A discourse concerning the nature of idolatry in which a late author's true and onely notion of idolatry is considered and confuted.

Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus, A Diſcourſe concerning the Nature of Idolatry, &c.

Ex Aedib. Lambeth, Febr. 18. 1687. Guil. Needham, R. R. in Chriſto I. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archiepiſc. Cant. à Sacr. Domeſt.

A DISCOURSE Concerning the Nature of Idolatry: In which a Late Author's True and Onely NOTION of IDOLATRY IS Conſidered and Confuted.

Si inter ſolos Pontificios verſarer, &c. i. e. If I converſed with none but Papiſts, and conſidered their Religion corrupted with Old Wives Tales, and were altogether deſtitute of a Rule of Faith, by which to diſcern the vaſt difference between the Chriſtian Religion, and the Trifles of Popery; and laſtly, if no Hiſtories were extant, ſhewing how theſe Dotages crept in: If it were thus, I ſay, then I frankly confeſs, that I ſhould very much ſuſpect the Chriſtian Religion, nay I ſhould utterly reject it as fooliſh and mean, and beneath the eſteem of old Goſſips; nor ſhould I leſs hate the name of Chriſtianity, than I do that of Popery. Tentam. Phyſic. Theol. Auth. Samuele Parkero, P. 4.

LONDON: Printed for William Rogers, at the Sun over againſt St. Dunſtan's Church in Fleet-ſtreet. MDCLXXXVIII.

THE PREFACE.

WEre we to judge of the Merits of a Book meerly by the good Opinion which the Author ſeems to have of it, we might reaſonably believe, that the Diſcourſe concerning the Nature of Idolatry, which I am about to conſider, was not onely ſet forth in Defence of a truly Infallible Church, but that the Author of it thought himſelf delivering nothing but Oracles all the while he was compoſing of it.

If his Reaſons had born proportion to the nature of his Attempt, we ſhould eaſily have forgiven him, or rather we ſhould have thanked him, no leſs than the Gentlemen of the Roman Communion would have done in ſuch a caſe. He does indeed Treat men with Contempt, whom all the World knows to be above his Contempt, nor can I believe him to be ſo ſingular as not to know it himſelf; but yet had he reaſoned well, we had yielded to him: for an over-bearing Spirit in an Adverſary, neither makes us to ſubmit to a bad Argument, nor to reſiſt a good one.

It ſeemed ſomething ſtrange, that that Author ſhould think to Trample upon us now, for pretending that the Church of Rome has defined Tranſubſtantiation as 'tis underſtood by us, and that ſhe has eſtabliſhed an Idolatrous Worſhip in her Communion: For not only the greateſt Perſons of the Reformed Religion have brought this Charge againſt her, but to the truth of it himſelf has ſubſcribed in his time. But it was much more amazing to find ſo new a Confidence ſupported by Arguments ſo weak, that 'tis not without reaſon that ſome of the Roman Communion are ſaid to complain, That they have been Betrayed, rather than Defended by him.

How unſucceſsfully he has managed his Deſign of Expounding Tranſubſtantiation, has been ſhewn in a late Diſcourſe proving Tranſubſtantiation to be the peculiar Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and in the Preface to the Examination of the New Articles of the Roman Creed by Catholick Tradition. If I make it appear that he has miſcarried as much in the point of Idolatry, his Theological part will then be conſidered; and for the reſt, we do not by any means preſume to meddle with it.

As for the Subject which I have undertaken, one would have thought, that a man who reſolved to deſpiſe all that had ever written upon it, and not according to his Opinion, ſhould have taken care, if not to produce ſomething that could not be Anſwer'd, yet at leaſt not to offer any thing that had been already Confuted.

But on the contrary, this Author, after all this noiſe, has for the moſt part been only an humble Tranſcriber of the Old Exploded Pretences; and which I may truly ſay were much more ſtrongly, as well as more modeſtly urged by Dr. Godden againſt his learned Adverſary. And when I conſider how much more roughly this Author uſes him, than that Doctor did, I am apt to think it might in ſome meaſure proceed from the ſence he had that Dr. St. in diſcovering the Sophiſtry of his Old Antagoniſt, had before-hand confuted whatever this New one could find out again to revive the Controverſie.

And for this I ſhall leave the following Diſcourſe to be my Evidence; and of which I ſhall ſay no more here, than that in his own phraſe: I have delivered my Judgment, Pag. 135. as I will anſwer for my Integrity to God and the World. But now there is another thing, which I ought not in this place to paſs by. It has been inſinuated by this not Reaſoner, as no ſmall Crime in us, that we charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, Pag. 72. Not only (ſays he) becauſe of the falſeneſs of the Calumny, but the barbarous conſequence that may follow upon it, to incite and warrant the Rabble, whenever Opportunity favours, to deſtroy the Roman Catholics and their Images, as the Iſraelites were commanded to deſtroy the Canaanites and their Idols. And in the next Page he tells us, That this Charge of Idolatry has ever been ſet up as the Standard againſt Monarchy. 73.74.

There are many more Paſſages of the like kind, in which he exerciſes his Gift of Eloquence: for I dare ſay he never learnt it, unleſs he has in his time ſtudied to imitate a Tempeſt; for I know not what other Original he could propound to himſelf. This ſtile is the fitteſt in the World to his purpoſe, and will perhaps be a Copy for the future to them that intend to ſpeak neither according to Charity nor Truth; which are ever beſt heard in a Calm.

But however, if this too were for the declaration of his Judgment, we will no more complain of the Violence of his Expreſſions, than we do of the Force of his Arguments; only I would beg leave to ſay, that he ſhould have been ſure he could diſcharge the Church of Rome of that Guilt, before he had fix'd a Mark of Calumny upon the whole Body of the Reform'd, who accuſe them of it; leſt when men examine his Proofs, and find them defective, they be tempted to retort the Cenſure, eſpecially conſidering with what Freedom and Violence he has been pleaſed to lay it upon us.

But now for his great fear that this ſhould incite the Rabble to any Violence againſt thoſe of the other Communion, I dare venture to ſay, there is not the leaſt reaſon to be at all apprehenſive of it. He knows very well how free the Chriſtians of the firſt three Centuries were in laying the very ſame Charge againſt the Gentile World; and yet we do not find that they ever ſhew'd themſelves either the leſs obedient to their Emperours, or the leſs charitable to their Neighbours, upon the account of it. And though I am verily perſwaded that the Romaniſts, in the Invocation of Saints, and in the Worſhip of Images and Reliques, and of the Hoſt, are guilty of Idolatry; yet I thank God I am not conſcious to my ſelf of one diſloyal Thought to my King, or of the leaſt Ʋncharitableneſs towards any of my Country-men, who differ from me in theſe Particulars.

And what I can thus truly profeſs in my own behalf, I doubt not but I may do for all others the true and genuine Members of the Church of England; and who by being ſuch, muſt, I am ſure by Principle, be both Obedient Subjects, and Charitable Chriſtians. As for this Author, he has made as broad a ſigne that he intends to leave us, by inſinuating, that the Charge of Idolatry ought to be followed with Blows, as by his concern not to have Idolatry charged upon the Church of Rome. We who do proteſt againſt certain Practices as Idolatrous, do alſo proteſt againſt violating either Loyalty or Charity, upon the account of Religion. This Author, it ſeems, likes us neither upon one account, nor the other; or this at leaſt is to be ſaid, that he has been thus long of our Communion, and has not all this while underſtood what we teach concerning a Chriſtian's Duty to his Neighbour.

Did we indeed profeſs that of Idolatry, which ſome others do of Hereſie, that 'tis a ſufficient Ground for the Excommunicating of a King, and Abſolving his Subjects of their Allegiance; had we ever been caught not in Oteſian Conſpiracies, but in Real Plots againſt our Soveraign upon this account, there might then have been juſt cauſe for ſuch an Inſinuation. But whilſt our Principles are ſo Loyal, that we have even been laught at for our aſſerting them, and that too by ſome of thoſe who would now be thought ſo zealous for their Princes Safety; it was a very unreaſonable Apprehenſion, to think that the Charge of Idolatry (and that too begun in the time of a Prince of whom it was Miſpriſion of Treaſon, but to ſay that he was guilty of it) ſhould in the bottom have been the deſigne againſt the Monarchy, which we have ſo often declared, and in the very Perſon of our preſent King have ſhewn, we think our ſelves obliged to ſupport, whatever his Religion be who is to ſit upon the Throne.

And for what concerns our Brethren of the Roman Communion, it is well known that we are not of thoſe who deſtroy men for Conſcience ſake. We have never been infamous either for Pariſian Maſſacres, or Military Converſions. They are Others that have ruined at once both the Churches and the Servants of the Living God, out of Zeal for their Religion. We have indeed taken care to remove the Idols out of our Iſrael; but for the Worſhippers of them, if they have ſuffer'd any thing, it has not been for their Idolatry, but for that which ſhews there is ſomething elſe more dangerous to the Engliſh Monarchy than this Charge.

The truth is, when I conſider how heinous a Suggeſtion this is, and what little foundation there is, either from our Principles, or our Practices, to ſupport it, I am under ſome temptation to reply to this Author, as an ancient Father once did to a Heathen who accuſed them of ſuch Cruelties and Filthineſs in their Ceremonies, as none but themſelves were capable of committing. Nemo hoc POTEST CREDERE, Minut. Felix. Oct. p. 34. niſi qui POSSIT AƲDERE.

And this I hope may ſerve for my Excuſe, if I have at this time appear'd in defence of a Charge in which every true Member of the Church of England is ſo highly concern'd; and for which all Orders and Degrees among us, have been ſo contemptuouſly exploded by this Author. Or if I muſt ſtill be content to bear the Cenſure of ſuch as He, I ſhall at leaſt comfort my ſelf in this, that I can fall under no Reproach, but what muſt at the ſame time reflect upon all the great Names of the Primitive Chriſtian Church, with whom I had rather ſuffer the angry Reflections of a few of our own Communion, than flouriſh with them, and gain their Applauſes.

To ſay the truth, when ſuch Learned Defenders of our Church are ſtruck at, and that in ſo impetuous a manner as that moſt deſervedly eſteemed Perſon he has ſo often mentioned, and I think never without ſomething to raiſe his Repute amongſt Honest and Judicious Men; I ſhould be even aſhamed not to be ill ſpoken of by ſuch a one at the ſame time, if I had had the Honour of his Acquaintance.

As for what concerns the charge its ſelf, I ſhall leave it to any one to judge, whether if the Roman Church be indeed guilty of what we ſay it is, we can diſcharge our Duty either towards God, or our Neighbour, as we ought to do, without endeavouring to convince them of their danger. And when others are ſo zealous for the Reputation of a few Men whoſe breath is in their Noſtrils; Pag. 80. ſure we may be excuſed if we expreſs ſome Jealouſie for the Honour of that God who has made both them and us.

It is indeed a moſt deplorable Spectacle to conſider whether blind Superſtition, and a Zeal not according to Ʋnderſtanding, has been able to carry otherwiſe good and pious Men. Nor is it the leaſt of my Wonders, to conſider Perſons whoſe Learning I admire, and whoſe Sincerity I am unwilling to queſtion, yet either by the Prejudice of Education, or by ſome other Cauſes to me unknown, ſo byaſſed in their Affections to the groſſest Errors, that the moſt plain and convincing Arguments have not been able to prevail upon them.

'Tis hardly to be believed, but that they are themſelves the Publiſhers of their own Doings, that in the clear Light of Chriſtianity men ſhould be ſo blind as to contend for giving Religious Worſhip to their Fellow Creatures, and ſet up ſenſeleſs Images to be joyned in the very ſame Act of Divine Adoration with the great God the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Vaſquez in 3 part. D. Th. q. 25. diſp. 110. And I would to God their Impiety had ſtopp'd here; but indeed it has gone much farther; they have found out ways how not only all other things, Animate and Inanimate, may be warrantably adored with Divine Adoration, but even the Devil himſelf be Worſhipped, without ſin; by virtue of a good Intention to Honour God; and not certainly knowing it to be the Devil. And if we may believe a Man in his own Caſe, one of them once went much farther: He made no ſcruple to Worſhip the Devil whom he knew to be ſo, and that without taking any care (for ought appears by his Relation) to terminate his Worſhip finally upon God. And becauſe it is indeed a ſingular inſtance, to ſhew to what Extravagance ſuch Principles as we oppoſe, are apt to carry indiſcreet Votaries, I will, to avoid all ſuſpicion of falſhood, give you a ſhort account of it in his own words.

Father Gauffre being ſent for to Exorciſe a terrible Devil call'd Arfaxa, Recit Veritable de ce qui s'eſt fait & paſsé ans Exorciſmes de pluſieurs Religienſes de la Ville de Louciers en preſente de Monſieur le Penitencier d' Evreus & de Monſieur le Gauffré. pag. 30, 31. This Book was printed at Paris, Anno 1643. With Permiſſion. which was got into the foot of Siſter Bonaventure a Nun, ſhe earneſtly pray'd him that he would Confeſs her; for as the Father obſerves, the Devil had a particular deſire to ſpeak to him. After ſome Diſcourſe had paſs'd betwixt them, and they began to underſtand one another a little better, I threw my ſelf (ſays the Father) upon my knees before him, telling him, that my deſigne was to confound my Pride by that of the Devils, and to learn Humility of them that had none. The Devil, enraged to ſee me in that poſture, told me, that he had received a Command to prevent me. But when I continued, for all that, to humble my ſelf before him, he thought to take advantage of it, and told me, Thou dost this to Adore Me. I replied, Villain, thou art too infamous, I conſider thee as the Creature of my God, and the Object of his Wrath; and therefore I will ſubmit my ſelf to thee, though thou doſt not deſerve it: and for that very reaſon I will immediately Kiſs thy Feet. The Devil ſurprized at this Action, hindred me. Upon which I conjured him to tell me, as far as he could gueſs at it, what the Will of God was, whether that I ſhould Kiſs his Feet, or He mine? He anſwer'd, Thou knoweſt what Motion God gives thee; follow that. Immediately I threw my ſelf upon the Ground, and Kiſſed his Feet: at which he was in a Rage: And then I commanded Him by the Reliques of Father Bernard, to Kiſs mine; which he did accordingly, with great readineſs. After this, I continued upon my Knees before him, for about half a quarter of an hour.

And now when theſe things are publickly taught and done in the Roman Church, is it not high time for us to ſpeak, and to aſſert the Honour of God, and the Purity of his Religion? Shall others, without ſcruple, maintain and propagate their Errours, and ſhall it be a Crime in Ʋs, even when attacked in the moſt violent manner, to defend the Truth? Nay, but let God be Served, though all the World be Diſſatisfied.

In the mean time, whilſt forced by theſe Conſiderations to aſſert our Religion, we purſue theſe Examinations, be it your parts (for whoſe ſake we principally labour) to encourage our Endeavours by a firm adherence to that Form of Sacred Doctrine which you have received. As you have hitherto maintained an Unreprovable Zeal for your Profeſſion, ſo go on more and more to contend Earneſtly for the Faith that was once deliver'd to the Saints. Jude, v. 3. And above all, be careful to adorn your Holy Religion with a ſuitable Practice, 1 Pet. 3.16. That they may be aſhamed, who falſly accuſe your good Converſation in Christ. For ſo is the Will of God, Joh. 2.15. that with well doing ye ſhould put to ſilence the ignorance of fooliſh men. Let the ſame mind be in us, which was alſo in thoſe Primitive Chriſtians before-mentioned. Let us boldly aſſert the Truth, as thoſe who know what Account they are one day to give unto God for it; Mat. 5.44. but let us alſo be Charitable towards our Neighbours: and if they will rather be eſteem'd our Enemies, let us remember, that even under that Name, we are yet to Love them. Let us ſtill be careful to maintain the Character of the Best Subjects, as we have long aſſerted the moſt Loyal Principles: that as the Proſperity of our King makes up a conſiderable part of our Daily Prayers, ſo by a ſincere diſcharge of all humble Obedience towards Him, He may be convinced of the Malice of thoſe who would inſinuate any falſe Suggeſtions againſt us; and effectually ſee, that, excepting only our Duty towards God, we are much more Forward and Ready to do his Majeſty Effectual Service, than any man can be, whoſe Loyalty is not Supported by Religion.

CHAP. I. In which the Charge of Idolatry which we bring against thoſe of the Church of Rome, is freed from thoſe Odious Imputations that have been of late ſuggeſted against it.

IT may poſſibly appear to ſome not a little ſurprizing, that a Church which makes no ſcruple of practiſing what is Idolatrous, ſhould yet be ſo very unwilling to lie under the imputation of it: There is nothing in all our Diſputes with thoſe of the other Communion, which they would be thought ſo highly to reſent as this; the very mention of it has ſeem'd to Scandalize them; and if heat and confidence could have born us down, they had long ſince effectually deliver'd themſelves from all ſuſpicion of it.

It is not my buſineſs to enquire into the Reaſons of this Proceeding, and which, when duly conſider'd, will be found to have nothing in it, but what is exceeding natural. Men are always more forward to do ill things, than to avow them, or to own them under their proper names: Idolatry (as our Author ſays) is a ſcandalous Charge. By his leave, the Charge is not always ſcandalous, though the Crime be ever ſo, and the Charge reputed ſcandalous by them who are charged with it. Though a Church that does countenance the Commiſſion of it, may by ſubtile Arguments and bold Denials keep up its Reputation well enough amongſt thoſe who are reſolv'd at any rate to believe her, yet 'twere impoſſible ſhe ſhould long ſupport her Interest, ſhould ſhe freely avow the doing of it.

