of the Church. This is part of his Letter to Secundinus Greg. Mag. 17. Ep. 53.. ‘We have sent to you Images,—and we do not amiss, if by visible things we represent things not seen.—I am perswaded that you desire not the image of Christ with intent to worship it as a God, but that by remembrance of the Son of God, you may be more warmed in his love whose image you think you look upon. And for our selves, we are not prostrate before it as before a God, but we worship him whom we call to mind by his Image, not as born or crucified, but as sitting on his Throne. And whilst the Picture, like a writing, brings to our memory the Son of God, it either rejoyceth our mind with the Resurrection of Christ, or asswageth it by his Passion.’

The same St. Gregory S. Greg. M. Ep. 109., when Serenus Bishop of Marseille, had in an holy zeal broken those Images which he saw adored, ‘does wish he had not broken them, but that preventing the worship of them, he had still retained them as Historical Monuments helpful to the memories of the vulgar.’ I am not against any thing which may be serviceable as an help to devotion. Men stand enough in need. But there are better helps by far than these: And in the Church [Page] which is the house of oral and living instruction, they serve not much further than for ornament, unless the Lay-people come and view them attentively before the beginning of publick service. After that, the Objects which cause the eye to gaze, prevent too much the attention of the ear. And yet to say with men who run into extremes, that Devotional Pictures are no helps to excite memory and passion, is to forget that they are called mute Poems; to speak against common sense; and to impute less to a Crucifix than to the Tomb of our friend, or to a thread on our finger. They may be useful as Monitors in a Christian Commonwealth where their worship is plainly and frequently forbidden, and by all understood to be so prohibited. And it was high superstition in those who in our late unhappy Revolutions, defaced such Pictures and brake down such Crosses as Authority had suffered to remain entire, whilst it forbad the worship of them; and was in that particular so well obeyed that none of them (it may be) ever knew one man of the Communion of the Church of England to have been prostrate before a Cross, and in that posture to have spoken to it.

In the Church of Rome there is greater pretence for that violence which vulgar Reformers presume to be holy. For the Council of Trent retaineth Images in Churches, as Objects of Veneration, and the practice both of Priests and people does strangely dilate the words of that Council. The Article of the Creed of Trent is this: ‘I most firmly Conc. Trid. Symb. p 944. profess, that the Images of Christ, and of the Mother of God, always a Virgin, as also those of other Saints are to be had and retained [especially in Churches Decret. Conc. Trid. de Invoc. &c. p. 895.]: and that due honour and veneration is to be given to them.’

[Page] Due honour and veneration are in themselves modest words: and where we admit the Pictures and Images of Christ, we refuse not the honour which is due to them. We do not chuse to put them in vile places, we do not use them in vile offices; we esteem them as ornaments; we value them as the Images of persons more honourable than our Prince or our Friend: We use them as Remembrancers of the great mystery of mans Redemption which we cannot too frequently be reminded of. We condemn the indiscreet zeal of our late pretended Reformers, who judged him worthy sequestration who ‘had kept a Picture of Christ in his Parlour, and confessed it was to put him in mind of his Saviour Cent. 1: of Scand. Min. Sect. 82. p. 38..’

We honour such Pictures in a negative sense, by being unwilling to have them contemned. We think them not fit to be placed in the Pavements of Churches, where (as St. Bernard in his Apology to Guilielmus Abbas complaineth) they are trodden under foot. Where people spit into the mouth of the Image of an Angel, and tear the face of the Image of a Saint, with their clouted shoon. We observe and commend the discretion of many Romish Synods, since that of Trent Concil. Mechlin. p. 801. Turon. p. 1019, Mexic. p. 1297. Tolos. p. 1400. Aven. p. 1450. Mechl. p. 1556. Narbon. p. 1581., which have made Laws against lascivious, improper, fabulous, absurd Images. We inveigh not against the first Council of Milan Conc. Milev. 1. p. 251. for requiring the Ordinary to summon Statuaries, Engravers and Painters; and to require them to use their art to the dignity of the Prototype. We condemn those Zealots among the Albigenses (if such there were) who are said, in scorn, to have framed deformed Images, and to have dishonoured the Virgin in a monstrous statue with one eye Lucas Tudensis l 2. cont. Albig. c. 9. & Cornel. Curtius de Clavis Domin. c. 5. p. 75.. The zeal of the Church of England has been much more temperate and discreet, and so (God be thanked) it continues at this day. It is not rude to any thing set [Page] apart for Gods service: it would not have a consecrated Chalice quaffed in as a common Bowl; it abhorreth the memory of Julian Prefect of the East, and Uncle to the Apostate, who shewed his irreverence towards the Eucharist, by spurning and sitting upon the Communion-Plate of the great Church of Antioch.

But the Council of Trent seemeth to mean something more than all this, by its due honour and veneration. It doth not indeed mean absolute Latria, or direct Divine honour to be exhibited to the Image it self. It hath otherwise explained it self; and it condemneth such worship of them. It would not have the people ‘believe Conc. Trid. Decret. de Invoc. &c. p. 895. that there is any Divinity in them, or virtue for which they should be worshipped; or that any thing is to be asked of them; or that trust is to be put in Images after the manner of the Gentiles.’ A like caution is given by the Synod of Cambray Concil. Camer. de Imag. c. 3. p. 178.. ‘Let the people be taught, saith a Decree of that Synod, that there is no worship due to the Image, either for the matter, or the beauty, or the price and value of its work, or for any other thing which may be in the Artifice or substance of the Image, but to the thing signified to which this worship and honour is especially referred. In like manner they are to be admonished, that the mind of the person that prayeth, or worshippeth, is to be carried to the thing signified, and not to the sign which neither hears, nor sees, nor perceives.’

And some of the Church of Rome do pursue this caution in their Manuals of instruction which they give to the people. And it would be very strange if they should herein have been defective; seeing the very Heathens were not. ‘We worship not (said they) the very Images themselves Lact. l. 2. Div Instit. c. 2. p. 141. See Arnob. l. 6. p. 203. Non (inquiunt) materias AEris, Auri, &c. per se Deos esse, &c. sed cos in bis colimus, &c., but those whom they represent, and to whose names they are sacred.’ [Page] H. T. in his Manual called the Abridgment of Christian Doctrine, proposeth this Question H. T. Abridg. of Christian Doctr. in Expos. of the 1. Command. p. 118, 119. to his Disciple: Is it lawful to give any honour to the Images of Christ and his Saints? And then he teacheth him to make this Answer: ‘Yes; an inferior or relative honour, inasmuch as they represent unto us heavenly things; but yet not Gods honour, nor yet the honour due to his Saints.’

The same Author a while after, propoundeth this Query: ‘Do not Catholicks pray to Images and Relicks? And then to this he answereth: No, by no means: We pray before them indeed, (to keep us from distraction, and to help our memories in the expression and apprehension of Coelestial things) but not to them; for we know well that they can neither see, nor hear, nor help us.’

There is some measure of sobriety in these words; but some other of their writers ought to have had their Pens removed from them, with as much reason as we take away the swords of madmen. Amongst them I reckon Cornelius Curtius the Augustinian. This Romanist thus spendeth some of the heat of his zeal Curtius de Clavis Domin. c. 12. p. 130, 131.. ‘I care not at all for Luther, Calvin, Wickliff, and that most filthy Magdeburgian sink of impudence and blasphemy. I say it, and say it again, that the most sacred Nails of our Redeemer do merit worship, even the highest worship.’

But we have heard better things from the Council of Trent, and some who follow it. And by such declarations their Church denieth to the Image it self the worship of the heart in Prayer, Thanksgiving and trust; and teacheth us to interpret the Forms used in their Letter to them, as not to them directed De Lingend. vol. 3. Conc. de doior. Christi. p. 627.—Flagitemus auxilium è coelo, & sanctam Crucem adoremus. O Crux Ave.. Such a Form is that of, Hail In Brev. Rominfra Hebd. Quart. Quadr. p. 317. And in the Litany of the Cross. p. 100, &c. Ed. Paris. 1642. holy Cross, our only hope—the scepter of the Son,—the Bed of Grace.—Increase [Page]righteousness in the pious, and to the guilty vouchsafe pardon. All this it seems, howsoever it soundeth, must be meant not to the very matter and form of the Cross, which Dr. Bilson of the full Redempt. of mankind by Christs death, pag. 4. The Church of Rome hath wedded a great part of her Devotion to the Cross of Christ; but under that name she adoreth the matter and form of the Cross. Dr. Bilson will have to be adored in the Church of Rome, but only to Christ crucified. And this also I suppose they would suggest by the Cross pictured in their Books of Devotion, and particularly in the front of their Missal of Paris Miss. Rom. Par. 1660., together with these words of the Apostle, God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord. Where St. Paul intended not to magnifie the wood of the Cross, but the Sacrifice upon it. And this way of speaking used by the Apostle is followed in our Litany, in which we desire of Christ deliverance by his Cross, explaining it by his Passion.

But still there are outward signs of Veneration given to the Image it self for Christs sake; not indeed as brass, or silver, or gold, or wood, or stone, or as a piece of excellent Art; but yet as it relates to him, and is his image. Given however they are to the image, though they are ultimately referred to Christ. Due honour, saith Conc. Trid. Decr. de Invoc. &c. p. 895. & Leont. in Syn. Nic. 2. p. 243. B.— [...]. the Council of Trent, is to be given to them,—and the honour which is given to them is referred to the Prototypes. ‘We Christians (said Leontius in the Synod Leont. in Syn. Nic. 2. Act. 4. p. 235, 236.— [...].— of Nice) adoring the figure of the Cross, honour not the nature of the wood, but the sign, and ring, and image of Christ. And again, Id. ibid. p. 245. he that feareth God honoureth and adoreth Christ as the Son of God, and the figure of his Cross, and the images of his Saints.’ In Images (saith (g) the Synod of Bourges) we worship not the matter, but him that was represented. As if it were one Act, and the Image were worshipped together with Christs Godhead, as is the Humanity, by reason of its Personal union with it. They that speak thus, have deprived themselves of the usual Evasion that the Church of [Page] Rome owneth one God only, and therefore cannot by her own principle, worship an Image with absolute Latria. For in the worship of that one God, or the Divinity of Jesus Christ, God-man, they take in the worship of the Image or Relick, as of a body made one with him. To that effect there are dangerous sayings in the second Synod of Nice, related by Photius. It was there said by Adrian from Epiphanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, that a King having his Statue or Image is not presently two Kings, but one together with his image Conc. Nic. 2. Act. 4. p. 261, 262. There the Image says to the King, [...], &c.. It was there affirmed (though not particularly, and in those words decreed) ‘That by the worship of Images — [...]., which seems divided, we are carried up undividedly unto the indivisible Deity. And again, that in such worship [...], &c., we are carried up into a certain unitive and conjunctive vision.’ As if we adhered to God by clinging with devout embraces to an Image made by humane Art. Yet this in effect is said by many of their Doctors, who tell us that Latria is given to the Image not absolutely, but relatively, not by it self See L [...] le Blanc's Theses. Tb. de Ec. Ro. Doct. circa cult. Imag. p. 342. but by accident, as they are considered in conjunction with the Prototype, and making one thing with it. Suarez himself Tom. 3. in 3. Thom. disp. 54. Sect. 3. is one of these rash men, and affirmeth ‘that the Prototype in the Image, and the Image for the Prototype may be adored with one interior and exterior Act.’ But amongst the Honourers of Images and Relicks, there are not many sure who fly higher in their devotion than Cornelius Curtius. He does not say things we hear every day, and therefore let us listen to him a while in this present Argument. ‘Let us now see (saith that Idolizer of the Nails of the Cross Corn. Curtius de Clovis Domin. c. 12. p. 133, 134, 135. Ed. Antv. 1670.) what kind of Veneration we owe to these Nails: Divines distinguish three kinds of Worships which are wont to be expressed by the Greek words of Latria, Hyperdulia, [Page] and Dulia; which because they terminate either in God, or in intelligent natures, therefore none of these do properly belong to the Nails, as being things without life or reason, and consequently not capable of such worships. Wherefore to speak to them as such, and to ask any thing of them, would be a sign of madness and superstition. So all Catholicks unanimously conclude Here he cites D. Thom. 22. q. 91. a. 3, &c.. Notwithstanding this, because we may, and we usually do adjoin the Nails to Christ in our cogitation Here he says vide Concil. Trid. Sess. 25., hence it comes to pass that by reason of this connexion, we may give them a certain right [or direct] worship: for if we contemplate his Humanity, we then give to the Nails the worship of Hyperdulia: If we think of his Divinity, we owe to them the Honour of Latria. But for Dulia we bid it keep its distance, as being less worthy. Neither ought it to seem a wonder to any man, that we give that Honour to Iron, which we acknowledg to be proper to God alone; for this is not given to this metal in respect of its nature, but in regard of the person by whose contact [or union into oneness of object]’ it deservedly obtaineth that high honour. This is strange language from the Provincial for Belgium: But the Fathers of Trent spake more modestly, and we will take their words into further consideration. They allow external signs of worship both before, and to an Image. The external signs mentioned by them Concil. Trid. Sess. 25. p. 895.—Imag. quas osculamur, & coram quibus caput aperimus, & procumbimus, &c., are saluting, uncovering the Head, kneeling, bowing or prostration. And the Synod of Cambray teacheth Concil. Camer. de Imag. c. 1. p. 177. ‘that the external signs of that Honour, Worship, and Invocation which they refer to the thing signified, such as are bending of the knee, and other signs of the like kind, are given rightly to Images. And it would not have this seem absurd or impious to any man, whilst by the signs they worship the Prototypes.’

[Page] This declaration of honouring the Image it self Mr. Thorndike taxeth Just weights and measures. c. 19. p. 128. as an idle thing; he might also have proceeded, and called it perillous, and a means of scandal. For the external honour of Christ is his honour, though not the only honour which is due to him: And sometimes Hypocrites promote his Honour in the world by the meer shews of it; and sometimes men blindly devout, betray it by exhibiting the signes of it where they are not due.

It is true, that salutation is both a Civil and a Religious ceremony. Coecilius in Minutius Foelix, pointing to the Image of Serapis, Kissed his hand, in token of his devotion to that Idol. And the Romans were wont, when they complemented one another, first to reach forth their hand, and then drawing it up to their mouth, to kiss it, and this was called, adoring, and venerating of them. So Tacitus saies of Otho Tac. Hist. l. 1. c. 36. Nec. deerat Otho protendens manus, adorare v [...]lgum, jacere Oscula, &c. And elsewhere of Nero.—Coetum—man [...] veneratus [...]st. that he stretched out his hand and adored the people, and threw his Kisses among them: And of Nero, that he worshipped or venerated the Assemblie with his hand. Also Bowing, Kneeling, Prostration are equivocal signes: and as we use them towards God, so we do the like towards Princes, and before their empty Chairs of State. Before them, I say, for to bow to them, though it be not Idolatry, yet it is a debasement of our reasonable persons. For that external sign is the sign of an homage not due to them, but to the absent Prince of whom they put us in mind: and the Ceremonie interprets and declares that inward homage and submission to them whose Chairs they are.

Now, though such signes are thus equivocal, yet they are so determined, by their Objects, and Circumstances, to their particular sense; that a weak capacity can scarce commit an error in their interpretation. He that sees a Cross made by a Shepherd on one of his [Page] Sheep, does not think it signifies alike with the Cross impression which a Priest, or metaphorical Shepheard, makes at the Holy Font on the Forehead of a Child whom he hath just incorporated into his Flock. He that sees another saluting him by pulling off his Hat, and bowing, and crying, God save you; cannot think he is, thereby, made a God or an Idol; but he interprets all this as a sign of respect according to the usage of his Country. But if he sees a second James Naylor riding on an Ass in triumph into Bristol, and hears the women cry Hosannah, and sees them bow their knees; he hath cause to believe that they are both mad and idolatrous: so much there is of Idolatry, in that which the Quakers judged Religion; and so little of it in that civility which they think is irreligion, and the worship of the creature.

He thas sees an Artist in the Shop of a Statuary, kneeling before the Image of Hercules, and finishing his Foot, will look upon him as a man employed in his mechanical Trade. But if he finds him in a Church, at the hours of Prayer, kneeling, or prostrate, with uncovered Head, with Beads in his Hands, and Tears in his Eyes, and Kisses from his Mouth, at the Pedestal of a Crucifix, or of an Image of Christ; [an Image set up for that use; an Image consecrated Rit. Rom. p. 244, 245. Concil. Bitur. Tit. 11, Cant. 2. p. 1080., and perfumed with consecrated Incense; and rendred illustrious with consecrated Tapers Missal. Rom. in Sanc. Sabb. p. 187, &c.;] he will not then think him at his ordinary work, but at his earnest devotion.

Now it may here be properly demanded of a Romanist, whether the sign of bowing, kneeling, or prostration, be exhibited to the Image alone, to God alone, or to both of them? and if to both, whether in equal or unequal degrees?

It cannot be said that it is done only to the Image, [Page] as a sign of civil respect, and not to God, because the man is exercising himself in such devotions as have God only (the Romanists confessing it) for their ultimate Object. He is at his Prayers to God, or some person in the Trinity; and kneeling, or bowing at such a time is as much the external part of worship, as the submission of the mind is the part internal.

It cannot be said by a true Romanist, to be done to God only, because the Great Synod, and the Rituals of that Church, declare such external Ceremonies to be addresses to the very Images as Images of Christ Such Ceremonies the Synod of Nice seemeth generally to mean, when it presseth the [...], worship or adoration of Images, i. e. the veneration of the body of which men only can take cognizance. Such veneration the Council of Trent (as hath appeared already) doth give by her decree, to the very Images, with regard to their divine Relation, though not in respect to their matter or form. The Missal commands the Priest, after having fixed the Cross in a place prepared for it before the Altar Miss. Rom. Feria 6. in P 1. rasc p. 182. to pull off his Shoos and adore the Cross, [that is, not orare ad (the old derivation of adorare) to pray to it, for it prescribes no form there, but to bow to it], and then to kiss it. The Pontifical indeed, speaketh sometimes of worshipping before an Image Po [...]t. Rom. Lug. 1542. part. 2. p. 166. in Bened. Imag. Sanct.—& presta ut quicunque coram illâ ipsum gloriosissimum Apostolum tuum, vel martyrem, vel confessorem, &c.; but, in other places, it r [...]quireth the worship of it. For so, in the benediction of a n [...]w Cross Pontif. fol. 164, 165. Tum Pontifex, flexis, ante crucem, genibus, tpsam devotè adrat, &c., the Bishop is required, once and again, to bow his Knees before it and to adore it devoutly. Nay, once Po [...]tif. part. 3. fol. 204. Ord. ad recip. process. Imperat.—Crux. Legati, quod debetur ei Latria, [...]ritá dextris. it declareth that the worship Latria is due to the Cross.

It cannot be said by a Romanist, who regardeth his Cre [...]d, that this external address is made to Christ and his Image in [...]qual degree; for that were to give Honour properly Divine unto a Creature; a sign of Honour [Page] being Honour: An Act of acknowledgement in our selves, and a means of procuring it amongst other persons.

They must then say, if they will speak with shew of consistence, that the mind doth apply the act of incurvation to the Image as a sign of inferior honour, and to Christ as a sign of that honour which is supream. That the Case is like to that of Naaman before his conversion unto Judaism: for then he worshipped the Idol of Rimmon with religious worship, and yet by the same act of external adoration or bowing, he did testifie his civil respect to his Master that leaned on him. But their worship is not so circumstantiated as that of Naaman's. He doubtless did some other homage separately from his Master, to shew his supposed Religion: and they have none leaning on them, (unless by accident;) by complement to whom they may interpret the sign, in part, of a civil respect.

But how doth one external sign split, in each single exhibition of it, into two significations, appear to signifie doubly, to the common spectators? That no mistake may be committed, the Roman Assemblies had need be so many Conventions of great Clerks and wise Schoolmen. But, in all Assemblies, how few are good Judges? And how many Spies are there Jewish, and Mahometan, and Heathen, to whom it is morally impossible to know their distinctions? And how many of the same Communion have gross and stupid minds and devotions begotten of ignorance? And what uncharitableness is it to make a Ditch in the daily walks of the Blind, and the Weak, and the inadvertent? and what a scandal is this in India, or China, where the Gestures are seen, and the Books that explain them are not understood or handled by one of a thousand? And where their own worship of [Page] Images maketh them think the Christians not far from their Religion?

They who use Images in their devotions, and are as discreet in their devotions as that usage will give them leave; these profess that they bow not to the Image at all, but only to God before it [for thus S. Gregory, Durandus, Halcot, Biel seem to profess]. And it is honour enough to the Image, that our devotion is on choice, done at the foot of it. They ought to profess that when they kiss the Image, though the external sign of worship toucheth it and adheres to it, yet it doth not so adhere to it in the quality of an object which it terminateth on, but as a kind of restingplace in the way, whilst it cannot reach its journeysend by the body, but by the mind only. That being moved by holy passion towards the blessed Jesus, they salute the Image of Christ, not being able to reach his person: and they may illustrate their meaning by the wish of Thomasinus, who passionately breaketh into this language Thomas. de vita, Bibliothecâ, & Musaeo Laur. Pignorii. p. 82.; ‘O that there were any man to whom I might be beholding for the Images of Molinus and Pignorius, men to be by me eternally honoured; that I might kiss the Portraict of those whom I cannot embrace in person.’ They may further thus far apologize for the Heathens, and say, that when they worshipped the Sun by the kissing of their hand, they did not so much kiss their hand as the presumed deity whom they could not reach. They may add, that when they kiss the Image of the Son, they exhibit this Ceremonie, not only as an effect, but as a sign of their love to him. For so a man that kisseth the Hemm of a Garment, does in truth, but touch the Hemm, and offer it as it is a sign of observance unto the person. The materiality of the Act reacheth the Image, the formality the Prototype.

[Page] In England, in the days of Henry the Seventh, some Romanists spake not so rashly as Bellarmine, who without necessity imposed on him by the Decree of Trent, asserted a proper veneration of Images Bell. de Eccl. Triumph. l. 2. c. 21. See Spal. de Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 12. p. 294, &c. where he resuteth the Arg. of Bell. for the Rel. worship of Images., as objects terminating that worship in themselves, and not as sustaining the place of the Prototype. Amongst them I find an ancient Author who hath written in Folio an Exposition of the Ten Commandments in the way of a Dialogue betwixt Dives and Pauper. And because he speaks soberly in this Argument, and is not in many hands, I will here transcribe some places out of him First precepte. chap. 1.. ‘Dives. Whereof serve these Ymages, I wolde they were brent alle. Pauper. They serve for thre thynges; for they be ordeyned to stere mannys mynd to thynke on cristes incarnation, and on his passion and on his lyvinge, and on other seintes lyvinge. Also they ben ordeyned to styre mans affection, and his herte to devocion. For ofte man is more steryd by sight than be herynge or redynge. Also they be ordeyned to be a token and a boke to the leude peple, that they may reade in Ymagery and painture, that Clerkes rede in in the Boke, as the Lawe sayth. de consecra. distinct. 3. prolatum. where we fynde that a bisshop destroied Ymages as thou woldest do, and forfendyd that no man shuld worship ymages. He was accused to the Pope Seynt Gregory, which blamyd him gretely for that he had so distroyed the ymages; but utterly he prised him for 'he forfendyd them to worshyp ymages.’

The 2. chaptre.

Dives. How shuld I rede in the boke of paynture, and of ymagery. Pauper. whanne thou seest the ymage of the Crucifixe, thynk on him that died on the crosse for thy synne—Take hede by the ymage howe his hede was crowned with a garlonde of [Page] thornes—Take hede by the ymage how his armes were spradde abrode—in token that he is redy to halse and clyppe the, &c. on this maner I pray the rede thy Boke and falle down to grounde, and thanke thy God that wolde do so moche for the; and worshyp above al thynge, nat the ymage, nat the stock, stone, ne tree, but him that dyed on the tree, for thy synne and thy sake. So that thou knele if thou wylt before the ymage. nat to the ymage. make thy prayer before the ymage. but nat to the ymage. for it seeth the nat, herythe the nat. understondeth the nat. make thyn offrynge if thou wilt before the ymage, but nat to th' ymage. make thy pilgramage, nat to the ymage, ne for the ymage. for it may nat help the, but to him and for him that the ymage representeth to the. For if thou doo it for the ymage, or to the ymage, thou doste ydolatry.

The 3. chaptre.

‘Dives. me thynkith that whanne men knele before the ymage, pray and loke on the ymage, with weepyng teres, bunche or knock their brestys, with other such countynaunce, they do al this to the ymage, and so wenyth moche peple. Pauper. If they doo it to the ymage, they synne gretly in ydolatry agenst reasone and kynde—Dives. how might they do alle before the ymage, and not worshyp the ymage. Pauper. Oft thou seest that the Preest in the Chirch hath his boke before him. he knelyth he, stareth, he loketh on his boke, he holdeth up his hondes, And for devocion in case he wepith, and maketh devout prayers; to whom wenyste thou the Preest doth alle this worship? Dives. To God and nat to the boke.’ [This instance, by the way, is not so proper: for the Book, though it relateth to Christ, is not an object which representeth him; nor doth the Priest [Page] speak to it as he doth often to the Crucifix. And that's the next Objection of Dives in the fourth Chapter.

Dives. On Palm-Sunday at Procession the Prest draweth up the Veil before the Rode, and fallith down to grounde with alle the people, and saith thries, Ave Rex noster, Hayle be thou oure Kynge, and soo he worshipeth that ymage as King. Pauper. Absit. God forbede. He speketh not to the ymage, that the Carpenter hath made, and the Peyntour painted, but if the Priste be a fole, for that stocke or stoone was never Kynge, but he speketh to him that dyed on the Croce for us al, to him that is King of alle thynge.

The xiii Chaptre.

Pauper. The Lawe clepith ymages venerable and worshipful, for ther shuld no man dispyse them ne defoul hem, brenne them ne breke them. De Consecrat. di iii Venerabiles; and for this manner of Veneration and worship, saith the Lawe in the same place, & summe doctoures, that Ymages, Boke or Vestment, and Chalice, may be worshipped with Dulia. But they take that Dulia fulle largely, and full unproperly, for such worship and veneration is ne service, ne subjection, as I said before.

For them who can instruct their minds, help their memories, excite their passions, and fix their fancy, by praying before an Image, they are at liberty to use such helps in their private Closets. In publick let them consider whether the scandal of others be not a greater evil than this kind of help can be a good. And to me it seemeth that what help soever it may be to dispose and prepare us, yet in the very act of devotion, it is an impediment: for then we exercise the heart and mind rather than the eye and the imagination; which [Page] latter when it hath an Idea of God-man, it apprehendeth him as in glory. And in this point Thomas a Kempis himself was not determined in his judgment; for in one place Tho. à Kempis Oper. p. 723. he commendeth the use of a Crucifix in praying to God; and yet in another place Id. Oper. p. 696. Oratio ut liberetur mens à corporali Imagine. he prescribeth a form of Prayer in which God Almighty is intreated to free the mind from bodily fantasms. For St. Austin, ‘He thought that no body S. Aug. in Psal. 113. Neminem [puto] O [...]are vel adorare sic intuentem simulacra, qui non assiciatur, &c. could worship or pray with his eyes fixed on an Image, but he must be so affected as to think it hears him, and will give him the aid which he implores. He saith in another place S. Aug. in Psal 114. Hoc facit & quodammodò extorquet illa figura membrorum, &c., that the figure of the parts of an humane body doth even extort this, that the soul which lives in the body shall thereby be the apter to think that body perceives which it sees like to its own. And that Images avail more to the bowing down of the unhappy mind, in that they have a mouth, eyes, ears, and feet; then to the correcting of it by their not speaking, seeing, hearing, or walking. Bellarmine himself confesseth Bellar. de Imag. c. 22. that they who adore God in an Image or Creature, do expose themselves to great peril, and are compelled to use the most subtle distinctions which the Learned scarce understand, much less the vulgar.’

Let them see to it who lay such snares in the way of the people; whatsoever they intend, they may plainly foresee that their feet will be taken in them; and that many thousands have been so caught, they may know from History and Experience. Most unhappy have been the consequences of the second Synod of Nice, which decreed the relative worshipping or bowing down to Images Zonar. in Can. Conc. 7. p. 284.— [...].—: which by its President Tarrhasius, and its defender, Adrian the first, owned a Transition of the worship through the Image to the Prototype [like an arrow which first passeth actually [Page] through the Medium e're it hitteth the mark]: and, which (in the opinion Mr. Thornd. just Weights. c. 19. p. 127. of Mr. Thorndike) brought in and authorized Addresses to solitary Images of Saints. Since that time, Gods worship has been exceedingly depraved, and such bold men as Naclantus Bishop of Clugium, have openly declared that the same Latria or Divine honour is due to the Image which is due to the Prototype. And it hath been shewed a while ago that the Pontificale it self affirmeth Latria to be due to the Cross, without distinguishing of it into absolute and relative. But I would not misconstrue one unadvised passage as the constitution of the whole Church of Rome, and a condition of its communion; though I cannot but from the premisses conclude the danger of its communion, or the peril of Idolatry in it.

Further, there is another kind of Idolatry towards the Image of Christ, visible in the practice of many Romanists, though not enforced by the Decrees of their Church. I mean that divers make it a Divine Shechinah, or Image in which Christ eminently dwells, and miraculously operates See the Enumer. of miracles done at Images, in order to the promoting of their worship in Syn. Nicen. 2. Act. 4. p. 249, &c. p. 251. Sancta Synodus dixit, gloria Deo, qui etiam per sacras Imagines miracula perficit.. It was the custom of Asclepiades the Philosopher (as in the 22d. Book of Ammianus, we are informed) to carry with him whithersoever he journeyed, a little silver-Image of the Goddess Coelestis. 'Tis probable that he hoped amongst other things, for the fairer weather; for she was Urania the Goddess of the Clouds See Steph. Baluz. Not. ad Salviani. 18. p. 410. and Sulp. Sever. in V. D. Mart.—Quia esset haec Gallorum rusticis consuetudo, simulachra Daemonum, candido tecta velamine, miserâ per Agros suos circumserre dementiâ.. And a late King of France is said to have carried about with him, as his Coelestial Guardian, a Crucifix of Lead. If other Roman Catholicks wear it about their necks as a Remembrancer, and not as an Amulet; they have the greater protection from God for their removing a superstitious defensative. And it is great pity that such things should be laid before the people as instruments of Inchantment, by the literal sound at least of the Ritual [Page] Rit. Rom. p. 297. Dom. Jesu—praesta ut ho [...] signo Sanctae crucis ▪ omnis discedat saevitia Tempestatum. and Pontifical Pontif. Rom. fol. 168.—Ipsorum—Reliquias bumiliter amplectentibus; contra Diabolum & Angelos ejus; contra fulmina, fulgura & tempestates, &c., which bless Crosses and Relicks as weapons of defence against evil Spirits, Tempests, malignant air, Thieves, Invaders, hurtful beasts. And he does not dwell within many doors of a Prophet, who cannot guess at the proneness of the people to superstitious usages. The Rebels of Devonshire in the Reign of Edward the sixth D. Heyl. in Hist. of Ref. in A. 3. R. E. 6. p. 76. See the Consecrat. of St. Dominick's Beads in Arch. Caraccius de Rosar. p. 3. c. 5., in their march to the siege of Exeter, carried before them (as the ‘Jews did the Ark of God, in the times of old) the Pix, or consecrated Host, born under a Canopy, with Crosses, Banners, Candlesticks, Holy-bread, and Holywater, and other things; though the walls of Ex [...] ter fell not down before this false Ark, as Dagon did before the true.’ And it is commonly known what virtue is ascribed to the Pope's Agnus Dei's, and how the people use them as holy Statues in which Christ's Divine Virtue so resides, as by its glorious presence and power to expell all enemies ghostly and bodily. Here trust is put in a Creature as a Shechinah of Christ, which is not such, and consequently that trust is no better than a reliance on an Idol.

