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 50] 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 51] 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 52] 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 53] 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 54] 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 55] 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 56] 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 57] 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 58] 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 59] 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 60] 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 61] 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 62] 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 63] 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 64] 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 65] 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 66] 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 67] 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 68] 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 69] 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 70] 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 71] 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 72] 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 73] 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 74] 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 75] 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 77] 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 78] 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 79] 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 80] 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 81] 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 82] 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 83] 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 84] 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 85] 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 86] 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 87] 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.

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 89] 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 90] 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 91] 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 92] 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 93] 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 94] 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 95] 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 96] 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..

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 98] 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 99] 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 100] 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 101] 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 102] 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 103] 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 104] 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 105] 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 106] 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 107] 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 108] 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 109] 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 110] 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 111] 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 112] 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 113] 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 114] 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 115] 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 116] 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 117] 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.

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 119] 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 120] 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 121] 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 122] 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 123] 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 124] 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 126] 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 127] 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 128] 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 129] 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 130] 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 131] 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 132] 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 133] 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 134] 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 135] 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.

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 137] 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.

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.

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.

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 141] 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 142] 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 143] 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.

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 149] 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 150] (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 151] 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 152] 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 153] 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 154] 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 155] 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 156] 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 157] 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.

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 158] 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 159] 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 160] 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 161] 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 162] 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 163] 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 164] 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 165] 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 166] 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 167] 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 168] 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 169] 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 170] 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 171] 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 172] 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 173] 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 174] 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 175] 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..’

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 177] 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 178] 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 179] 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 180] 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 181] 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 182] 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 183] 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 184] 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 185] 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 186] 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 187] 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 188] 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 189] 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 190] 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 191] 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 192] 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 193] 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 194] 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 195] 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 196] 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 197] 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 198] 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 199] 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 200] 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 201] 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 202] 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 203] 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 204] 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 205] 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 206] 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 207] 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 208] 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 209] 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 210] 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 211] 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 212] 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 213] 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 214] 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 215] 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 216] 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 217] 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 218] 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 219] 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 220] 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 221] 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 222] 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 223] 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 224] 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 225] 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 226] 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 227] 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 228] 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 229] 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 230] 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 231] 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 232] 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 233] 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 234] 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 235] 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 236] 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 237] 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 238] 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 239] 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 240] 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 241] 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 242] 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 243] 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 244] 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 245] 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 246] 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 247] 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 248] 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 249] 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 250] 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 251] 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 252] 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 253] 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 254] 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 255] 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 256] 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 257] 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 258] 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 259] 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 260] 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 261] 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.