But of all the Methods that have been made uſe of to put a ſtop to this Charge, there has been none ſo ſurprizing as what this Author has here found out; and could he but have made it good, I am perſwaded there would not have been any more effectual. He repreſents it as inconſiſtent not only with the Principles of Charity towards our Neighbour, Page 71, &c. but even of Loyalty towards our Prince; and makes the very mention of it to be little leſs than a ſetting up of the Standard against Monarchy. Page 74. And yet he is not ſo unacquainted with the Principles and Diſpoſitions of thoſe of the Church of England, as not to know, that next to our ſollicitude for the Honour of God, there are no two things in the World, we value our ſelves more upon, than that Character we have ſo juſtly obtained, of teaching the beſt Meaſures both of Duty to our King, and of Love, and Kindneſs, and Charity towards One Another.

I muſt therefore, before I proceed to vindicate our Notion of Idolatry, firſt ſay ſomewhat to remove this great prejudice that has been offer'd againſt it; And this I ſhall do, I. By conſidering upon what weak Grounds this Author has undertaken to inſinuate theſe Crimes againſt us. II. By ſhewing what horrible Conſequences would follow from it, ſhould what he pretends indeed be true.

1. Of the weak Grounds upon which he has undertaken to inſinuate ſuch things againſt us.

Now all that he has to ſay for this odious Charge, if taken out of his turbulent and declamatory Stile, is but this: That Idolatry is a Sin very heighnous to God, Page 71, 72, 73. and which he therefore, under the Law, commanded to be puniſhed with Death. This is the ſum of what he has dilated upon in three whole Pages; and againſt this I have many things to except. For,

1. What if Idolatry be a damnable Sin, may we not therefore ſay, without uncharitableneſs, that thoſe are guilty of it, whom we effectually prove to be ſo? Muſt we therefore become mens Enemies becauſe we tell them the Truth? I am ſure a very little Charity would have taught him to have made a better Concluſion; nor can I imagine what greater inſtance of my Affection, I could ſhew my beſt Friend, if I ſaw him in ſuch a courſe as I thought would render him eternally miſerable, than to tell him freely of the danger of his Sin, and preſs him with the beſt Reaſons I had to perſwade him to forſake it.

It may be he will ſay, he does not deny but that we may charge men with great Sins, provided that they be truly guilty of them: But yet that the heighnouſneſs of this Crime ſhould make us careful not to do it, but upon very good grounds; for to this purpoſe I find he ſometimes expreſſes himſelf: So black a Crime as this (ſays he) is not Lightly to be charged on any Party of Chriſtians. Page 73. And again, Before ſo bloudy an Indictment be preferred againſt the greateſt Party of Chriſtendom, Page 73. the nature of the thing ought to be very well underſtood. And if this be all hemeans, we readily acknowledge the reaſonablneſs of it: but then he ought not to fly out into ſuch Tragical common places againſt us for charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry; but to come cloſe to the Point, and ſhew that we have not ſufficient grounds for what we do. Page 70, 71. If thoſe whom we accuſe of this Crime, be indeed innocent of it, whether God had commanded Idolaters to be Stoned under the Law or not, we could not juſtifie our charging of them with it: but if our Arguments do prove them guilty, the heinouſneſs of the Sin, and the danger of it, may be a good motive to diſpoſe them ſeriouſly to weigh our Allegations, but I am ſure it can lay no obligation upon us not to impute to it them.

2. Page 71. As to the other inſinuation, that God commanded Idolaters under the Law to be put to Death: And for proof of which, we have two long paſſages tranſcribed out of Exodus and Deuteronomy; What would he infer from it? would he prove to us, that therefore they ought to be put to Death by us under the Goſpel too? does he look upon theſe Precepts as Obligatory to us now? If ſo, I dare be bold to ſay, he has done more in one ſingle Page, to ſtir up the People againſt the Romaniſts and their Images, Page 72, 73. than all thoſe popular Divines he ſo complains of, in all the Books they have ever written upon this Subject. And yet this muſt be his Meaning, if it has any Meaning at all. For to examine this matter a little more cloſely: God (he ſays) commanded the Iſraelites in Deut. 13.6. If thy brother, the ſon of thy mother, or thy ſon, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy boſom, or thy friend which is as thine own ſoul, entice thee ſecretly, ſaying. Let us go and ſerve other gods, &c. Thou ſhalt not conſent unto him, nor hearken unto him, neither ſhall thine eye pity him; But thou ſhalt ſurely kill him: thine hand ſhall be firſt upon him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And thou ſhalt ſtone him with ſtones that he die. Now either he looks upon this Precept as ſtill in force, and would hereby inſinuate to the People, that it is their Duty, if they think the Romaniſts guilty of Idolatry, utterly to deſtroy them; and this is certainly one of the moſt Seditious, as well as one of the moſt falſe Suggeſtions in the World: or if he does not believe this Command obligatory to us now, nor would inſinuate any ſuch thing by the repetition of it, what impertinence muſt it be to ſay that we cannot in Charity charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry, becauſe God commanded heretofore under the Law that all thoſe that were guilty of it ſhould be put to Death.

But though theſe kind of Precepts do not oblige us now, yet may not ſuch a Charge be apt to ſtir up the deluded Rabble to think ſo; Page 72. and ſo upon occaſion encourage them to deſtroy the Roman Catholicks and their Images, as the Iſraelites were commanded to deſtroy the Canaanites and their Idols? Anſwer, Yes; provided there were but a few ſuch Orators as himſelf among them, to fill their heads with ſuch Notions as theſe, and never tell them the impertinence of them. For inſtance: That theſe were onely the Political Laws of the Jews, and therefore can no more warrant us now to do any violence to our Neighbour, upon any ſuch pretence, than becauſe the Jews were commanded to do no work upon the Sabbath day, Numb. 15.32, &c. we may therefore lawfully Stone any one that we ſee gathering a few Sticks upon it. But if the Queſtion be, Whether the Charge of Idolatry, as it is managed by us againſt the Church of Rome, may not be apt to cauſe any ſuch miſchief? I ſay, it is not; and that for theſe Reaſons: For,

1. Let him examin all our Books of Controverſie, and ſee if he can find any of theſe old Laws produced, much leſs inſiſted upon, and inforced by us, to miſlead the People into any ſuch deſperate Miſtakes: On the contrary, we take all occaſions to declare to them, that no pretences of this kind can warrant us ſo much as to withdraw our Affection from thoſe who differ from us: Mat. 5.43, &c. That the Jews indeed eſteem'd themſelves allowed to hate their Enemies; that is, thoſe who were not of the ſame Religion with themſelves, but Worſhipped other Gods; and more eſpecially thoſe Canaanites, Page 72. whom we are told it pleaſed God to deſtroy from off the face of the earth for their Idolatry: but that our Saviour Chriſt has utterly forbid us to make any ſuch diſtinction: Verſe 44. I ſay unto you, love your enemies, bleſs them that curſe you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that deſpitefully uſe you, and perſecute you. We ſet before them the Examples of the Primitive Chriſtians; with what Charity they behaved themſelves towards the Gentiles among whom they lived; with what an humble Obedience they ſubmitted themſelves to their Idolatrous Emperours, Tertul. Apol. and underwent the moſt cruel Perſecutions for their Religion's ſake, even when they had power ſufficient to have aſſerted their Faith, and to have deſtroyed both the Idolaters and their Idols together. And by theſe Maxims we exhort them to walk; and according to theſe it is that we both now do, and I am perſwaded ſhall always behave ourſelves with all Chriſtian Charity towards thoſe of the Roman Communion, notwithſtanding we both believe them to be guilty of Idolatry, and charge them accordingly. But

2. We do not only tell them, that thoſe kind of Laws are now no longer in force, and that therefore we may not by vertue of them preſume to run into any violence againſt our Brethren: but we teach them moreover, (what yet more ſhews the impertinent Malice of this Suggeſtion) that they never were intended, even under the Jewiſh State, to be in force againſt ſuch Idolaters as they of the Church of Rome are. It is manifeſt to every one that has impartially conſidered the Notion of Idolatry, in the Old Teſtament, that there were two very different kinds of it: 1. One whereby they totally Apoſtatized from the Law, to Worſhip other Gods than the GOD of Iſrael; as when 'tis ſaid that they fell off to Worſhip ſtrange Gods; i. e. they renounced the Religion eſtabliſhed by the Law of Moſes, and took in another Religion, with all the Ceremonies and Sacrifices belonging to it, as the Aegyptian, Canaanitiſh, or Chaldaean: And ſuch as theſe were concluded under the Sentence of the Law before mentioned. 2. But then another ſort of Idolatry there was, in which they ſtill pretended to adhere to the Law of Moſes, and Worſhip the God of Iſrael, but yet after an Idolatrous manner, as when Jeroboam ſet up the two Calves in Dan and Bethel; parallel to which, is that Idolatry with which we charge thoſe of the other Communion at this day. Now in this Caſe, though we find the Prophets ſeverely exclaiming againſt their new Altars, yet we do not meet with any inforcement of this Precept for putting ſuch Idolat • rs to Death, or that they are any where charged as guilty of it upon this Account.

In ſhort, he that would know how innocent this Charge is, of any of thoſe ill Conſequences that are here brought againſt it, need onely look back to the State of the Church in the days of Conſtantine: there he will find our Primitive Fathers, freely accuſing the Arrians of Idolatry, and ſometimes warm enough too in their Diſputes againſt them; but yet I believe all the Records of thoſe times, will not furniſh this Author with ſo much as one inſtance of any Biſhop that ever put the Emperour in mind of this Law againſt them; or ſo much as inſinuated to him, that he might warrantly deſtroy them out of his Dominions for their Idolatry. And ſure our behaviour towards thoſe of the Church of Rome, has not been ſo different from what theirs was againſt the Arrians, that any ſuch violence ſhould be fear'd from us now, as was never ſo much as urged by the hottest Oppoſers of Idolatry in thoſe days.

But 2dly, If there be then no good Grounds for ſuch Inſinuations as theſe, which he has here offer'd onely to render our Charge of Idolatry odious, I am ſure there is cauſe enough upon other accounts, to make them juſtly be deteſted by all good Men.

For 1. Not to ſay any thing of the ſad Conſequences that may ariſe from hence, ſhould ſuch inſinuations as theſe ever be able to gain ſo much credit with his Sacred Majeſty, as to make him entertain that ill Opinion of Ʋs and our Religion, as we ſhould juſtly deſerve, were we ſuch as we are here repreſented to be: Can any thing be more deſperate, than to impeach at once the whole Body of a Great and Orthodox Church, of holding Principles ſo inhumane, Page 73. As to out do the very Cannibals themſelves; and for which they have no other Grounds than the (rude and raſh Aſſertions of ſome popular Divines, that have no other meaſure of Truth or Zeal, but Hatred to Popery. In ſhort, of maintaining Fanatick Pretences, and ſuch as have ever been ſet up as the Standard againſt Monarchy. What is this but, in other words, to ſay, that all the Orders and Degrees of Men amongſt us, that have ever been concern'd in charging the Church of Rome with Idolatry, our Princes and our Nobles, the Houſes of Parliament and Convocation, as many as concurred either to the Approving or Subſcribing the Book of Homilies, or to the Eſtabliſhing or the obeying of the Laws made in the laſt Reign, not to ſay any thing of thoſe Learned Men who have from time to time written expreſly on this Subject, were all in plain terms neither better nor worſe than a Pack of Ʋnlearned, Cruel, Barbarous, Cannibal, Fanatical, Antimonarchical Villains.

Certainly, a man had need have either a very good Cauſe, or a very hard Forehead, that can have the confidence to pronounce ſuch a Sentence as this, and of which I will only ſay, in his own words, Pag. 73. That how inconſiſtent ſoever Idolatry may be with Salvation, I fear ſo uncharitable a Calumny can be of no leſs damnable conſequence. But however,

2. To allow this great Author to take any Liberty he pleaſes with us: What ſhall we ſay as to the Primitive Chriſtians, whoſe Examples we follow, by whoſe Principles we manage this whole Controverſie, and with whom therefore we muſt either ſtand or fall. Were all they a parcel of Seditious Fellows too? It cannot be deny'd, but that thoſe Holy Men very freely charged the Gentiles firſt, and then the Heretical Chriſtians, the Arrians, and others, with Idolatry. And the Paſſages of thoſe Writers, Juſtin Martyr, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanaſius, Greg. Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others, have been too often alledged, to need a Repetition here. And which ought not to be forgot, at the time that they did this, their Emperours were themſelves of that very Religion which they ſo Accuſed. Now then, according to this Learned Gentleman, all theſe Holy Biſhops and Martyrs were even as bad as we; and Antiquity has been ſo ſottiſh as to celebrate the Praiſes, and recommend to us the Examples of a long Series of Factious Fanaticks, who for their Rudeneſs to their Emperours, and Cannibal uncharitable Cenſures of their Brethren, juſtly deſerv'd all the Torments and Perſecutions that they underwent. But,

3. Becauſe thoſe that pretend the higheſt regard to the Authority of the Fathers, can yet eaſily except againſt it, when they are preſſed with it, what will this Author ſay to that of the Apoſtles? It cannot reaſonably be doubted but that St. Paul very well underſtood the true nature of Charity, who ſo often and earneſtly recommended it to his Diſciples; and that he was no Friend to any Seditious, Anti-monarchical Principles, I believe his 13th Chapter to the Romans, will ſufficiently demonſtrate. Yet behold this very St. Paul charging the Emperours Religion as Idolatrous, exhorting all men to forſake it as ſuch; and going up and down in all parts, preaching where-ever he came againſt it, on this account. And I deſire this Gentleman to conſider with himſelf what he can ſay in defence of this Holy Apoſtle, that ſhall not vindicate us too.

So that now then upon the whole it appears, that out of an over-eager deſire to Traduce us, this judicious Author has in his Heat expoſed all the Chriſtians of the firſt three hundred years, the Catholicks of the following Centuries, nay the bleſſed Apoſtles themſelves, beſides the whole Body of the Reform'd Religion in this and the laſt Age, as the worſt of Monſters, and ſuch as deſerve to be eſteem'd any thing, rather than Chriſtians.

Let thoſe, whoſe Cauſe he has ſo unfortunately undertaken, conſider this; and I am perſwaded they will begin to grow aſham'd of their Advocate. And how unjuſt ſoever they may eſteem our Charge of Idolatry, yet they will not ſay, it is ſuch as cannot be maintain'd againſt them, without inſpiring us at the ſame time with all the horrible impulſes of Cruelty and Barbarity againſt themſelves, and of Faction and Rebellion againſt the Government; which ſome men would inſinuate.

As for our ſelves, we earneſtly beſeech all thoſe of the Church of Rome, againſt whom we at any time advance this Imputation, that they will as candidly conſider our Arguments, as we can truly profeſs they are charitably propoſed by Us; and whether they ſhall remain ſatisfied or not, that there is Reaſon in our Charge, yet to give us ſo much Credit with them at leaſt, as to believe that we think there is; and ſhall be heartily glad to be convinced that we were miſtaken in our Opinion.

CHAP. II. In which this Author's True and only Notion of Idolatry is Conſider'd, and the Method laid down for a more particular Examination of it.

I Will now take it for granted, that under the ſhelter of ſo great an Authority as I have ſhewn to be equally concern'd with us, in all the ſcandalous imputations that can be raiſed againſt our charging thoſe of the Church of Rome with Idolatry, I may venture to ſearch a little more particularly into the nature of it, without being thought either a Cannibal or a Fanatick, Pag. 73, 74. or to have any deſign of ſetting up a Standard againſt the Monarchy, for my ſo doing; eſpecially conſidering that I reſolve not to encounter any Church or Party of men in the World on this occaſion, but meerly to ſhew that this Man's Notion of Idolatry, though ſet off with ſuch aſſurance as few Writers have ever equalled, is yet, after all, ſo far from being ſupported either by Scripture or Antiquity, that it is indeed utterly repugnant to both. And therefore that the Church of Rome is only Vindicated by him from the Charge of an Idolatry that no man ever produced againſt her, but for ſuch Idolatry as we accuſe her of, ſhe may ſtill fall under the weight of that, for any thing that has here been offer'd to the contrary.

According to this Author, Idolatry is neither more nor leſs than this: The Worſhip of the heavenly Bodies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, or any other Viſible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supream God, ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead.

From whence it follows, that to make a Man an Idolater, theſe three things are required.

1. That he caſt off all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead.

2. That he believes there is no other Supream God than either the Sun, Moon, or Stars, or ſome other the like Viſible and Corporeal parts of the World.

3. That in purſuance of this Apprehenſion, he worſhips theſe Viſible and Corporeal Deities as the Supream God.

Now to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead, and to believe no other Supream God, but ſome Viſible and Corporeal part of the World, in oppoſition to a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead, is, I think, to be an Atheiſt, though here is much ado to deſcribe him. For to believe none but a Viſible God, in oppoſition to an Inviſible One, and to believe none but a Corporeal God, in oppoſition to a Spiritual God, is to believe no God at all; unleſs a man can ſuppoſe a Supream God, without Underſtanding, or any Perfection whatſoever of a Spiritual and Inviſible Nature.

By conſequence, for a man with theſe Apprehenſions to worſhip this God which he has made to himſelf, is not well capable of any other conſtruction, than that he takes ſome pains, and goes a little way about to expoſe all Religion and Worſhip to Contempt.

I would be very glad to underſtand our Author's Notion of Idolatry; and therefore if it were poſſible, I ſhould be content that his Idolater ſhould not be an Atheiſt for a while, that we might ſee what elſe we can make of him. For a man to take nothing elſe for the Supream God, but a certain Viſible Being, from which he ſhuts out all Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead, is certainly to be a downright Atheiſt, though his Atheiſm might have been deſcribed in fewer words. And yet on the other ſide, to worſhip ſomething in good earneſt as the Supream God, ſeems to imply that a man is not an Atheiſt: For an Atheiſt is one that does not ſo much as believe that there is a Supream God. But he ſurely believes a God, who worſhips any thing for the Supream God, whatever that be which he ſo worſhips.