PART 2. Of the Idolatry charged on the Romanists in the Worship of the Images of Saints.

Touching the Images of the Saints, and the Veneration of them, it is fit I say something; but the Premisses being considered, I have the less need of being voluminous.

It is a question whether any such Images can be made with any suitableness to the Prototypes. Christ indeed hath raised his own body long ago, and it is contained in the Heavens. But of Saints who are yet in an imperfect estate, whose bodies are yet asleep in the dust; [Page] what Praxiteles or Titian, can give us fit Statues, or Pictures of them? What they were we may by Images and Pictures conceive. But what they now are in the present heavenly condition, with relation to which the Romanists worship them, who on earth can reveal to us, whilst eye hath not seen it, neither hath ear heard it?

But for the Images or Pictures of the Saints in their former estate on earth; if they be made with discretion; if they be the Representations of such whose Saintship no wise man calleth into question; if they be designed as their honourable Memorials; they who are wise to sobriety, do make use of them; and they are permitted in Geneva it self, where remain in the Quire of the Church of St. Peter Lassels's Voyage to Italy, p. 46., the Pictures of the twelve Prophets on one side, and on the other those of the twelve Apostles, all in wood; also the Pictures of the Virgin and St. Peter in one of the Windows. And we give to such Pictures that negative honour which they are worthy of. We value them beyond any Images besides that of Christ; we help our memories by them; we forbear all signs of contempt towards them. But worship them we do not, so much as with external positive signs: for if we uncover the head, we do it not to them, but at them, to the honour of God who hath made them so great Instruments in the Christian Church; and to the subordinate praise of the Saints themselves.

They who worship such Images, do either worship them as the Statues of such invisible Powers as do under God govern the world; or of holy Spirits who hear them in all places, and pray to God particularly for them; or who only pray for them in general; or as so many Shechinahs of ruling, or interceding Saints.

[Page] And, First, If they worship them as Representations of ruling Daemons, they are Idolatrous. For they thereby give away the honour of Gods reserved power, to a Creature: They honour as Clients the statue of a Saint, whilst God is by right their Patron.

Secondly, If they worship the Images of Saints, only as holy spirits who pray for them, and hear them in any place, by the help of that God whose essence is every-where, and who enabled the Prophet to know the actions of Gehazi, when he was out of his sight; they are still thereby in peril of Idolatry: for if God does not enable them to hear, and they pray with confidence in them as hearing, they relye on a power in the Creature, which God hath not communicated to it.

Thirdly, If they honour the Images of Saints only as holy spirits who in general pray for them, they are not to be thence condemned as Idolaters: for should they so far debase their reason as to give to the Image the same honour which is due to the Saint, they honour but a creature that is inferior, with the honour of a creature, superior to it, who prayeth for them in the mass of mankind. And if they bow to such an Image, that external sign of worship can't reasonably be interpreted by the beholders as a sign of Divine honour; because they bow to that which appears no other than the Image of a Saint, and not a Crucifix or Image of Christ (the eye sufficiently distinguishing these); and therefore it hath no higher honour than the Prototype, which is a Creature. I except here such bowing and kneeling to the Image of a Saint as is in use in the Roman Church; and is accompanied with a form of Prayer proper to be addressed to God, and particularly that form which Christ hath taught us. For though the Catechism of Trent requireth the Parish Priest to ‘[Page] let the people understand, that Catech. ex Decr. Conc. Trident. p. 513. immo vero cum ad Imaginem sancti alicujus quis Dominicam Orationem pronuntiat, &c. when any one pronounceth the Lords-Prayer to the Image of a Saint, he should think only that he joineth his Prayers with those of that Saint to God for him.’ Yet the people are not so apt to receive the instruction, and to be free from mistake: and this the Catechism it self supposeth, whilst it speaketh of the need there is of the greatest caution Catech. ibid. Quo loco illud maximè cavendum est omnibus, nè quod Dei proprium est, cuiquam praeterea tribuant, &c. in this matter: need of it, not only for the moment of the thing, but for the easiness of erring in it.

Fourthly, If they worship them as Shechinahs of ruling Daemons, they honour that as the presence of a power which God is pleased every-where to exercise; and which he hath not fixed in such Statues, in order to any eminent operation. Wherefore they give the honour of Gods Schechinah to that which is not such, and their trust is in an Idol. And here the practice of the Church of Rome is scandalous, if its constitution be not. There is a common perswasion among that people, that Prayers are more effectually heard, and that Miracles are sooner done before an Image than in the absence of it: That one Image is a more excellent Shechinah than another; that our Lady will perform things at Loretto, which she will not do at Rome it self. And they who desire blessing of St. Winifred, think they soonest attain it at her well. The Liber Festivalis (as they called it) in use here in England, in the time of Henry the seventh Lib. Fest. in S. Nicolai Narrat. 6. See in Wichmans Sabb. Mar. c. 14. p. 225, of a Schedule which a young man had sealed to the Devil, dropped into his hands, whilst he was kneeling at the Image of the Virgin of Loretto., aboundeth with stories of Divine power working in Images; and amongst other tales, it telleth of the power of the Image of St. Nicholas, in keeping mens Goods in safety; and how certain Thieves who were permitted for a time to steal a few Goods committed to its care, were by St. Nicholas forced to speedy restitution. We read in Krantzius Krantzii Saxon. I. 9. c. 10. p. 236., that Count Gerhard, Uncle to Waldemare of Sleswick, [Page] went to battel against the Danes with the Image of the Virgin about his neck; after the manner of Sylla the Dictator, who used in such emergencies, certain little statues of Apollo or Jove, one of which after his escape in a very dangerous Fight, he kissed, saying, O Jupiter! I had almost fallen with you this day, and you with me. And the Books of the most learned Papists are full of Legends, which by telling of the motion of the Images themselves in wonderful manner, or of the miraculous events succeeding the Addresses made at them, do incline the people to come thither with confidence, as to the Shechinahs of God. Curtius, the Provincial of Belgium, is one of these writers, and I find this story in him: ‘There was a certain poor man F. C. Curtius de Clav. Domin. c. 5. p. 42., who in extreme need beseeched our Saviour to preserve him, from perishing, by some small Alms. At this Prayer, the Image, or rather Christ in the Image, bowed himself, and gave to the beggar his right shoo as a help in his need. Away went the man with this new prize, but the neighbours hearing of it, redeemed the shoo with the equal weight in gold. But that shoo to this day, could never be fitted again to the foot, but is supported with a Chalice.’ It seems this Crucifix was made of Cedar by Nicodemus himself Curt. ibid. p. 38, 39.; but methinks with no good fancy; the Artist having carved a Crown of Gold, instead of one of Thorns, upon the head of our holy Lord. Lipsius (a man rather learned than wise) telleth Lips. Virg. Hall. c. 5. cui Tit. sanguinis fudor in statuâ. p. 1303. of the many drops of blood which distilled from a certain wooden Image of the Virgin at Halla. And on this he looked as on a miracle, either declaring her resentment of the present Wars, or foretelling the cessation of them by her means. The Eyes of Venantius Fortunatus were cured of their pain, after having been anointed (as they say) from the Lamp of Saint Martin; and Baronius [Page] Baron. Annal. Tom. 9. A. 825. n. 35. p. 796. Ad marg. Cultus SS. Imaginum miraculo probatus. See Spal. de Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 12. p. 296. hence proveth, as from a certain medium, the worship of Images.

But how if God doth this by Nature, or sometimes by miraculous Power, for the trial of our Faith? Or what if such things should be done by Gods just permission, by the Devil himself, to men that have renounced their Reason? Why then, the Devil has their trust and praise instead of God; an Idolatry not to be mentioned without religious fear and indignation. And doth not the Devil sometimes work such wonders? How then come the Books of the Heathens to be fill'd with stories of Miracles wrought in or at their Images, as well as those of the Romanists? If it be told by the Romanist Lipsius, That an Image of the Virgin bled; it is also storied by the Heathen Porphyrie Porphyr. in Fragm. de Styge. p. 284., That when a certain King endeavour'd to pull an hair from a Statue of the Brachmans, the blood gushed out against him. Moreover, that the Statue did sweat so exceedingly in the heat of the weather, that they were forc'd to refresh it with perpetual fanning.

Lastly, If the worshippers of the Images of Saints, do honour them only as Shechinahs, where the Saints hear better than in other places, and as their Chambers of meer Request that they would pray for them; they commit a mistake, and they think them present when they are not: but they give not away Gods Honour, which is not infringed by this meer thought, that his Saints are in certain places; seeing that belongeth to their finite condition. But if wise men look for them in any certain place, they look for them rather in some space of the clear air, than in an Image, or a Cave, where there may be suspition of Imposture.

Now, though men by this last way of venerating Images, do not idolize them as Supreme Gods, or as [Page] ruling-Daemons; yet they offend in the other extreme, and disparage them as Saints, whilst they make them to chuse such mean and unbecoming Apartments. This was the belief of Arnobius, with part of whose Confession I will end this Chapter. ‘I very grievously Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 1. p. 23. reproach'd those whom [in my state of Heathenism] I thought to be Divine, whilst I believ'd them to be Wood, Stone, Bone, or to dwell in the matter of such things.’

CHAP. XIII. Of the Idolatry charged, without any tolerable colour, on the Church of England.

[Page]

IT was the wisdom of our Legal Reformers, to purge the Church of all manifest Corruptions, and particularly of those which had crept in about the Invocation of Saints, and the Worship of Images.

But there arose men of a worse temper, and such who usurped Power. And these thought that nothing of the old Building was again to be used. They were not for sweeping and repairing of Gods House, but for razing the very Foundation, and sowing the Place with Salt. ‘Among our selves (saith the Learned Mr. Thorndike Mr. Thorndike in his Epil. par. 3. c. 25. p. 282., meaning not the Sons of the Church, but the giddy people of England) it seems yet to be a dispute, Whether any Ceremonies at all are to be used in the publick Service of God. The pretences of this time having extended the imagination of Idolatry so far, as to make the Ceremonies and Utensils of Gods Service, Idols; and the Ceremonies which they are used with, Idolatries.’

Nay, it was the way of the Fanatical people in the late Civil Wars, to give the name of Idol to any thing to which their fancy was not reconcil'd. Some call'd the most excellent Father of our Countrey Trial of Regicides, p. 160. H. Peters to one who prayed for the King, Old Gentleman, your Idol will not stand long., th [...] Idol of the people. With some, the Liturgy Mr. Case in Serm. of the Covenant, p. 65, 66. The Dagon of the Bish. Service-book brake its neck b [...]fore this Ark of the Cov [...]t., the Surplice Molin. Defens. Verit. p. 15. B [...]za vocat, Albam Vestem Baali [...], Sacerdotum Insigne, &c., a Church, a Steeple, was an Idol. Neither did there want those who bestow'd that title upon that necessary Doctrine of the Gospel which requireth conditions and qualifications of Holiness in order to acceptance [Page] with God through Christ Anna Trapnel in her Lega. cies for Saints, Lond. 1654. P. 3, 4..

I should run a strange and endless course, if I should pursue all their Extravagancies; but a few of the most colourable amongst them, I will a little consider. Those I mean, are the three following. The first is, the bowing towards the Altar Molin. in Specim. cont. Durell. p. 67. L [...]dus—ad Idol [...]m (h e. Altare) a se erectum, primus in Angliâ procubuit ad modum Adorantis, &c..

The second is, the kneeling at the holy Communion.

The third is, the Reverence at the name of Jesus.

The first of these, the bowing towards the Altar, is no Command of the Church, nor the common practice of it in Parochial Assemblies, nor so much as the Couns [...]l of any of its Canons, besides the seventh of those which they call the Canons of Bishop Laud Const. & Can. A. 1640. Can. 7.. And in that Canon the true spirit of Christian meekness and charity is thus expressed. ‘The reviving—of this ancient and laudable custom, we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good people; not with any intention to exhibit any Religious worship to the Communion-Table—but only for the advancement of Gods Majesty, and to give him alone that honour and glory that is due unto him, and not otherwise. And in the practice or omission of this Rule, we desire, that the Rule of Charity, prescribed by the Apostle, be observed, which is, That they which use this Rite, despise not them who use it not; and that they who use it not, condemn not those who use it.’

And little reason there is, that those who use it not, should condemn those who use it, as Idolaters, when they publickly declare that they bow not, as others Lips. Ode ad Divam Hallensem. Op. p. 1244. Sacram pronus ad aram flecto corpus—Miss [...]l. Rom. in Ord. Miss. p. 210. Sacerdos paratus cum irgreditur Altare, factâ Illi debitâ reverentiâ, &c., to it, but towards it, to God alone; who there exhibits that high favour of renewing, by visible tokens and pledges, our Covenant with him. Our sign of Reverence must be some way exhibited; and [Page] what Idolatry is there in the exhibition of it this way, when 'tis but the way, not the object of our Religious veneration? It is against the common sense of the sign of Incurvation, to interpret it as the worship of every thing in a Church, before which the sign is made: It must be the circumstance of the object, and the form of address, and the application made to it, which determineth its worship. Few therefore there are so injudiciously uncharitable as to accuse the Minister of adoring the Church-bible, or Common-prayer-book; though he often bows, and kneels, and prays before them. Few I say there are that do so: for I think his madness singular, who in the late Revolutions in England, maintained in a publick Pamphlet, (well worthy sure an Imprimatur) ‘that This Author is mention'd by Dr. H. Hammond of Idol. p. 359. of vol. 1. Words in a Book were Images,’ and consequently that to pray before a Book, or to use a Book in Prayer is Idolatry, or Imageworship.

It is true, concerning the second Ceremony, the kneeling at the holy Communion, that it is enjoined by our Church; but enjoined it is in the quality of a decent circumstance, and not as an essential part of the Lords-Supper. But we are by no Rubrick or Canon enjoined to kneel to the Sacramental bread, which is declared still to be bread (though not the bread of common Tables) and not the natural body of Christ: Also before the Administration of it, which is done in a form of Prayer, which requireth our Reverence, the people are generally on their knees in devotion to God. If any begin then to kneel, their kneeling is by the Church declared to be at the Sacrament, not to the Elements of it, (as they of Rome do Miss. Rom. in Can. Missae. p. 226. Sacerdos prolatis verbis consecr. statim Hostiam consecratam genuflexus adorat. towards which she alloweth not so much as a Prosopopeia in her Prayers; and which are neither the Statues nor the Pictures of Christs Person; though they be apt memorials of his [Page] Passion; and are more safely received in their ordinary form than with such Figures as the Roman Church impresseth upon them; of which great variety is to be seen in the Electa of Novarinus.

Further, The Church of England to avoid all pretence of cavil and exception, hath besides her Article against the Corporal Presence, given to the world an express declaration of her design in the injunction of Kneeling. She declareth that this is done in reverence and humility to Christ, and not to the shews or substance of the Elements, or to the natural body of Christ under the shews of Bread.

They who are acquainted with the writings of Monsieur Daille, have no more reason to think him a Romanist, than they have to take Bellarmine for a zealot amongst the Reformed. Now this is the acknowledgment of that grave and learned person, in his Apology for the Reformed Churches. ‘Whilst the Church of England Daill. Apol. p. 85. declareth, as it doth, against the adoration of the external Elements, their kneeling at the Communion cannot be taken for the worshipping of the Bread, nor be thought any thing else but the worship of Christ himself reigning in the Heavens.’

In this external Adoration of Christ, the Church of England followeth the ancient Church, which, though it often adored by bowing, and not kneeling; yet sometimes it used that gesture, and was never wanting in some sign of Reverence. Such Adoration is mentioned by St. Chrysostom; and particularly the gesture of kneeling or prostration in some places; though Monsieur Larrogne hath not pleased, when he had just occasion so to do Larrog. Hi. stoire de l'Euch. 1. partie. c. 10. p. 218, 219., to take notice of it. That eminent Father in his third Homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians, thus upbraideth the irreverent and indevout Communicant Chrys. Hom. 3. in c. 1. E [...]. ad Eph. p. 887. [...].—: ‘The Royal Table is prepared, the [Page] King himself is present, and standest thou gaping about? Thy Garments are unclean, and art not thou, at all, concerned at it? But they are pure, [that is, the Royal Table and the King of that Marriage-Feast,] wherefore fall down and communicate.’

For the third Ceremony, the bowing at the name of Jesus, it is also enjoined, not as duty in its nature, necessary to salvation, but as a decent sign of our inward esteem of that inestimable benefit, which that name brings to our mind See Injunct. of Q. E. 52. & Can. 18. in Can. & Const. An. 1603.. Of that just esteem, and not meerly of the outward Ceremony, I hope that zealous Gentleman spake, who is reported to have wished that every knee might rot which would not bow at the Name of Jesus White's Cent 1. of Scand. Min. p. 21..

By bowing at this Name we advance not the Son above the Father, but adore the whole Trinity, whilst by the cue or sign of this name we are reminded of the greatest mercy that ever God vouchsafed; the Name of Jesus displaying the wisdom and mercy of God beyond those of El, Jah, Adonai, or Jehovah. And for us to bow when-ever we hear that Name solemnly pronounced, is no more to commit Idolatry than is our crying out at the reading of the Gospels, Glory be to thee, O Lord, or, O the depth of the riches of Gods mercy in Christ. For these words, and that gesture, are but external signs of the same inward acknowledgment and adoration. And they who think we worship the very name Melinaeus de Mon. Tempor. Pont. Rom. p. 343, 344. hodiè salutantur Syllabae. when we bow at it, are as grosly mistaken as the ignorant people in Athenaeus: for some there mentioned Athen. l. 2. c. 25. p. 66. & Casaub. Not. p. 137, 138., when they heard others cry out, [...], God save you; or [...], God grant you life, at the sneezing of any; conceited that they adored either the very sternutation, or the brain of man which then discharged it self of the fumes which oppressed it.

The Church of England doth not enjoin men to [Page] bow to the Name of Jesus as to an Object, but only at it, as at a signal by which they are admonished of the time of paying Reverence to God. Neither is there any such form used in our Church as in the Church of Rome, which to the Priests travelling into England Missale pro Sacerdot. Itinerant. in Ang. A. 1615. In Missâ de nom. Jesu. p. 108, 109. Deus—concede—ut omnes qut hoc nomen Jesu devotè venerantur in terris, &c., prescribeth this out of the Missal of Sarum. O God who hast made the most glorious name of our Lord Jesus Christ thy only begotten Son, amiable to the faithful, with the highest affection of suavity, and terrible and dreadful to evil spirits; mercifully grant that all they who devoutly worship this name on earth, may perceive in this present life the sweetness of holy consolation; and obtain in the life to come the joy of exultation and endless Jubilee, by the same Lord. It is my opinion that the Judicious of that Church mean by that Name, our Saviour himself as Redeemer of the World: but the Church expresseth it self in such manner that to the people the Name of Jesus soundeth like some distinct adorable object. For it speaketh of worshipping that Name; it hath the Mass of the Name of Jesus; the Litany of the Name of Jesus See Horst. par. An. Sect. 6. p. 402. c. 7. de Cultu & honore SS. nom. Jesu & in Man. Pietat. p. 39. Litaniae de nom. Jesu.; and such-like Forms which are apt to entangle common Hearers.

St. Ludgard Al. Gazaeus de Offic. B. M. p. 99. Aug. Wichmans in Sabbatismo Mariano. c. 7. p. 74, 75. would have such honour done, not only to Christs Name, but to that of the Virgin; and he adviseth that when these words in the Tc Deum are repeated, When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man thou didst not abhor the Virgins womb; that then we bow down to the very ground. And it is said (d) of St. Gerard Bishop of Canadium (that is, of Chonad in Hungary) that by his zeal for the honour of the holy Virgin, he brought it at length so to pass in that Country, that when they heard the Name of our Lady pronounced, they straightway fell on their knees, and bowed their heads towards the earth. And indeed nothing stoopeth lower than Superstition. But in the [Page] Church of England the bowing is neither that of Superstition nor Idolatry, but of Religious Reverence, at the hint of a word which setteth forth to us all the dimensions, or rather the infinity of the Divine Wisdom and Love See in this Arg. Dr. Twysses Letter in Mr. Mede's Works. p. 1038 and Mr. Mede's Answer, p. 1041, 1042..

Lee not then the ignorance or malice of men who make Court to nothing but their own Diana, accuse that excellent Church of Idolatry, which hath so carefully purged her self of Idols, though not of all manner of Rites: That had been to have swept away the convenient Ornaments of Gods house together with the durt of it, the name which the Jews give to an Idol.

Of some in England who have rent themselves from the safe Communion of that Church, there may be juster reason for such complaint. What can judicious men think of the true original Quaker, but as of one who by believing that God is not distinct from the Saints Foxe's great Mystery, p. 16. is not that of God, which comes out of God? Is not that of his being the soul, &c., and by worshipping that which he calls his Light or Christ within him, rejecteth the Person of our Redeemer, and committeth Idolatry with his own imagination? must not they make a like judgment of such as Anna Trapnell A. Trapnells Legacy for Saints, p. 36., who believed for a while, that God dwelt essentially in his Saints? must not they also judg of Lodowick Muggleton as of a mad-man, or of an Impostor, selling his Blessings at a very profitable rate; or of an Idolater worshipping nothing for the one true God, but a confined person of flesh and bones. For he owneth no other Godhead than that which was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Paradis. Dialogue betwixt Faith and Reason, c. 2. p. 14, 15, 16, &c., and circumscribed by it for a season; and as he blasphemously continues to speak Ibid. p. 24, 25., such as lost it self for a while, both in honour and knowledg; not knowing till he was glorified, that himself was God the Father, but that Elias was his God and his Father. For [Page] that also is one of his Blasphemies, That God not finding it safe to trust the Angels Paradis. Dial. p. 22. upon his descent from Heaven, he committed his place to the safer trust of Moses and Elias Ibid. c. 3. p. 21, 22, &c.. A blasphemy worse, if possible, than that in Irenaeus Iren. l. 1. c. 12 p. 86, 87., of the extravagant Gnosticks, who supposed the place of the Logos to have been on earth supplied by the Angel Gabriel.

But I forbear any further repetition of his abominable Fancies, which will cause as great pain in the ears of pious Christians, as the Justice of the Magistrates has lately done in his own.

I shut up this Chapter with the Prayer of that Learned French-man Isaac Casaubon Is. Causaub. in Ephemeridibus suis, Ann. 1610: Cal. Novembr. ap. Molin. def. Verit. p. 7. : Thou, O Lord Jesu, preserve this church of England, and give a sound mind to those Nonconformists who deride the Rites and Ceremonies of it.

CHAP. XIV. Of the means which God hath vouchsafed the World towards the cure of Idolatry; and more particularly, of his favour in exhibiting, to that purpose, the Shechinah of his Son.

[Page]

PART 1. Of the Cure of Idolatry.

THE Notion of Idolatry being stated, and also illustrated by the practice of it amongst Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, and Professors of Christianity; I proceed to shew the means which God, in pity of our weakness, hath given us towards the Cure of this Evil.

Against all manner of false Gods, and ruling-Daemons, he gave to all the world a Principle of Reason, which teacheth that there is one Supreme Being, absolute in Perfection; and by consequence, that he, being every-where, by Almighty Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, is every-where to be adored and trusted in as the only God.

The same Principle of Reason teacheth them, that God can neither be represented by an Image, nor confined to it; neither knoweth it much more of the inferiour Powers of the invisible World, save that they are; and consequently it hath no ground for addresses to them.

For the Jews, they had an express command for the worship of one God without Image; and many declarations of God, as governing the world by his immediate Providence.

[Page] Also Christian Religion sheweth plainly, that the gods of the Heathens were Doemons, or evil spirits; and that there is but one God, and one Mediator, to be by Christians adored. It establisheth a Church or Corporation of Christians who agree in the worship of one God in Trinity. In Baptism, or the Sacrament of admittance into that Society, it prescribeth a solemn Renuntiation of the Devil and his works, of which a part were the Pomps, or Processions, in honour of Idols. In the Sacrament which is a memorial of the Passion of Christ, the Head and Founder of this Society, it offereth to us the Cup of the Lord, in opposition to the cup of Devils. On the First-day of the Week set a-part for publick worship, it maketh a Remembrance of the Creation of the world, by the Son, by whom the Father made all things, and not by any Doemons; as also of the Resurection of Christ from the dead, by which he conquered the powers of darkness. In the Form of Prayer which our Lord taught the Church, it prayeth for deliverance [...] Nicol. Drabitius in Epit. Revelat. Divinar. p. 535.—ab isto maligno malorum omnlum Authore Satanâ. from that evil one (from Satan the destroyer, as Rabbi Judah was wont to petition); and, in the Doxology, it ascribeth not (with the Heathen world which then lay in maligno illo, under the Power of the God of this world in general Idolatry;) the Kingdom, Power, and Glory, to the Devil; but to that one true God, who was the Father of Jesus Christ.

But upon most of these Subjects, I have already inlarged: It remaineth, therefore, that I speak of the means which God hath specially vouchsafed in the case of Images; a Subject not commonly discoursed of, and hinted only in the former Papers.

This Disquisition I will begin with the notion of the Invisibility of God; proceeding thence, to the condescension he vouchsafes, towards the very eye [Page] and fancy of man, in the Shechinah of his Son.

There is, in the very Creation, a great part of invisible matter and motion. Many things, besides God Almighty, are not immediately subject to mans sense, though his Reason can reach them, after a Philosophical consideration of their palpable effects. God, indeed, could have made that matter, which is now invisible, to have been seen by man, in all the minute and curious Textures of it. For what should hinder that omnipotence which formed the light, and created the soul, from framing the Fibers of the Nerves in such delicate manner in this life, [what possibly he may do in the coelestial body] as to give to man a kind of natural Microscope. But, for his own Divine substance, which hath neither limits, nor parts, nor Physical motion [which is the division of Parts,] nor figure [which is inconsistent with immensity]; nor colour [which is an effect of figure, and motion upon the brain]; it is certain, that in this body, we cannot see it; and there is great reason to doubt whether we can do so in any other, which, though it be coelestial, is still but body. For this sight, then, we are not to hope, unless we mean it of the fuller knowledg of Gods will; and interpret the antecedent by the consequent in that place of Scripture S. Joh. 1. 18., which saith, No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath reveal'd him. St. John in that place denieth expresly actual sight, as also he doth again in his first Epistle 1 Joh. 4. 12.: Tertullian Tertull. Advers. Prax. Sect. 14. pag. 507, 508. in his refutation of Praxeas, discourseth of the invisibility of God, and the visibility of the Son of God [illustrating his sense by the appearance of the Sun, which is not seen in its very body, but by its rays]. And he further noteth of St. Paul, that he had to this purpose denied 1 Tim. 6. 16. both the actual and potential [Page] sight of God. No man (said that Apostle) hath seen God, nor can see him. No man whilest alive can see God as he is, as he dwells in Heaven, the Palace and Throne of his most eminent Glory. He cannot behold that now (unless in such a glymps as St. Stephen enjoy'd) which he shall see after the Resurrection, when the vail of this gross body shall be removed; for to the meek in heart, it is promised that they shall see God. To them shall be revealed that secret of faces, which the Jews so often speak of, and adjourn to the future life See Maimo. de fund. Leg. c. 1. sect. 9, 10. p. 5, 6, 7, &c.. But for the substance of the Godhead, it is for ever invisible, the infinity of it [which Tertullian Tertull. cont. Prax, p. 507. seemeth to call the fulness of the Deity, and denieth to have been seen by Moses] can no more be taken in by mans eye, than a whole circle of the Universe can be taken in at the same moment by the glass of a Telescope. And for the Essence of it, it seems indiseernible, even to the very Angels. For although Angels be spirits, yet they possessing a space, are of a far differing nature from the divine substance, which filleth and pierceth all things. The Ranters, Ranters Epistles, p. 24, 25, 28. indeed, professed to see in this life, the very Essence of God; but the true God was not every thing which they dream'd of.

Now man, in this earthly state, receiving knowledg chiefly from the senses, he is exceeding covetous of sensible helps in his research after the most abstracted notions, which inclination being vehement in the vulgar, who are generally of very gross apprehension; they pursue not the object of their minds [be it the most Divine and Spiritual God himself] with pure and unmixed reason; but they at best, blend it with some bodily phantasm, and often dwell wholly upon such an Image, and the external object of it; insomuch that their imagination worshippeth that which should be entertained [Page] only as the help and instrument of their mind. So that although the natural desire of a visible object be not the necessary cause, yet it is the occasional root of all that proper Idolatry, or Image-worship, which divided it self into more kinds, than there are Nations in the world.

PART 2. Of the Cure of Idolatry by the Shechinah of God.

GOD knowing well the frame Let this difficult Argument, about the Shechinah, be read with caution; even where I have not interspersed words of Caution. and infirmity of man [though himself did not erect it so as now it stands, with much decay, and many breaches], was pleased to condescend to the weak condition of his nature, and to vouchsafe him a kind of visible presence, lest in the entire absence of it, his fancy should have bow'd him down, even to such creatures, to which man himself being compared, is a kind of subcaelestial Deity. It pleased then the wise and merciful God, to shew to the very eyes of man, though not his spiritual and immense substance, or any statue or picture of it, properly so called; yet his Shechinah, or visible glory, the symbol of his especial Presence.

This divine appearance, I suppose to have been generally exhibited in a mighty lustre of flame or light, set off with thick, and, as I may call them, solemn Clouds. Nothing is in nature so pure and pleasant, and venerable as light, especially in some reflexions, or refractions of it, which are highly agreeable to the temper of the brain. By light God discovereth his other works, and by it he hath pleased to shadow out himself; and both secular and sacred Writers have thence taken plenty of metaphors, dipping as it were their pens in light when they write of him, who made Heaven and Earth. “Jamblichus in his book of the [Page] “Egyptian Mysteries, setteth out by light, the Power, the Simplicity, the Penetration, the Ubiquity of God. R. Abin Levita supposeth it to be the garment of God, it having been said by David, that he cloatheth himself with it. Maimonides supposeth the matter of the Heavens to have a risen from the extension of this vestment of Divine Light. Eugubinus supposeth the Divine Light to be the Empyrean Heaven, or habitation of God. And this he thinketh to be the true Olympus of the Poets, so called, quasi [...], because it shineth throughout with admirable glory.

S. Basil calleth the Light of God not sensible, but intelligible; and conceiteth that, after that first uncreated, the Angels are a second and created light. Such sayings, though they have in them a mixture of extravagance, yet in the main, they teach the same with the Scripture, that God is light; or that there is nothing in the Creation so fit an Emblem of him, and so fit to be used in his appearance to the world. Thus therefore is the Shechinah of God described in the Prophecy of Habakkuk Hab. 3. 3, 4. : God came from Teman, and the holy One from Mount Paran, Selah: His glory covered the Heavens, and the Earth was full of his praise: And his brightness was as the light, he had horns [or beams] coming [or streaming] out of his hand [or side].

Whether the Shechinah of God ever appeared (out of a vision) in light organiz'd in mans shape, I am not certain; though such a Representation be apt to excite the veneration of mankind. For even when Herod spake from his Throne of Majesty, and the light was with singular advantage, reflected from his Robe of silver, the amused people were the more readily induced to celebrate him as a God on Earth. But of the figure of the Shechinah, I profess my self uncertain; [Page] and often ruminate upon the Chaldee Oracle, which adviseth us, when we see the most holy Fire shining without a form or determinate shape, then to hear the voice of it Orac. Chald. ap. Psellum, p. 81. [...].: that is, to esteem it then the true Oracle of God, and not the imposture of a Daemon. And such a fire Psellus the Scholiast on this Oracle, affirmeth to have been seen by many men. And I might shew somewhat like it in the Instances of Abraham and Moses. But there has been seen a false Fire also: and the Massalians, whom Epiphanius calleth [...], bending down their head to their navel, professed they saw a divine fire, and received the ardor of a divine spirit, being either deluded by the Devil, or deceived into this conceit, by some odd fantasms which arose from the nerves extended in an uncommon posture.

Now for the Shechinah or visible glory of God in this world [for whether it appeared to any as in the other, till the day-break of the Gospel will bear a dispute]; it was in all likelihood effected, not by the Father whom no man hath seen Just. Martyr in Dial. cum Tryph. p. 357., but by the second Person in the Trinity, the King and Light of the World, who was afterwards Incarnate. Both the Orthodox and the Haeretical have maintained the visibility of the Son, and the invisibility of the Father, though upon different reasons. This did Origen Orig. in St. Hieron. Ep. ad Avitum. Arrap. S. Chrys. in 1 Joh. 18. & Athanas. vol. 2. p. 575, 576. See Novat. de Trin. c. 25. & 31., this did the Arians. Thus Bisterfeldius (in that very Treatise Eisterf. contr. Crell. l. 1. Sect. 2. c. 30. p. 298, &c. in which he defendeth against Crellius the natural Divinity of the Son of God) doth maintain that the Father is invisible to the very Angels; and that Christ even in the Ages long before the Gospel was the visible Image of the Father. Now the reason why true Catholicks affirm the Father to be invisible, and the Son to be visible, are exceedingly different from those of the Arians.

[Page] For the Arians degrading the Son to the condition of a Creature [another, a lesser, a second God, as Eusebius See Euseb. in Dem. & Petav. de Trin. p. 792. of Caesarea is bold to call him.] They suppose him to consist of a visible substance. So Maximinus the Arian, remembred by St. Austin, makes the Son invisible only as the Angels, by non-appearance; and the Father invisible by reason of his superior and immutable essence. In the mean time this was the Creed of the Catholicks, that the whole Trinity was invisible in one Divine substance S. Aug. Epist. 112. c. 8. Invisibilis est enim natura Dei, non tantum Pater, sed & ipsa Trinitas, [...]nus Deus.. It was also their belief that the Son appeared, and not the Father, not from any difference of nature, but of order only; the Father being as it were the root or head of the Trinity, and therefore not so fitly appearing as his Substitute the second Person. And they could perceive no more mutability in the Logos when he appeared, than in the Father, when he not in shape, but by voice, did own him as his only begotten Son. And by this reason Saint Austin S. Aust. l. 2. de Trin. c. 9, 10, 11, 17. See G. Nyss. lib. 1. advers. Eunom. & Cat. conc. Trident. p. 394. might have answered the Arians without asserting as he does, that in the Old Testament the whole Trinity appeared. For the manner in which this Appearance of the Son of God was effected, I conceive it to have been done by the Assumption of some principal Angel upon the greatest and most solemn occasions [without any vital or personal union]; and by the ministry of some other holy spirits; together with an extraordinary motion, sometimes in the air, and thence in the brain; and sometimes in the brain only. And in this opinion I have been the more confirmed, since I found the concurrence of the very learned and judicious Mr. Thorndike in great measure Mr. Thornd. Epilog. l. 2. c. 13. p. 90, 91.. If I were now to guess what Angel was assumed, I would fasten my conjecture on Michael the Arch-angel, whom the Hebrews call the Prince of Faces, or the Prince of the Presence. By the Son the Father made the World Ign. Ep. Interpol. ad Philad. p. 186. [...], instead of, [...] in Hebr. 1. 2., [Page] and what if I say he governed it also, as by his [...], or Word? For in God we do not distinctly apprehend his way of working, but conceive of it under the more general notion of his will and command. If I declare that the Son always acted in the Father's name, I make but the same Profession which Tertullian did many ages ago Tertull. l. 2. contr. Marc. Profitemur Christum semper egisse in Dei Patris nomine. & advers. Prax. Sect. 16. p. 509. Filius-visios est semper, & filius conversatus est semper, & filius operatus est semper, ex auctoritate Patris & voluntate., and avoid the Anathema which Marcus Arethusius Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 30. p. 122, 123., (or rather which others in the Council of Sirmium See the mistake of Socr. and Soz. conc. the Symb. of Marc. Areth. in notis H. Valesii. p. 29.) denounced against all who confess not that the Son ministred to the Father in the Creation of all things, and who maintain that when God said, Let us make man, the Father said it not to the Son but to himself.

Accordingly, where God is said in the Old Testament to have appeared, they seem to mistake who ascribe it to an Angel Personating God, and not to the second Person, as the Shechinah (or as Tertullian Tert. advers. Prax. Sect. 24. p. 515. calleth him) the Representator of the Father. To this purpose it hath been often noted by others, and ought by me in this argument to be again brought to remembrance, how often there is mention in the ancient Paraphrases of the Jews of the Word of God. Neither doth it enervate the force of this observation, that what we translate the Word, does often signifie, I, Thou, or He. Both because several of the places will not admit of that other sense; and because the Jews themselves so commonly own this; and so often mention the Logos or Word of the Father. Philo is very frequent in speaking of the Divine Logos as the Substitute and Image of the invisible God, both in his Book of Dreams, and of the Confusion of Tongues. ‘It is (said Philo in that latter Book) a thing well becoming those who so join together fellowship and science to desire to see God. If that cannot be, they must content themselves with his sacred Image, his [Page] Word.’ A saying which Eusebius esteemed worthy of an Asterick, and accordingly transcribed it into his Book of Evangelical Preparation Euseb. de Praep. Evang. l. 11. c. 15. p. 533. de secundo Principio ex Philone.. The same Jew giveth to the Logos the title of the shadow or Portraict of God; adding that God Almighty used him as his instrument in framing the World. It is true that by the Logos Philo doth often Philo (in lib. de Profugis. p. 466. B. C.) says the High-Priest is not a man, but Gods Logos clothed with the four Elements, &c. understand the World, which by the greatness, order and beauty of it, declareth naturally the Power, Wisdom, and goodness of God; and pleadeth with him in the quality of the Workmanship laid before the feet of the Workman. But it is as true and manifest that he speaketh also of the Logos of this inferior Logos, as the maker and governour of it. In his Book de Mundi Opificio Philo de Mundi Opificio, p. 6. C., he calleth [...], the Divine Word, or the Word of God, [...], the Image of God. And he says further of it, that it is, [...], a super-coelestial Star; the fountain of all the sensible [or visible] Luminaries. And he had said in the former Page Id. p. 5. C., That the World was the Image of the Image, or Archetypal Exemplar, of the Logos of God.

PART. 3. Of the Shechinah of God from Adam to Noah.

THis Substitute and Shechinah of God made Adam, and he that gave him his Being gave him most probably the Law of it. For so the Fathers interpret that in St. John, The Word was God. That [or He] was the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world See Origen in Com. in S. Johan. p. 25.. And in this sense we are to expound St. Justin the Martyr, where he speaketh of the Knowledg of God in Socrates by the Word J. Mart. Apol. 1. p. 48. Apol. 2. p. 56.. He meaneth not that he was naturally a Christian; but that so far as [Page] he was indued with such principles of Religious reason as Christianity owneth; he had derived it from the Logos or Word of God, who made the World, and in it man, a reasonable Creature. To him he appeared as well as to others, who sprang from him, helping the mind as soon as it was seated in this thicker region of bodily fantasms. And to Adam the Logos appeared, I know not whether I should say in the shape of man or in the way of a bright cloud moving in Paradise when the wind began to rise Gen. 3. 8, 9,, and asking with a voice of Majesty, after his rebellious subject. And that this was the Son of God is insinuated by the Targum of Onkelos in the eighth verse of the third of Genesis. The Text of Moses is thus translated, And when they [our first Parents] heard the voice of the Lord God. But this is the sense of the words of Onkelos, And they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God.

And amongst Christian Writers I may alledg Tertullian Tert. adv. Prax. Sect. 16. p. 509., and St. Hilary of Poictiers Hil. Pict. de Trin. l. 12. p. 315., who aboundeth in this Argument; as also Theophilus Antiochenus Theoph. Antioch. ad Autol. p. 99, 100., whose words are so pertinent that I cannot forbear the enlarging of my discourse with the translation of them: ‘You will object (said Theophilus) that I teach, that God cannot be circumscribed; and yet that I say too, that God walked in Paradise. Hear the answer I make to this Objection. God indeed and the Father of all things is neither shut up in a place, nor found in it. For no place is there in which God can [in such manner] dwell. In the mean time his Word by which he made all things, being the Power and Wisdom of the Father himself, personating the Father who is Lord of all, came into Paradise in his Person, and spake unto Adam, who in the Scripture is said to have heard the voice of God. Now Gods voice, what is it else but the very Logos [Page] (or Word) of God, which is likewise his Son.’ After Adam was driven out of Paradise, the Logos appointed a kind of Shechinah in the appearance of Angels to guard the way of the Tree of Life. These I conceive were a Cherub and a Saraph, and that the latter (an Angel in the opinion of Maimonides himself Maimon. More Neb. Part. 1. c. 49. p. 73. per Lahat ibi intelligitur Angelus qui est instar flammae.) was meant by the flaming-sword turning every way; the versatile tayl of a Saraph or flame-like winged Serpent, not being unaptly so called. And this conceit when I come to explain my self about Urim, and the brazen Serpent, will seem less extravagant than now it may do in this naked Proposal. And yet as 'tis thus proposed, 'tis not so idle as that of Pseudo-Anselm Anselmi Elucidar. c. 15. p. 461. Gladius fuit igneus murus, &c., who will have this guard to be a Wall of Fire incompassing Paradise. In process of time, when Cain and Abel offered to God their Eucharistical Sacrifices, the Son of God again appeared as Gods Shechinah; and testified it may be his gracious acceptance of the Sacrifice of Abel by some ray of flame streaming from that glorious visible Presence, and re-acting to it; whilst he shewed himself not pleased with the offering of Cain by forbearing (as I conjecture) to shine on his sheaves, or to cause them to ascend, so much as in smoke towards Heaven. And with this conjecture agreeth the Translarion of Theodotion in these words, [...], and [the Lord] had respect to the oblations of Abel, and set them on fire. That seemeth to be the most ancient way of answering by Fire, some obscure characters of which we may discern in that lamp of fire which passed betwixt the pieces of Abrahams Sacrifice Gen. 15. 17.. And much plainer footsteps of it are to be seen in the contest of Elijah with the Prophets of Baal, whom that true Prophet of the God of Israel vanquished by that sign, triumphing also thereby over that false Deity which they so vainly and with Battologie invoked See Hom. 1l. 2. V. 353. of. Jove lightning on the righthand in token of his favour. [...]..

[Page] I doubt not but God vouchsafed to men many other appearances of his glorious Shechinah, besides those granted to Adam and Abel, before he expressed his high resentment of the immorality of the world in the Flood of Noah. But we have no large Registers of the Transactions of those times.

PART 4. Of the Shechinah of God from Noah to Moses.

THis eminent declaration of God as a God of judgment, by sending such a deluge, not having its due effect on Cham: God with great justice withdrew (as I conceive) this glorious Shechinah from him and his Line, which continued his wickedness as well as his name. From them he withdrew it especially; though to the rest it appeareth not to have been a common favour. Cham and his race being thus left to the vanity of their own brutish minds, that race in the first place worshipped the Sun as the Tabernacle of the Deity; that being the object which next to Gods Shechinah, did paint in the brain an Image of the most venerable luster, and perhaps likest to that glorious flame of Gods Shechinah which had formerly appeared; for so glorious was that Planet in the eyes of the very Manichees in after-times, that they esteemed it the seat of Christ after his Ascension and Installment in Heaven.

I have guessed already, that this kind of Idolatry was exercised and with design promoted at the building of the Tower of Babel. Now towards the prevention of that impious design the Shechinah of God appeared on the place. For so Novatianus argueth from those words in the Eleventh of Genesis Gen. 11. 7., Let us go down. ‘It could not (said he Novat. de Trin. cap. 25. p. 723.) be God the Father, for his Essence is not circumscribed; nor yet an Angel, [Page] for it is said in Deuteronomy Deut. 32. 8., That the most high divided the Nations. It was therefore he that came down, of whom St. Paul saith, He who descended is he who ascended above all Heavens.’ So that the Arabick Version [the Angels came down Gen. 11. 5, &c.] must be interpreted of that part of the Shechinah which is made up by their attendance on the Son of God.

Whilst God was thus angry with the race of Cham, it pleased him to vouchsafe (though not in the quality of a daily favour) the appearance of his Shechinah to that separate or holy seed from whence his Son, not yet incarnate, was to take the substance of his flesh. A great Instance of it we have in the appearance which he vouchsafed to Abraham, who often saw the Shechinah of God, and in that manner communed with him: so great was the ignorance of the Jews, and causless their malice when they raged against the Son of God, because he professed himself to have existed before that ancient Patriarch. Such fall under the heavy sentence of the Council called at Sirmium, a City of the lower Pannonia, where the Eastern Bishops concluded on a Creed against Photinus, who Haeretically maintained, That Christ appeared not before he was born of the Virgin. Of that Creed this is one of the Decretory clauses Socrat. l. 2. c. 30. p. 123. & Hilar. Pict. de Syn. p. 373. & Athan. de Syn. p. 693., Whosoever saith that the unbegotten Father only was seen to Abraham, and not the Son, let him be accursed. The second Chapter of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius is wholly spent in the proof of the Pre-existence of Christ. And in that place, as also in his Book of Evangelical Demonstration Euseb. de Dem. Evang. l. 5. c. 9. p. 233, 234., he insisteth, amongst many other Examples, on that of Abraham, to whom Almighty God did once by his Son shew himself a while in the common similitude of a man at the Oak of Mamre; the Shechinah in its especial luster being for a short season intercepted.

[Page] That Place, from this occasion, was for many ages esteemed sacred; so high a respect there is in man for the visible presence of a Divine Power. But such things being apt to degenerate into abuse, the same place by degrees became sacred in the sense of the Heathens; that is, polluted with many idolatrous superstitions Id. ibid. p. 234.. At length the Piety of Constantine Sozom. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 4. p. 447, 448. the Great, did there erect a Church for the worship of Christ, who had appeared in that place in a like form (they say) to that which he afterwards assumed with personal union. Another appearance was vouchsaf'd to Abraham, when the Judgment of Fire was imminent over Sodom. Moses witnesseth, That he who revealed this overthrow to the Patriarch, was truly God, whilst he introduceth Abraham using towards him the Divine style of the Judg of all the earth; and that this Lord and Judg was the Son of God (whom the Father hath appointed to judg the world), Eusebius Euseb. in Eccles. Hist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 7. And Just. Mart. in Dial. cum Tryph. p. 375: C. thinketh he hath warrant to say from the words of the same Moses. For so the Father interprets the Prophet when he speaks Gen. 19. 24. of this Lord [the Word, the sensible descending Shechinah] raining from the Lord (or invisible Father) fire and brimstone out of Heaven [or the Region of the Clouds]. And in this particular the Council of Sirmium Socrat. l. 2. c. 30. p. 132. is so peremptory and so severe, that it anathematizeth all who affirm those words [The Lord rained from the Lord] to have been spoken, not of the Father and the Son, but of the Father raining from himself that dreadful fire and brimstone.

This Lord then, is the same with him of whose appearance we read in the Chap. 17. of Genesis. It is said in the 22 verse of that Chapter, That God went up from Abraham; so runs the Hebrew Text. But the Chaldee Paraphrast calleth him who ascended, Fulgur Dei; that is, the luster of the Divine Shechinah drawn up, as it [Page] were, towards the firmament of Heaven.

Of the appearance of Three in human shape to Abraham, St. Hilary of Poictiers discourseth at large Hil. de Tr. l. 4. p. 66, 67, 68, 85, And Euseb. in l. 5. c. 9. Dem. Evang p. 234.. And in that Discourse he contendeth, That the person to whom Abraham did particularly address himself, calling him his Lord, was the Son of God, attended then only but with two visible Angels. And this interpretation seemeth more probable than that of S. Cyril of Alexandria Cyr. Alex. contra Julian. l. 1. p. 20., who because three appeared, and Abraham spake as unto one, concludeth thence an Apparition of the Trinity in Unity. The same S. Hilary De Trin. p 66 conceiveth the same Lord to have formerly appear'd to Hagar, whom he observeth to give to him the like titles of Lord and God Gen. 16. 13.; and to have receiv'd from him k Gen. 16. 10. the promise of a numberless off-spring. Moses himself, before he mentions these titles given by Hagar, had indeed call'd him who appear'd to her l Ver. 7. by the name of an Angel, or the Messenger or Officer of the Lord. But even that name, if spoken with emphafis, is not improperly ascribed to the second Person or Logos, who was the Shilo (that is, as Grotius doth interpret it) the sent of God See Grot. on Gen. 49. 10. Silob [...], &c.. Of the name Angel there given to the Shechinah, S. Hilary delivers his opinion after this manner H [...]l. l. 4. de Trin. p 66. & Novat. c. 26. p. 724.: ‘To Agar (saith he) spake the Angel of God. And he was both God and Angel, God of God; and called Angel, as being the Angel of the Great Council See J. Mart. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 301. and Isa. 9. 6. for this, there, is the reading of the LXX. follow'd by the Fathers. [...]. See Cy [...]. Alex. Thesaur. Tom 5. p 116..’So he is called (saith Tertullian Tert. de Carne Christi. sect. 14. p. 319. dictus est quidem magni co [...]silii Angeius, idest nuncius; officii, non naturae vocabulo. and styled a Messenger, not as a name designing his Nature, but his Office. And they are superficially skill'd in Philo the Jew, who know not that he calls the Logos both Gods Image and his Angel See Philo de Somn. &c. and J. Mart. dial. cum Tryph. p. 357. and his Apol. 2. p. 95.. Jusiin Martyr also sheweth to Trypho the Jew, that the God who appeared to Abraham J. Mart. dial. p. 356., was the Minister of the Universal Creator; and he afterwards Id. ib. p. 357. gives this as the reason why the Word is call'd an Angel; to wit, that he may be known to be the Minister or Substitute [Page] of the Father of all things. Justin Martyr might here have respect to the words of St. Paul 1 Cor. 8. 6., who teacheth that all things are of the Father, and by the Son.

The Son was that Angel of God who strove with, and blessed the Patriarch Jacob. Hence Jacob in grateful memory of that blessing, call'd the place Peniel, having there seen the Face, that is, the Shechinah or Image of God, personated by the Logos his Son. That Shechinah, though it appeared without human figure, might not unfitly be called the Face, because it was that Divine Presence, to the Majesty of which (as to the Face of a Prince) the religious subjects of the true God, made their application. This, again, is the opinion of Eusebius Euseb in Eccles. Hist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 7. and in Demonstr. Evang. l. 5. c. 10. p. 235. &c., and St. Hilary Hil. de Trin. l. 4. p. 69, 70., and Justin Martyr J. Mart. dial. cum Trypb. p. 355, 356, 358.; our three former witnesses. This last-named Father telleth Trypho the Jew, ‘That it was the Son of God who appear'd both to Abraham and Jacob; and that it was absurd to think the Immensity of the Godhead, leaving the Heavens, should it self appear in a narrow and limited space on earth.’ And the forementioned Fathers of the Council of Sirmium Symb. Syrm. ap. Hil. de Syn. p. 373 & Socr. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 30. p. 123. See Novat. de Trin. c. 27. p. 725. And Gen. 31. 11, 13. the Angel said, I am the God of Bethel, &c., denounced in their Creed a solemn Curse against those who should maintain that it was the unbegotten Father, and not the Son, who strove with Jacob.

Whilst God by such appearances as these, encouraged true Religion in the holy Line, the ungodly Race, especially of Cham, did further blot out the Image of God, by receiving the impressions of numberless Idols, of which some excelled others; but none were worthy the veneration they paid to them. The Idols which admitted of much better apology than many of their fellows, and which approached nighest the Shechinah of God on earth when figured, were mighty Potentates [Page] and Benefactors. And so the Author of that Book de Mundo, which hath been commonly ascribed to Aristotle, representeth God Auth. lib. de Mundo inter op. Aristot. p. 860. as some Puissant King of Persia, sitting in his Royal Palace at Susa or Ecbatane, and giving Laws to all Asia, and receiving intelligence of all its affairs. Besides this more generous Idolatry, there were many other kinds, and those so apparently ridiculous, that barely to repeat them were in effect to deride the Nations guilty of them.

Amongst other places Egypt was the nursery of these Follies. There every thing which could help or hurt, or represent, and be assumed by a Daemon, or acted by one of his Impostures, was conceived to have in it a Divine power, and received Religious worship. The Rains of AEthiopia swell their River, and break over into fruitfulness; and the Nile is straitway a God. Some natural or political cause preventeth or removeth some annoyance, and the effect is ascribed with Divine Praises, to the vain and insufficient See Reyn. de Idol. Eccl. Rom. l. 2. c. 3. p. 476, 477, &c. Talisman [for as Jamblicus speaking professedly of their Mysteries, doth inform us, They conceived a Divine Power, able to procure or prevent good and evil, did straightway adjoin it self to that piece of matter, which was congruously chosen and figured according to some Coelestial aspect]. The Constellations are by fancy (and such as is sometimes injudicious enough) formed into the shapes of certain Creatures on earth; and those Creatures are worshipped after having been supposed either eminently to contain the virtues, or with singular perception, to be sensible of the operations of such knots of Stars.

The seed of Abraham sojourning in this Land, which abounded with Idols, and with a great number of external rites, and being by custom very prone to them, and as it were moulded into a ritual temper; it pleased [Page] that God who condescendeth sometimes as an indulgent Father to lisp with Infants, to consider their infirmity when he led them out of bondage by the hand of Moses. He therefore by the same Moses gave to that people such an Oeconomy [a dispensation containing a visible Shechinah, and a great many Ceremonies] as might innocently gratifie their busie tempers, and sensitive inclinations, and divert them from the worship of false gods, and from those abominable formalities with which in Egypt those Idols were observed. This if it needeth to be avouched by authority, after a serious view of the state of Egypt and Israel, in their parallel and disparity; I may cite to my purpose that excellent Interpreter of the Scriptures St. Chrysostome. S. Chrys. Tom. 5. Op. in diem nat. Christi. p. 422. ‘At what time (said he) God delivered the Hebrew people from the Egyptian troubles, and barbarous tyranny of Pharaoh; seeing them still to retain the Relicks of Impiety, and to be addicted even to madness, to all things which fall under the senses; and to be struck with the admiration of beautiful Temples; he himself commanded that a Temple should be made for them, excelling and obscuring all others, not only in the magnificence of the matter, and variety of art; but also in the form of its structure. And as a good Father who has at length received a Son returning to him after much time spent in dissolute company, does with honour and safety, put him into circumstances of greater abundance, lest being reduced to any straits, he calls to mind his former pleasures of debauchery, and be afresh affected with a desire of them: So God perceiving the Jews infected most sottishly with propenseness to sensible things, does in these very things make something for them highly excellent, that they might never for the future linger after the Egyptians, or after [Page] the things of which they had experience, whilst they sojourned amongst them.’

PART 5. Of the Shechinah of God from Moses to the Captivity.

BEfore this Temple was built or shewn, so much as in the model of it to Moses, the Word of God See Just. Martyr in Apol, 2. p. 95. assuming an Angel, appeared to him in the luster of flame in a bush on Mount Horeb. Moses calleth him in the second verse of the third of Exodus, the Angel of God; and God in verse the fourth; and in the sixth verse he stileth himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and in the eighth verse he is said to have descended. “Now he (saith Justin Martyr Id. ibid. p. 96. and in his Dial. cumTryph. p. 356. B.) that called himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was not the Universal Creator, but the minister of his will. With him agree Eusebius Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 7, 8., St. Hilary S. Hil. de Trin. p. 70, 71., and St. Ambrose S. Ambros. Tom. 4. Op. p. 222. See Athan. contra Arianos. Orat. 4. p. 467. A. B.. The words of St. Ambrose are to this sense: ‘The God himself who was seen by Moses, saith, my name is God. This is the Son of God who is therefore called both Angel and God, that he might not be thought to be he of whom are all things; but he by whom are all things.’ Philo the Jew himself Philo de vit â Mosis, p. 594, 595. calleth the Voice to Adam, to Abraham, to Jacob, to Moses from the Bush, the effect of the Logos of God.

This Lord afterwards when the people of Israel had under the Conduct of Moses, begun their Journey from Egypt, did miraculously direct them by the continued Shechinah of a Pillar Exod. 13. 21, 23. of cloud by day, and of fire by night. This we read in the 13th of Exodus. He who in that Chapter is called the Lord, is in the following Chapter Exod. 14. 19. called the Angel of God, who as formerly he had gone before the Camp for their [Page] Guidance, so now the Egyptians pursuing, he stood behind it as their defence. With allusion to this appearance Eusebius having first proposed it as the Title of his Chapter Euseb. de demonstr. Evang. l. 5. c. 14. p. 241., ‘That the Logos of old appeared, and then began the Chapter with some places of Scripture relating to the cloudy Pillar:’ he proceedeth in making this demand, ‘Who was he that spake, but the Pillar of Cloud which had formerly appeared to the Fathers in the figure of Man?’ And indeed whilst Moses is not contented with the promise of an assistant-Angel See Exod. 33. 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. compar'd with Chap. 23. v. 21, 22, 23., but expresly petitioneth for the continuance of Gods Presence; he leaveth not us in want of a Commentator to tell us what kind of Angel was present with him. That Angel no doubt it was who is called by that name in the Hebrew of the 6th Verse of the 5th of Ecclesiastes, but by the Seventy Interpreters, the Face of God Eccl. 5. 6.— [...].—. Lactantius will have this Angel to have gone before the Israelites, and divided the Waters Lactant. de verâ Sap. l. 4. p. 374.. His Power might do it, but that his Shechinah did so, is contrary to the Sacred Text Exod. 14. 19, 20, 21, 22..

The people being arrived nigh Mount Sina in Arabia, Moses especially beheld the Shechinah of God, whilst the Word assuming, it may be a principal Angel, and being attended (as Jupiter by his Satellites, if I may compare small things with great) by a numerous retinue of other blessed Spirits, did with solemnity Psal. 68. 17. and terror deliver the Law.

Where the Psalmist alludeth to that Solemnity in which God appeared with many Chariots of the Heavenly Host; he in the very next verse useth the words which the New Testament interpret of Christ, Thou art gone up on high, thou hast led captivity captive. As if both at Sinah and Sion, and the Mount of the Messiahs Ascension, God had triumphed in the Shechinah of [Page] his Son. ‘He (saith Tertullian Tertull. Adv [...]rs. Judaeos, p. 194. B) who spake to Moses, was the Son of God, who was always seen.’ That is, whenever the Divinity vouchsafed a visible appearance, it was not by the Father but by the Son. This Pamelius reckoneth as one of the Errors of Tertullian; but by doing so, he perhaps ran into one himself. Tertullian doth not only affirm this, but secondeth his Authority with a reason. For Jesus, said he, not Moses, was to introduce the people into Canaan. Theodoret in his Commentary on the second to the Colossians, mentioneth certain defenders of the Law, who induced others to worship Angels, saying that the Law was given by them. They had been much more in the right if they had urged the worship of Christ the Angel of that Covenant. The Law was given by Angels in the hand of a Mediator Gal. 3. 19., which whether it be meant of Moses or of Christ, is a dispute amongst many; though the margent of some of our English Bibles In Quarto, Lond. 1610. interpreteth it of the former. That Title might have been as well applied to Christ, not yet God-man, yet the Minister of the Father. And so St. Chrysostome and Theophylact do apply it. And St. Chrysostome teacheth that therefore Christ gave the Law, that he might have Authority, when it was convenient, to put an end to it. And they who stiffly oppose such Ministration of the Logos, give suspicion to jealous heads, as if they look'd towards Racovia. For if there were a second Person, he surely must be fit for that great Office. But I forbear to urge a place of uncertain sense, and chuse rather to consider what the same Apostle saith in his first Epistle 1 Cro. 10. 9. to the Corinthians. He there saith, concerning the Israelites, that they tempted Christ in the Wilderness. And this Christ whom they tempted, is in the Old Testament called Jehovah. Hence therefore it followeth, that he who appear'd to [Page] the people in the Wilderness was the Logos of God.

This opinion which ascribeth to the Logos the delivery of the Law, is by the learned Hugo Grotius in his Notes on the Decalogue, branded with the name of a grievous error. And it is not the manner of that great Wit to rail at Opinions without offering reasons for his contrary judgment: and here he offereth two.

The First he taketh from those first words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: God who at divers times, and in divers manners spake to our forefathers by the Prophets, hath in these last times spoken to us by his Son.

The Second he taketh from the second and third verses of the second Chapter, in which the Holy Author preferreth the Gospel before the Law, because ‘the Law was given by Angels; (that is, saith he, by the Angel sustaining the person of God, and for that reason mentioned by St. Steven Act. 7. 38. in the singular number, and by many more such spirits making up that glorious train:) but the Gospel by the Lord Jesus the Son of God.’ Upon the seeming force of such Reasons, I find Curcellaeus Curcell. Institut. p. 40, 41. and others Tentam. Theol. p. 289. agreeing in the sentence of Grotius.

Now for the first Objection, I may remove it out of the way by saying no more than that God spake formerly by his Son as his Logos or Minister, and in the latter times by him, as his Son Incarnate, or as begotten by the Holy Ghost of the substance of the Blessed Virgin. The same Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews saith of the Throne of Christ, as Gods Logos, that it was from everlasting; and yet we well know that his Kingdom as Messiah, Mediator Incarnate, or the Word made flesh, was but then at hand when his Harbinger John took upon him the Office of Baptist: And Justin Martyr thought not himself in an error, [Page] when he said Just. Mart. in Apol. 1. p. 48, 49., ‘That the Logos both spake by the Prophets things to come, and also by himself, being made subject to like infirmities with us.’ The Word was Gods Minister Tertul. de Resurrect. Carn. Sect. 51. p. 357. J [...]sus—Adam novissimus, etsi sermo primarius. And advers. Prax. p. 509.—Constat eum semper visum ab Initio, Qui visus fuerat in fine, &c. before and under the Law, but not in the same quality as under the Gospel. In those times he spake not himself immediately; for how can a Divine Subsistence be, meerly of it self, corporally vocal? But he spake (I conceive) by some principal Angel, assumed (as hath been said) without personal union, assisted by him in a miraculous motion of the air or brain. Under the Gospel he spake with his own mouth, as having assumed human nature into unity of Person [This word Person (if I may make a digression of two or three lines) deserveth not the clamour with which Socinians hoot at it; especially when we consider it, as now we do, with relation to Christ as the [...], Face, or personating Shechinah of God]. They then that rightly distinguish betwixt Christ as Gods Word and Shechinah under the former Covenants, and as Mediator and Gods Son incarnate, under the Gospel, will not much be perplexed with such places of Scripture as speak sometimes of Christs Praeexistence, and oftner of his coming into the world in the fulness of time. And thus much Monsieur le Blanc himself taketh notice of Le Blanc in Thesi an Christus sit med. sec. nat. hum. & div. sect. 23. p. 812. in his Theological Theses: ‘He there favoureth the opinion of Christs praeexistence. He owneth him as the Minister of God of old, but not properly as Mediator; which (he saith) including Christs Priestly Office, did of necessity require not only a mission of one Divine Person by another, but a Divine Person incarnate.’

Now from that which I have suggested in this answer to the first Objection of Grotius, it will be a matter of small difficulty to infer a Reply unto his second. For an assumed Angel being us'd by the Divine Logos [Page] as the immediate Minister of himself to the people, and Christ speaking with his own mouth under the Gospel as God-man; and the great mystery of the Gospel consisting in the manifestation of God in the flesh; the Apostle had sufficient reason to prefer the Gospel before the Law. We have before us a matter of lesser astonishment, when we think of Divinity speaking by an Angel to which it is not vitally united, than when we contemplate it as manifesting it self in the quality of God-man, in unity of Person with human nature. Such were the thoughts of St. Hilary of Poictiers Hil. Pict. de Trin. l. 4. p. 856, who in our present Argument thus discourseth: ‘Then God only was seen in [the shew of] man: He was not born.’ Now he who was seen, is also born. For Athanasius S. Athan. op. Vol. 1. p. 86. and p. 537. B., he contendeth that Christ was call'd the Son long before he was incarnate; and that Moses himself knew of the future Incarnation, as well as he saw the present Appearance of the unincarnate Logos.