Now if Thomas Aquinas were here, it would ſtrangely perplex him to clear this matter. I do not mean to make good ſenſe of the words, for that I take to be impoſſible, but to tell us by the words, what the Author's drift ſhould be. For they make up a Nonſenſe ſo very ſtiff, that it will not bend one way or the other. And if I muſt underſtand ſomething by every word that he ſays, I can have no more Notion of his Idolatry than I have of nothing. And if he had ſaid, Idolatry is neither more nor leſs than Nothing, I had been as much edified as I am now. Unleſs he would give us to underſtand, that Idolatry is meer ſpeculative Madneſs, which no body that has common ſenſe and underſtanding, can poſſibly be guilty of.

For all that part of the World that either is or ought to be out of Bethlehem and the like Hoſpitals, do by the Supream God, underſtand ſomething at leaſt, that is not only able to help or to hinder, but knows alſo when to do one and t'other, and is willing to do accordingly. And therefore to worſhip any thing as the Supream God, and at the ſame time to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead, is to worſhip a thing becauſe I am ſure it knows ſomething, while I take care to be as ſure at the ſame time, that it knows nothing at all. I can compare this to nothing, as I have already intimated, but to ſome extraordinary inſtance of Madneſs. For inſtance: If I ſhould ever ſee a man fall down upon his Knees, and ſeem in good earneſt to ask Bleſſing of a Poſt, and to call it Father, I ſhould preſently think of this Author's Idolater: for his Idolater is rather more than leſs mad than he that fancies a Post to be his Father. For men in their Wits, have at leaſt as high an Opinion of what they take to be their Supream God, as they have of their Parents: And therefore to worſhip that as the Supream God, which no leſs wants the Perfections of a Spiritual and Inviſible Nature, than a Post does, is a Misfortune that cannot light upon any Body but a Mad man.

So that our Author's Idolater is a man whom either all the World muſt acknowledge to be out of his Wits, or if you put him into his Wits, he is a meer Atheiſt; though I am confident he would not have deſcribed himſelf ſo wittily, as this Author has deſcribed him.

This Notion of Idolatry is to me ſo monſtrous a Notion, that I am apt to look again and again into the Book, to ſee if the words be there in which he has deliver'd it. But when at laſt I find that they are undoubtedly there, I am taken with a new fear, that the Author did not mean what he ſays; and therefore that I do not underſtand his meaning, though I underſtand the meaning of his words.

In ſuch a Caſe as this, I have nothing to do, but to take another Notion of Idolatry; which though it be not the true and only Notion of it, has yet plain ſenſe, and comes as near to his, as a Notion that has Senſe can come to one that has none. And it is this: That Idolatry is the Worſhip of the Sun, Moon, or Stars, or any other Viſible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supream God, not ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead; but ſo as to ſuppoſe that as they are Viſible Beings, ſo they have Inviſible Natures too, and ſome Spiritual Perfections, which are indeed proper to the true God.

Now this Notion of Idolatry is, in one part of it, quite contrary to our Author's. For they who worſhip any Viſible Deity as the Supream God, with this perſwaſion, that it has indeed Spiritual and Inviſible Perfections, do not thereby exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead; becauſe they have the Senſe of ſuch a Godhead in the Notion of that very thing which they worſhip. But though this is not the Idolatry which his Book ſpeaks of, yet, as I ſaid, 'tis the likeſt to it that I can think of. And if he does not mean what his Book ſays, 'tis a hunder'd to one but he means this.

But if I ſhould be miſtaken, 'tis no great matter; for if I can but ſhew that this is not the only Notion of Idolatry, it follows out of hand, that the Notion of his Book cannot poſſibly be ſo neither: So that one way or other I am ſure to reach him, whether he and his Book have one meaning or two.

1. According to this Notion then, thoſe who retain the ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead, though they do worſhip the Heavenly Bodies, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, but this only as Inferior and Subordinate Deities, cannot be Idolaters. And therefore if the Gentiles, the Aegyptians, for inſtance, or the Chaldaeans, did believe One Supream God, and worſhipped the Sun, Moon, and Stars, upon the account of thoſe Caeleſtial Spirits they ſuppoſed to reſide in them, this worſhip was not Idolatrous.

In like manner, thoſe Gentiles that worſhipped any Corporeal Deity, or any thing Viſible or Inviſible beſides the Supreme God, if they believed all the while that it was not the Supreme God, and did not worſhip it as ſuch, they I ſay could not be Idolaters. And therefore I think if the Gentiles were Idolaters in worſhipping any of their Deities, it muſt be becauſe they had no knowledge of the true God. So that either St. Paul or this Author was out in the true and only Notion of Idolatry. For though St. Paul accuſed the Gentiles of Idolatry, yet he confeſſed, that they knew God. For (ſays he) Though they knew God yet they glorified him not as God. Rom. 1.

2. If we do but interpret the Cautions of the New Teſtament againſt Idolatry, by our Author's Notion of Idolatry, they will be Paraphraſed ſo as I believe they never were done before his time, and I ſuppoſe will never be after it. For inſtance; When St. Paul ſaid to the Corinthian Chriſtians, My dearly Beloved, flee from Idolatry; this was as much as if he had ſaid, My dearly Beloved, Idolatry being neither more nor leſs than the Worſhip of the Heavenly Bodies, the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, or any Other Viſible or Corporeal Deity as the Supreme God, I intreat and carneſtly require you to Flee from Idolatry. And therefore though I do not bid you worſhip the Heavenly Bodies, or their Images upon Earth, yet I ſtrictly charge you, not to worſhip them as the Supreme God, or as if there were not an Inviſible God above them All; if ever you ſhould find it convenient to worſhip the Sun or Moon, or Stars, or any Repreſentation of them here below.

This would be an Admirable Paraphraſe, and which I doubt not but our Author would be able to make good againſt all thoſe that neither do, nor can, nor ought to underſtand theſe things. But whether our Nobility and Men of Quality are willing to come into this Number I think I need not ſay.

3. But becauſe to Created Beings he afterwards adds Mortal Ones, of which more hereafter, I ſuppoſe he means Reaſonable Beings, let us ſee how things will go upon theſe new Terms. Dearly Beloved, if ever you ſhould worſhip Saturn or Jupiter, or ſuch like men who died long ſince, ſtill remember that they were once Viſible and Mortal Men, and have a care not to worſhip them as the Supreme God.

I mention here only dead Heathens, there being yet no Chriſtian Hero's in St. Paul's time to whom any ſuch worſhip was given, nor for ſome Ages after. Now I think this will paſs as little as the Other with Men that ought and do underſtand. For beſides the barbarous Stuff which this Notion makes the Apoſtle to ſpeak, it preſſes a meer Monſter upon us; That the Apoſtle ſuppoſes it utterly impoſſible for a Chriſtian that does not at once renounce his whole Faith and Profeſſion, to be guilty of Idolatry. St. Paul certainly was a very deep man in hiding his purpoſe, if by intreating the Chriſtians to Flee from Idolatry, he meant no other thing than that they ſhould not take and worſhip the Sun, or the Moon, or ſome dead man, as the Supreme God. And our Author is as deep a Man in finding out this hidden purpoſe of the Apoſtle, which till He aroſe no man was ever ſo happy as to do.

But indeed with all his Rhetorick he will never make himſelf and the Apoſtle of One mind in this matter. For thus St. Paul goes on: Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils; Ye cannot be Partakers of the Lord's Table, and of the Table of Devils. Do we provoke the Lord to Jealouſie? Are we ſtronger than He? Now if they who partake in Idolatrous Sacrifices are Idolaters, and if Idolaters have no Senſe of a Supreme God, above the pretended Deities to whom they offer, they will not I conceive care one Jot whether they partake of the Lord's Table or not, nor be concerned about the Lord's Jealouſie at all. And yet St. Paul plainly ſuppoſes, that if Chriſtians ſhould be guilty of Idolatry, they would yet probably be concern'd about God's Jealouſie, and deſire to partake of the Lord's Table.

Thus when the ſame Apoſtle wrote to the very ſame Perſons not to keep Company, no nor ſo much as to eat with One called a Brother, if he were a Fornicator, or Covetous, or an IDOLATER, or a Railer, or a Drunkard. I cannot but wonder what an Idolater has to do in this Company, if this Author's Idolater, and St. Paul's Idolater were the ſame Idolater. For whatſoever the Fornicator, or Covetous, or Railer, or Drunkard, might pretend for a Title to Brotherhood; I am yet certain, that he is fallen even from all right to that Name, who worſhips the Sun (for inſtance) as the Supreme God, and ſo renounces God the Maker of the World, and the Father of our Lord Jeſus Christ. St. Paul ſpeaks of his Idolater as One within the Church, and One of thoſe wicked Perſons that were to be caſt out of the Civil as well as the Religious Communion of it. But if there be no Idolater beſides this Author's Idolater, who has renounced the Maker of Heaven and Earth, and loſt all Apprehenſion of him, he has prevented the Apoſtle's direction, and is out of the Church by his own Act.

4. Theſe things do, I confeſs, give me a great Prejudice againſt this Author's true and only Notion of Idolatry. And there is one thing which I believe will make him leſs fond of it himſelf, when he comes to conſider it; and that is, that his Notion does by no means ſuit with the Senſe of that Church, to which he deſigned a good Turn in all this. It is very well known how the Fathers of Trent, to Vindicate their Worſhip of Images from being Parallel to what the Gentiles heretofore paid to theirs, did, among other Differences, lay down this for one: That they do not believe any Divinity or Vertue to be in them, for which they ought to be Worſhipped. For to believe this, their Catechiſm tells us, is to make the Images become Idols, and by conſequence, the Worſhip of them to be Idolatry. Now if it be Idolatry to worſhip Images with ſuch an Opinion, then it cannot be the only Notion of Idolatry to worſhip the Sun, Moon, or Stars, or any Corporeal Deity, as the Supream God, or their Images as the Images of a pretended Supreme God: For without any thing of all this, one may believe Divinity and Virtue to be in Images, and worſhip them upon that account.

For Example: The Heathens had a mighty Opinion of Aeſculapius after his Death, that in his Temples, and by his Images, he could cure Diſeaſes. Let us ſuppoſe now a Perſon to fall down and worſhip one of theſe Images, in hopes of ſome Divine Virtue coming thence. Were this Worſhip Idolatry, or not? If it were not, then was the Council of Trent to blame, to make this an inſtance of the Gentiles Idolatry; if it were, then in the opinion of the Roman Church, the account of Idolatry which this Author has given, cannot be the only Notion of it: For this was neither the Worſhipping of any Corporeal Deity, as the Supream God, nor of any Corporeal Image of the Supream God.

Laſtly, In all the Accounts which the Miſſionaries of the Church of Rome have given us of the Heathen Nations where they have come, we find them generally acknowledging a Supream, Spiritual, and Inviſible Godhead. And that if they worſhip the Sun, Moon, or Stars, it is not that they eſteem them to be meer Viſible and Corporeal Deities, much leſs think them to be the Supream God, ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible God above them; but they worſhip them either as inferiour Deities, to whom God has committed the Government of the World under him; or they look upon God to be the Soul of the World, and that therefore the parts of it deſerve Honour upon that account: or finally, they eſteem God to be of ſo great Perfection and Excellency, that He is above their ſervice, and that therefore they ought to pay their External Adoration to ſomewhat below him. Now I ſhall leave it to this Author to conſider upon what grounds, according to his True and Only Notion of Idolatry, he will charge theſe men with this Guilt; or if out of his great Charity he ſhall think fit generouſly to acquit them of it, I will then ſend him to ſome of his Friends of the Roman Communion for better Inſtruction.

Theſe and many other Reaſons, that I might add, occur to me upon the very firſt view only, to make me ſuſpect his Hypotheſis. But now when I examine it more particularly, I find it yet more groſs and unreaſonable. The ſum of what he offers for it, is an Hiſtorical Deduction of the State of Idolatry in the Old Teſtament, compar'd with the Accounts that are given of the Idolatry of the Ancient, eſpecially the Eaſtern Nations, Pag. 99, 100. Who acknowledged no other Deities, but the Stars, among whom the Sun was Supream; in oppoſition to which falſe Principle, Rabbi Maimon ſays, God enacted the Law of Moſes. And according to this Law, it appears, That Idolatry is giving the Worſhip of the Supream God to any Created, Pag. 80, 81. Corporeal, or Viſible Deity, or any thing that can be repreſented by an Image, which nothing but Corporeal Beings can; and to ſuppoſe ſuch a Being the Supream Deity, in the only true and proper Idolatry.

In oppoſition to which poſitive Coneluſion, I will content my ſelf at preſent to ſay, that there is not one word of truth in it; for that neither was the Religion of the Eaſtern Nations, ſuch as he pretends, nor the Nature of Idolatry under the Law, what he repreſents it to have been. And to the end I may plainly clear this whole matter, I will diſtinctly ſhew three things.

First, That the Idolatry of thoſe Nations whom he mentions, the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Perſians, Arabians, &c. did not conſiſt in Worſhipping the Sun, Moon, and Stars, as the Supream God; So as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead. Nor therefore,

Secondly, Was this the only Idolatry forbidden to the Jews by the Law. But

Thirdly, That as the Jews retaining both the apprehenſion and worſhip of the God of Iſrael, were yet guilty of Idolatry for worſhipping him after a gentile manner, ſo may Chriſtians be now.

And therefore that the Church of Rome may juſtly be charged by us as Idolatrous, though we do not pretend in any wiſe to ſay either that ſhe worſhips the Sun, Moon, and Stars, or any other Viſible and Corporeal Deity as the Supream God; or that ſhe has loſt all Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead.

And thus having eſtabliſhed the true Notion of Idolatry, I ſhall laſt of all conſider ſuch Objections as may be neceſſary to be replied to for the clearing of it; and ſo leave the particular Charges to be made good by thoſe who ſhall have occaſion ſo to do.

CHAP. III. Of the Idolatry of the Ancient Heathens; eſpecially, of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Perſians; and that it did not conſiſt in their Worſhipping the Sun, Moon and Stars, or any other Viſible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supreme God; ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead.

THis is the Fundamental miſtake of our Author concerning his Notion of Idolatry; and which being overthrown, his whole Hypotheſis built upon it, muſt fall together with it. P. 80. For thus it is that he argues: God deſigned by his Law, to preſerve the Jews from falling into the Idolatry of the Nations round about them: Againſt this, P. 102. we find not only all its Precepts, but even the Rights and Ceremonies of it, to have been directed. But the Idolatry of thoſe Nations was no other than the Worſhip of the Sun, P. 97, 100. Moon and Stars, or of ſome the like Viſible and Corporeal Deities, ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead. And therefore this muſt be the true and only Notion of it in the Old Teſtament.

I ſhall hereafter more fully ſhew the weakneſs of this Proof, when I come to demonſtrate, That there were two ſorts of Idolatry mention'd in thoſe Holy Scriptures extreamly different the one from the other. And therefore that tho this were the true Notion of Idolatry in one reſpect, yet it would not follow that it was the only Notion, by reaſon of the other. And this I ſhall do in the next Chapter. My buſineſs at preſent is to ſhew, That what he has thus Confidently laid down, is ſo far from being the only Notion of Idolatry, that it is indeed no Notion of it at all; for that thoſe very Heathens whom he inſiſts upon for his Warrant in this matter, were not guilty of ſuch an Idolatry as he pretends they were.

We have already ſeen his Definition of Idolatry, P. 74. that it is neither more nor leſs than this: The Worſhip of the Heavenly Bodies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, or any other Viſible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supreme God, ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead. Ibid. This he pretends is the only Scripture Notion of it. And thus (he ſays) all Learned Men of all Nations, P. 99. all Religions, ever underſtood the old Notion of Idolatry, till this laſt Age, when Folly and Paſſion caſt it at any thing that peeviſh Men were angry with. So RabbiMamion, the most Learned and Judicious of the Jewiſh Doctors Diſcourſes at large, That the Ancient Idolatry was nothing but the Religion of the Eaſtern Nations, P. 100. who acknowledg no other Deities but the Stars, among whom the Sun was Supreme. And then he immediately ſubjoyns, That the Ancient Heathens worſhipped only the Stars, Ibid. without any Notion of Heroes or Daemons: So Diodorus Siculus ſays of the Egyptians; Herodotus of the Perſians and Chaldeans; Strabo and Juſtin, of the Arabians, P. 101. and Caeſar of the Germans. He confeſſes indeed, That there was another ſort of Idolatry introduced afterward, the Worſhip of Men and Women; but this he takes to have been much more Modern, and a meer Invention of the vain and lying Greeks; but that whenſoever it came in, it was grafted upon the old Stock, of giving the Worſhip of the Supreme God, not only to created, but to mortal Beings. So this Author. To which I Reply.