I conclude then, notwithstanding these Objections, That there is almost as good warrant for reading the Preface to the Decalogue in this manner [Christ spake all these words, and said] as the ancient Saxon Prefacer Praef. ante Leges Aler. di ad calcem Eccl. Hist. Haymonis. had thus to read, as he does, that part of the fourth Commandment [For in six days Christ made the Heaven and the Earth]. God, who by his Logos gave all Physical Laws to Nature, did also by the same Word give the Moral Law to Israel. ‘In the beginning of that Law (saith St. Austin Aug. Epist. 119. God prohibited the worship of any Image, besides one, the same with himself;’ that is to say, the Logos his Son, whom Moses saw; it being promised to him Numb. 12, 8., that God should apparently converse with him, and that he should behold the similitude or Image, or, as the Seventy render it, [...], the Glory, or glorious Shechinah of God.

[Page] Whether, at the giving of the Law, Moses saw the Shechinah in human figure, his Text does not inform us; yet it doth not necessarily follow, that Moses or Aaron saw no figure, because the people did not. For there was much more danger in them who had had the education of slaves, and who labour'd under gross and sensitive apprehensions, than there was in Moses a Learned and Prudent person, of abusing such similitude in the framing of Idols: and one would think that at the receiving of the Tables Exod. 33. 23. he saw something in human figure; for he is said to have seen the backparts of God, or his Shechinah, or the shew of a man inverted, or rather a less degree of luster in the Shechinah; neither he nor any man living being able to behold the face or full luster of it, which perhaps might then appear to the attending-Angels. So that the desire of Moses was, in effect, like that of Eudoxus, who desir'd to see the Sun just by him. If it should have been granted, he must have pay'd down his life as the expence of his curiosity. And indeed the seeing of the Face of God in that sense, was, at that season, the less necessary, because God had, just then, made a promise of his Shechinah, or presence, in the Tabernacle Exod. 33. 14 to go along with him, and to support him against the incredulity of the people, to whose eyes, such a Shechinah as they could bear, was in wisdom to be accommodated.

Whilst Moses was beholding this Pattern in the Moant, and receiving Laws from the Presence of God, the people seeing neither, as at his departure they had done Exod. 24. 16, 17.; the Glory of God in Clouds and Flame; nor, as in the Wilderness, the Pillar of Fire and Cloud; nor himself whom they judg'd a cause of the Shechinah of God with them; and remaining forty days and forty nights in this forsaken estate, as they were apt to think [Page] it, importun'd Aaron for some symbol of Gods Presence, with which he might conduct them, as Moses had done in former times. Aaron wearied with their Cries, made them a Golden Image after the manner of some part of Gods Shechinah which he had seen with Nadab and Abihu, and the Seventy Elders, in a certain ascent of the Mount Exod. 24. 1, 9, 10, 11. comp. with Exod. 19. 21, 23.. He saw thenthe God of Israel, that is, as the Seventy expound the Hebrew sense, [...], the place, or the Throne; or as the Targum of Onkelos renders it, the Glory, or Shechinah of God; not, as Oleaster affirmeth, the Pavement only, which is mentioned afterward. And in the Shechinah there was an appearance of Angels; the Author to the Hebrews, where he opposeth the Gospel to the Law in divers particulars Heb. 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24., mentioning an innumerable company of Angels, in opposition to a smaller company on Mount Sinah. The attending-Angels were usually Cherubim Ezek. 9. 3., and the Cherubim appear'd with heads like those of Oxen; and because the head only was of that likeness See Ezek. c. 1. &. 10., therefore (if I conjecture aright) Lactantius Lactant. de vera sap. l. 4. p. 376. Aureum caput bovis figuratum. and St. Jerome S. Hieron. Commen. in 4. Hos. call'd this Golden Image the Golden head of a Calf. This I conceive to have been the figure of a Cherub, though it pleaseth not the Painter, who describeth it by the Face of a young round-visag'd man. Thus much I collect from the Prophet Ezekiel. That Prophet, in the vision of the wheels Ezek. 10. 14. See R. Sal. Franco's Truth springing out of the earth, p. 15., saith of them, That every one had four Faces. The first Face was the Face of a Cherub; and the second Face was the Face of a man; and the third the Face of a Lyon; and the fourth, the Face of an Eagle. If then the Face of a Cherub was the Face of a man, then each wheel had not four differing Faces, but one had two Faces of human Figure, the second being said to be the Face of a man, as the first was said to be the Face of a Cherub. But if these two had [Page] been alike, the Prophet would then have alter'd his style, and said, The first two Faces were the Faces of a man. But it is evident, by comparing this place in Ezekiel, with the tenth verse of the first Chapter, that Ez [...]k. 1. 10. the Face of a Cherub is the Face of an Ox. For there he mentions the three latter Faces, as he doth here, calling them the Faces of a Man, a Lyon, an Eagle: but for the other Face, called here the Face of a Cherub, he calleth it there the Face of an Ox. And the comparing of these places, induced the Learned Critick Ludovicus de dieu Lud. de dieu. in Epist. ad D. Guil. Eos. well, inter Op. doctis. Medi, p. 704. to be of this opinion, that Cherub signifi'd an Ox, and was derived from the Chaldee word Cherub, He, or It, hath plowed. Now by the worshipping of this Figure of the Face of a Cherub or Ox, the sottish people chang'd their Glory (b), the glorious Image or Shechinah of God (call'd, as was even now said, [...], by the Seventy, in the 12th of Numbers) into the similitude of a man, though useful creature; whose likeness could, at best, be but the symbol of an Angel, which was no more to the Shechinah of God (nor so much by a great deal), as one spoke of a wheel is to an Eastern Emperor in a triumphant Chariot. They turn'd their Glory (saith Jeremiah Pfal. 106. 19. Rom. 1. 23.) into a thing which did not profit them, in Idolum, into an Idol (as is the version of the Vulgar Latine); a helpless statue. They turned the Truth of God (as it is in St. Paul Jer. 2. 11. into a Lye: The true Shechinah of God, into an Idol, which is vanity, nothing of that which it pretendeth to be; having no Divinity attending on it. Aaron made it as Gods symbol, which in truth it was not; and the people worship'd it beyond his intention, and after the Egyptian manner; and in their hearts wishing they were again in that Land of Ceremonious Idolatry. This folly kindled the wrath of God and Moses; yet it did not quite remove his favour: [Page] for Moses was a second time call'd up into the Mount, and thence he brought the renewed Tables and the Statutes of Israel, and the pattern of the Tabernacle; and at his descent, Rays of glorious Light did stream from his face, as if he had been a second Shechinah, reflecting the borrow'd beams of the first.

The Tabernacle which God had now discover'd, and which Moses was ready to frame, was but a model of the Temple built many years after by the Magnificent Solomon. And in it God gave the people, instead of the more aenigmatical and idle Hieroglyphicks of the World in Egypt, a more excellent Scheme of it in this great and typical Fabrick, representing, in the three spaces of it, the three Heavens, which the Jews so often speak of, the Elementary, and Starry, and Supercoelestial Regions. St. Chrysostom S. Chrys. in Hom. de Nativ. vol. 5. op. p. 422. [...]. speaking of this workmanship of God, calleth it the Image of the whole World both sensible and intellectual. And he attempteth the justification of his Notion, by the 9th to the Hebrews, and particularly by the 24th verse, in which the holy places made with hands, are call'd the figures of the true or heavenly places.

In this manner, then, God pleas'd to help the imaginations of the Jews, by a visible scheme of his throne and footstool. It were endless here to take particular notice of all things relating to the Tabernacle or Temple: but if I take not the Ark into my especial consideration, I shall be guilty of greater negligence than any foolish Astronomer, who in his description of the Heavens should leave out the Sun.

This Ark of the Covenant consider'd in all the appendages of it, God vouchsafed to the Jews in place of all the Statues, or Creatures, or appearances of Daemons, which their fancy was apt to adore, and in which Daemons did already, or might afterwards counterfeit [Page] some shews of the glorious Shechinah of God. ‘Men (saith Maimonides Maim. in More Nev. par. 3. c 45. p. 475.) built Temples to the Stars, and placed in them some Image dedicated to this or the other Idol in the Heavens, and gave it unanimous worship. Hence God commanded that a Temple should be built to himself, and that the Ark should be put into it, and that in the Ark should be deposited the Two Tables of stone, in which it was written, I am the Lord thy God; and thou shalt have no other Gods besides me.’ The whole of it was in singular manner typical of God-man, who came to destroy the works of the Devil. This virtue of Christ appearing on the Ark was manifested in the miraculous conquest of it over Dagon I Sam. 5. 4., a Sea-god worshipped in Palestine in the City of Ashdod. He fell before the Ark, and laid on the ground a handless and headless Idol, without more shew of Majesty, Power or Wisdom than the Trunk of a Tree.

This Ark was not in it self properly an Image, but a Chest over-laid with Gold as a Conservatory of the precious [...] of the Two Tables. Yet thereby God by way of Hieroglyphick, though not of Image or Picture of representation, did offer himself to the eye as a supreme Governour ruling the Commonwealth of Israel by a written Law. This Moncaeus Moncaeus in Aar. purg. ap. Crit. maj. p. 4428. would have to be taken from the [...], the Chest or Coffin of Apis, mentioned by Plutarch Plutarc. de Iside, p. 362. C.. But that was a thing of later date, and not known to the ancient Egyptians. It belonged to the Greek Serapis, who is said thence to take his name.

The whole of the Ark seems to some the Triumphant Chariot Philo de Profugis. p. 465. B. C— [...] [i. e. [...], &c. of God moved by Angels, set forth by the form of Beasts, who drew the Chariots of the Eastern Kings: whose Pomp the Poets exalted into Heaven in the Chariots of their gods. This of the true [Page] God is represented as moving by Angels in the Clouds, not as any fixed Throne in it self: the Power and Providence of God, whose Chariot hath Wheels with Eyes, making all the World its circle; though often it took its way to the Tabernacle and Temple. Why Cherubims were added, the cause hath been often intimated already; to wit, by reason that the Logos appearing as Gods Shechinah, was attended with Angels, and especially with Cherubim. Though Maimonides Maimon. de Fund Leg Sect. 8. p. 18. & Sect. 9. p. 20. reckoneth the Cherubim to be of the lowest order excepting those which he calls Ischim; such in his conceit as spake to inspired men, and were by them seen in Prophetical Visions. For the entire Figure of the Cherubim, I am not desirous to inquire with nice and accurate diligence, whether it were such as the Angels usually appeared in, or whether it were a mere Emblem of their Properties. The Scripture shews that they move swiftly, as flame and wind, and all understand that wings are the instruments of a quick motion. The Scripture also representeth them as dazled at the Glory of God, and therefore needeth no further Comment on the Faces of the Cherubim as covered with their wings. But curiously to interpret each particular spoken of them, and of the Ark in which they were placed, is the ready way to create such significations by our fancy, as the wisdom of God did never intend. Of this kind sure is that conceit of S. Greg. Nyssen Greg. Nyssen. de vitâ Moysis, [...]om. 1. Op. p. 225., who will have the Rings of the Ark to signifie the Angels sent as Rings or pledges of favour to the Heirs of Salvation. It is enough if we look upon the Ark as an holy vessel representing Gods Majesty with his Coelestial Retinue, and the Rule of his Law, and as a Type of Christ, without forcing every staff, and ring, and pin, into unnatural Allegory. And for some such reason Mr. Calvin In 2. Praec [...]pt, p. 209. minimè—sequitar, &c. did on purpose forbear to pry too critically into the Ark.

[Page] Betwixt the Cherubims, and upon the Cover of the Ark appeared as in a Chariot of Majesty, the Divine Logos in admirable lustre, yet tempered with Clouds. So he appeared to the people when Moses was taken up into the Mount. So Ezekiel in his Vision Ezek. 1. 4, 5. &c. 9. 3. &c. 10. 3, 4. saw him in a cloud with brightness about it; and this he calls the Glory upon the Cherubims. And doubtless that Vision was in part a Vision of the Temple, though not wholly after the pattern of the Tabernacle, but as furnished by the voluntary devotion of Solomon, who added Oxen and Lions to the Brazen-Laver. These some think to have been steps to his future Idolatry: as if he began to allude to the Lions under the Chariot of the Sun See Cuperi Harpocr. p. 15, 16, 17. And Porphyry, who calls the Sun, [...]., mentioned by Horus Apollo. But these Images being of servile use there was the less danger in them. Touching the appearance of the Logos in a cloud of brightness, we may further observe, that the Glory of God was said to have appeared in or at the Tabernacle: That in the Psalms Psal. 78. 60, 61. the Ark is called Gods Glory, or his [...], (the word of the Seventy) his beautiful luster; that the same David speaks of having seen Psal. 63. 2. [...], (the word of the Seventy for Gods Shechinah) the Glory or radiant Presence of God in the Sanctuary. And lastly, that the Cherubims on the Ark are in the ninth Chapter to the Hebrews called Cherubims of Glory. Now it further appeareth, that it was the Logos whose Glory shone on the Ark, by the many places of Scripture which speak no otherwise of the Ark than as of the Type of God Incarnate. Christ before his Incarnation sitting on the Propitiatory as his Throne, with the Ark and Law at his feet, (for that holy Vessel is in Scripture called his foot-stool Psal. 99. 5. & 132. 7. Isa. 60. 13.), seemeth to shew himself before-hand in the Offices of King, and Prophet, and Priest. As King, whilst he sits on his Golden Throne, and exhibiteth [Page] the Law; as Prophet, whilst he answereth when consulted from between the Cherubims; with relation to which Oracle the Hebrews called the Sanctuary the house of Counsel Author excerpt. de Trad. Hebr. in. Parali [...]. inter op. S. Hieron. Tom. 3. p. 261.; and as a Priest establishing his seat as a Propitiatory or Mercy-seat. When I come in due place to speak of the Word made flesh, it will be proper to insist on those citations of Scripture which point him out to us as the true Ark of God. In the mean time I will content my self with that one of the Apostle, who speaking of the Mysteries of the Divine Wisdom and Love in the Incarnation of Christ, alludeth manifestly to the Ark, and to the Faces of the Cherubim turned towards the Shechinah: Which things (saith he 1 Pet. 1. 12. the Angels [called as before was noted, the Cherubims of glory, or of the glorious Presence of God] with flexure of curiosity look into. This Ark of the Mosaick Covenant is in the Psalms Psal. 24. 6. & 42. 2. called the Face, that is, the Shechinah of God. Nay the Scripture elsewhere Numb. 10. 35, 36. 1 Sam. 4. 7. & 6. 20. 2 Sam. 7. 6. Psal. 24. 7, 8. Psal. 68. 8, 25. giveth to it, taken entirely and together with the Presence of the Logos, the very name of God.

God having condescended to his so eminent Shechinah, it was thenceforth certainly the more unlawful for the People to frame, without Divine permission, any Statues of a true or a false God. And thereby the second Command newly given, was much enforced: for how could they be confident in setting up any new Shechinah, when one was provided them by God himself. A Shechinah which did not lessen Gods Majesty as Images would have done in the opinion of Clemens of Alexandria Clem. Alex: Strom. l. 5. p. 559., and in the judgment of truth it self. For this was not any Representation of the Godhead, but only a very glorious visible sign of Gods invisible presence and ready assistance.

The Ark then being neither God nor his Image, was [Page] never to be worshipped, though it had no doubt a very high respect payed towards it, and was separated from the uses of common vessels. It was a sacred Chest, yet not to be adored, like that of the Mammonist, for a God. It is true (what Volkelius Volkel. de verâ Relig. l. 5. c. 24. de Idol. p. 582. observeth rightly against Bellarmine, who alledgeth the instance of the Ark in favour of Images) there is great difference betwixt such an Image or Embleme as was constituted by the express command of God, and to which he was by his Word eminently present; and those which he neither commands, nor consecrates with his Presence. But here it ought not to be imagined, that the Ark or Cherubims were by Gods appointment objects of worship. The Heart was only to worship the Immense God, appearing in the Shechinah; though in that act the Reverence of the Body could not but pass towards the Ark; and the Mind it may be did not always use nice abstraction, any more than we now do, when with civil reverence we bow to the King, not considering just then his clothes and chair of state apart from him; yet then it is to the Prince, and not to his Robes or seat that we bow. It is therefore absurd to say with Bellarmine Bell. d [...] Imag. l. 2. c. 12., that the Cherubims over the Ark were of necessity worshipped with the Ark it self; for neither were ador'd, no not the luster of the Shechinah it self; it not being immediately assumed by the Logos, but only used as a sign of his gracious Presence; but God only, who was the object of the worship, whilst they were but circumstances and appendages of his Glory, towards, and not to which the external sign of adoration used by the High-Priest was directed. For we must not here conceive of the Typical Ark, as of the real Ark, the Lord Incarnate; in whom the Humane and Divine Nature are so united, that the Christians have worshipped him always as God-man, though as [Page] St. Cyril professeth in his first Book of Answers to Julian, they had all [...], or Man-worship, in abhorrence. I know that very often See T. G. Cath. no Idol. p. 205, 206. the words of David are alledged for the worship of the Ark; but with as little ground, as other Scriptures are often produced by men who first take up opinions, and then seek colour for them in the Bible. We read the words Psal. 99. 5. after this manner: Fall down before his Footstool, for it, or he, is holy; and we have amended the Translation with Reason; it being read of old, Worship the footstool of his feet: a Reading indiscreet as that of lifting up the hands unto thy holy Ark most high, in the singing Psalms Psal. 28. 2. which are rather permitted than allowed. The Divine Poet intended no more in that place to urge the Israelites to a precise adoration of the Ark it self, than any other Poet Kircher in Carm. ded. Ars magna lucis & umbrae—cadit ad Genua orientis solis. designs to worship the very knees or feet of the King, or Pantofle of the Pope, when in his raptures of humility he speaks of falling prostrate before them. Genebrard himself thinks David to make allusion to such Rites. And the Hebrew reading La-hadhom is surely to be interpreted at his footstool, unless the Lamed signifieth nothing; which Dr. Vane either did not, or would not observe when he Dr. Vane in his lost sheep return'd home c. 21. p. 304. so magisterially accus'd the Protestants of translating falsly. A greater Doctor by far hath reckoned together the Brazen Serpent and the Cherubims Tertul. contr. Marc. l. 2. c. 22. p. 392. Sic & Cher. & Ser. aurea in Arcâ figuratum exemplum, certè simplex ornamentum, accommodata suggestui, longè diversas habendo causas ab Idoiolatriae conditione, ob quam similitudo prohibetur, &c., as other things than Images of worship: so far he is from that, that he calls the Cherubim on the Ark a simple ornament accommodated to that Throne or Chair, whence Oracles were dispensed. But St. Hierom it seems establisheth the worship of the Ark in these words: ‘The Jews in time past did worship or reverence the Holy of Holies, because there were the Cherubims, the Propitiatory, the Ark.’ So T. G. T. G. Cath. [...] Idol. p. 20 [...]. translateth him citing his 17th. Epistle ad Marcellam. But if he had pleafed, [Page] he might have left out the word Worship, and used that of Reverence only. The holy Father indeed in that Epistle In Tom. 1. Op. S. Hieron. p. 123, 124. penned by him for Paula and Eustochium, owneth a reverence due to them. So do we very readily an high honorary respect, but not a [...], (the word of the Seventy) a giving them the homage of the external sign of bowing in a Temple, and in our time of devotion; for that so circumstantiated belongeth to God. So did putting off the shoos; it was a giving as 'twere to God by that sign possession of that place; although a forbearing to trample rudely there might be also a relative respect to the consecrated place. Neither did St. Hierom in that place, design such reverence or worship; for in the following part of the Epistle which T. G. did forbear to cite, the Manna, the rod of Aaron, the Golden Altar which the High-Priest did not worship, although he reverenced them, and separated them from vile use, are reckoned in the same Classis of things to be rever'd with the Ark and Cherubims; as also the Sepulchre of Christ, which the Primitive Christians no more ador'd than they in Socrates Socr. Eccl. Hift. p. 191. l. 3. c. 18. worshipped the body of Babylas the Martyr, who danced about his Coffin singing Psalms, and deriding the worship of Idols, whilst they removed it into the City of Antioch from Daphne See Epist. S. Hieron. ad Ripar. Presbyt. op. Tom. 2. p. 118.. But in this Argument I need not abound. Others have said a great deal in it, and I will not transcribe them, but rather refer to them See Bishop Whites Orthod. Faith. p. 111. Capit. Caroli Magni. c. 26. p. 271. Dr. Still. against T. G. p. 710, 711, &c.. I will note only here an odd assertion of Grotius In Vot [...] pro Pace, p. 41., which I wonder how it dropped from the Pen of that great man: ‘Whilst (said he) the Catholicks (meaning the Papists) profess that they exhibit the signs of honour to Christ, whom many Protestants acknowledg to be present in the Sacrament, they are no more [...], Bread-worshippers, then the Jews were [...], worshippers of the Ark [Page] when they exhibited the honour of God at it.’ But the Jews did not worship the Ark at all, much less as the body of the Logos, whilst such Catholicks worship not only Christ as present, but that very substance which is under the shew of bread as the natural body of Christ; and therefore if it prove bread, they worship bread, whatever they think it; for the false opinions of men change not the nature of things; and bread is bread, and the worship of that which is bread is certainly Bread-worship; though it be judged of, and honoured as another thing. And Barnabas and Paul were no other persons, though the Lycaonians thought one to be Jupiter and the other Mercury, being induced to that misbelief, and an inclination to offer sacrifice to them, by perceiving a miracle wrought by a word of their mouth Act. 14. 8, t [...] 13..

This Ark which I am speaking of as the instrument of the Shechinah, but not as an object of worship in it self, was a while placed in Shiloh; but it was not till Davids, or rather Solomons time properly, fixed in one certain place of the Holy Land: God causing his favour to be valued by the suspence of it, and shewing thereby that he was not confined to any particular place.

Besides the Shechinah in the Tabernacle, and afterwards in the Temple, God vouchsafed the Jews another especial Presence of his Logos by the High Priest, and the Sacerdotal Appendages of the Ephod and Breastplate. Of the appointment of these we read in the eight and twentieth Chapter of Exodus. And in that Chapter it is said concerning the Breast-plate of the High-Priest Exod. 28. 30. [called also the Breast-plate of Judgment] that the Urim and the Thummim, should be put into it. Our English Bible hath retained these words in their Original; and where they are translated, [Page] in other Versions, the Reader is still left uncertain of their meaning, and sometimes led into a mistake. Such is like to be the fate of those who are guided meerly by the vulgar-Latine Version [Doctrine and Truth]; or that of the Seventy [Demonstration and Truth]; or that in the Syriack[the Lucid and the Perfect]; or that in one Reading of the Samaritan Translation [Elucidations and Perfections]; or lastly, that of the Arabick[Dilucidations and Certainties]. Our English Translators, and Arias Montanus, and Onkelos, spake e'n as intelligibly, when they only transcrib'd the very Hebrew words of Urim and Thummim. I beg leave of the Reader, in this dark and disputable subject, to interpose my conjecture; and it is at his pleasure whether he will favour or reject it. If he shall do the latter, he will not be offensive to me; for I pretend not, in this Argument, to Demonstration.

Thus, then, I conceive of this Levitical appointment. I suppose the High-Priest, consider'd especially as a Type of Christ, to be the walking-Temple of God. His Garments and Breast-plate, together with the Urim and Thummim, I take to be the apparatus of this Shechinah, in imitation of that other whose Instruments were the Ark and the Cherubims. Of the High-Priest Philo confesseth Philo Jud. de Prosugis, p. 466 B., that they esteemed not of him as of a meer man; but they look'd on him as [a [...], or] the Divine Word. And for that reason (saith Dr. Jackson in vol. 3. p. 803. Dr. Jackson) the Breast-plate was call'd [...]. For his Ornaments, Grotius H. Grotius in Exod. 28. 4. And Munster in v. 5. p. 653. Crit. Maj. doth parallel them with those of the Temple. ‘The Four colours (said he) are the same. The Seven Garments Exod. 28. 5, 8. a Breast-plate, an Ephod, a Robe, a broider'd Coat, a Miter—a Girdle, v. 36. a Plate of gold., if you reckon in the Plate of Gold, answer to the seven Lamps; the Twelve Jewels to the Twelve Loaves; the inner-linings of the Ephod, to the vail and six Curtains.’ And it is observable, that [Page] in Hosea Hosea 3. 4. the more fixed, and this walking Shechinah, are joined together. The place to which I refer, is that in which God threatneth, ‘That the children of Israel shall abide many days without a King, and without a Prince, and without a Sacrifice, and without an Image [or a Standing or Statue, as the Margent readeth it; without a fixed Shechinah, such as that of the Ark] and without an Ephod; and without LXX. [...], i. e. sine urim. Teraphim [or Urim].’ Christopher Castrus judg'd these to be the same: and a very learn'd and excellent person of our own Nation Doctiss. D. Spenc. in Dissert. de Urim & Thummim, c. 5. sect. 2. p. 251, 252, 253., with whose leave I publish this Discourse, hath given us Arguments to persuade to the belief of that which Castrus just hinted without proof or illustration. To him I send the doubtful Reader, taking it my self for a most probable opinion, That Urim were Teraphim; and also, that Teraphim were Seraphim; of which the Sin might be first mispronounced as Zain, and afterterwards as Tzade, and at last as Thau. And both Urim and Seraphim have the same signification of Burnings S. Hier. Tom. 3. ad Dam. p. 117. Seraphim. sic [...]t in interpret. nom. Hebr. invenimus, Ardor aut Incendium—interpretantur. Tom. 5. p. 29. Seraphim interpretantur [...] [not the LXX, who in Isa. 6. 2. use [...]] quod nos [...]e poss [...], Incendentes seu comburent [...]s.. By Thummim I mean something of a very different nature; and, in due place, I shall shew my opinion concerning it, and offer to the Curious a new, and I hope an inoffensive and probable notion. But order requireth that I first speak of Urim, Seraphim, or Teraphim. Where I would build something new also, though upon an old foundation.

I cannot here assent to the opinion of Grotius, who In Judic. c. 17. v. 4. p. 2123. ap. C. M. is inclin'd to think the Teraphim of the same form with the Cherubim. He citeth, for this, the Authority of St. Hierom ad Marcellam; and there I find that Father S. Hi [...]ron. ad Marcell. Tom. 3. op. p. 72, 73. so expounding the Theraphim in the third of Hosea, as if they were [not the Statues, but] the Pictures of Cherubims upon the Ephod, in allusion to those on the vail of the Tabernacle Exod. 26. 31. With Cherubims shall it be made. Vers. Arab. With Pictures., And he further [Page] observeth, that where the word Cherubim, in Exodus, is written without the Letter Vau, it signifieth Pictures; but where it is written with it, it generally signifieth living Creatures. The Text, sure, in his time was written otherwise than now it is; for now the Cherubim on the Ark and on the Vail are written alike. Whether those on the Vail were intire Pictures or Figures of Cherubim, as Onkelos calls them, or [Opus Plumarium] a kind of Feather-work, according to the Vulgar and Samaritan Versions, or representation of the Wings of the Cherubs, may deserve the further consideration of Philologers. But whatsoever the opinion was which St. Hierom had of Teraphim, it is certain that he supposed the Seraphim to be distinct from the Cherubim. The Cherubim he representeth, as the more immediate Attendants on the Throne of God; the Seraphim, as Angels dispatched on lower Ministrations S. Hieron in Isa. 6. p. 29. Tom. 5. op. In Cherubim ostendit [...]r Dominus; ex Seraphim ex parte ostenditur, ex parte celatur. Idem. Tom. 3. op. ad Damasum Papam. p. 121. Super Cherubim sedere Deum, scriptum est—super Seraphim verò sedere Deum, nulla script. commemorat, & ne ipsa quidem Seraphim circa Deum stantia, excepto present. loco (viz. Isa. 6.) in SS.—invenimus.. And he sheweth it to be the custom of some in his days, to use in their prayers this compellation, Thou who sittest upon the Cherubim and Seraphim. And though in his Comment on the sixth of Isaiah, he disliketh that form; yet that displeasure was not conceiv'd against the distinction of Cherubim and Seraphim; but at the insinuation, by those words, of this Doctrine, which he esteemed false, that the Seraphim were the Angels appertaining immediately to the highest Shechinah, or Heavenly Throne. If Cherubim had been the same with Urim and Seraphim, Moses would scarce have changed their name in the pursuit of the same discourse; first calling them Cherubim no less than seven times in the space of five verses Exod. 25. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22., whilst he speaketh of the Mercy-feat; and then giving them a new title of Urim, whilst he describeth the Breast-plate, which was but the lesser and more exposed Ark. Teraphim he might well lay aside, because of [Page] their private use, or rather their abuse; for which reason the name of Baal was never appli'd to the God of Israel, though in it self proper enough. But let us come nearer to the point, from which we have, as yet, kept at some distance.

Urim and Thummim, whatsoever was their mysterious importance, were, in themselves, material things, and things distinct from the Gems; for they were to be put into the Pectoral Levit. 8. 8.. Who the Maker of them was, it is not distinctly reported. They are not found in the Inventory of Bezaliel's Workmanship, unless they are included in the general name of the Pectoral, used for it self and its Contents.

In enquiring into their nature, we must consider them with some relation to Gods Shechinah on the Ark. For the High-Priest was, here, a Type of the Logos; and the Pectoral, a Quadrangular hollow Instrument with Rings, and wrought without like the Veil of the Holiest, was a little model of the Ark of the Covenant.

Wherefore, for Urim, Teraphim, or Seraphim, I conceive that they answer, in part, to the Cherubim, which were Images of Angels. In part, I say; for it is my conjecture concerning these Seraphim, that they were Images or Symbols of Ministring-Angels in the form of fiery flying Serpents; as Cherubim were such Symbols with the Faces of Oxen. And towards the probability of this new and odd conceit, I offer the following Conclusions, which I desire the Reader jointly to consider ere he derides it.

First, The word Saraph it self, is used in signifying a fiery flying Serpent. This is its signification in the Book of Numbers Numb. 2 [...] 6, 8., where it is said, That the Lord sent Seraphim, or fiery serpents among them. And again, it is there remembred, how God said to Moses, Make [Page]thee a Saraph, and set it upon a Pole. To which I add that in the Book of Deuteronomy Deut. 8. 15., a Burning Serpent is called Nachash Saraph.

Secondly, There were in Egypt, Arabia, Lybia Herod. l. 2. p. 132. [...]ic. de Nat. Deor. l. 1., and other places, flying fiery Serpents. The Prophet Isaiah mentioneth such creatures Isa. 14. 29.; and Kimchi, on the place, saith they are found in Ethiopia; meaning, it may be, the Arabian Ethiopia. They were called Fiery, not only because of the heat of their venom, causing extraordinary inflammations and thirsts in the body bitten by them; but also because they appeared such when they flew in the Air, being a kind of animated Meteors. Hence Abarbanel saith of such flying Serpents, that they were reddish, after the colour of brass Abarb. Com. in Leg. fol. 305. ap. G. Moebium de AEneo Serpente. Exerc. 2. c. 2. sect. 11.: If that was their natural colour, great addition might be made to it by the swift motion of their wings, and the vibration of their tayls, in the bright Atmo-spheres of Arabia and Egypt.

Thirdly, In the earliest Ages and inhabited Countries of the world, the creatures on earth principally reverenc'd, were Oxen and Serpents. That Oxen were so, has been already shew'd; as likewise that the Cherubim, Appendages to the S [...]echinah in the most holy Place, had the faces of such Beasts. Serpents were lately worship'd in America, as appeareth from Acosta, and the Discoverers in Hackluit. And we read in Mr. Gage Gages Survey of the West-Indics, p. 117., of the great Golden Snakes adjoin'd to the Idols Tezcatlipuca and Vitzilopuchtli. And, of old, Serpents were sacred in Egypt. Herodotus mentioneth the [...] Herodot. in E [...]ter. p. 132. or sacred Serpents about Thebes, which when they were dead, were buried by the superstitious in the Temple of Jupiter. We see no Table of Isis, or Osiris, or Bac [...]hus, without a Serpent See Pignor. de M [...]â Isiacâ. p. 23.. The sacredness of that Beast is said, by Pignorius, to have prevail'd among the Arabians, Ba [...]ylonians, Carthathaginians,[Page]Baeotians, Epirots, Sicyonians, Epidaurians, Romans. He might have added the Indians, with Maximus Tyrius Max. Tyr. dissert. 38. p. 373.; and with Erasmus Stella Eras. Stel. ad Init. l. 1. de Antiq. Boruss. & samog. the Borussians and Samogetes. And the Hereticks, call'd Ophitae or Ophiani, have not escaped the notice of any who have looked into the History of the Christian Church See Tertullde paescrip. Her. c. 47. p. 220..

For the worship both of Serpents and Oxen together, it is represented in the Egyptian Hieroglyphick Kircher in Oedip. synt. 18. p. 508, 509. c. 1. of a winged Ox with humane face, vomiting flames, having a Globe on its head, and under its feet, an undulated Serpent.

Serpents were thus honoured for many reasons. Because they could twine themselves into all figures Wisd. 16. 5▪ [...].. Because there was a mighty Energy in their venom See Porphyr. de Abstin. l. 4. p. 155. giving the like reason for the worship of the Eg [...]ptian Hawk.— [...], &c.. Because of their mighty Bulk, by which some of them were able (saith Diodorus Diod. Sic. l. 3. c. 10. p. 143. See Max. Tyr. diss. 38. p. 373.) to conquer Elephants. Because (saith Vossius Voss. de Idol. l. 9. c. 11. p. 234.) they live to great Age; are of quick and piercing sight; renew their youth by putting off their skin. Last of all, by reason (saith Pignorius Pignor. de mensâ Isiaca. p. 24.) that the Heathen were overpowered with the craft, malice and pride of the Devil who deluded man in that shape, and would, as it were, redeem the loss he sustained in the curse of that creature, by turning it into a venerable Idol.

Fourthly, Serpents, thus sacred, were not the ultimate objects of worship, but the symbols or shrines of some Angels or Daemons. Thus the Serpents of Thebes, spoken of by Herodotus Herod. l. 2. p. 132. A., are said, by him, to be sacred to Jupiter. And the Symbol of Cneph, was the Symbol of an Agatho-demon Euseb. de praep: l. 1. c. 10. p. 41..

Fifthly, There were, not only such living Symbols and shrines, but also Images made by mens hands. Such we see in the Tables of Isis, and in the Images of Cartari. Such we read of in the Scripture, under the [Page] name of Teraphim, which were much in use in the world a while after the flood. In the Ramessean Obelisk Kirch. Oed. Tom. 3 p. 160, 199., a good Daemon is represented by an Asp sitting next Osiris. And a Dragon, a creature of the Serpent-kind, is usually annexed to the statue of AEsculapius Macrob. l. 1. Sat. c. 20. p. 295..

Sixthly, Such good Angels as made up a part of the Shechinah of the Logos, and also ministred in the world, seem to have given some occasion to such Symbols and Images by their appearance, as in the form of winged Oxen or Cherubim; so by their appearance as of the most eminent sort of winged Serpents, with beautiful faces, it may be, of men as had the Harpies, though they had the tail of a Serpent See Cartari's Imag. p. 156., or rather of Eagles, if they appeared not with Serpentine heads. The sacred One in the Sphinx of Kircher Kirch. Sphinx. mystagoga. p. 57. had the head of an Hawk or Eagle: so had the famous [...] in Egypt, as Eusebius relateth from Zoroaster Eus. de praep. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. de Phaen. Theol. p. 41, 42. [...], &c.. The Egyptians call'd him Cneph, the Phenicians, a good Daemon.

Now, if the Seraphim had not appeared in some such form, it would be very difficult to give any tolerable account of the temptation of Adam and Eve by a Daemon in the shape of a Serpent. That Serpent is ridiculously painted in the form of a creeping one before the fall: and it is impossible to conceive our first Parents so stupid, as to have entered into Dialogue with such a creature without any astonishment. But being used to the Shechinah of the Logos, and to the appearance of ministring Angels, shewing themselves in some such winged form (for that they abode not Elucid. Pseudo- Anselmi. l. 1. c. 15. p, 461. Disc. Quamdiu suer [...]nt in Paradiso? Mag. Septem[al. Sex] horas. one night in Paradise, is by many judicious persons esteemed a groundless fancy); it is easie to conceive, upon that supposition, how they might entertain some familiar discourse with a creature assuming that Image [Page] in very splendid and glorious manner. The Text assureth us that the form is now changed by Gods curse; and sure the change was more considerable than the alteration spoken of by Mr. Mede Mr. Mede's Works, p. 292., who thinketh that the Serpent went formerly on the ground, though with his head and breast reared up and advanced. It seemeth a more probable opinion by far, that the change was made from the form of a splendid flying Saraph, to that of a mean creeping Serpent, not moving aloft in the air, but licking the dust. And much more probable, doubtless, it is than that dream which Kircher Oëdip. Egypt. Synt. 3. c. 4. chargeth on Maimonides; as if that Rabbi had affirmed, that the Devil deceived Eve in the shape of a Camel. But Maimonides Maimon. More Nevochim. par. 2. c. 30. p. 280. saith only from the Rabbies in Medrasch, that the Serpent was rode on, and was as big as a Camel; and that he who rode on him was Samael, or Satan.

Methinks a part of the punishment of Adam and Eve declares the shape of the Serpent or Daemon, by whom they were tempted. For it is said that God guarded Paradise against them by a Cherub and a Flaming-sword, which (as hath been noted already) was esteemed by the Jews a second Angel; and may be aptly imagined a Saraph, or flaming-Angel, in the form of a a flying fiery Serpent, whose body vibrated in the air with luster, and may be fitly described by the Image of such a sword. And whereas Maimonides Id. ibid. par. 1. c. 49. p. 73. interpreteth this Sword of the property of an Angel, of which the Scripture speaketh as of a flame of fire; he saith nothing distinctly applicable to the second Angel, but what was common also to the Cherub; whilst something is pointed at in the Text as peculiar to the second Angel called a flaming-sword.

It may be further noted to our present purpose, that the word Saraph or Seraphim is used in Scripture both [Page] to denote (as was said) a fiery flying Serpent, and also an Angel of a certain order whom Isaiah representeth Isa, 6. 2, 6. as having wings, and flying to him with a coal from the Altar. Accordingly Buxtorf in his little Lexicon in the word Saraph, thus discourseth: ‘Saraph signifies a fiery and most venemous Serpent. Seraphim is likewise a name of Angels, who from the clearness and brightness of their Aspect are seen as it were flaming and fiery.’ But there is an authority in this Argument to me more valuable, not for the notation of the word, but for the sense so accommodate to my notion. It is that of Tertullian in two places. The first place is in his Book de Praescriptione Haereticorum; There he suggesteth from others, ‘That Tertull. de Praescr. Haer. p. 220. C.—Iftum suisse serpentem cui Eva, ut filio Dei, crediderat. Eve gave attention to the Serpent as to the Son of God.’ The second place is in his Book against the Valentinians. There he saith Id. adv. Val. c. 2. p. 251. Illa [i. e. Columba] a primordio, Divinae Pacis Praeco. Ille [i. e. Serpens] a primordio, divine Imaginis Praedo., ‘That the Serpent from the beginning was one that sacrilegiously usurped the Divine Image.’ This soundeth as if the Devil in Serpentine form, had represented part of the Shechinab of the Logos, and that Eve conceived him to be an Angel appertaining to his glorious presence, and a minister of his pleasure; and now come forth from him.

Now I here suppose the Seraphim or Urim to be two Golden winged Images, not from the number of the word Urim (for the Jews use that number frequently of a single thing or person) but from that of the Images called Cherubim, which were two Symbols placed on the Ark which is typed in the Pectoral. And I do not think so much (as doth Maimonides Maim. More Nev. par. 3. c. 45. p. 476. that the Cherubim were therefore two, lest the form of a single one should have been mistaken for the Figure of the one God; as that these two (like the Model of the Temple) had reference to Earth as well as Heaven, and, besides Angels, represented Moses and Aaron as the [Page] Ministers of the Logos under the Law; as the four Creatures in the Vision of Ezekiel typed out the four Evangelists as Christs servants under the Gospel. Neither did the number of the Cherubim prevent misconstruction. For St. Hierom reporteth of some, that by the two Seraphim [Cherubim he meaneth] they understood the Son and the Holy Ghost S. Hier. in Isa. c. 6. Tom. 4. p. 29..

In the Pectoral I suppose Seraphim, and not Cherubim; this being an Oracle for Civil affairs See Doctiss. D. Spenceri Diss. de ur. & Thum. p. 16, 17, 18., and not properly the Oracle of the Temple; and the Cherubim being according to St. Hierom before cited, the seven Spirits about Gods Throne, and according to David the Chariots on which he rides; and the Seraphim of inferior attendance (though Appendages of the Shechinah) and of more frequent ministration abroad in Temporal matters; such as that of the Captivity of Judah, in the declaration of which to Isaiah, a Saraph assisted.

For the Answer of God by Urim, I suppose it not to have been conveyed through the mouths of these Images, which were to be put into the Ark Levit. 8. 8., whilst nothing is mentioned of the taking them out. But it seemeth most probable that as the Logos spake with a voice out of the Glory above the Cherubim, and not by them, their mouths being turned from the High-Priest; so the High-Priest, who here was the Logos of the Logos, the Substitute and Type of Christ, spake by Inspiration over the Pectoral and Saraphs. Neither is it fully proved from the Book of Samuel I Sam. 23. 11, 12. The Lord said, [by the Ephod] he will descend,—they will deliver ye up., that God spake Vivâ voce; as the Annotations published out of the Library of the Archbishop of York, would have it to be: for it may well be said, that God spake when through miraculous inspiration he spake by the mouth of his Prophets or Priests See, notwithstanding Dr. Spencer. Dissert. de ur. & Thum. p. 34, &c..

The Urim or Seraphim were put into the Pectoral, [Page] and not set upon it, as the Cherubim were on the greater Ark; not so much for the concealment of them from the eyes of the people prone to Idolatry, as; for some other cause; for the Ark was often carried in Procession with the Cherubims on it: unless we shall say that the upper cover of the Ark, or Mercy-seat, which is mentioned in Scripture as a distinct piece of Artifice from it Exod. 28. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6., was not taken along with it.

But to me this seemeth one reason: the High-Priest was here the Type of Christ-Incarnate, who in the days of his flesh, though he had Angels ministring to him, did not often please to occasion their appearance.

It may be here objected, That this Notion of the Seraphim in the Ark, ascribeth to God the setting up as part of his Shechinah, the Image proper to the Devil, for such is that of the Serpent.

I answer, that the contrary is here true; for the groveling Serpent doomed by God is such a Symbol; and such a one the Heathens worshipped. Neither was any other distinctly used in Egypt, or (so far as I have read) in any other Country of the world. For though the Egyptian Cneph had wings, yet he was not a winged Serpent, but a compounded Symbol, of which the tayl of the Serpent was but a small part adjoined to the breast, wings and head of an Hawk or Eagle. And Eusebius relateth from Philo Byblius, that the Egyptian Hieroglyphick of the World was a Circle, of which the Serpent (the Symbol of a good Daemon as they conceived) was but the Diameter; the whole figure being almost like to the great Θ of the Greeks. And by that it appears that the sacred Egyptian Serpent was the creeping one, and not the winged one of Arabia, whose company they so detested, that they deified the Bird Ibis for destroying it.

[Page] But now the glorious winged Serpent was the Symbol of a good ministring Angel. And accordingly God used such a one in the Wilderness; and it is known by the name of the Brazen-serpent, or Saraph Numb 21. 8. Ar. Mont. vers. Fac Tibi Saraph..

Of that inferior kind of Shechinah it is proper to speak here; it being to be understood from the Contents of the foregoing Discourse.

This then seemeth no other than a winged Saraph, put on a Pole Numb. 21. 8. Lxx. [...]. Ar. Mont. super vexillum., or standard like a Roman Eagle; and constituted as a Symbol of the presence of the Logos, so far as concerned his Divine Power and Goodness in healing them by miracle, who were bitten with fiery Serpents. That this was some sort of the Presence of the Logos appeareth from himself in the New Testament, where he opposeth to it as Antitype to Type, the natural body of himself crucified. As Moses (said he Joh. 3. 14. lifted up the Serpent in the Wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up. 'Tis the Son of Man here plainly made the Antitype, and not the old Serpent, (as a learned man D. Jackson, vol. 2 p. 916, 917, &c. would have it) destroyed indeed on the Cross, but not said by the Scripture to be lifted up upon it.

And though the Saraph was not Christ, yet it was the Symbol Marius ap. Moëb. de AEn. Serp. Ex. 2, e. 2. Sect. 15.—At (que) ità lignum [...]oc Crucis gessisset figuram, sicuti Christi [...] Typum gessit hic S [...]rpens. by which he appeared; and by its stretched-out wings it may seem to the Fancy at least, very aptly to express Christs Crucifixion with arms extended.

If it be here said that to make this Serpent a Saraph, and a part of Christs Shechinah, is to overthrow that which was suggested before of the concealment of the Seraphim in the Ark, and of the Cherubim behind the Veil, from the eyes of the people prone to Idolatry, this being exposed to their daily sight: I answer in two Particulars.

First, It was agreeable to the Wisdom of God to [Page] give some Type of Christ as crucified, that being one great part of that substance of the Gospel of which the Law was a shadow; though he pleased not to do it too plainly in the shape of an humane body on a Cross. And no other Type (I think) occurreth under Judaism, but this of the brazen Saraph.

Secondly, Here was not such occasion of Idolatry, as might have been taken from the Ark; for that was an Oracle, and a Divine Light shone forth, and a Divine Voice was heard, and signs of Adoration to God were there commanded. But this was no Oracle: It doth not appear that at this symbol any extraordinary cloud or glory shone; that hence any Coelestial thunder was heard. Only men were helped in thinking on God by the symbol of an Angel, which executeth Gods will on Earth, whilst a secret virtue from the unseen God made them whole. ‘He that turned himself towards it (saith Wisd. 16. 7. See Chald. Par. in Num. 21. 8. He shall recover if he direct his heart to the Word of the Lord. Targ. Hieros.—If he lift his face to his Father in the Heavens. the Book of Wisdom) was not saved by any thing that he saw, but by Thee that art the Saviour of all.’

And if the people had been then prone to Idolize that Symbol, it had not remained undefaced till the days of Hezekiah.

This then is my conjecture (and I offer it no otherwise) about the Urim; and likewise about the Brazen Serpent.

For Thummim, I imagin it to be a thing of a very differing nature.

So do they who take it to be deriv'd from the Jewel in the Brest-plate of the High-Priest of Egypt, called [...]. It is true, such a Brest-plate there was in Egypt, and it is mentioned by Diodorus Siculus Diod. Sic. l. 1. Bibl. c. 75. p. 66., and AElian AEl. var. Hist. l. 14. c. 34.. And Diodorus supposeth it to have consisted of many Gems; but AElian calleth it an Image made of a Saphire. It is also confessed that the Seventy Interpreters [Page] See LXX, & Scalig. de Emend. Temp. l. 7. p. 654. do render Thummim by [...].

But here two things are to be observed:

First, This Egyptian Pectoral (deserving the name of truth, it being put on as an ornament for the Bench in the execution of justice and maintenance of truth, as we learn from Diodorus and AElian; and not in order to the delivery of Oracles) may as well have been taken from the Brest-plate of the High-Priest of the Jews. There is no mention of it in Herodotus, and before the Graecian times. And Diodorus when he speaketh of it, he referreth to those days when Heliopolis, Thebés and Memphis were the three head-Cities in Egypt, out of each of which ten Judges were chosen; and for On, or Heliopolis, it had a publick Temple built in it for the Jews, with the consent of Ptolomy Philadelphus, by Onias the High-Priest, who was then by the power of Antiochus deprived of his Authority and Office in Judaea. And concerning the Egyptian Pectoral, its name of [...] is plainly modern.

It may in the second place be observed that upon supposition that this Pectoral was originally Egyptian, it doth not follow that the Seventy meant the same thing by their [...] that the Egyptians did by theirs. It may be rather guessed, that those Interpreters translating divers words and phrases, which grated on Egyptian matters, in such prudential manner that Ptolomy might not be offended (as is manifest that they did in several places of their Version); they made use of this name of [...], as of a name which would at once recommend them to his favour, and well express the sense of Scripture, or the meaning of Thummim.

Now if Urim be Images in the lesser Ark of the Pectoral, answering in some sort to the Cherubim on the greater Ark; what possibly can Thummim be but a copy of the Moral Law put into the Pectoral? a [Page] copy written in some Roll Consider Exod. 24. 7., or engraven in some stone according to the pattern of the Tables brought down from the Mount? for what else was there in the other Ark? nothing sure; though some Rabbins, and after them the learned Hugo Grotius believed otherwise Grot. in Heb. 9. 4. p. 4268. in M. C..

Josephus Joseph. 8. 2. thought nothing else to be there; and he had ground for his opinion from the holy Scriptures. For it is said in the first of the Kings King. 8. 9., That there was nothing in the Ark save the two Tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb. And this is repeated in the second 2 Chron. 5. 10. of Chronicles. And to say as some adventure to do, that the Manna and the Rod of Aaron were there in the time of Moses, and taken out in process of time, lest the Manna should putrifie, and the Rod be worm-eaten, (as if they could any-where have been so long preserved without miracle) soundeth very like to a Rabbinical whimsey.

For the places of Scripture alledged by Grotius in favour of his opinion, they answer themselves. For in Exodus Exod. 16. 33. it is not said that Moses commanded Aaron to take a pot of Manna and to put it into the Ark, but that he required him to lay it up before the Lord, or before the Ark where the Lord by his Shechinah then dwelt. Also in Numbers Numb. 17. 10., it is not said that God commanded Moses to put the Rod of Aaron into the Ark, but that he required him to bring it before the Testimony, that is, the Ark of the Covenant. Wherefore that of the Author to the Hebrews Heb. 9. 3, 4., [In the Holiest of all was the Ark of the Covenant, wherein was the Golden pot that had Manna, and Aarons Rod that budded, and the Tables of the Covenant], must be interpreted as if in signified both in and by. So (saith Capellus upon the place) it is usual for them who live by Rome, to say they live in it. So in Cariathjarim in the [Page] Book of Judges Judg. 18. 12. signifieth, nigh it. They pitched (saith the Text) in Kiriath-jearim in Judah: wherefore they called that place Mahaneh-Dan unto this day: behold it is behind Kiriath-jearim. Neither doth Gorionides say (as Grotius maketh him) that the Manna and Rod were in the Ark; for he speaketh of the Holiest, and saith they were there, not determining in what part of it they were placed.

Thummim was not an Image as the Urim were; neither doth the Scripture ever say that God answered by Thummim. It saith not 1 Sam. 28. 6. that God did forbear to answer Saul by Urim and Thummim, but only that he did not answer him by Urim. For the Moral Law was a standing Rule, and not an Extemporary Oracle. And we may observe from Diodorus Siculus, that the Egyptian Judg whom he speaketh of, when he put on his glorious [...], sign or image, called [...], had also the Law in Eight Books laying before him, [AElian and Diodorus tell this story in differing manner; and it may be the thirty Judges were so many of the seventy Elders, and the Eight Books of Law were the Ten Commandments; and the Saphire or Gems in the Pectoral were the twelve precious stones according to the number of the Tribes; all used by the High-Priest of the Jews at Heliopolis, where was Schismatically aped the worship and judgment of Jerusalem. For in such matters the blunders of Historians are often more shameful than these. Nay, what if the Book containing the worship of the gods, and bound about with scarlet-threads, mentioned by the same Diodorus Diod. Sic. l. 1. c. 87. p. 76., should be the Copy of the Moral Law in the Ark, whose outside was wrought with gold, with blue, with purple, with scarlet, and fine-twined linnen? This is none of my Faith; yet many such imperfect Narrations are to be found in him and other Historians, who [Page] write of things in such ancient and dark times. For the name [...] (though that was given to the Pectoral, or to the illustrious Gem or Gems on it, and not particularly to the Law) yet to the Law of God it well agreeth; David saying concerning it, [...], Thy Law is Truth Psal. 119. 142, 151.. As congruous is the name of Thummim, or Perfections, the same Royal Prophet saying Psal. 19. 7., Thy Law is perfect. 'Tis perfect and without blemish in it, though the Laws of men are stained with divers spots and imperfections. It is perfect as a straight Rule, it bendeth not to mens corrupt wills. It is a compleat Rule extending to all our needful cases. It is exceeding broad, whilst there is an end of all other pretended Perfections Psal. 119. 96.. Of the perfection of this Law the Son of Sirach speaketh, saying Ecclus. 33. 3. Sec. Vers. LXX. c. 36. 3.— [...]., A man of understanding trusteth in the Law, and the Law is faithful unto him as an Oracle; or [ [...], in the reading of the Alexandrian Copy of the Seventy], as the asking of [or the answer to the Interrogatory at] Urim. In which words let the Reader well consider whether the Author does not oppose the Law to the Oracle as the Thummim to the Urim, saying in effect, ‘The Law laid up in the Ark is as certain a Rule to go by in the Moral course of a mans life; as the Oracle from above the Ark where the Urim was an appendage of Gods Shechinah, was a direction in extraordinary cases.’ And whereas Urim is only mentioned, why Scaliger should say Scal. de Emend. Temp. p. 654.— [...]. h. e. tanquam urim & Thummim., the meaning is, The Law is faithful to him as Urim and Thummim, he himself best knows. But it may be thought from the force of the Premisses, that he has in effect rendred the saying such a kind of Tautology as this, The Law is faithful as the Law.

Another place there is worthy our observation in this Argument, and the rather, because it is a more [Page] Canonical portion of Scripture. It is that of S. John Joh. 1. 17. who saith, that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. These words, if I will serve my Hypothesis, I must thus Paraphrase. ‘The Thummim or [...] of the Law was received from Gods substitute the Logos, by Moses, who delivered it to the people; but the [...] of the Christian Law, of the Gospel of Grace, came, not only from, but by, Jesus Christ, the Logos made flesh, as was said, a verse or two before; and he, even God-incarnate, did publish it with his own mouth.’ If this notion hath any truth in it, then that Prayer of Moses, or blessing of Levi Deut. 33. 8. [Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy One] may be thus expounded; let thy Law [the ordinary Rule preferable before any extemporary Oracle] and also thy extraordinary inspiration, together with thy blessing, be present with the linage of Aaron consecrated to the Priest-hood, though thou wert angry with him for his carriage at the waters of Meribah or Massah; and, for that reason, deniedst him an entrance into the land of Canaan.

But I will plainly acknowledge, that notwithstanding all here said by me, that may be true which Munster said Munster in Exod. 28. de urim & Thummim Quales fuerint Res, nemini mortalium constat., That no mortal man can now tell what the Urim and Thummim were. But, in aiming, with our conjectural Bolts, at Truth, as in shooting, if the white be not hit, it is some kind of felicity to come nigh the Mark.

Now though the Logos appeared on the Ark, both in the Tabernacle and the Temple, and though he was, also, present, with this lesser Ark the Pectoral; yet he did not limit himself to these holy Instruments, and the places of them. He appeared, elsewhere, sometimes, when the emergent occasion was remote [Page] from these Arks, and when the privacy of the Revelation to those who were not High-Priests, was expedient, or necessary; unless we should say, that the less solemn, and less majestick Apparitions were made by Angels.

That it was the Logos who shew'd himself to Joshuah Josh. 5. 13, 14, 15., giving to him a promise of defence, is the joynt opinion of Justin Martyr, Eusebius, and Theodoret See Hen. Valesii not. in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 7., and likewise of one more modern, yet not unworthy to be named amongst them, the most learned Archbishop of Armagh Usher in Annal. vet. Testam. p. 21. Ed. Paris.. But a fragment of an antient and venerable Greek Scholion, produced by Valesius, will have it to be Michael, and not the very Son of God. Be it the one, or the other, I hold [...]ot my self much obliged to concern my self, as a party, in the dispute. Only I am inclined to think it the Logos, because the place of the appearance, was sacred; Joshuah pulling of his Shoes, in token of a Divine, rather than of an Angelical presence.

Little is recorded of Gods Shechinah from the time of Joshua to David. But David in his Psalms, is very frequent in celebrating Gods presence in the Sanctuary on Mount Sion. And of his being there where God was present by his Image or Shechinah (in the Temple, though not in the holiest place of it), after deliverance from his enemies, who stood in his way both to the holy City and holy Temple, some See Bisterfeld. contr. Crell. l. 1. Sect. 2. c. 30. p. 298. interpret these words of his in the 17th Psalm Psal. 17. 15.; As for me, I will behold thy face (or Shechinah) in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness. Or (as I find it expounded in the Septuagint [...].) when I shall see thy glory, or glorious presence: Thy Temunah (the word in the Hebrew) thy Image, of the Logos. In Solomon's time the Ark was placed in a most magnificent Temple, which when [Page] it had received the holy Vessel, a Cloud, and the Glory of the Lord 1 Kings 8. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11., a most venerable mixture of light and darkness filled the holy House. It is called in the Book of Kings 1 King. 8. 12, 13. thick darkness, i. e. such whose solemnity hindred the sight of any other object but the [...] or glory of the Shechinah, which dazled the eye, rather than enlightned the medium. In the first Book of Kings this is omitted by the Lxx, but in the 2d of Chronicles 2 Chron. 6. 1. it is mentioned. And by those Interpreters 'tis called barely [...], or darkness. But they had before 2 Chron. 5. 13. called it [...], the cloud of the Glory of the Lord; a cloud like that which, in S. Matthew Matt. 17. 5., is called a bright one, and said to overshadow the Apostles, when Christ was transfigured and owned as Gods Son, by a voice out of the Cloud. After the dedication of this House, God appeared in a dream, a second time, to Solomon 1 King. 9. 2., having done so once before at Gibeon 1 King. 3. 5., and made a promise to him that his eyes and heart, that is, his especial presence, should be in that consecrated House.

In the time of Ahab, Elijah being in Israel, and not in Judah, though he worshipped not God in the Sanctuary; yet the Logos of God, when he was fled as far as Horeb, Gods Mountain 1 King. 19. 8, 10, 14, 15., instructed him in a still small voice, after his spirit was made solemn, by wind, earthquake, and fire; for it was the Lord (saith the Text) that spake then to him, not a created Angel. But that God ever spake at Dan or Bethel, or appeared in any Glory, we neither read nor believe. So that the setting up the Symbol there was presumption, and the trusting that God was present there, Idolatry: for that was an act due to Gods true presence, misplaced on his false one, and such as was not only false, but, in terms, forbidden. In the times of Isaiah S. [Page] Hierom S. Hieron. Tom. 5. oper. fol. 211. D. observeth that the Idolatries of the people were exceedingly encreased; yet himself saw the Shechinah Isai. 6. 1, 2, 3, 4. in a vision: And St. John John 12. 41. sheweth that it was a vision of the Logos, saying that Isaiah saw Christs glory.

The Israelites rather increasing, than repenting of, their provocations, it pleased God to withdraw his presence, and, as he is represented in the visions of Ezekiel See Ezek. 10. 18. c. 11. 23., to go up from the earth; and to permit the powers of Babylon to destroy the holy Temple, and to suffer the glory of it, the Ark, to depart, and never to appear again in its former condition; for the 2d Temple did, in this particular especially, come short of the first. And I know not what to make of a passage in the Jew Cippi Hibraici. p. 24., whose Cippi Hebraici are translated by Hottinger; and who there mentions a part of the Ark extant in Sion in his time; unless I esteem it (for sure 'tis no other) a Jewish fable. That it may not go alone, I will add a story of equal credit out of the Elucidarium ascribed to S. Anselm. There Pseudo. Anselmi Elucidar. c. 24. p. 476. the Disciple asking what became of the Ark of the Covenant, the wise Master answers thus: ‘It was hid, at Gods command, by Jeremiah, in the Sepulcre of Moyses, when Hierusalem was ready to be destroyed by the Babylonian forces. And, in the last times, it will be brought out by Enoch and Elias; God revealing it to them.’

PART. 6. Of the Shechinah of God, from the Captivity to the Messiah.

Such Jews as had true apprehensions of the God of Israel, and sincere devotion to his service, did in such sort honour his Shechinah, that when the Holy [Page] Chest and the Temple were no more to be seen, they worshipped God towards the plaoe where they formerly stood. Thus in Chaldaea, did the Prophet Daniel. Both the Jews in banishment, and the Jews in the land were, that way, to direct their faces in Prayer. And the Rabbins say See Othon. Lex. Rabbin. p. 476, 477. that a devout Jew had, on purpose, a Chamber with a window that way, and that the Babylonian Jews prayed with such direction in the Chamber of Daniel, an antient House of stone. To Daniel (as to one highly favour'd of God, and to a Prophet living in the dawning of the Gospel) God discovered his presence in a more ample and distinct manner than (so far as we read) he had formerly done; more eminently than to Isaiah or Ezekiel. Damiel in a vision Dan. 7. 9, to 15. beheld the Shechinah of God, as it were in Heaven. The Father and the Son were personated in this Scene, or, rather, the Godhead and the word Incarnate. This I find to be the opinion of St. Hierom S. Hier. in Dan. p. 587. Also Euseb. in l. 1. c. 2. Eccl. Hist. p. 10., who expoundeth Daniel by St. Paul where he speaketh of the Logos, as equal with God, yet taking upon him the form of a Servant.

In those days God vouchsafed such plain visions to the Prophets, and such plain Prophecies of the Messiah, that the two Tribes, the issue of the true worshippers in Judah where Gods Shechinah dwelt, though they returned from Chaldea, a soyl as fertile in producing Idols, as Egypt it self, yet they had them in greater abhorrence than before. They looked back, many of them, on their punishment of exile and bondage for former Idolatries: They looked on their present miraculous restitution by the Power and Mercy of the God of Israel; and they look'd forward towards the Messiah, the Image of God, whose Kingdom was at hand; and these thoughts preserved them, in great measure, from pollution with Idols; though the Ark was perished, [Page] and Prophecy ceased See Jos. Scal. de Emend. Temp. l. 7. p. 654. and 1. Mach. 9. 27., and the Holy Pectoral (said to be worn, even out of the City, by the High-Priest in his meeting of Alexander) was rather an Ornament than an Oracle.

At length, after the ceslation of Prophets for more than 400 years; after the apparition of an Angel to Zachariah in the Temple (a sign that the Oracles, of the Ark, and Urim, had ceased); it pleased him to * See Light. Harm. 1. 35. come in the flesh, whom Daniel saw as in Glory, and to be, for a season, on earth, as it were the eclipsed Shechinah of God. Such an appearance, for a time, our infirmity, and the Oeconomy of the Gospel required See Greg. Nyss. contra A. pollin. op. Tom. 3. p. 287. & Procl. ad Armen. p. 17, 18. [...] &c. [...]..

To this Messiah, as God-man, the things in the ritual Law of Moses had especial respect, though a vail was upon them. And, indeed, it would seem to derogate from the Wisdom of God, and the nature of his worship which is chiefly spiritual, to conceit that all the Apparatus of the Temple reached no further than the amusement of the eye. They, therefore, that will reach the sense of the Law, must suppose a mystery in it. Thus did St. Stephen Act. 7. 44. and St. Paul Hebr. 8. 5. those excellent Interpreters of Moses. These the Christian Fathers have followed as their patterns. Clemens Alexandrinus Clom. Alex. strom. 4. p. 528. alluding to those words in the seventh of Isaiah, ‘Nisi credideritis non intelligetis, addeth words to this purpose; Unless ye believe in Christ, ye will not understand the Old Testament, which he by his own presence expounded.’ And S. Gregory Nyssen G [...]g. Nyssen. Tom. 1. d [...] vitâ Moysis, p. 225. concludeth from the material Cherubims covering with their wings the mysteries of the Ark (how strongly from thence, I will not say;) that there is a more deep sense of the Text of Moses.