I. That as to this latter ſort of Idolatry, ſeeing he has declin'd the Conſideration of it, as being of too young a date to found the Scripture Notion of Idolatry upon it, I ſhall not inſiſt upon it; tho I am by no means ſatisfied, either in his account of its Antiquity, or that it was a meer Invention of the vain and lying Greeks. For

1. It has been the Opinion of very Learned Men, that this kind of Idolatry was practiſed in Egypt ſoon after the Flood. And that the moſt Ancient Oſiris, See Voſſius de Idol. l. 1. c. 27. was no other than Mitzraim, the Son of Cham, whom they worſhipped together with his Father, and from whom the whole Country is in Scripture called by his Name. In the cv. Pſalm 23. it is expreſly ſtiled, the Land of Cham: And Plutarch informs us, Plutarch de Iſide & Ofiride. that in the Sacred Rites of Iſis, they call it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , very probably upon the ſame Account. And that which makes this the more likely is, that in the Diviſion of the World among the Sons of Noah, Gen. x. Arabia fell to the Lot of Cham; and in that Chuſh his eldeſt Son fixed himſelf, from whence the Country is called, the Land of Cuſh, in 2 Kings xix. 9. And then it may eaſily be conceiv'd that his ſecond Son Mitzraim, ſhould go into the next adjoyning Country, the Land of Egypt. Now if this be ſo, then it follows, not only that this ſort of Idolatry was much more Ancient than is pretended; but that being practiſed in Egypt before the Children of Iſraels going down thither; it may be reaſonably enough allow'd a ſufficient Antiquity for us to derive ſomething from it of the Notion of Idolatry, with reference to the times under debate. But,

2dly, As to the very Apis its ſelf, the chief Deity of the Egyptians, and whom our Author contends to have been the Sun; P. 89. it is not improbable, but that they meant no other than the Patriarch Joſeph by it; and whom they Honour'd with Divine Honours, upon the Account of his wonderful Preſervation of them in the ſeven years Famine, Jul. Firm. p. 17, 18. Gen. xli. Thus Julius Firmicus expreſly Interprets it, and what is more, adds, that this was according to the manner of their Country: The Egyptians (ſays he) after his Death, according to the appointment of their Country, built Temples to Him. And again, This Man is worſhipt in Egypt, he is adored, &c. Ruffin. l. 2. Hiſt. Eccleſ. c. 23. To him Ruffinus agrees; and St. Auguſtin, or whoever elſe was the Author of that Book under his Name, De Mirabilibus Scripturae, informs us, That the Egyptians upon this account, ſet up the Symbol of an Ox over the Sepulchre of Joſeph, in Memory of their Deliverance. Suidas in voce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cl. Alex. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1. Thus Suidas interprets their Serapis; who as Clemens Alexandrinus (out of Ariſteas) tells us, was the ſame with Apis; and both Suidas, Ruffinus, and Julius Firmicus, add, that his Statue was ſet up with a Buſhel upon his Head, to denote the Plenty of Corn which he provided for them. And in the very Scripture it ſelf, Joſeph is either call'd, or at leaſt compar'd to an Ox, Deut. xxxiii. 17. And ſome of the Rabbins have given this account of the very Calves of Jeroboam, that they were the Symbols of Joſeph, ſet up by him in Honour of his Anceſtors, from a part of whoſe Tribe, viz. that of Ephraim, he was himſelf deſcended.

Here it were an eaſie matter to multiply Proofs upon this occaſion, to ſhew that the Idolatry of Conſecrating Heroes into Gods, and Worſhipping them as ſuch, is by no means of ſo freſh a date, as this Author would have it thought to be. For what he adds, Page 101. That whenſoever it came in, it was grafted upon the Old Stock of giving the Worſhip of the Supreme God, not only to Created, but to Mortal Beings:

I anſwer, 1. That this is evidently contrary to all the accounts we have of their Worſhip; and according to which it appears, that the Heathens paid no other Worſhip to their Divi, or deified Men, than what the Church of Rome at this day does to her Saints; but as carefully diſtinguiſh'd between the Adoration of the Supreme God, and theſe Heroes, as the other do between Him, and thoſe Bleſſed Men that Reign together with Him, as their Language tells us.

2. Whenever this Idolatry came in, 'tis evident that the very nature of it utterly overthrows his Only Notion of Idolatry before laid down; unleſs he ſuppoſes that they thought their Heroes, whom whilſt they lived they knew to be but men, born into the World after the common order of Nature, and even dying after the ſame manner as all others, became after Death the Supreme God that made Heaven and Earth; and believed all this ſo firmly, as not only to give the Worſhip of the Supreme God to them, but to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of any God above them. For ſo (he ſays) a man muſt do, before he can be guilty of Idolatry.

Now if this be his Opinion, I would then ask this Learned Antiquary one ſmall Queſtion: Seeing the Number of their Heroes was very great, whom the ſame Perſons at the ſame time worſhipped; Did they believe every one of theſe to be the Supreme God that made Heaven and Earth, and give the higheſt Divine Honour accordingly unto every one of them as ſuch? That they did this, no man of Senſe will either ſay or believe; and yet if they did not, the true and only Notion of Idolatry is at an end; for which ever of their Heroes they believed to be the Supreme God, and Worſhipped as ſuch, they muſt have Adored the reſt only as Inferior Deities, and with an Honour ſuitable to their Apprehenſions of them.

Either therefore he muſt quit his true and only Notion of Idolatry, which he tells us is neither more nor leſs than, Page 74. The Worſhip of the Heavenly Bodies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, or any other Viſible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supreme God, ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and inviſible Godhead; or he muſt give us ſome aſſurance that the Egyptians (for inſtance) worſhipping of Joſeph under the Symbol of an Ox, did believe him to be the Supreme Deity, ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of any Superior Godhead, and did worſhip him accordingly; that is, that thoſe men were ſo ſottiſh as to think that a man who had lived and died amongſt them, was the Great God that framed the world▪ and all things in it, many Ages before himſelf had any Being. But

II. To come to the Other, and (as he ſuppoſes) the more Ancient Idolatry, and in his Notion of which, I affirm him to have been utterly miſtaken: And here I muſt obſerve, that it is not at all doubted, but that theſe Heathens did Worſhip the Sun, Moon, and Stars; that which I pretend is, that this Author is very much out in the Account which he gives of their Worſhip of them.

1. He affirms, Page 74. That they worſhipped theſe Heavenly Bodies as Viſible and Corporeal Deities, ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead: Whereas on the contrary, they believed theſe very Bodies themſelves to be animated by Celeſtial Spirits who reſided in them, and rendred them thereby proper Objects of their Adoration.

2. That they worſhipped theſe Viſible and Corporeal Deities, as the Supreme God; Ibid. whereas they conſtantly acknowledged a Firſt and Inviſible Godhead, ſuperior to them.

3. That they worſhipp'd no other Gods but theſe, Page 97, 100. and amongſt theſe the Sun as ſupreme; when on the contrary it is certain, even from the very Authors that himſelf produces, that they worſhipp'd other Deities, both Heroes and Daemons, of which this Man yet pretends with ſo much aſſurance, that they had no Notion.

And all theſe are not only groſs Errors for an Author who writes with ſuch Confidence as if he would be thought to have been initiated into all the Religions of which he diſcourſes, but ſuch as utterly ruin all that he has to ſay to ſupport his true and only Notion of Idolatry. But I muſt examine theſe Points more particularly. And

1. That theſe Nations did not worſhip the Heavenly Bodies as Viſible and Corporeal Deities, ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Spiritual and inviſible Godhead.

This is an Aſſertion not only ſo monſtrouſly abſurd in its ſelf, but ſo contrary to all the Accounts we have from Antiquity, of the Theology of thoſe Nations to which he refers us, that I muſt once more confeſs, that I never lay under a greater Temptation to disbelieve my own Senſes, or to ſuſpect my underſtanding of plain words than now: On the one hand, I am ſure our Author here defines Idolatry to be, The Worſhip of the Heavenly Bodies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, or ſome other viſible and Corporeal Deity, not only as the Supreme God, but ſo at to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead: That is to ſay, that he who is an Idolater muſt worſhip them as mere Corporeal Parts of the Creation, void of all Ʋnderſtanding; for ſo I think Viſible and Corporeal Gods muſt be taken, when oppoſed to all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead. And yet on the other hand, how to reconcile ſuch a Paradox with either the common Reaſon of Mankind, as I have obſerved before; or the clear Evidences of the Gentile World to the contrary, as I obſerve now, I am not able to comprehend: But let our Author take his choice; for I will here again do more than I need, rather than be thought to omit any thing that was fit to be taken notice of. If he thinks good to own this Notion, I will then offer what may ſerve to confute it; but if being admoniſhed of the Abſurdity of it, he ſhall chuſe rather to wreſt his words to ſome other meaning than they naturally bear, I ſhall only have ſpent ſome little time in confuting that, which if he does not, I am certain no body elſe will ever affirm.

And to begin where himſelf does, with the Holy Scriptures, not only the moſt certain, but the moſt Ancient Hiſtory in the World.

He produces indeed a few Texts from whence it may be concluded, that the Heathens of old, did worſhip the Sun, Moon, and Stars; but that they worſhipped them (according to his Notion) as Corporeal Deities, and ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead; for this he has not ſo much as offer'd at one ſingle Proof.

For 1. As to his firſt Inſtance, Page 77. (and which indeed is the firſt account we have) of Idolatry. The Scripture, 'tis true, tells us that Terah, Abraham's Father, worſhipped Strange Gods; but that theſe Gods were Corporeal Deities, and that they worſhipp'd them ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead, of this there is not a word: See Joſh. xxiv. 2. and I ſhall preſently ſhew the contrary.

If we go on with him to the next (and as he thinks the firſt plain) intimation we find of Idolatry in Paleſtine, in the Hiſtory of Jacob; Page 78. after his Converſation with the Shechemites, Gen. 35. where upon his departure from that City by God's eſpecial Command, he builds an Altar at Bethel to God, and commands his Family to put away their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or ſtrange Gods. Neither here ſhall we find our Author's notion ſo much as inſinuated, but as I will now prove, much to the contrary. It is not to be doubted, but that theſe Gods were the ſame that they worſhipped in Syria when they were in the houſe of Laban; and that therefore the Images which Jacob buried, could be no other than the Teraphim, ſo uſual amongſt them, i. e. ſuch as Rachel ſtole from her Father Laban, Gen. xxxi. 30. How far from hence it might be proved that their Idolatry did not conſiſt merely in their worſhipping of the Sun, Moon, and Stars, I ſhall not now diſpute: Let us ſuppoſe theſe Teraphims to have been not only made by Planetary Influences, but deſigned to repreſent the Sun, or ſome other Heavenly Bodies; then, I ſay, it follows both from the Hiſtory of Laban, and from the accounts we have of theſe Idols, that they did not worſhip the Sun as a Corporeal Deity, and by conſequence that that cannot be the true Notion of their Idolatry, which is pretended to be. For,

1. As to Laban, we read Gen. xxxi. 53. that when he ratified the Covenant with Jacob, he called to witneſs not only the God of Abraham, but the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , his own domeſtick Deity too, i. e. in our Author's opinion, the Sun, The God (ſays he) of Abraham, and the God of Nachor judg betwixt us: Now this plainly ſhews that Laban lookt upon his Father's God (and who was alſo the God of Tera before-mentioned, Joſh. xxiv. 2.) not to be a mere Corporeal Deity, but as having an Intellectual Being incorporated in it, that was both capable of hearing their Oath, and of judging betwixt them, and without which he could never have called him to witneſs their Contract.

2. For what concerns the Teraphim, it appears from Holy Scripture, that the Chaldeans made uſe of them not only as ſymbols for Worſhip, but for Oracles too, and as ſuch, were wont to conſult them; it was for this, that Rachel is ſuppoſed to have ſtollen away her Father's Gods, Gen. 31. that ſo when he ſhould come, and miſs her husband, he might not be able to enquire of them which way to purſue after him. We read in Ezek. xxi. 21. That the King of Babylon conſulted with his Teraphim, Hierom in l. 7. in Ezek. p. 212. which St. Jerome calls conſulting with his Oracle, after the manner of his Country: And the Prophet Zachary x. 2. tells the People, 'That their Teraphim had ſpoken vanity: Now how could this poſſibly be, had the Chaldeans worſhipped only Viſible and Corporeal Deities? Is not this an undeniable Evidence, that they acknowledged in the Heavenly Bodies, inviſible Spirits to deſcend and influence their Teraphim, ſo as to make them ſpeak?

Many are the accounts that may be given of theſe Idols, Voſſius de Idol. lib. 1. Selden de diis Syris Syntag. 1. c. 2. Dr. Pocock on Hoſea xiii. 2. p. 725. and which have been collected with much exactneſs by thoſe great men, Gerard Voſſius, Mr. Selden, &c. But I ſhall content my ſelf to ſubjoin the Authority of one only Perſon, now living, and no way inferior to any that can be produced, It ſeems (ſaith he) to have been the Opinion of thoſe Ancient Idolaters, that ſome ſpiritualities from ſuperior Intelligences, and Heavenly Powers, did influence ſuch Images as they made in ſuch Figures as they thought acceptable to them, and dedicated to them; and therefore called ſuch their Images themſelves God, and thought them ſo, at leaſt Deos Vicarios, Inferior Deities; Mediators between them and the Superior, and did offer Sacrifice, and burnt Incenſe, that they might draw down and entice (as it were) thoſe ſpiritual Influences to reſide on thoſe Images, that ſo they might declare to them, Id. on Hoſea iii. 4. and do for them what they deſired. And elſewhere he ſays, That the modern Zabii not only pretend to ſucceed the old Chaldees in their Religion, but that as to their Rites about Teleſms, and Figures, and Images, we cannot but eaſily believe, that they were derived to them from Ancient Times.

And now that I mention the Zabii, I cannot but obſerve the wonderful acuteneſs of our Author in his Reflections upon them; he calls it the Dream of the Zabii; Page 76. and he decretorily condemns all that is ſaid by Learned Men on their behalf, merely becauſe He (a Perſon ſo acurately verſed in all the Learning of the Eaſt) can find no Ancient Footſteps of any ſuch people in the world; Pag. 110, 111. and that Dr. Spencer has diſcover'd for him, That the name is no older than Mahomet, who call'd them Zabii, becauſe they lay Eaſtward from Arabia; for ſo the word ſignifies, Eaſterlings.

Thus this Author, and ſtill, as becomes himſelf, he pronounces, Dictator-like, and is alway in the wrong; for the Queſtion is not about the name of Zabii (which from henceforth muſt ſignifie Eaſterlings, tho the Learned Dr. Spencer had collected no leſs than five ſeveral ſignifications of it, De Legib. Heb. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 1. and every one ſupported by probable Conjectures); but about the People, or rather the Religion; and to draw this matter out of the Clouds, and ſhew what an Admirable Critick we have got here, it is juſt as if a man ſhould undertake to prove the Britains to be a people of no Antiquity, becauſe they are now called Welch, and that's but a Modern Name.

Now according to this true State of this Matter, Spencer ib. l. 2. c. 1. Sect. 2. it is evidently ſhew'd by that Learned Perſon I before mentioned, that the Religion of the Zabii is not only of no Modern date, but is as Ancient, or even more Ancient than Abraham. Abulfeda calls it the moſt Ancient Religion; Dr. Spencer ib. p. 240. and Saidus Batricides attributes the Original of the Zabii, thus conſider'd, in their Manners, and Superſtitions, to the time of Nachor, De Converſ. Indor. l. 1. c. 4. Abraham's Grandfather. To this Subſcribes the Learned and Inquiſitive Hornbeck; and who thinks them to be the ſame with thoſe that were anciently called Sabaei; and Abul-Pharajius, cited by Dr. Spencer, thus confirms it, Hiſt. Dynaſt. D. 9. p. 281. That which we certainly know of the Sect of the Zabii, is, that their Profeſſion is altogether the ſame with the Profeſſion of the Ancient Chaldeans.

As for the point before us; Spencer ib. p. 237, 238. we are told that they worſhipped the Host of Heaven, ſuppoſing the Stars to be animated by Divine Ʋnderſtandings. Dr. Pocock adds, That they lookt upon the Planets, Not. in ſpec. Hiſt. Arab. p. 143. as Mediators between the Supreme God, and Men; and cites Gregorius, Abulfaraeus and Shareſtanius, for his Warrant; which laſt expreſly ſays, Ibid. p. 146. That they worſhip the Bodies of the Planets, as the Habitations of the living, rational, and intellectual Subſtances, which they ſuppoſe to animate them.

Now theſe are all plain and rational Accounts, why they ſhould worſhip theſe Heavenly Bodies; but to talk of their worſhipping the Sun, Moon and Stars, as Viſible and Corporeal Deities, and that ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead, is to repreſent their Worſhip contrary not only to Truth, but to common Senſe and Reaſon too. But when Men are reſolved to advance ſuch Notions, as this Author does, they muſt have Proofs of the ſame kind. And this for the Chaldeans.

As to the Egyptians, Jamblicus informs us, Jamblic. de Myſter. Sect. 37. That they worſhipped indeed the Sun, Moon and Stars, as Viſible Gods; but ſuch as were compounded of Soul and Body, and they eſteem'd thoſe Planets to be Seats only of thoſe Coeleſtial Spirits that were to take care of human Affairs.

It was a nice Queſtion put by Porphyry, Id. Sect. 1. c. 17. to an Egyptian Prieſt, How the Sun, Moon and Stars could be Gods, ſeeing the Gods are incorporeal?

Jamblicus anſwers, That the incorporeal Gods aſſume thoſe Bodies, by which they become Viſible. And Syrianus aſſerts, Syrian. in Metaphyſ. l. 12. The Coeleſtial Animals (as he calls them) to be the Images of the Maker of the World, and to communicate Senſe to it.

But it may be ſaid, That theſe were Philoſophers, and endeavour'd to make the beſt of their Idolatry. I anſwer, Jambl. de Myſter. Sect. c. 1. That Jamblicus declares, he delivers nothing but according to the old Egyptian Books: And he delivers it for the true Egyptian Theology; That there was one Supreme God above all; Cap. 2. next him the Demiurgus; the third Principle he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and ſome think the Sun is meant by it, as the immediate Governor of the World. If ſo, there is great Reaſon why the Sun ſhould be worſhipped under the Names of Moloch and Baal, as being King and Lord of this inferior World. And thus neither did the Egyptians worſhip theſe Heavenly Bodies, ſo as to exclude all Senſe of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead.

If from both theſe Nations we paſs finally to the Perſians, Gol. not. in Alferg. p. 20, 21. Jac. Golius will give us the very ſame Account of them, viz. That the Ancient Perſians did worſhip Coeleſtial Spirits, as having a particular preſidency over the material part of the World.