PART. 6. Of the cure of Idolatry by the Image of God in Christ God-man.

[Page]

AMongst the Mosaic Symbols, the Ark certa [...]nly was none of the meanest. This Holy vessel, without peradventure, had most singular reference to Christ as God-man, who, at least from his Baptism, hath been in that quality of God-incarnate, exhibited to the World as the Divine Shechinah.

At Bethlehem the Son of God was Born, the Town where the settled place for the Ark of God was discovered to David. So much we learn from the words of Solomon Comp. Psal. 132. 8. with 2 Chron, 6. 41: in the sixth verse of the Hundred and second Psalm. He, there, repeateth a saying of David his Father, concerning the Ark; Lo we heard of it at Ephrata. Castalio plainly confesseth Castal. in Psal. 132. 6. hujus loci sententiam non Intelligo. that he understood not what that expression meant. For my part, whilst I am in pursuit of the present Argument, I cannot think the Text to be tortur'd by St. Hilary, Hilar. Picta. in Psal. 131. 1. e. 132. p. 1051. who will have it to confess Christ as the true Ark of God, discovered, typically, at Bethlehem, to David, and afterwards manifested in the flesh, to the World, in the same City of David. ‘It is heard of in Ephrata, Ephrata (saith he) is the same with Bethlehem, where our Lord was born of the Virgin Mary. There, therefore, the rest of God is heard of, where, first of all, the only begotten God inhabited a body of humane flesh.’

This is the Ark which rested in the Tribe of Judah 2 Sam: 6.; for out of that Tribe our Lord sprang Heb. 7. 14..

To this Ark, as soon as he came into the World, the very Princes or Wisemen of the Gentiles bowed down in the Cave at Bethlehem, the star, or miraculous [Page] meteor, as an appendage of the Shechinah, standing above it.

This Ark tabernacled among men Joh. 1. 14. [...], & [...] is the same in sense and almost in sound with Shachan he dwelt, whence Shechinah. and they saw his Glory, when Baptized; when transfigured.

This Ark giveth, through Jordan, or the Baptismal Laver Comp. Josh. 4. 7. and Matt. 3. 13. a passage into the mystical Canaan. On this Ark, or Holy vessel of Christs body, when he was Baptized by John in Jordan, the glory of the Shechinah appeared: a mighty lustre (as Grotius hinteth) hovering, after the fashion of a Dove, upon these waters of the second Creation.

On him the Holy Ghost dwelt, or rested Joh. 1. 32, 33. as God was said to do in the Tabernacle. In him, as the Law of God in the Ark, and the Will of God known from the Oracle of the Shechinah, were deposited all the treasures of wisdom and knowledg See Daill. de Dion. Ar. p. 165.. He is the great Oracle of God, whom, by a voice from Heaven out of a bright Cloud, or Gods excellent Glory Matt. 17. 5. Mark. 9. 7. 2 Pet. 1. 16, 17. 18., we are commanded to hear. In him was the sum of the Law and the Prophets: and he was the light of Israel, of the Gentiles, of the whole world. To this Logos, Clemens Alexandrinus Clem. Alex. strom. 7. p. 702. C. ascribeth the mysteries of the Jews and Gentiles, as to the great Teacher of them, before his Incarnation. So that, he, as a Divine subsistence, and substitute of the Father, giving the Law of Reason to Adam; the Jewish Law, to that people, by Moses; and to all the world the Christian Law, or Will of God; no Title could be more proper for him, than that of the Divine Word. And this Logos was not only the Wisdom but the Power of God, and meriteth the name of the Ark of Gods strength Psal. 132. 8. and Psal. 105. 4. seek the Lord and his strength. al. his Ark, or Face.. In him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The Deity sojourn'd in an Ark of flesh, or within the vail of it Heb. 10. 20.. And in this sense I think some of the Ancients are to be interpreted, [Page] who called Christ so often [...], See Cyr. Alex. Sc [...]l. de Incarn. ap. Concil. Ephes. prim. c. 17. p. 960. a God-carrying-man, as our Language may truly, though harshly, render the Greek word; though Nestorius abus'd the signification of it so far as to make it intimate a duality of persons in Christ.

This Ark was the face or visible presence of God, and he that had seen him as Messiah, had in that sense seen the Father See Hil. Pictav. de Trin. l. 4. p. 152, 153, 154.. This body was not the very Godhead as Muggleton blasphemeth, but the Godhead did in it shew forth it self to men in signs of mighty Power, Holiness, and Wisdom.

This Evangelical Ark was the Image of the invisible God; not indeed the very picture or statue, but (as St. Hilary stileth him Hil. Pi [...]. p. 154. See Concil. Max. Tom. 5. p. 349. c. d. Tom. 1 [...] p. 361. e.) the Personator of his Essence. It is true he saith of some of the Jews Joh. 5. 3 [...]., That they had never seen the shape of the Father, his [...], or Appearance. And this he saith truly in two respects, though him they saw when he thus spake to them. For first there were none of them who saw him baptized or transfigured; for in the same place he denies that they ever heard the voice of God. And then these were unbelieving Jews, and therefore saw him as meer man, as one of the worst of men in their conceit, an Impostor and Magician, and not as the Messiah, the Son, the Incarnate Shechinah of God. To such therefore as under those misapprehensions of him, he saith elsewhere, Why call you me good, there is none good save one, that is God.

However Christ in truth, though not to the eyes of Infidels, was the Image of the invisible Father; and one whose design was to put all the Idols and Images of the Superstitious world Vide Concil. Max. Tom. 7. p. 310. e. p. 875. a. Tom. 1. 619. b. 622. a. S. Athan. v. 1. p. 53. d. p. 90. d. p 94. c. p. 72. d. p. 619. b. p. 622. a. under his feet. Of this the Prophets foretold Isa. c. 2. v. 18, 20. Zeph. 2. 11. Zach. 13. 2., and this the world hath seen fulfilled; Oracles by degrees ceasing, and now scarce any footsteps remaining of that Triumvirate of [Page] gods, (for their gods had been men, and those some of them no Heroes in virtue), Jupiter See Athan. vol. 1. p. 102. e. the god of the Heavens, Neptune of the Sea, Pluto of the Earth. It is said by the Arabick Author of the Prodigies of Egypt Prod. of Eg. p. 65, 66., that when Noah named one God, Idols fell prostrate. It is more true of him who began the new world of the Gospel, that when he appeared as the Image of the one true God, Idolatry vanished before him S. Hieron. Tom. 5. fol. 158. a.. And the Fathers will have it, that when in his Childhood he went into Egypt, and was brought to Memphis, the Egyptian Idols fell at his feet Athan. vol. 1. p. 89. c. and p. 165. a.. And St. Hierom (whose manner is as much to cite in his Commentaries, the opinions which he had collected, as to set down his own) does tell of some S. Hieron. in Isa. p. 6. who applied to Christ and the Virgin those words of Isaiah Isa. 19. 1., Behold the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt, and the Idols of Egypt shall be moved at his Presence.

From this Image of God in his Son Incarnate, this Ark of flesh, Divinity often shone on earth before his Instalment at Gods right hand. The mighty power of God in his Life, Miracles See Hilar. Pict. l. 1. de Trin. p. 154. a. b. c., Preaching; and sometimes in his Attendants the Angels; and in his very bodily appearance. Thus at his Transfiguration his raiment shone as the light, he being [...] Hebr. 1. 3., the brightness of the Glory or Shechinah of God. And afterwards such Heavenly Majesty shewed it self in him, that those who came to apprehend him as a Malefactor, fell at his feet as before a God.

This Jesus was the Ark of the new Covenant and of the Testimony of God; the witness of God faithful and true, as he is stiled in the Revelation Revel. 1. 5. c. 3. 14. of Saint John. Jesus was in effect the whole house of Gods especial presence; the [...], (the name which Philo gives the Tabernacle) or the [...], (or, it may [Page] be, if it were rightly printed, [...] (as Josephus calleth the Zodiack or the Sun moving in it) the portable, the walking Temple, who (like the rolling Sun which dispenseth his influence far and near) went about doing good; having no resting-place for his Head, till he was fixed on Mount Sion above.

This is the Ark of God, exalted first on the Cross, and then to Heaven. Whence God commandeth his blessing, sending him by his Spirit and Gospel to bless Act. 3. 26. compared with 2 Sam. 6. 11, 12. and Psal. 133. 3., and to turn all of us from our iniquity.

This Ark is the true Mercy-seat See Greg. Nyssen. de vitâ Moysis. Tom. 1. p. 225.; the [...], or Propitiatory, as he is called in the Epistle to the Romans Rom. 3. 25., and the [...], as St. John calleth him 1 Joh. 2. 2., that is, the Propitiation for our sins. St. Hierom Commenting on those words in the Version of Ezekiel S Hier. in Ezek. Op. Tom. 5. p. 540., in the 43d. Chapter and 14th. verse, [from the lesser settle to the greater settle], and observing them to be rendred on this wise by the Seventy Interpreters, [From the lesser to the greater Propitiatory Seventy in Ezek. 43. 14.— [...].—]: He applys the lesser Propitiatory to Christ in the form of a servant, and the greater to Christ glorified in the Heavens. Here is then both the Aaron and Aharon, the true Ark and Priest of the most high God.

This Ark, or rather this entire Temple of God S. Joh. 2. 19, 21. like the Tabernacle in Shiloh 1 Sam. 4. 10, 11., seemed for a time forsaken, possessed by the great Philistin, [for what is stronger than death?] and laid in the dust; but God raised it up after three days in greater glory, and so as that it is never to fall again. This Ark was after a few days taken up into the true Sanctuary of God, where it remaineth till the restitution of all things; and whither our eyes and hearts are to direct themselves in all Religious worship.

From that Sanctuary he appear'd in a glorious light to his first Martyr St. Steven when well awake, and [Page] whilst he directed his countenance towards Heaven, whither his spirit was ready to take its way. He being full of the Holy Ghost (or divine energy Acts 7. 55. looked up stedfastly into Heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Thence also he appeared to Saul in a light so vehement, that for a time it took away the use of his eyes. Thence he sent the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, become now as it were the Substitute and Shechinah of the Glorified Jesus. This hovered as a glorious flame over the heads of the Apostles, declaring them thereby the Representatives of Christ on earth. Under this notion Christ is worshipped by true and intelligent Christians. This was the meaning of the Fathers in the Council of Constantinople Conc. Const: 7. Oec. ap. Cap. Caroli Magni. p. 47., who denounced Anathema against those who professed not that ‘Christ ascended was Intellectual flesh, neither properly flesh, nor yet Incorporeal, but visible to them who have pierc'd him without grossness of flesh.’ They believ'd it a great point of Christianity that Jesus God-man sate in the Heavens in illustrious visible glory. And this St. John saw in a Vision, in which the Logos Rev. 19. 13., the God Omnipotent Ver. 6., the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords Ver. 16., or Lamb, God-man V. 11, 12. See c. 22. appeared on his Throne, Crowned, and with eyes like flames of fire. To this effect is a saying of Eusebius cited by Bishop Andrews on the second Command. I suppose he meaneth Eusebius Dorylaeus, for he referreth to the second Ephesine Synod, though I have not met with it in the Acts of that Council. Eusebius it seems, telleth Constantia, ‘That she must not any longer desire an Image of Christ as he is infirm man. For now (said he) his Glory is much greater than it appeared on the Mount, which if his Apostles were then dazled with, how can it now be expressed?’ This visible Glory of Christ the Ancients [Page] supposed situate in the Eastern part of the Heavens: and it occasion'd (as I think) their directing of their worship towards the East. The Gentiles who worshipped the Sun differed much from this external direction of their Faces. For they respected especially the East-point by reason of the Sun-rising thence Virg. AEn. 12. Illi ad surgentem conversi lumina Solem.—. And often at other parts of the day they altered their posture. They sometimes vall'd themselves, saith Plutarch, and turned themselves about with respect to the Heavenly motions. And Trismegistus (in Asclepio) relates, that it was a custom of some of the Gentile-Devotionists at mid-day to look towards the South, and at Sun-set to look towards the West. It was at the rising of the Sun when Lucian was turned towards it by Mithrobarzanes Lucian in Necyom. p. 159. the Chaldaean Priest, who mumbled his Prayers in a low and indistinct tone at the rising of that false God. They respected not always the Eastern Angle, though they had especial regard to it, when the Sun appeared in it. They respected also the South and West-points in their worship. Hence Harpocrates a child represented amongst them the Sun in its rising See Cuperi Harpocrat. p. 101.; Orus a young man, the Sun in its Meridian; Osiris an old man, the Sun-setting. This was also the way of the Manichees who supposed the Sun to be the Tabernacle of Christ. Of them St. Austin saith S. Aug. cont. Faustum. l. 20. c. 5. Ad Solis gyrum vestra oratio circumvolvitur., that their Prayers rolled about with the Sun.

But the Ancients thought the Shechinah of Christ more fixed, and therefore did not in such manner alter their Quarter. And that Quarter they esteemed proper to the Shechinah, having read of the Messiah in the Old Testament under the name of the East; and following the Translation of the Seventy LXX. in Psal. 68. 33. [...].—, which thus readeth, Psalm 68. 33. [Sing unto God who ascendeth above the Heaven of Heavens on the East.] They also esteemed Jerusalem the middle of the Earth, and the [Page] parts which lay Easterly from thence they called the East, and amongst them Eden about Mesopotamia. And they had a Tradition that Christ was Crucified with his face towards the West, but that he ascended with his face towards the East, and went up to a place in the Heavenly Paradise, standing as it were over that of the Earthly See Damase. de Fide Orth. l. 3. c. 13. p. 311, 312.. But whatsoever men may conceive of the space possessed by Christs meer body, they ought not to think of his Shechinah as of a confined light in some one Quarter of the Heavens; but as a glorious luster filling all Heavens, and shining towards this Earth as a Circumference of Glory on a single point. They ought to lose their imaginations in an Abyss of Light. One saith (and not amiss) upon this subject P. Sterry in Serm. on Rev. 1. 7. p. 11., ‘That as Earth heightned unto a flame, changeth not its place only, but form and figure; so the person of our Saviour was raised to a greatness, a glory vastly differing from, and surmounting any Image, all Images of things visible or invisible in in this Creation. So 'tis fitly expressed (saith he) in Heb. 7. 29. He was made higher than the Heavens. He was heightned to a splendour, enlarged to a capacity and a compass above the brightest, beyond the widest Heavens.’

From this Heavenly Throne Christ will come at the day of Judgment in a Shechinah of Clouds and flaming-fire: the mention of which fire sometimes in the Scripture, and in the Commentaries of the ancient Fathers, without express addition of that great day, has (as I conjecture) accidentally led part of the Christian World into its mistakes about Purgatory; in relation to which place I must yet confess my self to be one of the Nullibists.

This Shechinah in milder, but most inexpressible luster, I suppose to be that which the Schools call the [Page] Beatifick Vision; and which the Scripture intendeth in the promise of seeing God face to face.

PART 7. Of the Usefulness of this Argument of Gods Shechinah.

THis Argument of Gods Shechinah may be many ways useful, if Intelligent persons draw such inferences from it as it offereth to their judgment. I will hint at some of them; for to insist on any unless it be those which concern the worship of Angels or Images, is beyond my scope.

And first of all by due attention to the premisses, an Anthropomorphite may blush at his rude conceit about the humane figure of the Divine substance, whose spiritual and immense amplitude is incapable of any natural figure or colour; though God by his Logos using the ministry of inferiour creatures, hath condescended to a visible Shechinah.

Hence, secondly, those people who run into the other extream, the Spiritualists and abstractive Familists, may be induced to own the distinct substance of God, and the visible person of Christ; and not to subtilize the Deity and its Persons, and all its appearances into a meer notion, or into some quality, act, or habit of mans spirit; or to bow down to God no otherwise then as he is the pretended light or love in their own breasts.

Thirdly, If this consideration had entered with sobriety into the minds of those German Anabaptists Ap. Cloppenburg. Gangren. Anab. p. 281, 282., who with zeal contended that the very essence or substance of the Father was seen in the Son; and the very substance of the Spirit in the Dove; their disputations would have been brought to a speedy issue, or rather, they would never have been begun. They [Page] would have known how to have distinguished betwixt the invisible God, and the visible face or Shechinah, not as the very shape, but as the emblem and significative Presence of the Divinity.

Fourthly, For want of some such notion as this, many other men of fanatick heads (such as were most of the Hereticks who introduced novelty and tumult into the Church about the Persons of the Trinity and nature of Christ) have plunged themselves into unintelligible conceits. Of this number were the Basilidians, who call'd the body of the Dove the Deacon; and the Valentinians, who stil'd it the spirit of cogitation, which descended on the flesh of the Logos; thereby darkning the understanding with phrases. If they had apprehended the Logos in his Praeexistence or Incarnation, as the Shechinah of God, and would have expressed that notion without phantastical or amusing terms, they might have instructed others, and seen the truth also better themselves when they had clothed it in fit and becoming words.

Fifthly, This notion may not be unuseful for the unfolding the Scriptures, which speak of the Praeexistence of Christ before he was God-man; and explain them naturally, and not with such force and torture as they are exposed to in the So [...]inian Comments. He that saith Abraham saw the Shechinah of the Praeexisting Logos, and thence inferreth that Christ was before that Patriarck, speaketh plain sense. But he that says Christ was not till more than 2000 years after Abrahams death, yet that he was before him, because he was before Abraham was Abraham, or before all Nations were blessed in his seed, the Gentiles not being yet called; such a one speaks like a Sophist, not an honest Interpreter; and forgets that Christs answer (before Abraham was, I am) follows upon this Interrogatory of the Jews, [Page]Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Sixthly, This notion may further shew the error of those Semi-Socinians, such as Vorstius and his Disciples, who confound the Immensity of the God-head, and the visible Glory of the Shechinah, which God hath pleased as it were to circumscribe. They will allow this King of the world no further room for his Immense substance than that which his especial Presence irradiates in his particular Palace See Vorst. de De [...]. Disp. 3. p. 22. & Not. ad Disp. 3. p. 215, &c. & Elucid. Pseudo-Ans. c. 3. p 458. D. ubi habitat Deus? M. quamvis ubique potentialiter, tamen in Intellectuaii Coelo substantialiter:. Which conceit though in part it be accommodable to the Shechinah; yet is it a presumptuous limitation of the great God, when it is applied to his substance which Heaven and Earth together cannot contain.

Furthermore, it is from hence in part, that we see and pity the blindness of some of the modern Jews See Mr. Mede's Works, p. 438., who notwithstanding they are the professed enemies of Divine Statues and Images, and have reason enough to believe that the Ark of God hath dwelt among us in a body of flesh, and now shineth in the Heavens; do yet hope (some say) for an especial presence of God by furnishing with a Chest and Roll of their Law, the places of their Religious Assemblies.

Again, by considering with St. Chrysostome the Temple of Solomon as a Type, not only of the sensible but also of the invisible world; and by considering further the Shechinah and Ark of God more especially in the Holiest of all than in the Sanctuary and more exterior Courts and spaces; we may illustrate that very useful and most probable notion of the degrees of Glory, and of the several Mansions prepared for several Estates in the Kingdom of Glory; where notwithstanding every part will be so far, though inequally, filled with luster, that all may be said with open face to behold the Glory of God, and not those only next the Coelestial [Page] Ark or Throne in the most holy place.

But these things (as I said) are beyond my scope; though appertinencies to my Argument; and therefore I will no further pursue them, but proceed to those uses of the notion which lye more directly in the way of my design. The first of them concerneth the worship of Angels, the second of Images.

PART 8. Of the Usefulness of this Argument of Gods Shechinah, with relation to the Worship of Angels and Images.

FIrst, The Worshippers of Angels plead for their practice, from those places in the Old Testament, which seem to speak of high Veneration used towards them. T. G. Cath. no Idol. p. 367. argueth from the Prayer [which indeed is rather the wish] of Jacob, where he saith, The Angel who delivered me from all evils bless these Children Gen. 48. 16.. The Manual called the Abridgment of Christian Doctrine Pag 123. in Expos. of 1. Command. would prove the Worship of Dulia to belong to Angels, from the falling of Joshua flat to the ground when the Prince of the Host of God appeared to him. The like proof is produced by the Catechism of Trent Catech. ad Parochos, in 1. Praec. p. 390. from the blessing which Jacob obtained of the Angel with whom he strugled. If Christ were considered as the Angel of the great Council appearing in cases of moment under the Old Testament, and receiving the veneration most due to him; the Worshippers of Angels would either change their weapons, or quite lay them down.

Then touching the Worship of Images, this notion is very serviceable in that controverted point; as likewise in the point of making either Religious S [...]atues or Pictures. If any thing of the Divinity be to be portraied, we learn from hence what it may be, not the [Page] Godhead but the Shechinah: That is visible, and the expressing of it with the best lights and shadows of Art may therefore be not unlawful, though I know not whether I ought to plead for the expediency of it in common use. There was it seems in a Frontispiece of our Common-Prayer Books Lond. 1642. some such Embleme. The word Jehovah and a three corner'd radiant light and clouds, and Angels. He that took notice of this in Print, and might have observed the like before some of the great Church-Bibles, and somewhat worse, the picture of a Dove with rays of glory before the Biblia Polyglotta, did not well to call it a representing of God T. G. Cath. no Idol. p. 59., and to charge that upon the Church which was the fancy of the Engraver and Printer. I have already noted a much worse Frontispiece in each of the three parts of the Pontifical, where God is pictured as man. And in those days in which the Bishop of Rome ruled in England, there were Emblemes apt to suggest a very dangerous fancy to common brains; Pictures of the Trinity in three conjoined heads of human Figure. And so ordinary they were that they served as Signs to the Shops of Stationers, as now do the Heads of a King or a Bishop. And he that printed the Pupilla Oculi of de Burgo, was pleased to stamp his Sign in that manner on the Title-page of the Book. Nay, in the late Missal reprinted at Paris Miss. Rom. Par. 1660. p. 222. there is none of the best faces of an Old man pictured amongst Clouds and Angels over the Crucifix before the Canon of the Mass. And though I know not how to commend these things, yet I will not blame them as acts of their whole Church.

It does not any-where appear to me that the Jews of old pictured the Ark or the Temple, though now they make models of the whole. How near they come to the Original I cannot tell; but it is certain, that in picturing the Sanctuary above, we create a Phantasm, [Page] which needs much to be helped by our Reason and Faith; it being in it self not equal in glory to those of the Sun and the Rainbow.

It is true that Pictures are but signs, and that words are so too; but it is not expedient to describe all things by the pencil which come from the voice. Words are Signs without Imagery in them, and they are transient Crell. Eth. p. 329. de Idol. minor est rerum auditarum aut lectarum, quam visarum vis.. Ye heard a voice only, but ye saw no similitude, saith God Almighty to the people, to whom he forbade Images Deut. 4. 12.. Words are properly the symbols of the conceptions of the mind, and not of the external object. They are notes of memory, and helps of discourse. They are in themselves a kind of spiritual and immaterial marks. And though sometimes, especially in Poetick characters, they bring to the fancy some present representation, yet they thereby fix a notion rather than a proper constant phantasm (unless where fancy is indulged); and they do not so grosly impress upon the brain the Image they convey, as a material Picture, which having also some tangible substance to sustain it, is apt to be transform'd into an object of worship, distinct from the Prototype, in dull and sensitive minds. Besides, when by words we convey to the mind a representation of Heaven, or the Shechinah of God, we rest not there, but following the pattern of the Holy writers, we offer to the mind what the Painter cannot to the eye, this further document, that we have not by far reached the original, and that it is indeed beyond all expressions but those of admiration. When any such Pictures hang before us, we should in this manner exalt the phantasm into mental astonishment, and not dwell on the mean portraict, but refine and exalt it by the assistance of the words of Scripture ‘which call the Shechinah, the excellent Glory, the Throne before which the Cherubims fall down [Page] with vailed face, the light inaccessible in which God dwells, The Throne of the Lamb who is brighter than the Sun: words by which the Pen assisteth us beyond any Pencil of Angelo or Titian;’ yet neither are their devotional pieces (where they mix not, as Angelo doth in his portraict of the Judgment, Heaven and Christian Images; Charon and Christ) to be despis'd either as ornaments, or hints of memory.

In the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Parish-Priest is required to take care Cat. cont. Trid. in 1. al. 2. praec. p. 396. that Images be made, Ad utrius (que) Testamenti cognoscendam Historiam, for procuring the knowledg of the History of the Bible. And well it had been if it had stayed there: but it proceeds in requiring the Priest to teach the people that Images of Saints are placed in Churches, ut Colantur, that they may be worship'd: either the Images or the Saints by them. Better sure, it were, to remove Images quite out of the Church, than to leave them as such stumbling-blocks for the commonalty who are Children in understanding. When they see them only at a distance with their eye, they may sometimes instruct them, and afford them hints of very good meditations: but when they are directed to bow down before them, and to them also, though with distinctions which the vulgar understand not, they, then, are, if Laymens Books, Books of Magick, rather than of Christian Piety.

God, you see, hath provided a better remedy for mankind. His Son hath taken our nature into unity of person, and he offers himself to us as an object shining with glory and power in the Heavens, though not there, in his Godhead, confined: and therefore to use any Image of him otherwise then to be a hint to us of his more glorious one at Gods right hand, is to direct our devotion to the light of rotten Wood, or [Page] Gold, or Pearl, when we have the Sun in the Firmament. If we worship Christs Image as apart from him, we do, in effect, divide Christ. If we worship it together with him, we, in effect, multiply Christ, joyning a second lifeless body to his glorious one; and by that means adoring it, as if it were in personal union with him. They are safe who say with S. Jerome, S. Hieron. in Ezek. c. 16. p. 425. Nos autem—unam v [...]neramur Imaginem. Quae est Imago invisibilis & omnipotentis Dei. “We venerate only one Image [to wit Jesus Christ] the Image of the Invisible and Omnipotent God. When the Father brought this brightness of his glory Heb. 1. 3, 6. and the express Image of his Person into the World, he said, let all the Angels of God worship him. And now he hath installed him as God-man and King of the world at his right hand, let us and all the world adore him. Let them worship him as God-man, and neither worship an undue Image on earth as joyned to his person, nor yet his heavenly body as apart by it self. That, as join'd in unity of person, and now in glory, is our object; and a Crucifix ought not to be looked upon in prayer, as the present Image of Christ: for he is in Heaven glorious, and not on the Cross. And though the Revelation of S. John speaks of him as in Garments roll'd in blood; it mentions them not as miserable apparel, but as the Purple of the King of Kings. The Capitular of Charles the Great Cap. c. Magni. p. 767. would have the Picture of Christs Resurrection as frequent as that of his Cross: but by both of them we look back; and if any be proper, in helping us, not meerly in our preparation, as the Crucifix may be; but in our immediate Religious addresses, it is, surely, a picture of him in Glory, if that could be well made: but neither is this to be worshipped, but made only an help to excite our mind; nor is the humanity or body of Christ to be adored by it self; yet in the manuals of the Roman Church I [Page] find addresses to the very body; and I fear that upon the Festival of Corpus Christi, and in the object under the shews of bread (shews united in their act of devotion to Christs body), our Lord is divided. We have a form of Prayer to his body in the little French Manual Pet. Cat. p. 119. Orais. devote en Oyant la Messe.—ô Corps sacre de Jesus,—jevous adore avec tant de reverence qu'il est possible—&c. called Petite Catechisme, and in the Litanies of the Sacrament Les. Litan. de S. Sacr. p. 295. Panis Omnipotentis verbi verbo caro factus miserere nobis.. And the Learned Bishop Usher, in his Sermon before the Commons Bp. ush. Ser. p. 38, 39., mentions the Epistle Dedicatory of the Book of Sanders concerning the Lords Supper, thus superscribed. ‘To the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, under the forms of bread and wine, all honour, praise, and thanks, be given for ever.’ A Judicious Christian would rather ascribe all praise and honour to Christ God-man. Whole Christ let us supplicate and honour, helping our Imagination by his Shechinah in Glory, and remembring the words of St. Austin, noted as remarkable by Agobardus Agobar. in libr. contra Eor. superstit. Qui Pict. & Imagin. Sanctorum adorationis obsequium deferendum putarunt. p. 221. Arch-Bishop of Lyons, a man zealous in his Age against the corruptions of Image-worship, and ill requited in his memory by them, who, (as Baluzius noteth Baluz. not. ad Agobard. p. 88, 89.) esteem him the less Catholick for it. ‘In the first Commandment (saith S. Austine) [that is in the whole of that, which himself, elsewhere, in his Questions of the Old and New-Testament, divides into first and second] each similitude of God is forbidden to be made by men; not because God hath no Image, but because no Image of his ought to be worshipped but that which is the same with himself, nor that, for him, but with him.’

God assisting us with this Image, why should any religious Acts have any lower object total or partial? Images set up as any sort of objects of our inward or external devotion, are a sort of Anti-Arks. And we ought not to touch them; not because they are sacred, [Page] but because they are unhallowed objects. And worse still they are rendred, too often, by impious Art, which maketh the lifeless Image (as in the Rood of Bockley) by help of Wiers, and other instruments of Puppetry, to bend, to frown, to roll the eyes; to weep, to bleed; to exhibit signs of favour or displeasure. This indeed, is not the constitution, but 'tis the frequent practice of some in that Church: and hereby are framed so many snares for the people who turn such Images into Christs Shechinah. For if certain Monks (who were also shepheards, and people of low conception) became, through their rusticity, absurd Anthropomorphites, by reading the bare words of Scripture, where it saith, that God created man in his own Image; how much more will mean people have corrupt fancies begotten in them by false Images, which their eyes may see, and their hands may handle. Such will turn a common Chest into an Ark; and a wooden Engine into the Divine Shechinah. ‘Of the Sindon at Besanson, Chiffletius a Papist reporteth, That great numbers met twice a year on a Mountain nigh the City, to adore that cloth with Christs Image on it. Of it, he further saith, that it always shineth with a Divine presence [that is, in effect, that it is a Shechinah of God], and that in great emergencies it is carried in procession like the Ark, being yet more holy than that Mosaic Vessel.’ How shall the people not fall into Idolatry, when such false Shechinahs or Idols are layd in their way? How much more would it tend to edification to direct them to the Image of God, who sitteth in Glory at Gods right hand, and whom our minds the less behold in our devotions, the more our eye is fixed upon an Image of wood or stone. In the City or Church of God, described in the 21st chapter of S. Johns Revelation, There was no Temple [Page] no material fixed place of Gods visible Shechinah [though there must be Synagogues or Places for publick Assemblies]; but Christ himself was the Light or Shechinah: and therefore to him, as to the only true Image of the invisible God, it is proper to direct our Cogitations and Prayers. And let not any man think that because the Shechinah is in Heaven, and not visibly in a Church, as the Shechinah was in the Temple of the Jews; that therefore Christians have less assistance than Gods ancient People: for they have that which is much more excellent. The Glory on the Ark was only a mixture of shapeless lights and shadows: and in the Temple, the people seldom saw it, but being assured of it, did view it in their imagination. And few of them had other apprehensions of it, than as of the presence of God the deliverer and Protector of that Commonwealth.

But Christians (a people under a more spiritual dispensation than the Jews) though they see not the Shechinah with their eyes on earth, yet, from the words of Scripture, they can excite their minds to behold it, even in the Sanctuary of Heaven. And they behold it in the figure of God-incarnate; an Image, not confused, but of a distinct person: an Image which brings to their mind the greatest and most comfortable mystery of the means of Salvation; aptest to encourage our Prayers, and to enflame our Zeal, and to raise our Admiration.

Some objects indeed, are, on earth, exposed to the eyes of Christians, by the Institution of our Lord; the elements of Bread and Wine. And the [...], or place on which they are consecrated is, at this day, called, in the Greek Church, See de statu Eccl. Grae. hod. p. 41, 44, 45. [...], the Propitiatory or mercy-Seat. And a late Author Ogilby in Affrica. p. 654 reporteth of the Abassine Priests, upon the Authority of [Page] Codignus, (though in Codignus I could never find it See Codign. de Rebus Abassin. l. 1. c. 35. de Sacram. Abass. p. 212, &c.) That they blessed a certain Shrine or Coffer of the Sacrament, understanding by it the Ark of the Covenant. But Christ hath ordained no Cherubims on this Ark: He hath not used any Images, but pledges of his dying love. These pledges, with safety, call his passion to remembrance without any Image on the Table, which the Gallican Church, of old, forbad, in the Council of Rhemes, even after some corruptions had crept in Regin. l. 1. de Eccl. Disc. Const. 60. p. 53. observandum est ut mensa Christi, id est, altare ubi corpus domini cum consecratur, &c. cum omni veneratione [not cultu] honoretur, &c. nibil (que) saper eo ponatur nisi capsae cum sanctorum Reliquiis, & Quatuor Evangelia. Baluz. not. ad L [...]c. Regin. p. 549. videtur ergo prohibere ne Imagines super altare ponantur in quo Corpus dominicum consecratur.. Neither should we detain our Fancy amongst those Pledges; but obey the sursum Corda of the Ancient Church. It seemeth incongruous to rest on the Symbols, or to bow down to them; they being, as it were, the dishes in our sacred Commemoration, or Festival of Christ crucified; but it more becometh us to lift up our heart, and eyes, and hands, and faith, with humble reverence towards the Heavens, and to worship God-man in Glory: To adore our great Master and Benefactour Jesus, not as suffering on Calvary, but as triumphing in the Sanctuary not made with hands.

CHAP. XV. A REVIEW and CONCLVSION.

[Page]

A. I Have read over your Discourse of Idolatry, and if you please I will spend a few Animadversions upon it.

B. With all my heart. I take such liberty sometimes, and therefore I have reason to give it. The truth is, I am not wondrously pleased, my self, with what I have done. And I believe the performance of few men does answer to the Idea which they had form'd in their heads.

A. I neither frame Models, nor work by them; but I make bold to animadvert on those that do. And if they will talk to the world, they must expect that the world will talk again. As to your Performance, my Remarks in the general are but Two; But the particular ones are enough to weary you, though you were a second Fabius.

B. Pray try what stock of Patience I am Master of: Though that is usually very small when men are to hear of their own faults.

A. They may be mine; for no body offends oftner than he who censures. At least he runs the hazard of offending; this being as true as most Proverbs, That he who kicks at others is himself half way to a fall. But let us come to the Points.

I observe, first, That you have chosen a very beaten Argument, and never more beaten than at this time. And next, that you will nauseate the nice Readers of this Age with your numerous Citations, which are in [Page] truth so many that they make the Book seem the less your own.

B. 'Tis true, the Argument is a beaten one; a subject handled by Maimonides, Viretus, Vossius, Reinolds, Selden, and many others of great Learning. But I cannot say that it was wholly of my own chusing; nor can I tell you all the occasions of it, unless I break open the seal of Confession. But be the Argument as beaten as it will; I hope there may be something said in it, not said before; as in a Mine which hath been wrought in for many years, some mean Labourer may find a new vein of Oar. However, there must be new Books for them whose curiosity will not incline them to look back upon the old ones. And there must be many upon every useful subject, that the differing Genius of each Reader may be gratified by an innocent compliance with it. And the very concurrence of many at this time in this one subject, does shew that they judged it highly useful for this age; though it may be some would have spared their pains had they had a window into the Studies of others, and seen what they were a doing. And further, I assure you upon the observation of others as well as upon my own, that the very newness of the fashion in any Book upon a weighty subject, is some way instrumental in carrying on the Trade of Learning.

For the Citations, an Historical and Philological Argument cannot be managed without them. Ancient customs and matters of Fact are not to be invented but remembred. And though I fetch many Materials from the Ancients, I lose no more my property in this writing (were that worth the contending for) than a Hollander does in any of his Vessels, whose Timber was imported from Norweigh, and grew not at home.

A. I agree with you, adding this to what you have [Page] said, that the Margent is as often left clear out of Ignorance and laziness, as it is garnished out of Pedantry.

I have done with my general Remarks. Now for those which are more particular.

In Chap. 2. p. 15. you seem to commit a little mistake about Zaradsas, or Zaratas, said by Plutarch to be the Disciple of Pythagoras. He was not therefore what you would make him the same with Zoroaster, who was at least as much before him as Socrates before Plato and Zenophon.

B. Plutarch himself does not say it. The Translator (rather sure out of misattention than ignorance) renders him thus Plutarch. de Procreat. Anim. p. 1012. Ed, Franc., Zaratas Pythagorae Discipulus. Whereas this is the Original, [...], Zaratas the Master of Pythagoras.

A. In the same Page, in page 76, as likewise in many others, you mention the two Principles of Pythagoras; but you do not any-where tell us distinctly what he meaneth by them.

A. 'Tis not an easie matter to do it. The ancient Philosophers (especially those whose Heads were touched with Magick and Enthusiasm) understood divers things by the same names. But these two Principles are most literally expounded of the Demiourgus, or Soul of the World; and Hyle, or matter, his [...], or fatal original of Evil See Plutare. de Placit. Philos. l. 1. c. 3. p. 876. & Plotin▪ l. 8. Enn. 1. & Chalcid. in Tim. p. 396. juxta Platone [...] bona sua Dei, tanquam patris liberalitate, collata sunt: mala vero matris sylvae viti [...] cohaeserunt., which he and his followers ascribed to the untameable nature of it.

A. I go on. In Chap. 5. p. 55, &c. you are very brief in your proof of the acknowledgment of one Supreme God amongst the Gentiles; and well it is you are so. That Argument has been considered at large by others with great Learning. And of these some have appear'd since your Papers were under the Press. So that in your brevity you are either discreet or lucky.

[Page] B. What you please. I could wifh that I had been more brief than I am; and then I had been guilty of fewer mistakes. I find that I have cited some words of Plato's as acknowledgments of one supreme God, which he spake not of him but of the Soul of the World. Such are those cited by me in pag. 57. where he is said to call God the Maker and Father of every thing. That's the proper Platonick Title of the Soul of the World Plat. Tim. p. 33. Min. in Octav. Platoni, in Timaeo, Deus est ipso nomine mundi Parens., to which the frame of the visible Universe, and its generation is ascribed. And the context so plainly inforceth that sense that I wonder it needed my second thoughts. He speaks of that third principle in many other places which are frequently misapplied to the [ [...], or] one Supreme God.

A. You have company in your mistake, though perhaps you will be singular in your Retractation. But to proceed. In Chap. 3. pag. 35. you insinuate that the Platonists judged the Soul of the World to be rather a Form assisting than Informing. Whereas they held this World to be one mighty Animal.

B. Nothing can be more absurd than that which some Platonists held. But Plato himself, though he said the World was Plato in Timaeo. p. 30. [ [...],] a living Creature endued with a Soul; yet he meant not by the Animation of this World, either the vital union of the highest Psyche to all matter; or (as some have conceived, whilst they have pleased to measure him by the doubtful phrases of Plotinus) of a secondary Soul of the World to the formed Subcoelestial Hyle which the Chaldee Oracles Chald. Or. p. 70. under the seven Planets is [...]. Psell. Summar. Dogm. Chald. p. 111.— [...]. call the Throne of Matter, [to which (as they speak) there is a descent by the seven steps of the Planets] and the Fund of it. But by this Plato understood See Timaeum de An. Mundi, p. 95. Ed. Serr. the vital union of Souls to some part of it, the Presential union of inferior Daemons to certain Statues in it See Jamblic. de vit â Pythag. c. 28. p. 138, 139.— [...], &c. [...]. There stop, if you will read that place right, & then for [...] read [...], not with Arcerius, [...].; and the Order, or (as he calls it, [...]) [Page] the Temperament of all the parts adjusted by Psyche.

A. In Chap. 5. pag. 57, 59. You seem to make [...], Jehovah, and Jove the same; which was not always your opinion.

B. I do but seem so; I think as I did. For Jupiter, I believe as Varro believed, and do think it comes à Juvando. For Jupiter (or, as the English often pronounce it Jubiter) or Juviter are the same; p. b. v. being frequently used for one another. Nor can I approve of the Etymology of Juvans Pater; for ter in Jupiter is a meer termination; and Jupiter is no more Juvans pater, than Accipiter is accipiens pater.

Concerning Jehovah I still think that the word is the same in effect with [...], though not the pronunciation of it: a sound (some believe) so very modern that it is said to have been first heard from the mouth of Galatinus. The ancient [...] now pronounced Jehovah, was in all likelihood sounded, Jahveh. So the Samaritans pronounced it, of whose [...], (or Jave, the Vau by the Greeks being as in [...], turned into Beta) we read in Theodoret's Questions on Exodus. And from them (who changed not their ancient Letters, nor received the Judaic Oral Cabala) we are more likely to understand the Pronunciation, than from the Jews misled by the Pharisees, who in and after the Maccabean times, began or promoted very many Superstitions about the words of the Bible. They did so particularly about the Tetragrammaton, whose Original sound being softly pronounced, and as is related by Rabbi Tarphon R. Tar. ap. Capell. in Orat: de Nom. Jebad calc. Crit. p. 698., supped up as it were by the mumbling Priest, was by degrees perfectly lost amongst most Jews and their Schollars: Insomuch that Origen in the Fragment of his Hexapla mentioned by St. Chrysostome, as also many others read it, Adonai. So doth the vulgar Latin in Exod. 6. 3. though in all other places it renders it by [Page] Dominus. The Seventy turn it by [...], St. Hierom by Dominus; though somewhere (as Mercer Mercer in Gen. 11. 4. noteth) he calleth it Jaho. That it ended in Omega, as in [...], was a corruption apt to happen to all names which are taken out of one Language into another. The occasion of it might be this: The power of the Samaritan Heth answered by the Greek [...] or [...] See Bochart. in Can. l. 1. c. 20. p. 491. which by negligence was perhaps sometimes written, and thence in process of time pronounced as [...] which is as I may so say, but a kind of Epsilon laid on its back.

A. It may be so for ought that comes now into my mind. I pass on to another Note. In Chap. 5. pag. 62. you tell us that the Heathens used the Form of [...], but you give us no greater Authority for it than your bare word.

B. You may if you please take it upon the word of Arrian in his second Book on Epictetus Arr. in Epict. l. 2. c. 7. p. 186..

A. In Chap. 5. pag. 77. you seem to approve of the opinion of Petavius, who maketh Arius a genuine Platonist: whereas it is manifest (and the Learned have taken notice of it) that Plato made his second Principle eternal; whilst Arius said, There was a time when he was not at all.

B. I only cite his words, I do not justifie them. The Logos of Arius is not so like to the Nous, as to the Psyche of Plato; to the Demiourgus who framed (as he fancieth) the visible World. Yet thus far Petavius is in the right. He asserteth upon good grounds that Arius was infected with Platonism, and that with Plato he made the Principle that framed this World to be a distinct substance, which was not very God; though he did not affirm with that Philosopher, that it was coeternal with the self-originated Deity; and for that it was not a priviledg in Plato's judgment very extraordinary, for he alloweth it to Matter it self; I mean the unformed Hyle.

[Page] A. We'l examine these things anon. In the mean time I would ask you, why, in this 77th page, you observe it as a thing worthy an Asterisc, that the Platonists call the Nous, unbegotten, and, Parent to it self? For they mean no more than that the Nous was from the T' Agathon by eternal emanation, and not, as this World from Psyehe, by temporal Generation or formation.

B. They mean no more. Neither did I think it a deep remark, but I the rather observ'd it, because holy Writers have declined such terms; not adhering to them so very much as some Imagine they do. And when they use them, they do it not so much to countenance the Platonick notions, as to oppose them. So when S. John saith, In the beginning was the Logos, &c. he meaneth it not either of the Logos or Demiourgus of Plato, but, rather, in opposition to them: as if he had said; Christ, not your fictitious, but the true Logos, was ever with God, and God also; and the maker of all things.

A. I perceive by this, and by that which I find in many other Places, that you have not forgotten the old saying; Plato is my friend, but Truth is more. Nay, you seem to have a kind of Pique at Platonism, and will, I fear, provoke the Ficinus's of this age.

B. I do not with design oppose, or challenge any of them: And I think they are men of better temper then to make every light notion so much their Mistress, as to Duel me for it. And I heartily wish that the indecent and irrational way, used by some Writers, of hitting one another, fiercely, in the Teeth, with their little barren speculations, were as much laid aside, as is the custom of fighting with Sandbags. But, what are the particulars (I beseech you) in which I may seem to offend the Platonists?

[Page] A. They are many. And (not to hover in generals only) I tell you particularly, that you are irreverend towards their Triad; a notion as dear to a Platonist, as Diana to an Ephesian. It is true in Chap. 5. p. 79. You take notice of the three Platonick Principles, as distinct substances; and they themselves do so likewise: but, then, you say not a word of that Union, whereby those Three substances, of the same species, though numerically differing, become but one God.

B. Suppose that to have been Plato's mind: How would it have agreed to the one God of the Christians, whom S. Paul opposeth to Gods many, or many superior Spirits, and Lords many, or many inferior Spirits, though of the same species in each order? But I see not, any-where in Plato, that this was his opinion, though Plotinus, who lived where Christianity was planted, doth, sometimes, express himself in that manner. At other times, the same Plotin, (who is a kind of Platonick Familist) doth no otherwise unite his three Principles then by the union of a Center Plotin. Ennead, 5. l. 1. c. 6., a lesser, and a greater circumference, which no man can conceive, exactly in one another. When he saith that the T' Agathon, Nous and Psyche, are joyned, he meaneth rather that there is nothing betwixt them, than that, by mutual penetration, and vital union, they are one. He interprets himself, in that Chapter, by saying of the three Principles, that there is [ [...].] nothing that interveneth. No more doth any Planet come betwixt Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, and yet they are three Planets, not one. And this seems to be the [ [...] or] the Indistant Distance of which notion he darkneth the sense by his obscure Phraseology. If he meant much more; Plato did not; nor could he, with consistence.

[Page] That the [...] or T' Agathon of Plato was the supreme God, I have already owned. To him agreeth that description of God, that he is [ [...] and [...]] without Cause, and the Cause of every thing else: Though I find also that Nature, or the indefinite Power of matter and motion, the Venus of the Lucretians, is said to be without Cause, and, in Phurnutus, called [...], the Cause of all things; that is, of all the modifications of matter, and the Phaenomena of the visible Universe.

But that Plato's Nous or Demiourgus contain in them the Idea of a God, or a Being absolutely perfect, is most contrary to the general Air of Platonism, whatsoever little independent sayings may be, that way, misapplied. Wherefore, in Chap. 5. p. 79. I have called Nous and Psyche, eminent Daemons, See M. Thorndike's Epil. part 3. p. 291. and not Divine Persons, though [...] is often used to signifie the supreme God See Arrian: in Epict. l. 4. c. 4. p. 387., as in that place where the Philosopher affirmeth, that [ [...]] or the Divinity, is not [ [...]] an envious Being. In the Oracles of Zoroaster Pletho in Orac. Mag. p. 49. [...]. it is affirmed, that the supreme God withdrew himself from the world: By which is not meant that he sequestred himself wholly from all the affairs of it, but (as Pletho noteth) that he did not communicate his Divinity, either to the Nous, or to the second God, by which is understood, in those Chaldee Oracles, not the Logos, but the Demiourgus or Psyche. For the Nous, It is not one single principle, but a kind of Pantheon, a Collection of many Ideas or Spirits, as Aristotle, who lay nigh to the bosom of Plato, doth truly construe him. It is such a thing as Christophorus Sandius (in whose brain Paradoxes naturally flutter) doth fancy the Spirit of God to be. For, in a distinct Treatise C. C. S. Tract. de Sp. Sancto. p. 4. Sp. S.—tota collectio spirituum Sanctorum. he endeavoureth to prove, that it is the Body of the Good Angels. Hence, [Page] sometimes, the three Principles are called T' Agathon, Ideai, and Psyche. Hence he find it called the Exemplar, or rather that which afforded an Exemplar (they distinguishing nicely betwixt the form, and the thing formed); that is, the Intellectual World, according to whose pattern this sensible World is said to be made. They who wholly blame the later Platonists for such Ideas, excusing Plato; are very unjust: For they drub the feet when the Head was first in Fault. The Exemplar, saith Plato Plato in Tim [...]o de An. Mundi. p 95.— [...]. is all the Intelligible Animals in it self, as this World is the circle of such as are sensible. In another Book Plato in Timaeo. p. 30.— [...], &c. he saith, that the Intellectual World containeth in it all Intelligent Animals; as this sensible world containeth us, and all living creatures. The same Philosopher, in the Conclusion of his Timaeus Plato in Timaeo. p. 92. [...], &c., asserteth that this sensible world is the [ [...] or] second Image of the Intellectual God. Also, in the conclusion of the Book of the soul of the world De An. Mundi. p. 105. he thus discourseth. The Ruler of all (he speaks of Psyche) hath committed the Inspection and Government of the world to Daemons. He made this world full of Daemons, and Men, and other Animals, after the pattern of the best Image, of the ungenerated eternal [...] or Form; meaning that of the Nous. And he had said before that Plato in Timaeo. p. 33. this world was [ [...]] the generated Image of the eternal Gods; of which, therefore, the Collection made up the Nous or Intellectual world.

Plato thus expressing himself, it is no wonder that it is said in the Chaldee Oracles Orac. Mag. Zor. p. 46— [...]., that the supreme God delivered to the second God (or Psyche) all the Intelligible Ideas. Nor need we think it strange to hear Philo speak of an Intellectual Sun and Stars.

A. If it be thus, That the Nous is an Intellectual world, and that this world is a kind of second Temple [Page] made after the fashion of that first, though inferior to it in Glory, why do you (in Chap. 5. pag. 79.) call the Nous, one Thing, Being, or Person?

B. A Thing, it may be called, as this world is, being one Collection of things: And a Person (a publick Person) being a Collection of Intelligent Beings, of which the principal Nous or spirit, seemeth to answer to the visible Sun; Plotin mentioning it by it self, and then speaking of the beauty of the Ideas which he there Plotin. Enn. 5. l. 1. c. 7. calls [ [...],] All the Intelligible Gods. Thus we call the Collection of evil Spirits, and the Prince of them, by the name of Devil: And, in the Evangelical History, the Principal spirit in a man possessed, answered in the singular, though he said, his name was Legion.

Plato himself calls this visible world Plato in Timaeo. p. 92. & de Animâ mundi. p. 94. [...], a sensible god, and [...], a generated god, though it be a Collection of innumerable Things and Persons: and, by the same reason, he may call the Intellectual world (as indeed he doth) [...], an Intelligent god or Nous, though it be not a single principle. The like may be said of Logos, which Philo so understood, or else he would not, sometimes, have called this world, Logon, as I have shewed him to have done In Chap. 14. of Shech..

The Chaldee Oracles call the Demiourgus, the second God; and he is more properly so than the Nous: yet neither hath that principle in it, the true Idea of God.

A. How doth that appear?

B. Two ways; for, First, it containeth not, in it, Infinite Wisdom, but standeth in need of a Pattern to work by, an external Exemplar: for Psyche is represented as an under-Artist, not having the Idea or Model in its own mind, but following one exhibited [Page] by his superior Master. He made the world (saith Timaeus De Animâ mundi p. 105. See Plut. de An. Procr. p. 1014.) after the eternal form. Secondly, It containeth not in it Omnipotence. For though it framed the world very excellently, yet it is said to have been, in part, resisted by the stubbornness of Hyle, and not to have done all it desired, but all it could. Plato saith, in his Timaeus Plato in Timaeo. p. 30. & p. 53., that God (or Psyche) designed all things to be good, and nothing to be evil, [...], as far as nature would suffer him; and again, as far as it was [...], a possible thing. It seems the matter was not such pliable wax as would receive the impression in such manner as Psyche would have been pleased with. To this effect there is a remarkable place in Hierocles who thus repeateth the opinion of certain followers of Plato Hierocles de Providentiâ. p. 6. who question'd both the Infinite Wisdom and Power of Psyche. They think not that there is ‘[In the Demiourgus] sufficient power, whereby, through its own wisdom (by which it maketh things, out of eternal matter) [for so I construe [...], and not, with the Translator,’ Qua ab omni eternitate Res efficit, which contradicteth the scope of the place,] the world may perfectly be ordered; but that [...] ‘ [...], by the mutual aid of unbegotten Hyle, and by using extrinsick nature exhibited before it, it may accomplish its work.’ It is true, the common Copy Reads it, [...], and (which surprizeth me) Grotius translateth it Grotius in Sent. Philos. de Fato. p. 20. generatae materiae ministerio. But it is directly contrary to the tenor of the Platonists there cited, and to the following Discourse: which is such, that Hierocles believ'd Hierocl. de Prov. p. 8. they held matter to be [ [...]] ungenerated, not only [ [...]] as being before time, which they say, began with the sensible world; but, likewise, [ [...]] as being without all Cause; in [Page] which sense the T' Agathon only is to be called unbegotten. By this, it should seem, that the Demiourgus is but [ [...]] the servant of matter, as the Egyptians in Herodotus do stile him. And this Plutarch Plut. de Procr. An. p. 1014. also teacheth, saying, ‘The essence of Matter out of which this World was made, was not generated, but laid always (as far as it could) before the Workman, to be disposed and ordered by him according to his Exemplar or likeness [ [...] [...]] as much as possible might be.’

A. This puts me in mind of what you affirmed before, that Matter was by Plato made to be eternal. So did Theodoret before you Theodo [...]. l. 2: de Cur. Graec. Affect., as well as Plutarch. But is this manifest from Plato himself?

B. It is. Insomuch that by some Platonists Hyle is called the Sister of Psyche See Hierocli [...] l. de Provid. p. 8.. Plato in Timaeus Plato in Timaeo de An. Mundi, p. 94▪ [...], &c. Ibid. [...]., of the Soul of the World, does expressly call [ [...], or] Matter [ [...]] eternal, and [ [...]] unbegotten. And again he saith in the same Page, that before the Heaven was made (by which in that place he means this World) there existed in the Logos, (or Intellectual World) Idea, and matter; to which he adds also in that Discourse, the Demiourgus.

A. What then is the meaning of the making of the World, and the novity of its essence, so often mentioned in the School of Plato?

B. There is meant by it not any Temporal Creation of the very substance of Matter, but the production of this form Plato in Timaeo, p. 30. of the Demiourgus, that [...]. out of formless Hyle, which they called [...] Plut. de Procr. An. p. 1014. B., or shapelesness. God (saith Plato Plato in Tim: de An. Mundi, p. 94., meaning Psyche) made this World [ [...],] of all the Praeexistent Matter. He made it [ [...]] out of the things not seen Heb. 11. 3. Wisd. 11. 17.— [...]., (out of simple Matter void of Phaenomena), but not (say they) [ [...] 2 Mac. 7. 28.— [...]. LXX. The saying of the Hebrew Mother of the seven Sons to the youngest of them ready to suffer by Antiochus.] out of very nothing.

[Page] Matter, therefore (the most simple Hyle) is with them eternal; and makes up a fourth thing in the first Quaternio of the Pythagorick Tetractys; the three first being T' Agathon or Aitia, Nous or Logos, Psyche or Demiourgus.

A. I had thought with some in Drusius on the name Jehovah, that the Tetractys was the Tetragrammaton, that secret and mysterious name of God most high, which Pythagoras revealed to the Gentiles.

B. By no means. Had it been in his time so superstitiously reverenced, and a name above all other names, a Jew would never have cast such a Pearl before a Gentile (and especially before such a one, a kind of Magical Gentile) whom he had in abhorrence as much as a swine. This name was no mystery among the Greeks, as is evident from the mention of Jerombalus [or Jerombaal] a Priest of the God [...], in Sanchuniathon: of Jaho in St. Hierom, and the Sibylline Oracles: of Jaoth, or Jaoh in Irenaeus: of the Hebrew-God called [...] by the Gnosticks, in a Manuscript of Origen Cited by Fuller in Misc. 1. 4. c. 13., [...]: of [...] in Clemens Alexandrinus: of [...], the first Principle of the first Gnostick Heaven in Epiphanius: the God of Moses in Diodorus Siculus: the God Bacchus in the Oracle of Apollo Clarius; and lastly (as was said) of the Samaritan God [...], in Theodoret. And certainly the Jews before the Captivity knew well enough how to pronounce this name; nor doth it appear in all the Bible that they feared to reveal it.

A. What meaneth that place in Exod. 6. 3. But by my name [...] was I not known unto them?

B. It meaneth that Go [...] having actually given defence and plenty to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, was already known to them by the names of El, Almighty; and Schadai, Alsufficient. But that having not fulfilled [Page] to them his Promise Exod. 6. 3, to v. 9. of giving to them or their seed, the Land of Canaan; was not yet known to them by his name Jehovah or Jahveh, which comes from [ [...]] Hajah, which signifies to Be and Exist; and imports a God constant to his word, and the same to day, yesterday, and for ever.

A. If the Tetractys of Pythagoras be not the Tetragrammaton of Moses; what other thing is it?

B. I can judg it no other thing than that which Plutarch thought it Plut. de Iside. p. 381, 382. [...]., The Pythagorean World. This World (as the same Plutarch Plutarch. de Animae procr. p. 1027. F. observeth) consisteth of a double Quaternary. The Quaternary of the Intellectual World is T' Agathon, Nous, Psyche, Hyle. The Quaternary of the sensible World (which is most properly the Pythagorean [...]) is Fire, Air, Water, and Earth; The four Elements H [...]sych. [...]. called by the name of [...], (the Roots or Principles of all mixed Bodies) in these ancient Greek Verses: ‘ [...] Plut. de Plac: Phil. c. 3. p. 878 Sext. Empir. cont. Math. p. 367. [...].’ That is, Jupiter the Fire, Juno the Air, Pluto the Earth, and Nestis, or the womb, the Water, are the four Roots of all Things.

The like we find in the Form of the Pythagorick Oath, in these words See Jambl. de vitâ Pythag. c. 28. p. 138. Macr. de Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 6.: ‘ [...] [...] in Hier. A [...]r. Carm. [...].’

A. This to me is a Pythagorick Riddle. How do you expound it?

B. I construe the Dystich thus: ‘No [or yea], By Him from whom we learned the Tetractys (for they swore by their Master See Hier. in Carm. Pyth. p. 231. & Sext. Empir. adv. Mathem. c. 20.) a fountain containing in it [Page] the Roots (or Elements) of everflowing Matter’ For so I interpret [...], See Not. in Hier. Carm. Pyth. p. 377. not as some of eternal Matter, of which the Elements are not the Roots, and which is not here spoken of; but of the second Matter which perpetually changeth its shapes; the first being neither this or that, but ingenerable and incorruptible Hyle.

Now if I am mistaken in this notion of the Tetractys, I err with company. For Hierocles in a place little observed, does seem to say the same thing. The Tetrad (said he Hier. in Carm. Pyth. p. 229, 230.) is [...], the framer of all things; and ‘ [...], the cause, [or the T' Agathon, frequently so called by the modern Platonists;] and [...], the Idea or Intellectual World; [...], The cause of the Heavenly [that is of the ethereal first) Matter, and of that which is sensible.’

A. This Interpretation of the Tetractys seems not wide of the scope of Pythagoras and Plato. But for the Triad, methinks you are more severe than you need to be in explaining, or (to express your humour more properly) in exposing of it. There must surely be somewhat more Divine in that Notion than you allow, seeing it hath spread it self very widely among the Gentiles, and thereby seems the dictate of that reason which is common to them all.

B. You argue upon an usual mistake. Many such Doctrines are spread very far, but often they come from one only root; and that is not true reason, but the authority of some one fam'd Master in Learning. The Bellweather goes first, and a numerous flock follow him upon no other motive often-times, but because they see him go before them. Orpheus is followed by Pythagoras, and he by Plato and thousands of others in successive Ages.

A. There is no effect without its cause. What (I [Page] pray you) did move Orpheus, or Pythagoras, or Plato, or him whoever he was that was the Beginner to take up at first this Doctrine of the Triad?

B. The other extream opinion of those Philosophers who were meer Atomists.

A. How could that be? they were the followers of Moschus or Mochus, that is Moses, whom Orpheus and Pythagoras, and Plato, rather follow than contradict.

B. That Moschus was Moses, Mr. Selden, Arcerius in his Notes on Jamblicus, and divers others seem to believe, for no other reason that I know of than because the names are a little like one another. But Mochus or Moschus was plainly a Phaenician of later times, and one who opened a School at Sidon See Strab. l. 16. Geograp. p. 757. Athen. Delpn. 1. 2. p. 44. l. 7. c. 5. p. 278. Jambl. de vitâ Pythag. c. 3. p. 32, 33. Sext. Empir. adv. Mathem. p. 367.. He is the same with [...] in Laertius and Suidas. Laertius Laert. in Proaem. p. 1. [...] &c. maketh him a Phaenician, and one of those Barbarians as he calls them, from whom Philosophy had its birth, e're it was propagated in Greece. And he numbers him with Zamolxis the Thracian, Atlas the Libyan, and Vulcan the Egyptian.

But it is not of any moment, here to inquire any further about him. I know not whether he were such an Atomist as I am here speaking of; to wit, a perfect Materialist, denying the Existence and the very notion of Incorporeal substance. In opposition to such the Pneumatists framed the Platonick Triad after this manner: The Swmatists or Materialists supposed nothing to be in the world but Body, and all body to exist eternally of it self, in its essence though not in its modes, without all cause. The Pneumatists opposed this Dogma by asserting one supreme Incorporeal substance, the Aitia or cause of all Beings besides its own: the T' Agathon, or fountain-good whence all Essence flowed. The Materialists supposed that this visible World was the only World, and that all Ideas and all pretences of Incorporeal [Page] Beings, were but so many impressions of motion on the brain. This Dogma the Pneumatists opposed by asserting separate Ideas and an Intellectual World; a Nous or Logos.

The Materialists supposed the frame of the visible World to have been made at adventure, and by a fortuitous concourse of Atoms. The Pneumatists opposed this Dogma, by affirming two things: First, that there was not only Matter and Motion, but a Demiourgus, an Incorporeal workman, governing the disorderly motion of the Chaos, and disposing of the rude Materials in it into a Regular System. Secondly, That this Artificer did not work at adventure, but accorrding to an excellent Exemplar, laid before him.

A. I perceive you still so explain this Triad, that you will not allow Plato to Christianize. Nay I find elsewhere Ch 9. p. 165. that you do not think him so much as to Mosaize; which is very hard measure, and such as others have not meted to him.

B. I do not say that he did not Mosaize, but that to me it was not manifest that he did.

A. When he saith in his Timaeus, Plat [...] in Timaeo, p. 37. That the Father having made the World was exceedingly transported at the work of his hands; doth he not borrow from Moses, who said Gen. 1. 31., That God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good.

B. It is not manifest that he did. It is natural for any man to say after the description of an excellent and an agreeable performance, that the Artist was pleased with what he had done. Further, it is here to be observed, that Plato in that place speaketh not as Moses of God, the supreme self-originated Father, but of the third Principle, or Demiourgus, whom he stileth emphatically the Father and Genitor of the visible World. For to the T' Agathon Plato ascribes not such [Page] Fatherhood and Generation; but says, of all things flowing from him, that they were unbegotten; that is, not formed, as he says this World was, out of praeexistent Matter by Psyche.

A. Though the Demiourgus of Plato may not be the Mosaic maker of the World, yet he may seem at least to be the Spirit of God, which (as Moses teacheth Gen. 1. [...].) moved upon the face of the waters. For Plato maketh his Third principle to agitate the Chaos.