And now, after ſo many plain Teſtimonies in this matter, were it yet needful to look into any other Countries, we ſhould find the Caſe to be every where the ſame. Pliny l. 2. c. 6. Pliny pleads much for the Divinity of the Sun; but do's he believe it to be a Viſible and Corporeal Deity, ſo as to exclude any Inviſible and Spiritual Godhead? No, on the contrary, he calls it the Spirit and Mind of the World. He attributes Senſe and Underſtanding to it; and affirms from Homer, That it ſees and hears all. And indeed this is ſo often inſiſted upon by that Poet, Euſtath. in Homer, Odyſſ. T. p. 1871. In Iliad. • p. 414. that Euſtathius from thence obſerves, that the Sun was to be conſider'd not only as a Luminary of the Heavens, but as a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a Spirit cloathed with ſuch an illuſtrious Body. And in another place he takes notice of the decency of Homer, That he calls the heavenly Powers to be Witneſſes of Oaths, and particularly the Sun.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

So little Truth is there in this firſt of our Authors Pretence, 'That the Ancients did Worſhip the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, as Viſible and Coporeal Deities, ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead. Let us ſee

2dly, P. 97. Whether they who worſhipp'd theſe Planets, look'd upon them as the Supreme Deities, ſo as not to acknowledg any Divinity above them.

And here it muſt be confeſs'd, Mor. Nevoch. l. 3. c. 29. he has at leaſt an appearance of Truth. For, as for the Chaldeans, Maimonides tells us of the Ancient Zabii, That they had no other Gods but the Stars; and that among them, they look'd upon the Sun as Supreme. Hornbeck de Converſ. Ind. l. 1. c. 4. Pocock Not. in Spec. Hiſt. Ar. p. 139. From whence our Learned Pocock ſeems to think it not far from the Truth, to ſay, that poſſibly they derived their very Name of Zabii; Saba in the Hebrew, ſignifying an Hoſt, as if one ſhould ſay, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Worſhippers of the Hoſt of Heaven.

The ſame is the Account which Sanchoniathon, mentioned both by Euſebius and St. Cyril, Euſeb. Praep. Evan. l. 1. c. 9. p. 30. Cyril. contr. Jul. l. 6. p. 205. c. gives of the Phaenicians, That they worſhipped the Sun, Moon and Stars, as the only immortal Gods, among which the Sun was chief, called by them Beth-Samen, Lord of Heaven. And for the Perſians, Herodotus tells us, That the Sun was their only God: Herodot. l. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; to which Strabo and Trogus, Strabo l. 11. Trogus apud Juſtinum l. 1. vid. Voſſ. de Joel. l. 2. c. 9. in Juſtin, aſſent. And Heſychius, tho he rejects this, yet acknowledges him to be the firſt or ſupreme God amongſt them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (ſays he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . All which ſeems to be confirm'd by thoſe Ancient Inſcriptions collected by Gruterus and others, Apud Voſſ. loc. cit. vid. Hornb. de Con. Ind. p. 19. Elmenhorſt. in Arnob. p. 27, &c. DEO SOLI INVICTO. OMNIPOTENTI DEO. And again, SOLI INVICTO & LƲNAE AETERNAE. from all which it may be thought to follow, that (as this Author here tells us) the Gods which thoſe Ancient Heathens worſhipped, P. 97. were nothing but the Heavenly Bodies, or the Sun as the ſupreme Deity.

But yet if we enquire more exactly into theſe things, we ſhall find their Worſhip to have been much otherwiſe than what at firſt ſight it appears to be; for to begin with thoſe I laſt named, the Perſians; and than whom none have been more famed for Adoring the Sun: De Iſide & Oſiride. Plutarch tells us that they had a Notion of a Deity whom they call'd Oromaſdes, ſuperior to him, and the Account of whom (derived to them from Zoroaſter) he thus delivers to us. They believed that there were two contrary Principles, the one Good, the other Evil. The former of theſe they called Oromaſdes, whom they alſo look'd upon as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Creator, as Agathias informs us; the other Arimanius. Between theſe two, they placed their Mithras, or the Sun, who was eſteem'd by them, as much Inferior to Oromaſdes, as Superior to Arimanius. To this Oromaſdes, they aſcribed the Creation of the Stars, and of the Good Gods, thus Plutarch: Photius Cod. 81. But Photius carries it yet a little further in his Account of a Book written by Theodorus, Biſhop of Moveſtia, concerning the Perſian Rites, he ſays, That they believed the firſt Principle of all, to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and that he begat the other two, which with ſome little difference, he calls Ormiſdas and Satan.

But not to inſiſt upon theſe Accounts: Jac. Golius Not. in Alferg. p. 20. We are told by a Learned Man in his Notes upon Alferganus, that the Perſians gave the Names of their Gods to their Months and Days, according to the Ancient Religion of the Perſians and Magi, whereby they did believe their Gods to preſide over them; it being a Principle amongſt them, as well as among all other Nations of the East, that the things of this lower World are adminiſtred by Angels. The Spirit over the Sun, they called Mihrgian, from Mitro the Sun. But above all thoſe, they believed there was one Supreme God.

Eubulus, Porphyr. de antro Nympharum. who wrote the Hiſtory of Mithras (which was extant in St. Jeromes time) hath given a particular Account of the Cave which Zoroaſter made in honour of another and ſuperior Mithras, the Father and Maker of the World. Even Herodotus himſelf, whom this Author ſo confidently produces for his Warrant (but cites no particular paſſage of him) diſtinguiſhes their Jupiter from the Sun, Herod. Clio • n. 131. p. 56. and ſays, by it they underſtood the whole Heaven in which the Sun is fixt; and ſacrificed to him diſtinctly from the other. Strabo l. 15. p. 503. And ſo does Strabo, another of his Authors: Xenophon often mentions a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as a Deity ſuperior to the Sun; eſpecially, where ſpeaking of Cyrus being admoniſhed in a Dream of his approaching Death, See Dr. Cudworth. l. 1. c. 4. he tell us, that he ſacrificed to his Country Jupiter firſt, and then to the Sun: And Plutarch brings in Darius in like manner addreſſing to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thou our Country Jupiter, or Supreme God of the Perſians.

I might add here, See Dr Still. Anſw. to T. G. p. 110. That the ſame is the Opinion of thoſe Perſees, who ſtick to their Ancient Religion at this day. But theſe have been already collected by a very Eminent Hand. I ſhall conclude, therefore, with the form of that Proclamation, which Cyrus gave in favour of the Jews, and by which it plainly appears that they believed the ſame Firſt and Soveraign Deity with our ſelves, Ezra i. 2. Thus ſaith Cyrus King of Perſia, The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all Kingdoms of the Earth, and hath charged me to build him a Houſe at Jeruſalem. And in the next Verſe, he calls the ſame God, The Lord God of Iſrael. And I hope this Author will not ſay that was the Sun, or any other Viſible and Corporeal Deity.

I have enlarged my ſelf the more on this part of Antiquity, becauſe the Perſians, if any, muſt have been found to worſhip the Sun, as the Supreme God. I ſhall be very ſhort in other Nations, and ſo cloſe this Conſideration.

And for what concerns the Egyptians, I have already given ſome Account of their Theology; and we may learn from thence, how it came to paſs, that the Sun (whom none of the Heathens looked upon as abſolutely the ſupreme and higheſt Being) is yet ſo often ſpoken of by them as ſuch. See before. For as Jamblicus informs us out of the old Egyptian Books, they believ'd one Supreme God above all, next him the Demiurgus, and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Sun; whom they eſteem'd the Supreme Viſible God, and as he who had the Super-intendency over the viſible World. To which I will add the Authority of Prophyry, Euſeb. pr. Ev. lib. 3. and that the rather for that in his Epiſtle to Anebo, he ſeems to ſuſpect that the old Egyptians look'd no farther than the Sun, Moon and Stars. But 'tis plain that this was only a difficulty, which he puts to the Egyptian Prieſt; ſince himſelf owns that they repreſented the Creator, whom they call'd Cneph, with an Egg in his Mouth, to ſignifie the Production of the World; and of which the Sun is but a Part.

And here I may not omit another Notion of the Egyptians, and which was not theirs only; and from whence we may again know how to underſtand thoſe who ſeem to repreſent the Sun as the Supreme Deity. Porphyr. de Abſt. l. 2. Sect. 34. It was a Principle in their Theology, that the Supreme God of all, is not to be worſhipped by any External and Senſible thing, not ſo much as by Vocal Prayer, but only by pure Silence and Contemplation: But that Sacrifices and Hymns were to be made to Powers inferior to Him. Among theſe they eſteemed the Sun, Moon and Stars to be the chief; from whence it was obvious enough to miſtake, that becauſe theſe were the higheſt Deities, to whom they paid any External Adoration, therefore they had no other ſuperior to them.

And now there remains only the Chaldeans and Phoenicians, Not. in Specim. Hiſt. Arab. p. 143. to be conſider'd; and of theſe, both Gregarius Abulfarajus and Shareſtanius, cited by our Learned Dr. Pecock, gives us Accounts very different from that of Maimonides before mention'd; and that Judicious and Reverend Author, juſtly eſteems the Credit of Abulfarajus, preferrable to R. Maimon's, for that he was better acquainted with their Writings, and read them in their own Language, which the other did not. And if what Shareſtanius reports be true, Ibid. p. 140. That it was their Principle, that between the Supreme God and Us, there muſt be ſome Mediators; this again will furniſh us with yet another Reaſon, why the Sun may eaſily have been miſtaken for their Supreme Deity, becauſe he was the principal Mediator betwixt God and them, and the Higheſt to which they paid any immediate External Adoration. And tho this Author is as poſitive, as if he had all the Evidence in the World for it, • . 76. That God made an extraordinary Diſcovery of himſelf to Abraham, as Lord of all things, in oppoſition to the Idolatry of his own Country, by which he would imply that the Chaldeans in thoſe days did not ſuppoſe God to be the Lord of all things; yet is it (like the reſt of his Book) all Imagination, without any thing to ſupport it. For indeed we have all the reaſon in the World to believe that the Chaldeans had at this time the knowledg of the one true God. 1. It appears by manifeſt Computation, that Shem, from whom Tera and Abraham were deſcended, was yet living with them, and it is altogether unaccountable, either that himſelf ſhould have loſt the knowledg of the one true Supreme God; or that if he retain'd it, all the reſt of his Family ſhould have been utterly ignorant of it. 2. It is indeed ſaid in Holy Scripture, Joſh. xxiv. v. 2. that they worſhipped ſtrange Gods; but it is not ſaid that they either worſhipped them as the Supreme God, or had utterly loſt all ſenſe and apprehenſion of any ſuch ſpiritual and inviſible Godhead. 3. In all the Hiſtory of God's calling Abraham out of Ʋr of the Chaldees, we do not find any thing to make us believe that God was pleaſed to make the diſcovery of himſelf to him, as Lord of all things, in oppoſition to the Idolatry of his Family. 4. It is hard to ſuppoſe, that when all the barbarous Nations, as we have ſeen, preſerv'd the Notion of the True, Supreme God, only theſe Chaldeans ſhould loſe it; it was but on the other ſide the River, that we find the knowledg of God preſerv'd in the Land of Canaan. And laſtly, we do certainly know, that but two Generations after Laban, tho he did worſhip (as it is ſaid of Tera) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ſtrange Gods too, yet he retain'd with them a very good ſenſe and apprehenſion of the Supreme God, as is plain from Gen. xxxi. where the God of Abraham is found to appear to him, v. 29. And again v. 53. he ratifies his Covenant with his Son Jacoh, ſwearing by the God of Abraham, as well as by the ſtrange God, the God of Nahor.

To conclude; Macrobius, Macrob. Saturnal. than whom none could have taken more pains to ſhew the univerſal Worſhip of the Sun, was yet ſo far from thinking that it excluded all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a Supreme God, that he plainly ſays in the beginning, that he intended to treat only of the Dij qui ſub Coelo ſunt, the lower ſort of Worldly Gods; and in his Commentary upon the Dream of Scipio, he plainly acknowledges a higher Divinity, whom he calls the Prima Cauſa, & Omnipotentiſſimus Deus; The Firſt Cauſe, and moſt Almighty God.

I ſhall cloſe all with a paſſage of Plutarch, which will at once ſhew both that the Heathens had a knowledg of the Supreme God amongſt them, Plutarch de Iſide & Oſiride. and that it was He whom they all every where Adored as ſuch, however differing in their Manners and Ceremonies from one another: No inanimate thing can be a God to men; but they who beſtow upon us a continual ſupply of what is ſufficient for us, have therefore been esteemed Gods by us; which Gods are not different among different Nations, as if the Barbarians and Greeks, the Southern and Northern People had not the ſame God; but as the Sun, and Moon, and Heaven, and Earth, and Sea, are common to all, but are called differently by different men; ſo tho there be but ONE WORD, or REASON, ordering all thoſe things, and but ONE PROVIDENCE diſpenſing all things, and the Inferior Powers which are appointed over all, having had ſeveral Names and Honours from ſeveral Perſons, and by the Laws of ſeveral Countries, have been every where worſhipp'd throughout the whole World.

I paſs on finally to enquire,

3. Whether theſe Ancient Idolaters, P. 97, 100. as is pretended, did ſo Worſhip theſe Heavenly Bodies, as to Worſhip nothing beſides, and in particular ſo as to exclude all Notion of Heroes and Daemons.

This indeed is an Aſſertion worthy our Author, who as he has hitherto advanced nothing but Paradoxes, ſo he reſolves he will not now alter his Character by repreſenting Antiquity truly at the laſt.

I have already ſhewn in oppoſition to this ſuggeſtion, how the Egyptians had their Divi, or Canonized men preſently after the Flood; and that we have ſome reaſon to believe their principal Deities, viz. Apis and Oſyris, to have been ſuch; I will now add, that the firſt Dynasties of Manetho, of Gods and Demi-Gods upon Earth, confirms this, and to which the old Egyptian Chronicon in Syncellus adds yet more force. St. Cyril tells us from Sanchoniathon, that not only the moſt Ancient Greeks, but eſpecially the Phoeniceans and Egyptians, from whom this Superſtition was derived to all others (tho our Author, ever in the wrong, P. 101. Cyrillus Alex. contra Julian, l. 6. p. 205. C.D. will have the Greeks to be the Inventors of it) eſteemed thoſe the greatest Gods, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who had either found out ſome things uſeful for the life of man, or otherwiſe deſerved well of their Country. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And looking upon them as their Benefactors and Cauſes of great good to them, they worſhipped them as Gods, and prepared Temples for that purpoſe, and conſecrated Pillars and other Enſigns of Honour to their Memory. And as the Holy Father from the ſame Author goes on, Theſe they greatly worſhipped, and the Phoenicians eſpecially, dedicated Festivals unto them.

But it was not enough for our Author merely to advance a moſt falſe Concluſion concerning theſe Gentiles, unleſs he alſo chuſe an Evidence for it that ſpeaks the direct contrary to his Aſſertion: For thus it became him to keep up a juſt decorum between his Principles and his Proofs, that ſo we may be ſatisfied, that he values Truth alike in both.

This (ſays he) is atteſted by all Hiſtorians, Page 100. viz. That the old Heathen Nations worſhipped only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons. And the very firſt he inſtances, in is Diodorus Siculus for the Egyptians.

But this is perfectly to aſtoniſh us, and too plainly ſhews that ſome mens aſſurance is without bounds, as well as without reaſon: For what? Does Diodorus Siculus ſay that the Egyptians worſhipp'd only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons? This is worſe than to write History out of an Inviſible Manuſcript; 'tis indeed to write Hiſtory directly contrary to the Viſible Records out of which he pretends to have taken it: For let this Author look into Diodorus Siculus, whom I would willingly hope he has never yet read, Diodorus Siculus Ed. Hanov. G. L. An. 1604. and there he will find him in his Firſt Book, ſo far from what he pretends, that on the contrary, he expreſly diſtinguiſhes between two ſorts of Gods among the Egyptians, and diſcourſes of them in Order: And firſt of the Celeſtial Gods, p. 10. two of which he ſays the Egyptians firſt of all had, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Sun and the Moon: Having diſcourſed of theſe, he thus formally concludes his Account, Page 12. 'And this the Egyptians ſay concerning their Celeſtial Gods, and ſuch as had an Eternal Generation.

And then goes on immediately on the other ſort, Ibid. which this Author pretends Diodorus Siculus denies them to have had ANY NOTION OF: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But beſides theſe (the Sun and Moon, &c.) they ſay there are other Terreſtrial Gods, Mortals indeed by Nature, but for their Wiſdom and Prudence, and the benefits they did to mankind, endued with Immortality; of which kind (ſays he) were ſome of the Kings of Egypt. In the next page he places amongſt theſe, P. 13. our Author's Friends, Iſis and Oſiris, whoſe Hiſtory he relates: And finally, to raiſe his ill choice to the higheſt Evidence, having given a long relation of theſe kind of Deities, P. 101: he concludes as directly againſt our Author's other Aſſertion, That this kind of Idolatry was the Invention of the vain and lying Greeks, as if he had been retain'd on our ſide, Diod. Siculus p. 20, 21. by ſhewing expreſly how they derived this kind of Idolatry from the Egyptians, by the means of Orpheus, who had been initiated in the Egyptian Rites; and then gives us this univerſal Concluſion, p. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That the Egyptians do in general ſay, that the Grecians have appropriated to themſelves the moſt eminent of their Heroes and Gods, as well as of their Colonies.

So much would it have been for our Author's Reputation, if Diodorus Siculus too, had been an Inviſible Manuſcript.

2. The next Author he produces, is Herodotus, who, he ſays, affirms the ſame of the Perſians and Chaldeans, that they worſhipped only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons; but concerning the former part of his Aſſertion, I have already ſhewn, that they did not worſhip only the Stars, but acknowledged a Supreme Deity above them; and for the latter, the very ſame Herodotus who ſays this of the Perſians, in his firſt Book, Page 100, 101. does directly contradict his Concluſion, That this was the ſenſe of all the old Heathen Nations, but eſpecially that the worſhipping of Men and Women, was the Invention of the vain and lying Greeks, in the very next, where he tells us that they derived their Twelve Gods from the Egyptians, Herodotus, l. 2. c. 4. p. 91. who were the firſt Inventors of this Idolatry.

3. The ſame (he ſays) in the next place is affirmed by Strabo and Juſtin, of the Arabians: Had he been pleaſed to produce ſome paſſages from theſe Authors wherein they do ſay, That the Arabians worſhip only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons, we ſhould have had leſs cauſe to ſuſpect his Aſſertion; Strabo l. 16. p. 539. Strabo indeed ſays that the Arabians worſhip the Sun, but that either He or Juſtin have ever affirmed what this Author pretends, I am yet to learn; in the mean time this I am ſure, that other Authors have given us a very contrary account of them. Lucan l. 9. v. 517. Lucan tells us, that their only God was Jupiter Ammon, whom that Learned Critick, Gerard Voſſius does not without reaſon ſuppoſe to have been Cham, whoſe Eldeſt Son Chus, as I have before ſhewn, firſt planted himſelf there. Arrian in his Hiſtory of Alexander's Expedition, Arrian de Exped. Alep. l. 7. p. 486. ſays that they had two Gods, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Heaven, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or Bacchus; and that 'twas this encouraged that great Conqueror to invade them, that he might make himſelf a Third God amongſt them; and this may be well enough conſiſtent with the other Account, if what ſome Learned Men ſuppoſe, be allow'd; that theſe were their own proper Gods, whereas Jupiter Hammon, was rather the Deity of the Ammonites, among whom his Oracle ſtood, and to whom they only ſent Ambaſſadors to conſult upon occaſion, it not appearing that the Arabians had any Temple for him in their own Country: So that here too our Author is miſtaken, for that the Arabians had other Gods than the Stars, Voſſius de 1. dol. l. 1. c. 26. and were not without all Notion of Heroes and Doemons.

4. His Fourth Inſtance is in the Ancient Germans, Caeſ. Com. l. 6. and of them I confeſs Caeſar does ſay what he pretends, but then it is to be obſerv'd, that in the very ſame place, he utterly overthrows all the uſe this Author can be ſuppoſed to make of it, viz. to ſhew, That all the old Heathen Nations worſhipped only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes or Demons; ſeeing in the very ſame place, he ſays of the Ancient Gauls, that they worſhipp'd ſuch kind of Gods as he denies any of the Heathen did, and that with a Superſtition ſo like that of ſome of his Acquaintance, that I cannot forbear taking notice of it: The Gauls, ſays he, are very ſuperſtitious, and therefore if they fall into any dangerous diſtemper, or are concerned in War, or in any other danger, they ſtraightway ſacrifice, &c. For this purpoſe they have their particular Gods; Mercury to proſper them in their Journeys, or help them in their Traffick; Apollo to cure them in their ſickneſs; Minerva to find out any Artificial Works; Mars for War, &c. And this our Author could not but know, ſince in the very Paſſage to which he refers, he oppoſes the Germans to them; the Germans (ſays he) differ much from this cuſtom (viz.) of the Gauls, which he had juſt before recounted; for they eſteem them only for Gods whom they ſee, and by whom they are manifeſtly help'd, the Sun, Vulcan, and the Moon.

But I have yet more to except againſt this inſtance; for however Ceſar came to be ſo miſinformed, the Ancient Germans had other Gods, Hiſt. l. 6. Cap. 64. even ſuch as this Author denies to all the Ancient Idolaters. Tacitus mentions Mars as the chief God of the Tencteri, Cap. 9. a Nation bordering upon the Rhine; and in his Book de Moribus Germanerum, he ſpeaks of Hercules as another of their Deities. That they alſo Worſhipped Mercury, we learn from the ſame Author, whom in their Language they called Gota, or Wota, as Gotefridus Viterbienſis in his Chronicon obſerves, Voſ. de Idol. l. 1. p. 240. from whence alſo he ſuppoſes, that their word Got, ſignifying God, is derived; tho in this, other Learned Men diſſent from him.

And laſtly, De Moribus Germ. c. 2. the ſame Tacitus mentions yet another God more Ancient than all theſe, the firſt Founder of their Country, Tuiſto, whom they worſhipped, with his Son Manus; and theſe, ſome think, were no other than Gomar, and his Son Thogorma or Aſchenar, by whom Germany was peopled after the Flood, tho Voſſius rather ſuppoſes them yet of a greater Antiquity, believing Tuiſto to be Adam, and Manus, to whom alſo Tacitus aſſigns three Sons, Noah, by whom the World was again eſtabliſhed after the Flood.

4. And this may ſuffice for his particular Authorities. His next are univerſal; for he ſays Euſebius in his Book de preparatione Evangelica, Page 100. has ſhewn this to be the ſenſe of all the Old Heathen Nations, as may be ſeen in his Collections of their ſeveral Opinions, where he proves, That the Ancient Heathens only worſhipped the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes or Demons.

Good God! What can be done with ſuch a Man as this? Euſebius has proved that all the Ancient Heathens worſhipped only the Stars, without any Notion of Heroes and Demons, which was a mere Invention of the vain and lying Greeks: And yet has this very Euſebius quoted Diodorus Siculus, Euſeb. praep. Evan. l. 2 c. 1. for his account of the Egvptian Theology. He diſtinguiſhes with him their Gods into Coeleſtial and Terreſtrial: Of the firſt, he Treats in his firſt. Book from that Author; of the ſecond in his next. The very Title of his Chapter is, Lib. 1. c. 7. Lib. 2. c. 1. p. 45. An Epitome of the Egyptian Theology, and how it paſſed from them to the Greeks. In the beginning of it, he ſpeaks how their Gods, who had been mortal Men, were for their Benefits they did to Mankind, and for their Wiſdom, made immortal Deities. Pag. 45, 46, 47, 48. He exemplifies this in a large account of their Mythology; and then concludes expreſly with his Author, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That the Greeks had appropriated to themſelves, the principal Hero's, and Gods of the Egyptians. And yet this is the Author that has ſhewn at large, P. 100. how all theold Heathen Nations worſhipp'd only Stars, without any Notion of Hero's and Daemons.

His other Author is Macrobius, who he ſays, has proved it of all the Ancient Idolaters, that they worſhipped the Sun as the Supreme Deity. He ſhould have added to make good his Concluſion, P. 100. and that ſo as to exclude all Notions of Hero's and Daemons. But this Macrobius never undertook to do: And I have before ſhewn, that in the very Book of his Saturnals, here mention'd, He was ſo far from ſhewing that they worſhipp'd the Sun as the (abſolutely) Supreme Deity, that in the beginning of his Diſcourſe, he expreſly reſtrains it to the Dii duntaxat qui ſub Coelo ſunt, or Sub-Coeleſtial Deities: And in his Comment upon Scipio's Dream, he acknowledges above the Sun and Heaven, many other Gods; viz. 1. An Eternal Pſythe, the Creator both of the Heaven, and the Sun. 2dly, A perfect Mind or Intellect, and (as he calls him) Omnipotentiſſimus Deus, the moſt Omnipotent of all Gods.

5. He has two Authors whom he produces; our own Learned Selden, in his Book De Diis Syris, and Gerard Voſſius, in nothing inferior to him, who have proved all the Idols mention'd in Scripture, to have been ſo many Appellations of the Sun, whom the Ancient Idolaters believed to have been the Supreme God, and Creator of the World, (and therefore of himſelf too, for he is part of it) as Baal, Baal-Peor, Bel, Molech, Baal-Zebub, and Mythras; tho I doubt this laſt was taken from ſome Inviſible Manuſcript of the Bible, for I do not remember that I have ever met with it in any of the Editions that are extant of thoſe ſacred Volumes.

But to let this paſs too; Did Mr. Selden then, and Gerard Voſſius in good Truth, undertake to ſhew, that all the Ancient Idolaters worſhipp'd the Sun as the Supreme God, ſo as to exclude all Notion of Daemons and Hero's?

1ſt, Mr. Selden gives only a Critical Account of the Syrian Deities; and in ſeveral of them ſhews, that others at leaſt have believed them to be ſomewhat elſe than the Sun.

2dly, Gerard Voſſius is ſo far from favouring this Man's pretences, that on the contrary 'tis he, who has ſpent his whole firſt Book of Idolatry, to give an Account of the Ancient Hero's, that were conſecrated by the Gentiles into Gods; 'Tis he that interprets the Egyptians Oſyris to be Mitzraim; the Beel of the Chaldeans to be Nimrod; the Tuiſco of the Germans, Gomer, or perhaps Adam. In ſhort, he ſhews this ſort of Idolatry to have been introduced among the Heathens the very Age after the Flood, even before God called Abraham from Ʋz of the Chaldees.

And thus have I conſider'd this Author's Pretences to Antiquity; and I think I may ſay, there is nothing but Falſeneſs and Viſion, in all his Notions and Authorities. Upon the whole, I ſhall beg leave very briefly, to Conclude as to the Nature of Idolatry.

I. That ſeeing all theſe Ancient Idolaters, did acknowledg one Supreme, Inviſible and Spiritual Godhead, their Idolatry did not conſiſt in worſhipping the Heavenly Bodies, ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Appehenſion of any ſuch thing.

II. That ſeeing they believed the Sun and other Heavenly Bodies, to be the Vehicles only of immaterial and ſpiritual Subſtances, who had the Superintendency over the Affairs of this lower World, and were to be applied to as Mediators between God and Them; their Idolatry did not conſiſt in worſhipping any Viſible or Corporeal Deities, as the Supreme God, ſo as to exclude all Senſe and Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead, Superior to their Deities. By Conſequence,

III. That either this, which our Author here lays down, is not (as he pretends) the true and only Notion of Idolatry; or if it be, none of thoſe Ancient Nations were Idolaters.

IV. Tho I dare not preſume to eſtabliſh true and only Notions in this Caſe; yet from what has been ſaid, I think we may reaſonably Conclude their Idolatry, to have conſiſted eſpecially in theſe two things; Either, 1ſt, That they worſhipp'd the true God by Corporeal and Viſible Symbols; or that 2dly, together with the true God, they worſhipp'd other inferior Deities; whether Intelligences, (which they ſuppoſed to reſide in the Heavenly Bodies) or Daemons. And that by conſequence,

To Worſhip the Supreme God in any Corporeal Repreſentation or Image whatſoever; or to pay Divine Worſhip to any Created Being, whether Spirit or ſeparate Soul; either as having the Power over this inferior World to Adminiſter things in it, or as Mediators between the Supreme God and Ʋs; this is, if not the only, yet at leaſt a true Notion of Idolatry.

CHAP. IV. Of the Notion of Idolatry under the Law; and that it did not Conſiſt in the giving the worſhip of the Supreme God to ſome Created, Corporeal or Viſible Deity as ſuppoſing it to be the Supreme God.

THis was the next point I propoſed to examine, and our Author thus delivers his Opinion of it. That according to the Law, Page 80. Idolatry is giving the worſhip of the Supreme God to any created, corporeal, or viſible deity, or any thing that can be repreſented by an image, which nothing but corporeal Beings can, Pag. 81. and to ſuppoſe ſuch a Being the Supreme Deity.

And though there may ſeem to be two ſorts of it. Firſt, either to worſhip a material and created Being as the Supreme Deity, or Secondly to aſcribe any corporeal Form or Shape to the Divine Nature; yet in the reſult both are but One; for to aſcribe unto the Supreme God any Corporeal Form, is the ſame thing as to worſhip a Created Being, for ſo is every Corporeal Subſtance.

This is, I ſay, the TRƲE and ONELY Notion of Idolatry.

This indeed is Great and Magiſterial, and would almoſt diſpoſe a man to think, that there ſhould certainly be at leaſt ſomething of Truth, where there is ſo very much confidence. But we have had already ſufficient reaſon to ſuſpect him, where he ſeems leaſt to ſuſpect himſelf. Here I cannot but wonder that a perſon of his Character ſhould ſend abroad ſuch Notions into the world for the Dictates of Holy Scripture, as are evidently contrary to the Tenor of it; unleſs he thought our Nobility and Gentry as little acquainted with that Book, as ſome of their Guides are ſaid to have thought it fit they ſhould be.

To make a man an Idolater according to the Idea this Author has given of it, two things are required, which I much queſtion whether they ever yet concurred in any conſiderable number of men in the world, viz.

1. That he give the worſhip of the Supreme God to ſome Created, Corporeal, and Viſible part of the Univerſe. 2dly, That he give this worſhip to it as eſteeming ſuch a Being to be the Supreme God.

I will not be ſo rude as to enquire by what Rules of Diſcourſe he infers all this from the Second Commandment, that becauſe God there forbids the Iſraelites to make any Graven Image, the likeneſs of any thing that is in Heaven above, or in the Earth beneath or in the water under the Earth; to bow down before it and worſhip it; therefore, this Image muſt be the ſimilitude of ſome viſible and Corporeal deity; and that Deity be ſuppoſed to be the Supreme God, and be worſhiped as ſuch. He that can infer this from the Second Commandment, would doe well to tell us how he does it. But not to be importunate here. If this be the true and onely Idolatry, according to the Law, I would deſire to know;

Firſt, Seeing the Law was deliver'd by the Miniſtry of Angels, and theſe were no viſible and Corporeal deities; what if the Jews had paid Divine Adoration to them? would this have been Idolatry according to the Law? If it would, I ſhould be glad to know what part of his definition it is that makes it to be ſo?

Secondly, I have before ſhewn that the ancient Heathens, the Egyptians, Chaldeans, &c. though they worſhiped indeed the Sun, Moon and Stars; yet they neither believed them to be the Supreme God nor the Image of the Supreme God; 〈◊〉 that they were onely viſible, and Corporeal deities: They look'd upon them as the vehicles of Celeſtial Spirits, which dwelt in them; and as ſuch they pay'd their Adoration to them. Now then was this Idolatry by the Law, or was it not? If it were not, how came the Iſraelites to be charged with Idolatry (according to this Author's own principles) for joyning with them in this Service? If it were, how will this agree with his true and onely Notion of Idolatry? Seeing they worſhip'd theſe Heavenly bodies neither as the Supreme God, nor ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a ſpiritual and inviſible deity. But,

Thirdly, To come to the Holy Scripture it ſelf we read 1 Kings 11. that Soloman in his old age turned away his Heart, —Verſ. 4. Collat. cum Joſ. 24.2. Pag. 93. and worſhiped 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 other Gods, viz. Aſhtoreth, and Milcom, and Chemoſh, and Moloch, i. e. according to this Learned Man's Notion, the Sun, and Moon, and I ſuppoſe he will not deny that herein he committed Idolatry. But now can any one believe that Solomon who had been ſo well inſtructed in the knowledge of the Lord God of Iſrael; 1 Kings 3.5.—9.2. he to whom God had twice himſelf appeared; and whom he had endu'd with wiſedom above all the men upon the Earth; finally who had not ſo long ſince built him a magnificent Temple at Jeruſalem; where the Service of the true God was continued, even whilſt he worſhiped the Gods of his Wives. Can any one, I ſay, be ſo ſtupid as to believe that this Solomon gave the worſhip of the Supreme God to the Sun and Moon, as ſuppoſing them to be the Supreme deities, and that he did not onely not worſhip but likewiſe not ſo much as believe the onely ſupreme God? And yet this we muſt ſay, if we will allow this Author to have given us the true and onely notion of Idolatry.

Beſides it is certain that whilſt he was engaged in his Idolatrous worſhip, God did not utterly forſake him, but admoniſhed him of it and threatned him with the loſs of his Kingdom for ſerving ſtrange Gods, which is inducement enough to conclude that he had ſtill an apprehenſion of the True God. If Solomon did immediately upon this admonition give over his Impious worſhip, it ſhewed evidently that he retained the knowledge of that God who had twice appeared to him. For to ſuppoſe that he had quite loſt all ſenſe and apprehenſion of him juſt when he fell to Idolatry, and juſt recovered ſome ſenſe of him upon this admonition, and that all the while between, he believed his viſible and Corporeal deities, or ſome one of them to be the Supreme God, and had no ſenſe of him who is truely ſo, is to make Solomon almoſt ſuch a man as I before ſhewed our Author's Idolater to be according to the meaning of his words: I am ſure it is not to make him one of the wiſeſt men that ever was in the World. But ſuppoſing that Solomon went on for ſome time after this to worſhip his ſtrange Gods, yet he muſt now at leaſt have recovered ſome Senſe of the true God, it being this admonition in all likelyhood, that ſooner or later brought him to Repentance: And then our Author's Principles do from that time that he was admoniſh'd, acquit Solomon of all Idolatry, though he went on to ſerve the Gods of his Wives.

It is a ſhame to run this matter any farther, and I make no doubt but that I have all men of Senſe whether of ours, or of the Roman Church with me in this matter againſt our Author. But that I may not ſeem onely to deſtroy his Idea, without fixing any other in the room of it; I now proceed to obſerve, That we find two ſorts of Idolatry mention'd in the Old Teſtament; and (ſuch is the misfortune of this poſitive man,) both of them utterly deſtructive of his true and onely Notion of it, viz.

I. The worſhiping of the true God, by a material Symbol or Repreſentation. II. The worſhiping of other Gods, than the God of Iſrael, and that whether it be ſo as, 1. Utterly to forſake the true God, and ſerve others onely, Or 2. To worſhip other Gods together with Him. 1ſt. That according to the Holy Scripture, it was eſteemed Idolatry among the Jews, to worſhip the true God by any material Symbol or Repreſentation.