B. Neither is that evident; for the Text may be interpreted of a Wind of God, that is, according to the Jewish Idiom, of a mighty wind so moving. The Winds of God (saith the Arabick Version) blew upon the face of the waters.

A. Though you evade this, yet I hope you will grant something in favour of Orpheus, Pythagoras and Plato. You will grant sure that they received the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul from the Cabala of Moyses, and were thereby great Benefactors to the Gentile-world, and predisposed it for the reception of the Christian Faith.

B. That kind of Immortality which they held was not agreeable to Christian Doctrine. They asserted indeed the Incorporeal and indissoluble nature of the substance of mans soul; but by the Dogma of its Circulation through several Bodies, they taught a false and uncomfortable Faith which our Lord never justified. He taught not only that the Soul was not a concretion of separable Atoms, and that it was a substance not to be killed, a substance subsisting after death; but that it was, if righteous, immortal in unchangeable blessedness. He did not dishearten the virtuous by saying (as did Pythagoras) that the Soul after having attained the height of the Heavenly state, might come down again from the top of the Circle, and be happy and [Page] unhappy in eternal Rotations and Vicissitudes. For this reason St. Austin in the first Book S. Aug. Retract. l. 1. c. 1. p. 4. Ed. Par. 1677. Iturus, autem, quam Rediturus, dixissem securiùs, propter eos qui putant Animos humanos pro meritis peccatorum suorum de coelo lapsos sive dejectos, in corpora ista detrudi. of his Retractations, speaking of the Souls ascent into Heaven, thinketh it had been safer to have expressed himself by the word Going, than that of Returning; lest any should believe he favoured the Platonick notion of its being thrust down from its seat in Heaven.

A. Of Platonism, enough. I will trouble you again, as I did at the beginning, with a few Remarks of another kind; and then I will suffer you to be quiet.

B. Pray let us hear them.

A. In Chap. 5. pag. 52. you make Pagods to be the Statues, whereas they are only the Temples of Idols.

B. I use not my own words, but Vincent le Blanc's, and with him many others agree; though I do not remember that either in Sir Thomas Roe's Voyage to the East-Indies Sir T. Roe's Voyage, p. 440., or in Monsieur Tavernier's Travels Tavernier's Voy. part. 2. p. 166., Pagod is otherwise used than for a Temple. But why may it not signifie both the Statue and the Temple? At Rome they do not think it absurd to call, the Saint, the Church, the Image, Sancta Maria.

A. It may be so. I pass to another Note. In Chap. 6. pag. 97, 98. you expound the second Commandment, or prohibition of a Vow forbidden to be made to an Idol or Vanity, in the name of El, Elohim, Jehovah, or (if you will have it so) Jahveh; or in any other name of the God of Israel. So far the Novelty, perhaps, is passable. But then to obviate an Objection which may be made from our Lords Interpretation, [Thou shalt not forswear thy self,] you add this, ‘That he who voweth by an Idol, seeing he cannot be enabled by it to perform his Vow, is therefore in effect forsworn.’ And this looks more like an Evasion than an Answer.

B. It doth so. Nor will I go about either to defend that, or the Exposition which occasioned it. Thus [Page] much only I chuse to subjoin: That a Jew or a Christian vowing by an Idol though coloured with some Name of the true God, is actually forsworn; because he breaketh either the Mosaical, or Evangelical Covenant, an especial part of which is the renunciation of the worship of all Daemons See Mr. Thorndike's Weights and Meas. Chap. 23. p. 168..

In speaking to the first Commandment, in p. 97. I am guilty of a fault of omission which you take no notice of.

A. What may that be?

B. I ought to have observed that the Jews did generally interpret that Prohibition, against the worship, not so much of any other supreme god, as of the middle powers, or supposed Mediators, betwixt God and Man.

A. There needs no command against the worship of many supreme gods; that being a contradiction to the sense of mankind.

B. True; when you use the words, many supremes. But the common people think not of the World, as one Body necessarily placed under one Governour; but they may be brought to think of the Kingdom of Heaven, as they do of the kingdoms in this world, where there is no Universal Monarch. They may think there are several coequal gods, in their several Precincts. Nay, generally the Barbarous in several Countries, may be apt to think their Topical god superior to all others. The ignorant Frier thought the French King his Master, the greatest on earth, when he irreverently compared him to God the Father, and called our Holy Lord the Dauphine of Heaven. And some poor Peasants believe there is scarce one higher on earth than the Lord of the Mannor.

A. I have met with such in my time. But, I go on. In Chap. 6. p. 122, and in other places, you [Page] much disparage the Ancient Histories of Greece.

B. Plato himself Plato in Timaeo. p. 22.— [...].— speaking of the first Phoroneus, Deucalion, and others, suggesteth that their stories are fabulous. And that which he there remembers of the Discourse of the Priests of Sais to Solon, about the Antiquities of Egypt and Greece, and of Athens as an Egyptian Colony, is, at first hearing, so Idle a Tale, that I wonder the Philosopher, or any discreet Reader of him, hath had any reverence for it.

A. I confess, I have not. Give me leave to trouble you with one objection more. In Chap. 7. p. 146. You say Two things concerning the Idolatry of the Mahometans which will not pass. First, You affirm that they pray to Mahomet: whereas they are forbidden to do any such thing by their great Article, of Faith in one God. Secondly, You say, it is most notorious that they do so; whereas some judicious Persons who have lived amongst them, and such who are of better credit than the Author you cite, do profess they could never observe them doing it.

B. To your first exception, I thus answer. Their Article, of Faith in one God, was not so much designed against the worship of subordinate powers, as against the acknowledgment of three coequal Subsistences in the God of the Christians. It is one of the Dogmata of the Moslemans (saith Gabriel Sionita Gabr. Sion. de Urb. & Mor. Orient. c. 14. p. 76, 77. Hanc ult. partic. directè contra Christianos protulit, &c.), That God is One; and that there is no other equal to Him. And this last Clause Mahomet added with direct design against the Christian Trinity. And he would not have been so vehement, in his charge of Idolatry against the Christians, if they had worshipped Christ and the Holy Ghost with subordinate honour, and not as very God.

For your second Exception, I must confess that the words [most notonious] may seem a little too bold; [Page] they relating to a matter which is under dispute: as likewise that, on your side, there are Authors See T. S. of the Relig. of the Turks, p. 53. of better credit then Monsieur de la Guilliotiere whom I have produced. I have not much relyed upon his word since I was taught by a person of great integrity Mr. Vernon in his Letter from Smyrna, in Oldenburg's Transact. N. 124. p. 579., that his Book of Athens to his knowledg was wide of the truth.

But Monsieur de la Guilliotiere is not my only Author. I am told by others that the worship of Heroes, and trust in their Aids as Patrons under God, is to be charged on Mahometans, if not on the constitution of Mahomet who taught expresly Gabr. Sion. ubi supra. the Intercession of Saints.

Busbequius relateth Busbequius, Epist. 1. p. 53. that the Turks believe their Hero Chederle (a kind of Mahometan St. George) to be propitious in War, to all who implore his Aid. He further telleth that the Dervi, or Turkish Monks, shewed him the Sepulchres of the Relations of Chederle; and would have gladly perswaded him that many benefits were daily conferred from Heaven on those who at those chres petitioned them for assistance.

Francis Barton a learned English man, and no stranger in Turkey, discoursing of the manners of that people, giveth this as an instance of their Veneration of Saints. ‘The Admiral (saith he) of the Imperial Fleet, during fourteen days before he set sail, was obliged to go once a day to the Sepulchre of Isuppus, an eminent and fortunate Warrier, and there to pray for success.’

Septem-Castrenses was detained many years among the Mahometans. And he (in the fifteenth Chapter of his Book, de Turcarum Moribus) is large in mentioning their Guardian-Heroes, in whom they put subordinate trust.

One (it seems) is called Sedichast, which they interteth, [Page] Holy Conquerour, or Victorious among the Saints. And of him (he saith) it is the common opinion, that no man was ever sent away unanswered, who in any necessity prayed to him for succour, especially in any emergency of War. He is (as he proceeds) as famous among the Turks, as St. Anthony among [some] Christians. Another is called Harschi Pettesch, which they interpret, The help of Travel. He is (he saith) much invoked and reverenced by strangers and pilgrims, and (as they report) not in vain. A third is called Ascick passa, as much as to say, Patron of love, and he is invoked in Matrimonial cases. A fourth is called Gotvel mirtschin, and is a kind of Patron of Cattel. To him (saith Septemcastrensis) my Mistress prayed, and vowed to make him a yearly present of Butter for the Custody of her Kine, which also she performed. And (as he goes on) she would have perswaded me to have invoked him, that the Sheep I kept might by him have been protected from the Wolves that infested us.

If all this be true, and the Mahometans invoke so many other Heroes; methinks they should not forget for ever to call on Mahomet himself, the Prince of their Saints, and their chief Intercessor Patricides ap. Hott. Hist. Orient. p. 254. with God.

For the honour they do to the Relick of his Sandal preserved at Mecha Tavern. Rel. of the Seragl. c. 12. p. 64.: For their worshipping of the place where they supposed Abraham to have dwelt Benj. Itiner. p. 60.—religiosè colentes.—: For their embracing and kissing the stone Brachthan, on which they say Abraham accompanied with Hagar Euthym. Zigab. p. 14.: Lastly, for their moving round about a statue of stone, erected in the midst of the Temple at Mecha, with stooping shoulders, one hand lifted up, and another on one of the ears, till a Vertigo lays them on the floor (a thing it seems told Zigabemus Zigab. ibid. by a Turk turned Christian) I forbear to enlarge [...]pon them, and leave the whole to the Perusers of such Authors as [Page] Tavernier, Benjamin, Zigabenus, Busbequius, Barton.

A. I must needs be satisfied with the authorities you have brought. There remain divers Animadversions yet behind; but I will neither tire you or my self any further: I see 'tis easier to raise Cavils than to write any thing that is not liable to them. I beg your pardon for the rude Interruption I have given you, and think my self obliged in common civility to bid you Adieu.

B. You have not offended, unless you have done so by your Complement. And because I perceive you are falling into a vein of Ceremoniousness, which is so idle a thing in private conversation, and amongst old Friends, I will be contented for this time to part with you. So, Fare you well.

FINIS.

An ALPHABETICAL INDEX.

[Page]

[Page]

A

AArons seeing the God of Israel, what, page 337

Abel's and Cain's Sacrifices how accepted or rejected, 324

Abraham ignorant of us, Exp. 216

Before Abraham was, I am, Exp. (324, 380.

Abraxas of the Gnosticks, who, 151

Absolution Romish, after death, 7

AEgypt, whence the confusion of its Rites, 122, 123

AEons 166

African Idol of stone, 48

Agnus Dei's Original, 154

[...], whether Thummim, 360, 361, 364

St. Almachius, Sm. Almanacum 259

Alla of Mahomet, what, 145

Amulets, Mahometan, 147

Gnosticks, 154

Angel, Christ Emphatically such, 328, 331

—To whom Jacob pray'd, who, 242

Angels, thought by some Hellenists Governours under God, 105

—Ministring not Governing Spirits, 212, 213, &c.

—Of the Seven Churches 213

—Of Graecia and Persia 83

—Of their Worship under the Old Testament, 382

—Orders of them, 165, 166, 212

Archangels, what, 212, 213

M. Antoninus's unknown God, who, 62

Ancient of days, the Son, 270, 369

Ancilia, what, 72

Animation Platonick of the World, what, 394

Apis, its golden Image, 117

—Its marks, 118

Anthropomorphites, 379, 388

Aquinas, why canonized, 258

Ark of the Covenant when it failed, 368, what, 340, 341, 343

—What in it, 362, 363

—How instead of all Statues, 339, 340

—Not it self worshipped, 344, 345, 346

—How meant of Christ, 342, 343, 370, to 379

Arius, how a Platonist, 77, 396

Arians, their Doxology, 168, 169

[Page] Arabians, worshippers of Daemons and Statues, 143, 144

Assembly of Divines, of the word Create, 203

Astarte in Judg. 2. what, 103

Astrology Judicial, whence, 70

Athanasius his Translation mended, 160

Ave Maria used as a Prayer before Sermon, 201, 202

St. Augustine appears to one in a dream, 243

B

BAbel, Its Tower an high Altar, sacred to the Sun, 42, 43, 44

—The name the builders designed, what, 44, 45

—Gods coming down to it, what, 323, 324

Bacis, Bacchus, 131, 139

Bacchus Egypt. Whether Moses, 126, to 131

St. Barbara, assistant at Confession, 196

Baronius, his high devotion towards the H. Virgin, 224, to 228

—The occasion of it, 229

Basilidian Gems, what, 154

Beatifick Vision, what, 378, 379

Beelzebub, who, 124

Benians, their Buffiuna, Brama, Mais, what, 82

S. Bernardine's odd saying, 257

Dr. Bilson's charge of Idolatry on Papists, 283

Bleeding Statues, 300, 301

Blind and Lame, in 2 Sam. 5. what, 89, 90

Body of Christ, Prayers to it, 387

—Worship of it, 305

Bones of Elephants mistaken for those of Giants 94

First Born of every Creature, how Christ so called 165

Of Bowing towards the Altar, 304, &c.

—To the Elements, 390

—At the name of Jesus, 307, 308

Branch in Isa. 11. 1. misinterpreted of the Virgin, 247, 248

C

CAllicratidas his [...], 68

Of the Golden Calf, 108, &c. & 337

—Why some Fathers called it the Head of a Calf, 337

Cambray, its Synods declaration about prayer to Saints, 196, 197

Cambyses, his killing Apis, 112

Canonization modern, its abuse, 258, 259

Is. Casaubon's Prayer for the Church of England 310

[Page] Cath. of Siena, of her Saintship, 258

Golden Cat, 117

Celsus's error concerning Gods Image, 74

Cerberus, how Pluto's Embleme, 119, 141

Chencres, who, 116, 142

A Chest, a presence, Jewish Ark, 381

Cherubim, what, 337, 338, 341, 342, 343, 349, 350

—Of their Faces like Oxen's, 337, 338

China, its Idol-temples 20

Christ, Gods Image, 373, 376, 386, 387, 388, 389

Clouds, Why the Jews said to worship them, 107, 108

Command, first, its meaning, 411

—Second, what Pesel in it, 97

—What it forbids, 267, 268, 343

—Third, a new expos. of it, 97, 98, 99, 410

Confessions of Scotl. Pol. Engl. &c. about Romish Idolatry, 178, &c.

Conical form of some Idols, what it meant, 42, 48

Crocodile, Hieroglyph. of God, 25

Crucifix, of what use, 278, to 280

—Not the present Image of Christ, 277, 278, 386

Cup, by which Joseph divin'd, what, 17, 18

Confusio a Philos. of China, what he held, 96

D

DAEmons, twelve Egyptian 76

—Twelve Grecian ones, 80

—Of the Gentiles, evil spirits, 85, 86

—Of Mexico, very bloody, 87

—Terrestrial, 86, 125

Daille's defence of kneeling at the Sacrament in the Church of England, 206

Dan and Bethel, no Shechinahs of God there, 367

Davis's Voyage to the Northwest, 21

Degrees of Glory 381

Distraction by Image-worship in the act of it, 293, 294

Dives and Pauper, a Dialogue about the worship of Images, 291, 292, 293

Dove, whether the Holy Ghost ever assumed that shape, 270, 372

[...] of God, what, 325, 335, 338, 342, 366, 367, 374

Demiourgus of Gnosticks 165

—Of Plato, not very God, 40, &c.

E

[Page]

EAst, of worshipping towards it, 377, 378

Ephrata, we heard of the Ark there; what it means, 371

Enoch's Prophesie, valu'd by Tertullian, 38

Enos, falsly accused of Idolatry by Maimon. 41

Epaphus, mistaken by Herodotus, 121

External Worship, 22

F

THe Father invisible only: how true; and in the Arian sense how false, 317, 318

Faith, what not of Faith, sin; whether against Invocation of Saints, 200

Flesh Intellectual in Counc. Const. what, 376

Fire, Gods answer by it, 324

—Of a formless one, 317

Forms of Prayer in the Church of Rome, how scandalous in their common sense, 189, to 191

—Whether expounded in a better sense, 192, to 202

Frauds pious, 31, 32, 261, 388

Flaming-sword in Gen. what, 324, 355.

G

St. Geneviefve Patroness of Paris, 233

Geneva, Images remain there, 297

St. George's day, 233. Turkish St. George, 413

Gnosticks, worshippers of Daemons, 149

—Of Images, 154

—Their [...], 150, 152, 166, 167

T. Goodwin of the Government of the Saints departed, 215

T. G. Papist of the same, 237, to 240

—Answered, 241, to 244

God, whence that name, 27

Gothick superstition, 219, 220

Government subord. of the world by Saints departed, a dangerous opinion, 222, 223, 301

—Agreements in it of the Gentiles and Romanists, confessed by de Roa, 232, by Rivallius, 216, 217

Greece its fabulous Antiquities, 412

Creek Church, what Images in it, 177

Gregory 7th. of his Saintship, 257

H. Grotius, answered about the [Page]delivery of the Law by the Logos, 333, &c.

—About the worship of the Ark, 346, 347

—About Cherubim, 349, 350

—About the things in the Ark, 362, 363

—He mistranslates Hierocles, 402

Guardian-Saints, Romish, 211, 212

Giants, the congregation of them (in the Proverbs) what it means, 34

H

Al. HAles, his idle defence of Saint-worship, 240

Harpocrates, why supposed the embleme of Moses, 131

Herodotus's Text mended, 118

St. Hierom's mistake about Abraxas, as the Sun, 151

Herald of Norweigh, his barbarous Sacr. 22

Hochal in Gen. 4. 26. what, 40

D. Holden of the Knowledg of Saints, 205

Horns of Moses, what, 136, 339

—Of the Logos, what, 316

Horstius's Paradise of the Soul, 201, &c. 211, &c.

Hosea's taking to him an Adulteress, what, 67

I

JAmblicus mended, 394

Jaovas, Priests of the Sun so called, 44

[...], Jove, Jehovah, 59, 152, 395, 396, 404. Jahveh a righter pronunciation than Jehovah, 395

Jehovah, God not known by that name in Exod. 6. 3. what it means, 404, 405

Ibis of Egypt, 32

Idea of God, what, 1. how turned to an Idol, 23

Idolatry, its notion, 13, 14

—Two kinds of it, 12

—Why called uncleanness, 13, 14

—Three degrees of it, 14, 15

—Its general cause, 25, 26

—Its blockishness, 50, 51

—Not before the Flood, 39, 40

Idols fall before Christ, 340, 373, 374

—renounced in Rom. Rit. of Baptism, 187

Images, their glorious or horrid forms, to what end, 92, 93

—Why in SS. said to be the ultimate objects of the worship of the Gentiles, 90, to 95

—Of the true God, what, 64, 65, 72, 73, to 75

—Of the Divinity, 268, 383

[Page] —Of the Trinity, 265, 266, 383 Pope John 22. against them, 264

—Of Christ, joined by some into personal union with him, 283, 284, 386

—Of the Shechinah, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387

—Of our Lady at Halla, 93, 300. at Guadalupa, how found, 31, 32

—Of Analogy, 269. of Memory, 272

Of Representation, 272, 273. Of Presence, 273

—Abus'd as Shechinahs of God, 295, to 301

—Their use, 280, &c.

—On Coins how far scrupled by the Turks, 107

—Visible, more dangerous than signs of words, 384

—Hist. of two speaking ones, 90, 91

Immensity of God, against Vorstius, 381

Invisibility of God, 313, 314

St. Joseph, a Patron in America, 234

Isaiah saw his glory; what it means, 368

Isis, her rod, what, 17, 135. her Image, 113. Isis, all, 52, 53. Isis and Ceres, who, 137

Julian when Apostate owned the God of Abraham, 66

—His mistake about Apis, 124

—His Apol. for the worship of Images, 89

Jupiter, how the one true God, how an ill Daemon, 60, 61, 62, 81

—Whence the name deriv'd, 395

K

KIrcher mistakes Maimon. 355

Kissing, an ancient Ceremony in Religious worship, 22

Kneeling at the Sacrament, 305, 306, 307

L

LActantius, a mistake of his, 331

St. Lambert, Patron of Brussels, 233

A Lamb forbidden as Christs Image, 276

Law of Moses, given by the Logos, 331, &c.

—Mystical, 370

A Lie in Rom. 1. 23. an Idol, 338

Light, used by God in his Shechinah, 315, 316

Lipsius's excess of devotion towards the Virgin, 229, 230, 231

Logos, why the Son so called.

—The Substitute of the Father, [Page] 319, 328, 329, 330, 332, &c.

—He is thought to have appeared to Adam, 320, &c. to Abel, 322. to Abraham, 324, &c. to Agar, 328. to Jacob, 325. to Moses, 330, &c. to Isaiah, 368. to Daniel, 369. to Joshuah, 366. to David and Solomon, 366, 367. to S. Stephen, 376

[...], by whom taken instead of [...], 153

Logos sometimes signifies the world in Philo, 320, 401

The Lord that rained on Sodom from the Lord, who, 325

M

MAhomet, his one God, 145 Mahometan Saints trusted in as Patrons, 146, 412, 413, 414

—Of the worship at his Tomb, 146, 414

Manicheism, degenerate Pythagorism, 155, 156

Mary, the signification of that name, 241

Mass, the fraud of the late Translator of it into English, 5, 6

Masses of Saints, how to be understood, 188

Matter, the first Hyle eternal according to Plato, 79, 402, 403, 404

—Its generation, what, 394, 402, 403

—Its stubbornness against Psyche, 402, 403

—The principle of evil, 393

Mr. Mede's notion of the form of the Serpent doubted, 355

Michael, the Original of his Feast, 221

Miracles, Romish, some false, some ludicrous, 259, 260, 261

—Upon Invocation of Saints, 259, to 262

—At Images, 300, 301

—Why to be suspected, 260

Miracle of a Leg restored, 259. Of a Shoo, 300

Moschus, or Mochus the Atomist, not Moses, 407

Moses, his fabulous statue, 104

—He seemeth not to Platonize, 165, 408

—Saw God, what it means, 335, 336

—Whether Osiris, Bacchus, Apis, 125, &c.

Bishop Montague, his opinion about praying to Saints, Angels, Guardian Angel, 207, 208

Mountains, British Islands, 28

Moon, Its character on Apis not from the beginning, 118

Muggleton's gross Deity, 221, 309, 310

N

[Page]

NAils of the Cross worshipped with Latria, by C. Curtius, 147, 284, 285

Nature, Pliny's and Spinosa's Goddess, 26, 27

—Called [...], 399

Negative honouring of Images, 280

Neton in Macrobius is Mnevis, 131

Nice, Council second, what it means by adoration of Images, 288

S. Nicholas made a Guardian-Saint, 231

Nocca, a kind of Northern Neptune, 16

Nous of Plato, the Intellectual world, 399, 400, 401

Numa's Temple, and fire in it, what, 48, 53

—His zeal against Images, 59

—The fire in his Temple, why renewed each March, 53

Nysa, what place, 128

O

ONion, of what kind the Idol of Egypt was, 28

Ophites, their Diagram, 153

Of Orders of Angels, 165, 166, 167, 212

Origen, of the power of words, 4

Orpheus's one God, 56

Osiris, Bacchus, 129. Apis, 130. Moses, 131. Osarsyphus, Disaris, 131, 144

Oxen, how sacred, 111, 112, 113, 114, 136, 353. with their faces Cherubim appear'd, 337, 338

P

PAgod, what, 410

Pamelius, a false charge of his against Tertullian, 332

Patrocinie of Saints, 194, to 256

Pectoral, a lesser Ark, 351

Permiseer of the Benians, 58

Of Petavius's calling Arius a Platonist, 77, 396

Pictures of Christ crucified lawful, 277

—None of Saints departed, as such, possible, 296, 297

—Of Gods Shechinah, 383, to 387

Pillar of Fire and Cloud, what, 331

Pix carried as the Ark, 296

Plato he own'd one God, 57, 58

—Yet he was an Idolater, 69, 76, to 81

—His Triad not the Christian Trin-unity, 77, 78, 398, 399, &c.

[Page] —Whence it came, 407, 408

—His Ideas, what, 78, 79, 399, &c.

—His Daemons, what kind of spirits, 85, 86

—How far he own'd Providence, 81

Platonism, an occasion of Gnosticism, 149, 150

Plutarch's Translation mended,

Poets, how causes of Idolatry, 36, 37

Polytheism, what kind possible, 411

Pluto, who, 124

Porphyry, his reason for the worship of God by the image of a man, 74

—His Translation mended, 86

—His abstracted worship, 96

—His not owning the Gods to have been men, 118

Prayer, our Lords: said to Saints, 197

Of Socrates, and Simplicius, 63

To Saints, if only to pray for us, 192, to 196, &c.

—To fictitious persons, 207, 259

—To some of suspected Saintship, 256, to 258

Real Presence, 94, 181, 185, 346, 347

Profit, that which did not profit, in Jer. 2. 11. meant of an Idol, 338

Providence, its extent acc. to Maimon. 84

Purgatory Fire, one probable occasion of the belief of it, 378

Pyramids, what, 42, 43

Pythagoras, his two Principles, 15, 76, 155, 156, 393

—His Image among the Gnosticks, 153

—His Dogma of the Imnortality of the Soul, not like Christs, 409, 410

—The form of the Oath of his Disciples, 405, 406

—His Tetractys, not the Tetragrammaton, a double Quaternary, what it was, 404, 405, 406.

R

RApine's excess of devotion towards the Virgin, 249

Representations of God, unmeet, 272, 273

Reprisal of all things at last into Gods substance, the Cabala of the Pendets, 36

Resora an Indian-Idol, 29

Revel. 22. 9. its various reading, 175

Rites of worship, their indecence, & great number taxed, 5, 6, 7, 8

[Page] Romans, their Religion when corrupted, 59

S. Rosa made a Patroness, 232

W. Rufus, his Apparition, 262

S.

SAbbath designed against Idolatry, 99, 100

Sacrifices enjoined as a means against Idolatry, 100, 101

Saint-worship, two occasions of it, 217, 218, 219, 220

Saints, little mention of their appearing, unraised, in SS. 206

Solomon's beginning of Idolatry, 103, 342

Sanedrim above, what, 105

Saturday, where, and how, sacred to the Virgin, 249

Sandius his conceit about the Holy Ghost, 399

Scarabee, the Hieroglyphick of the Sun, 19

Scaliger, a mistake of his, 364

Not Seen his shape, what it means, 373

Mr. Selden answered about the Antiquity of Apis, 114, to 117

Semis a Northern Idol, 125

Serapis, Pluto, 119, 124, 141

—His image, 91, 120

Seraphim, what, 351, to 360

Serpent which seduced Eve, what, and in what form, 354, 355

—Of the Brazen-serpent, 359, 360

Serpents sacred, 352, 353

—Of the fiery flying kind, 352

Servetus his Frenzies, 158

Signs external, Idolatry by them, 286, to 290. what allow'd at Trent, 285

Sleep of the soul, 162

Sneezing, Prayer at it, 10, 307

Socinians make Christ a kind of thinking Machine, 169, 170

Sons of God in Gen. 6. 1, 2. what, 39

Sophocles's one God, 56

Soul of the world, an assistant form, 35, & 394, 395

—Varro's God, 54

—called the Father in Plato, 394, 408

—Not very God as explain'd by Plato, 401, 402, 403

Spalato, his judgment concerning Saint-worship, 263

Spirit, moving the Chaos, whether a mighty wind, 409

Spirits, whence their worship, 34

Squango, an Enthusiast of New-England, 75

Statues of Idols, what, 30, 69, 88, 89, 90, 91

Sun and Moon the first Idols, 47, 48

Sun, a statue, 68

[Page] —Several Hieroglyphicks of it, 115

—Called the divine Harp, 71

—And the seat of Christ, 278, 323, 377

Superstition, described, 3, 4, 5

—Of the Pharisees, what, 9

Syncellus refuted, 119

Shechinah, whence, 372

T

TAbernacle of Moloch, what, 102

Holy Table, by some called the Ark, 389, 390

Temple of Solomon, what, 339. whence occasioned acc. to S. Chrysost. 329. and Maimon. 340.

—Christ the Temple, 374, 375

—Prayers towards the Temple, 369

Teraphim, Seraphim, Urim, the same, 349, 350

Tertullian's opinion of Idolatry in Seth's time, 38

Tetractys of Pythagoras, 405, 406. of the Gnosticks, 153

[...], what, 373

S. Thomas of Canterbury a devout servant of the Virgins, 245

—His shirt said to be mended by her, 261

—His Saintship doubted, 256

Thorn, a German Idol, 27, 28

Mr. Thorndike his opinion of worshipping Idols as ultimate objects, 95. of Romish Forms of Prayer, 190, 191. of Idolatry as unjustly charged on the Church of Rome, 176. of the peril of Idolatry in it, 203

Throne and Fund of Matter, what, 394

Thrones, Principalities, Powers, &c. in S. Paul, what, 165, to 167

Tillage of Egypt, 136, 137

Truth by Christ, in Joh. 1. 17. what, 365

Trinity, of its appearing under the Old Covenant, 318, 328

Triad Platonick, how one, 398

Thummim, what, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 361, to 365

Two, why Seraphim in the Pect. Two, 356

V & U

VAtablus's exp. of Bama, 43

—Of the Angel of Greece, 83

Ubiquity, whether ascribed to Saints and Angels by the Worshippers of them, 204, 205

Tho. de Villa Nova a Guardian-Saint, 232, 233

Ulma, its many Guardian-spirits, 220, 221

[Page] Viretus's mistake about Plato's Image of God, 73

H. Virgin. Forms of Prayer to her, 189, 190, 195, 198, 201, 211, 212, 225, 227, 230, 231 235

By some Romanists parallel'd

—with Christ, 248, 249, 251

—Origine of her worship, 251, 252

—A general Patroness acc. to R. Rapine, 234, 235. and acc. to the Synod of Mexico, 249

—Her seven joys on earth, and seven more in Heaven, 245

—Her Miracles in recovering Baronius, 229. raising a boy from the dead, 261. saving men in a tempest, 254. curing S. Gilberts Throat, 223

—Of bowing at her name, 308

St. Veit, 233

Visions of God, what, 270, 271, 380

Vitzilopuchtli, an American Idol, 15

Urim, what, 347, to 358.

—How the Answer by it was made, 357

W

WIckmans high devotion towards the Virgin, 249, 250

Will-worship, what kind to be allow'd, or condemn'd, 10, 11

Witch of Endor, 206

Word, Christ why so called, 372

Worship of Romish Saints and Pagan Heroes compared, 234, 235, 236, 237

World, made out of things not seen, what, 403

Z

ZArasdas, or Zaratas, who, 15, 393

Christ the true [...], 84

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

Of idolatry a discourse, in which is endeavoured a declaration of, its distinction from superstition, its notion, cause, commencement, and progress, its practice charged on Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Gnosticks, Manichees Arians, Socinians, Romanists : as also, of the means which God hath vouchsafed towards the cure of it by the Shechinah of His Son / by Tho. Tenison ...

Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715.

Edition statement

1678

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2003-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A64364

ID [STC]

Wing T704

ID [STC]

ESTC R8

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

11939791

ID [OCLC]

ocm 11939791

ID [VID]

51259

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A64364)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 51259)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 517:4)

Source

— Of idolatry a discourse, in which is endeavoured a declaration of, its distinction from superstition, its notion, cause, commencement, and progress, its practice charged on Gentiles, Jews, Mahometans, Gnosticks, Manichees Arians, Socinians, Romanists : as also, of the means which God hath vouchsafed towards the cure of it by the Shechinah of His Son / by Tho. Tenison ..., Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715..

Extent

[15], 415, [12] p.

Printed for Francis Tyton ...,. London :: 1678.. (Reproduction of original in Harvard University Libraries.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.