And of this I ſhall deſire no better proof, than thoſe very inſtances which this Author ſo much inſiſts upon, for the eſtabliſhing of his Notion, viz. thoſe of the Golden Calf, and of the Calves of Dan and Bethel. That the Children of Iſrael did commit Idolatry in the worſhip of theſe is on all hands agreed; And yet that both theſe were deſigned as Symbols of the true God, and not of any viſible or Corporeal deities, will I think appear evident, almoſt to a demonſtration, from theſe following reflexions.

1ſt. That it is altogether incredible that the Iſraelites in either of thoſe Caſes, could ſo ſoon have forgotten the true God, as to give divine worſhip to viſible and Corporeal Beings, as ſuppoſing them to be the ſupreme Deity.

If we conſider their Circumſtances when they worſhiped the Golden Calf, Exod. 32. It was but a very few days ſince God had made a very great diſcovery of Himſelf to them at Mount Horeb, when he gave them the Law, and aſſerted Himſelf to be the Jehovah, their God which had brought them up out of the Land of Egypt, Exod. 20.1.

And in the Caſe of Jeroboam's Calves, the knowledge of God in which they had been bred up; a continued publick Service of Him at Jeruſalem; the Feaſts and Sacrifices, and other Ceremonies which they obſerved in Obedience to his Command, the very Seal of his Covenant which they carried about them in their Fleſh, not to ſay any thing of that Temple which Solomon had ſo lately built unto him; all theſe muſt certainly have made too deep an Impreſſion upon their minds, to permit them ſo ſuddainly to fall away into ſuch an utter forgetfulneſs of him, as to worſhip viſible and corporeal deities as the ſupreme God, ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of him who really is the ſupreme God. Such an Ignorance as this is hardly to be found, even among thoſe Infidels that have never had any revelalation of the true God at all made to them: But that Men who had once been inſtructed in the knowledge and worſhip of him, ſhould ſo ſuddenly fall off from both, as they muſt here have done according to this Author's true and onely Notion of their Idolatry, this I think is as incredible, as the notion it ſelf, which he would prove by the ſuppoſition of it. But,

2dly. That the people did not fall into any ſuch Apoſtafie, but deſign'd in thoſe Calves to worſhip the God of Iſrael, is evident from the Characters given of that deity whom they ſerved by them.

For as to the Golden Calf, we read Exod. 32.4. that when it was ſet up they cry'd out, This is thy God O Iſrael, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt, and Aaron built an Altar before it, and made proclamation and ſaid, to Morrow is a Feaſt to the Jehovah or the Lord.

And ſo Jeroboam in the very ſame manner, having ſet up his Calves in Dan and Bethel, 1 Kin. 12.28. It is too much for you (ſaid he to the people) to go to Jeruſalem; Behold thy God O Iſrael, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt. Now may I deſire this Learned Author to tell us. 1. Where in Holy Scripture do's he find the name JEHOVAH, or the LORD attributed to any other but the true God? Or if we ſhould ſuppoſe the people to be Ignorant in this Caſe, yet could Aaron the High-prieſt be ſo forgetfull, as not to remember that this was that peculiar name which God aſſumed to himſelf, Exod. 6.3. and of which our Author himſelf takes notice, p. 80.81. 2. Whom ſhould they then, and Jeroboam mean after by the Jehovah that had brought them up out of the Land of Egypt, but him who at the delivery of the Law, appropriated this Character to himſelf, Ex. 20.1. and who was under that Title worſhiped by the Jews at Jeruſalem where his Temple ſtood, and whither all the Tribes were wont to go up to worſhip him. It is too much for you to go up to Jeruſalem. Behold thy God, O Iſrael, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt.

3. Had Jeroboam hereby deſigned to ſet up a new God amongſt them, how came it to paſs that He uſed no Arguments with them at all as to that matter, but merely remonſtrated to them the trouble of going up to Jeruſalem to worſhip? Never ſure were people eaſier perſuaded out of their religion than the ten Tribes, if our Author thinks, that the diſtance of place made him chuſe rather to return to the Idolatry of Egypt, than to be at ſo much pains to worſhip the true God.

3dly. But all this will farther appear, in that it is altogether incredible that the Egyptian Gods ſhould be the God that delivered the Iſraelites out of the hand of Egypt; and ſent all thoſe Plagues upon their own ſervants. But eſpecially that thick darkneſs under which they lay for three days, ſeems to be a very odd Effect for the Sun to have wrought. But to quit ſuch Suppoſitions; Two things there are by which it undoubtedly appears that the Iſraelites in theſe Caſes, could not have deſign'd any return to the Egyptian Idolatry. For,

1. As to the Golden-Calf, it is ſaid that they offer'd burnt offerings, and brought Peace offerings unto it. And Jeroboam ſacrificed unto the Calves which he had made and Conſecrated Prieſts with a bullock and ſeven rams to their Service.

Now all this was moſt agreeable to what God required in his Service: but ſo utterly repugnant to the Superſtition of the Egyptians that our Author himſelf confeſſes God commanded their beaſts to be offer'd in Sacrifice to him, in contempt of the Sacredneſs in which they were held by thoſe Idolaters. He tells us That to offer a young Ram was the greateſt affront that could be put upon the Egyptians, who held a Ram not onely in religious eſteem, but the moſt ſacred of all their Holy Animals. And particularly upon the account of the ſacredneſs of theſe Animals, the Egyptians (ſays he) NEVER OFFER'D any of their Species in Sacrifice. In ſo much that when Pharaoh bid Moſes go ſacrifice to the Lord in the Land of Egypt, Exod. 8.26. Moſes anſwers that they durſt not doe it, becauſe it would be an Abomination to the Egyptians, ſo that they would ſtone them: that is, it would be a prophaneneſs and open affront to the Religion of the Egyptians if they ſhould offer in Sacrifice thoſe very Animals that the Egyptians had conſecrated to the Honour of their Gods. And for the ſame reaſon the Iſraelites were alſo commanded to Sacrifice young-Bullocks, as well as Rams; for that next to a Ram the Bullock was the moſt Sacred of all the Holy Animals.

Our Author is very large on this Argument; but I think what I have here offer'd, is little leſs than a demonſtration againſt him as to this point; that the Jews in the Worſhip of their Calves did not return to the Idolatry of Egypt, ſeeing they offer'd ſuch Sacrifices before them as by his own confeſſion were an open affront to the Religion of the Egyptians.

2dly. It is evident from Holy Scripture, that the Idolatry of theſe Calves was a diſtinct Idolatry from that of worſhipping the Heavenly Bodies; and according to the Eſtimate which God himſelf put upon it, much leſs heinous. And this we find in both the inſtances before mention'd. For as to the Golden Calf, Stephen ſays Acts 7.41, 42. That they made a Calf in thoſe days, and oſſer'd Sacrifice to the Idol, and rejoyced in the work of their hands; THEN God gave them up to worſhip the Hoſt of Heaven. Now here muſt be a manifeſt difference allow'd between theſe two, ſeeing the one is repreſented as the puniſhment of the other, and what a ridiculous paraphraſe would it make of theſe words, to ſuppoſe that they Adored the Sun in both; viz. That for worſhiping the Sun, under the Symbol of the Golden Calf, God gave them up to worſhip the Sun under the name of Moloch.

As for Jeroboam's Calves, we find this alſo diſtinguiſh'd from that of worſhiping the Heavenly Hoſt. For thus the Idolatry of Ahab was aggravated againſt him; 1 Kings 16.31. That as if it had been a ſmall thing for Him to walk in the Sins of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat; He went and ſerved Baal, and worſhipped Him. Now if the Idolatry of the Golden Calves was the worſhip of the Sun too, (as this Author would have it,) then this paſſage concerning Ahab muſt be expounded in this manner; That as if it had been a ſmall thing for him to worſhip the Sun under the Calves, He even proceeded to ſuch a height of Impiety; as to worſhip the Sun under the name of Baal. But 4thly, and to conclude this Point; That under the Calves they worſhiped the true God, is evident from the whole Courſe of the Hiſtory of the ten Tribes, and of the State of Religion under them. We find God as well revealing himſelf to theſe as to the other two. His Prophets came amongſt them, and though they often inveigh'd againſt their Altars, yet never charged them as deſerters of the God of Iſrael.

Nay, in many Caſes we find thoſe who worſhiped the Golden Calves, yet accepted by God as zealous in his Service. I ſhall inſtead of many, offer onely one Example, that of Jehu. 2 Kings 10.16. who as he was expreſly deſign'd by God to be King over Iſrael, ſo he there bids Jehonadab, come and ſee his Zeal for the LORD. Now the zeal he there meant was in deſtroying of Baal out of Iſrael. This he moſt Effectually did, as may be ſeen at large in that Chapter; and for the doing of it, had the Throne confirm'd by God to his Poſterity for four Generations. I ſhall therefore make bold to conclude, that Jehu was no worſhipper of Baal or the Sun, but of the God of Iſrael, whoſe Service he promoted, and for whom Elijah not long before had appeared in oppoſition to this very Baal, 1 Kings 18.21. How long (ſays he) Halt ye between two opinions, if the Lord be God follow him; 2 Kings 10.29, 31. but if BAAL then follow him. And yet Jehu ſtill worſhip'd the Golden Calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan; He obſerved not to walk in the Law of the LORD God of Iſral with ALL HIS HEART, ſeeing he departed not from the Sin of Jeroboam which made Iſrael to Sin.

I conclude upon the whole, that that cannot be the true and ONELT Notion of Idolatry which this Author pretends, viz. The giving the worſhip of the Supreme God to ſome Created Corporeal or viſible Deity, as ſuppoſing it to be the Supreme deity, ſince (as we have now ſeen) to worſhip even the true God, under the worſhip of ſome Corporeal Symbol or repreſentation, as the Iſraelites did in theſe Calves, is in the account of the Holy Scripture to commit Idolatry. I go on,

2dly. To ſhew: That to worſhip any other God, beſides the God of Iſrael, whether it be ſo as to forſake the true God, or but onely to joyn the worſhip of any other with him; This is alſo according to the ſenſe of Holy Scripture, to commit Idolatry.

Now this will appear from the Examples of this kind of Idolatry, that occur in thoſe Sacred Writings; I ſhall mention onely an Inſtance or two in either kind. And, 1ſt. That to give divine worſhip to any other than to the God of Iſrael, though they do not worſhip that Being as the Supreme deity, but on the Contrary worſhip the true God together with it, is according to the Cenſure of the Holy Scripture Idolatry.

This was the Caſe of Solomon in ſome of the laſt years of his Life, for however, at the perſuaſion of his Wives; he neglected very much the Service of the true God, yet we do not find that he utterly forſook either the Worſhip or the Acknowledgment of him. On the Contrary, the Holy Scripture plainly enough inſinuates, that he ſtill ſerved the God of Iſrael, and his fault was, that he did not ſerve him onely, but worſhiped Moloch, and Chemoſh and Aſhtoreth, and Milcom together with him. For thus ſpeaking of his Idolatry it ſays, 1 Kings 11.4. That his heart was not perfect, with the Lord his God: and again ver. 6. That he went not fully after the Lord as did David his Father, i.e. He did not wholly give up himſelf to ſerve the Lord, and him ONELT as his Father had done.

Another, and a more notable Inſtance of this we meet with in 2 Kings 18. Where the King of Aſſyria having led the ten Tribes into Captivity, and planted ſome of his own Subjects in their Countrey, we read ver. 24. ver. 25. that God ſent Lions amongſt them to deſtroy them, becauſe they neglected to worſhip him. Upon this the King of Aſſyria ordered one of the Prieſts of Bethel to go up and teach them, ver. 27. the manner of the God of the Land; then one of the Prieſts whom they had carried away from Samaria, 28. came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they ſhould fear or ſerve the Lord. Hombeit every man made Gods of his own, and ſo they ſeared the Lord and ſerved their own Gods and their Graven Images.

Such was the State of theſe Samaritans, and their practice will furniſh us with two very uſefull Remarks upon this Occaſion. For 1. Since theſe Samaritans were puniſhed for not worſhiping the God of the Countrey, i.e. of the God whom the Iſraelites were wont to worſhip; it follows that the God of the Iſraelites was not the ſame with the God of the Samaritans: And therefore ſince theſe are ſuppoſed to have worſhipped the Sun, it follows that the Iſraelites did not worſhip the Sun; but ſome other and him the true God.

2dly. That theſe Samaritans at the ſame time that they committed Idolatry in ſerving their own Gods, did alſo both know and fear the true God, and therefore their Idolatry could not conſiſt in giving the worſhip of the Supreme God, to their created and viſible Deities, as ſuppoſing them ſo to be. But their Sin was that they gave divine worſhip to their own falſe Gods, after they had been inſtructed in the worſhip of the true, and joyned both the one and the other in their Religious Service. But, 2dly. As it was therefore thought to be Idolatry, to worſhip any other being together with God, ſo muſt it much more have been eſteemed ſo, to forſake the true God, and worſhip any other Corporeal and viſible Deity.

An Inſtance of this we ſeem to have in Ahab, 1 Kings 16.30. who ſeduced by Jezabel his Wife, did evil in the ſight of the Lord, above all that were before him, and what this was we find in the next verſe, viz. That not content with the Idolatry of Jeroboam, in worſhiping God after an Idolatrous manner, he utterly forſook him and ſerved Baal, and built a Temple and an Altar for him.

Now that Ahab had utterly laid aſide the Service of the true God, 1 Kings 18.4. ſeems evident upon two accounts, 1ſt. Of the Great perſecution that he ſuffered his Wife to make of the Prophets of the LORD, 2 Kings 18.4. When as Obadiah tells Elijah, he hid them in Caves from her fury. 2dly. From the miſerable State of the Kingdom, in that time as we find Elijah reporting it even to God himſelf, 1 Kings 19.14. The Children of Iſrael, ſays he, have forſaken thy Covenant, thrown down thy Altars, and ſlain thy Prophets with the Sword, and I even I onely am left, and they ſeek my Life to take it away.

Indeed it is not to be doubted, but that the Idolatry of this time was very deplorable. But now whereindid it conſiſt? Did Ahab worſhip Baal or the Sun as a Corporeal Deity, ſo as to exclude all Senſe and apprehenſion of a Superiour, Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead? This is not credible, ſeeing throughout his whole Reign we find him correſponding upon all occaſions with the Prophets of the LORD, and therefore ſure he could not be without ſome Senſe and apprehenſion of him.

And what I have now ſhewn in the Example of Ahab I will yet farther confirm in another, that will perhaps be liable to leſs exception, and that is the inſtance of Manaſſe King of Judah. This King not content to forſake the God of his Fathers ſet up his Idolatry in the very Temple of the Lord; but yet neither had he loſt all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a ſpiritual and Inviſible Godhead. He had been bred up by his Father in the knowledge of the true God, 2 Chr. 33.10. the Prophets of the LORD ſtill continued to put him in mind of his danger, and no ſooner did he feel the puniſhment of his Rebellion, but he returned to his God, ver. 12. When he was in affliction he beſought the Lord his God, and humbled himſelf greatly before the God of his Fathers.

And thus have I taken a ſhort View of the ſeveral ſorts of Idolatry which occur in the Old Teſtament, and from thence it appears, that this ſin is conſiſtent not onely with the acknowledgment but even with the worſhip of the true Supreme Deity, and therefore that it is a very falſe account, which this Author has here given us of it, viz. That Idolatry is neither more nor leſs than the Worſhip of the heavenly bodies, Pag. 74. the Sun, Moon and Stars or any other viſible and Corporeal Deity as the SƲPREME God; Pag. 80, 81. or as he elſewhere defines it, that Idolatry is the giving the worſhip of the Supreme God to any Created, Corporeal or Viſible Deity, and to ſuppoſe ſuch a Being the Supreme Deity is the ONELY, TRƲE and PROPER IDOLATRY.

But before I quit this point it may not be amiſs to obſerve yet one inſtance more of Idolatry, (I am ſure generally ſuppoſed at leaſt to be ſo) and which I cannot tell whether it may properly be reduced to any of the foregoing kinds, and it is that of the Brazen-Serpent to which the Children of Iſrael burnt Incenſe in Hezekiah's time, as we may ſee 2 Kings 18.4. This pious King obſerving their ſuperſtition cauſed it to be broke into pieces, and we find this recorded among the Reſt of his Enterprizes, for Rooting Idolatry out of his Country. He Removed the High places and brake the Images, and cut down the Groves, and brake in pieces the Brazen-Serpent, that Moſes had made: for unto thoſe days the Children of Iſrael did burn Incenſe to it, and he called it Nehuſhtan.

I do not believe that even this Author himſelf will have the confidence to ſay that this was an Image of either the Sun, Moon or Stars, or of any other Viſible and Corporeal Deity, or that the people Worſhiped it as ſuppoſing it to be the Supreme God, ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a ſpiritual and Inviſible Godhead, and yet the learned men on both ſides confeſs, that here was Idolatry committed, though it may be the people were far from thinking that they did ſo, and then it will remain that to give any appropriate Acts of divine Worſhip to any Creature, whatever ſenſe men have of the thing to which they give them, or their Intenſion be in ſo doing, is nevertheleſs eſteemed by God to be Idolatry.

CHAP. V. The objections againſt the Notion of Idolatry laid down in the foregoing Chapter conſider'd, and refuted.

SInce I firſt began the examination of this Book, I have been under ſome temptations to doubt whether the Author of it really deſigned to ſerve the intereſt of thoſe of the Church of Rome in the writing of it, or by a ſeeming defence of their Idolatry, intended onely to ſhew how little he could ſay in their behalf, and to give us an occaſion by Anſwering his Arguments to convince the World upon what juſt Grounds we advance that Charge againſt them.

It does indeed a little ſtartle me when I conſider how baſe a thing it is, and unbecoming the Character of a Chriſtian, to put on onely an appearance of Zeal in behalf of a Party, to whom it muſt be confeſs'd he has been highly Obliged, and whom therefore if he could not ſerve, yet at leaſt he ought not to have betray'd. But then it ſeems to be ſomething worſe, I do not now ſay for a Chriſtian, but for a Biſhop that has not yet quitted either the Revenues or the Communion of the Church of England, nor retracted the ſubſcription he once made of this very charge of Idolatry againſt thoſe for whom he would now be thought to plead; to revile that Church which nouriſhes him, and whoſe Opinions we muſt ſuppoſe him to hold, till we ſee him as formally renounce them, as ever he once ſubſcribed to them. And if on the one hand he ſeems to ſhew a great deal of bitterneſs againſt us in his Expreſſions, yet on the other, it muſt be confeſſed his Arguments are ſo extremely civil as not to carry ſo much as the appearance of Reaſon in them. And few of the Romaniſts have ever undertaken this cauſe, that have not ſaid a great deal more in their own defence, than this Amphibious Advocate has offer'd for them.

But whether this Author deſigned to expoſe them or us or himſelf onely, as I am not much concern'd to know, ſo neither will I undertake to determine. This is plain, that had he meant to ridicule the Church of Rome never ſo much, he could not have taken a more effectual way of doing it. And whether our Nobility do, or can, Pag. 9. or ought to underſtand Tranſubſtantiation or no, yet I am ſure men of much meaner capacities than thoſe Honourable Perſonages for the moſt part are, will be able to diſcern the truth of this remark. And that he muſt indeed have thought them not onely uncapable of judging of Abſtruſe propoſitions, Ibid. but even deſtitute of Common ſenſe and reaſon, if he hoped to impoſe ſuch diſcourſe as this upon them for Arguing.

Now to make this appear, I ſhall need onely deſire the Reader to obſerve with me theſe two things:

I. That the poſition he undertakes to defend is, that the notion of Idolatry in holy Scripture is neither MORE nor LESS than this. Pag. 74. The worſhip of the Heavenly bodies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, or any other viſible and Corporeal Deity, as the Supreme God, ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a ſpiritual and inviſible Godhead.

II. That to prove this, it is not ſufficient to ſhew, that this is Idolatry, or that the Jews did ſometimes fall into it: But it muſt be ſhewn that they never committed any other Idolatry; and particularly that this was the Idolatry of the Golden-Calf, and of the Calves of Dan, and Bethel. For though the worſhip of the Heavenly Bodies, (as the Author repreſents it) were one ſort of Idolatry, yet if the Scripture has charged the Jews with this Guilt for any other worſhip, wherein they did not adore the Sun, Moon and Stars, or any other viſible and Corporeal Deity as the Supreme God, it will then follow that this, which is alledged, Pag. 80, 81. cannot be the ONELY Notion of Idolatry, Page 74. and it muſt be falſe to aſſert, that Idolatry according to the word of God is neither MORE nor LESS than this.

Now from theſe two remarks onely, it will preſently appear what ſlender pretences ſome men will take up with to run out into the moſt exceſſive clamours againſt thoſe whom they oppoſe. For, 1ſt. As to what he ſo largely inſiſts upon, as if there were ſomething very important at the bottom of it, viz. Pag. 83. That the Jews were a people prone to Idolatry, and that the deſign of God throughout the whole Law, was to preſerve them from it, though it be a great truth, yet it is certainly in this place a great impertinence. Seeing neither do we deny this, nor can he make any uſe of it, in eſtabliſhing his true and onely notion of Idolatry. For I hope he did not intend to argue thus, The Jews were very prone to Idolatry, and God intended his Law to reſtrain them from it; Therefore Idolatry is neither more nor leſs, than the worſhip of the Heavenly bodies, the Sun, Moon and Stars, as the Supreme Deity.

2dly. It will from hence appear, that all thoſe paſſages of Holy Scripture, where God charges the Jews with worſhiping other Gods, with ſerving the Hoaſt of Heaven, &c. conclude nothing, ſeeing it is confeſſed that they did fall into this Idolatry too; but that does not hinder but that they may have fallen into ſome other beſides; and we are aſſured that ſo they did; nay, that they were ſuffered by God to fall into this, as a puniſhment for having committed the other, ſo St. Stephen expreſly tells us, Acts 7.41, 42. They made a Calf in thoſe days, and offered Sacrifice to the Idol, and rejoyced in the work of their hands. THEN God gave them up to worſhip the Hoaſt of Heaven.

Nor is it any more to the purpoſe, 3dly, Pag. 99. to prove that the Scripture ſays, that to worſhip the Sun and Moon is Idolatry; unleſs he could find out ſome Text where it adds, that they who worſhiped the Sun and Moon, worſhiped them as viſible and Corporeal Deities with the Honor due to the Supreme God; and ſo as to exclude all ſenſe and apprehenſion of a ſpiritual and inviſible Godhead, and that this is the true and onely Idolatry. But now this which was the onely point in queſtion, he has prudently forgot, and whilſt he lives will never be able to prove it.

In ſhort if there be any thing more than noiſe and ſhew in what he has ſaid, it muſt be in his Account of the two points before conſider'd. viz. The Golden-Calf and the Calves of Dan and of Bethel: For as for the Brazen-Serpent and the honor paid to that, he is as ſilent as if there had been no ſuch thing in his Bible.

For the former of theſe, the Golden-Calf, he expatiates very much, but ſure never were Words put together with leſs pertinence than here. The thing to be proved is, Pag. 84. 85, &c. that the Jews intended by this Calf to worſhip the Egyptian Apis or Serapis or Oſyris, that is, the Sun as the Supreme Deity.

But how does he go about to prove this. Firſt, He learnedly ſhews that the Apis whom the Egyptians worſhiped was not the King of the Argives, nor Son to Jupiter. And this I think may be foreign enough to what we are ſeeking, which is the deſign of the Jews in ſetting up the Golden-Calf. Secondly. He aſſures us 'tis much more propable that the Greeks borrowed the very word Apis from the Egyptians. Pag. 87. And thereupon he takes occaſion to make a Learned reflexion upon our Tranſlation of Jer. 46.15. which it may be was one of the paſſages for which he has been wont to cenſure our verſion with as little Modeſty as Ʋnderſtanding. For to ſay no more of it than this, if we have rendred this Verſe amiſs we have erred not onely with all the Learned Verſions the Syriack, the Chaldee Paraphraſe, and even the Vulgar Latin it ſelf, but with the Original Hebrew too; and in all which there is this onely Difference, that what they call Valiant in one Number, we render Valiant Men in the other. And all this is ſtill as impertinent to the Point in hand, as any thing can well be imagined to be.

And yet from this, Thirdly, He boldly infers, That the Calf muſt have been the Symbol of ſome Egyptian Idol, Ibid. and that the people thinking themſelves betray'd or deſerted by Moſes after fourty days abſence forced Aaron to reſtore to them the Symbols of their old Gods to go before them, inſtead of this new God that ſeemed to have deſerted them. And this indeed is pertinent, but it has another terrible defect, viz. that it wants proof. In ſhort the onely reaſon he has to offer for what he ſays, is this; That all their other worſhip ſeems to have been forced and conſtrained, but this is free and voluntary: And that there could be no other Ground of that great joy they ſhew'd on this occaſion, but that they were reſtored to the Exerciſe of their former Religion. And to this I have many things to reply.

Firſt, That this is at beſt but a plauſible preſumption, and ſuch as if compared with the reaſons I have alledged to the contrary, will not be thought to deſerve the name of an Argument. For,

Secondly, Whereas this Author (always poſitive, Pag. 88. if that might paſs for proof) ſays, that there could be no other ground of this joy than that they were reſtored to the worſhip of their old Gods; I would fain know how he comes to be aſſured of this? I am confident were it fit to eſtabliſh a Principle of this moment upon the ſandy Foundation of our own Conjectures, one might be able to find out other reaſons for it. For why might they not have had juſt cauſe of rejoycing to behold a Symbol of their own God ſet up amongſt them, as well as if it had been a figure of an Egyptian Idol? what if deſpairing of Moſes's return to them, as they deſign'd this Symbol to ſupply his place, to direct them in their journey, and to be an Oracle at which they might continually enquire God's pleaſure, ſo they teſtified ſome tranſports of joy upon the erecting of it? Nay but,

Thirdly, What if we ſhould ſay that we cannot diſcern any ſuch extraordinary joy, more than what the Solemnity of a Feaſt Dedicated to the JEHOVAH for the ſetting up of a viſible Symbol of his preſence amongſt them might very well warrant? The caſe in ſhort was this; Moſes delay'd to come down from the Mount, the people were impatient to continue on their Journey towards the Promiſed Land; but how to learn God's pleaſure they knew not, and for this purpoſe they cryed unto Aaron, that he would make them a God to go before them; ſuch as very probably they had ſeen in Egypt, and which might ſerve inſtead of an Oracle unto them. This Aaron makes, and for the Dedication of it appoints a Feaſt unto the Lord, and offers ſuch Sacrifices as God indeed required, but which this Author himſelf confeſſes were an Abomination to the Egyptians: And upon the occaſion of this Feaſt it was that it is ſaid, They rejoyced in the works of their hands. Acts 7.41. And again, The people ſate down to eat and drink and roſe up to play, 1 Cor. 10.7. And what this joy was we find particularly expreſſed, Exod. 32:19. They were ſinging, and dancing before the Calf. Now all this was very natural on ſuch an occaſion; and what ever ſin they committed in it, yet I cannot ſee any neceſſity there is to conclude that there could be no other ground for ſuch a joy than their returning to the Idols of Egypt. And the Arguments I have before given clearly ſhew that whatever its was, it could not be that, ſeeing that the whole Solemnity was conſecrated to the JEHOVAH, and performed in a manner utterly inconſiſtent with the Egyptian Idolatry.

As for the Calves of Dan and Bethel, our Author has (if poſſible) yet leſs to ſay againſt their being the Symbols of the God of Iſrael, Pag. 93. than he had in the former Caſe. He produces onely the Learned Viſorius to prove that Monceius was miſtaken in imagining that Jeroboam ſet up theſe Calves in imitation of Solomon's Cherubim. But now this is not our queſtion, whether the Calves were made in imitation of the Cherubim, but whether the God of Iſrael, or the Gods of Egypt were worſhiped by the Ten Tribes at Dan and Bethel? And yet without ſaying one pertinent word, he concludes, with as good Aſſurance as if he had made a demonſtration of it; So that it is plain that theſe Calves were ſet up by him as Idols, or Symbols of a new or ſeparate Religion from the Tribe of Judah.

One thing indeed there is that may ſeem to deſerve an Anſwer, and that is, why the people for three whole years did not comply with him, if he kept up the old Religion that had been eſtabliſhed under David and Solomon? But now this is a groſs Miſtake in a perſon that would be thought ſo Learned in the Scriptures. The people did comply very readily with Jeroboam, and were far from refuſing for any ſuch time as is pretended. And that paſſage to which this Author muſt, I ſuppoſe, refer 2 Chron. 11.17. is ſpoken not of the Iſraelites, but of the Kingdom of Judah; namely, that for three-years they walked in the way of David and Solomon.

And now let any reaſonable man conſider what a pitifull Vindication is this, to ſupport ſo much Clamour and confidence? And how muſt all men of ſenſe, even in the Roman Communion deſpiſe ſuch trifling after what they have ſeen their own Dr. Godden perform upon this very ſubject? The truth is we ought to give that Learned Man his due. He has ſaid what was to be ſaid to excuſe his Church from Idolatry; and his performance ſhews that he wanted nothing but a better Cauſe to have acquitted himſelf to every one's ſatisfaction. But he had a hard Miſtreſs to ſerve, and he was not unſenſible of it. But for this new Advocate his Arguments are as much ſhort of the Doctor's, as his aſſurance is greater. There the D. of Paul's found ſomething worthy his conſideration, but here is nothing but a great noiſe, and a great deal of Anger and Scorn, without any juſt occaſion, though in ſuch a Caſe the Cauſe ought to be very plain. In ſhort, I cannot imagine any other effect this Diſcourſe can poſſibly have than to raiſe the Credit of Dr. Godden's; and after whom it is indeed a bold undertaking for another to engage: for could this Point have been defended, he was the Perſon that of any other ſeems to have been the moſt likely to have done it. But he too has fail'd, and becauſe his performance was good, conſidering the matter of it, the worth of the man argues the badneſs of the Cauſe, and the impoſſibility of defending it.

CHAP. VI. That the Account which has been given of the Notion of Idolatry under the Law, is equally applicable to the Caſe of the Chriſtians now. The Objection from the Cherubims anſwered: and the whole concluded.

I Am now come to the laſt point to be conſidered, and it is indeed ſo neceſſarily conſequent upon the foregoing, that if what I have before ſaid concerning the Notion of Idolatry under the Old-Teſtament be allowed, this cannot be denied: viz. That as the Jews retaining both the Apprehenſion and worſhip of the truely Supreme God, were nevertheleſs guilty of Idolatry, for worſhiping him after a Gentile manner, ſo may Chriſtians be now, and therefore that the Church of Rome may juſtly be charged by us as Idolatrous, though we do not pretend in any wiſe to ſay either that ſhe worſhips the Sun, Moon, and Stars, or any other viſible and Corporeal Deity as the Supreme God, or that ſhe has loſt all Apprehenſion of a Spiritual and inviſible Godhead.

I ſhall not much enlarge my ſelf upon the proof of a Conſequence, both in it ſelf very plain, and which this Author is ſo far from denying, that his whole Book is built upon the Suppoſal that he makes of the truth of it; It is indeed the onely thing wherein he ſeems to have any reaſon, nor can any thing be more juſt than for the underſtanding what Idolatry is to ſearch the Holy Scriptures, and ſee what is there declared to be ſo.

As for the New-Teſtament, we find the Apoſtles earneſt indeed in their Cautions againſt Idolatry, but we do not ſee that they any where defined the Nature of it; They ſpake as to men who underſtood theſe things, and were acquainted with the Notion of Idolatry, and needed onely to be warn'd againſt falling into it. They give not the leaſt intimation that it was not the ſame then, it had ever been eſteemed before, or that Chriſtians were to think any otherwiſe of it, than the Jews had been wont to do under their Law. All we can conclude from their Exhortations to the Chriſtians to avoid it is, that Chriſtians were capable of falling into it, and by conſequence that Men who have not loſt all Senſe and Apprehenſions of a Supreme, Spiritual and Inviſible Godhead may for all that become Idolaters.

So that to know what the Scripture Notion of Idolatry is, we muſt with this Author ſearch into the Hiſtory of the Old Teſtament, and from thence I have ſhewn two Caſes wherein Men may without excluding either the Senſe or Worſhip of the true God, yet juſtly be charged with this Crime. I. By worſhiping the true God, by any Corporeal Image or repreſentation. II. By giving divine Worſhip to any other beſides God, though they do not onely retain the Notion, but even the Adoration too of the true God together with it.

It were an eaſie matter to enlarge upon both theſe points here in the Application of them, but my deſign now is not to accuſe any particular Church of this Guilt, but onely to ſhew in General what Idolatry it ſelf is, and that the Church of Rome though it both knows and worſhips the true God yet may do it in ſuch amanner, and give ſuch worſhip to other beings, as juſtly to deſerve the cenſure which has been brought againſt her, for any thing this Author has ſaid to clear her of it.

Indeed as to the former of theſe ways whereby I pretend a Man may be guilty of Idolatry, viz. By worſhiping God by any Corporeal Image or Repreſentation, he has offer'd ſomewhat in prejudice of it. pag. 125. 127. For did not God himſelf command two Cherubims to be made, and uſed in his worſhip? and were not theſe Sacred Images ſet up in the place of worſhip, and does not this ſhew that God was ſo far from forbidding the uſe of Images in his Service, that he would not be worſhiped without them?

But, to this I anſwer that God did indeed command two Cherubims to be made and placed at the two ends of the Mercy Seat; But that they were put there for any uſe to be made of them in his Service, or for any other purpoſe than to over-ſhadow the Mercy Seat, from whence God had promiſed to deliver his Oracles unto them, this we utterly deny.

Hence we find that when God had directed Moſes how to make this Throne of his glory, Exod. 25.22. he commanded him, To put the Mercy Seat above upon the Ark of the Teſtimony, and there (ſays he) I will meet thee, and I will commune with thee from above the Mercy Seat from between the two Cherubims which are upon the Ark, and in the VIIth. of Numbers ver. 89. It is ſaid, That when Moſes went into the Tabernacle of the Congregation to ſpeak with God, he heard the Voice of one ſpeaking to him, from off the Mercy Seat, from between the two Cherubims. Now here we may plainly ſee what the Object of Divine Worſhip was, not the Cherubim but the Inviſible Majeſty which ſpake from between them, and communed with Moſes. The Mercy Seat it ſelf was but the place where God had promiſed to meet them; The Cherubim were the Ornament, and covering of that, But neither the one nor the other of theſe were the Object of Divine Worſhip, or Figures or Similitudes of that God who alone was adored there.

And this the Learned Men of the Church of Rome confeſs no leſs than we, Aquinas 12. Q. 102. Art. 4. ad 6. Aquinas having objected againſt the Second Commandment, That the Cherubim were put in the Tabernacle and in the Temple: Anſwers that they were neither put there as repreſentations of God, nor for any Worſhip to be paid to them. And explaining the Ark and all that belong'd to it as a Myſtery, he ſays, That the Holy of Holies repreſented Heaven; The Ark was the Foot ſtool of the Divine Majeſty; But that becauſe God was Incomprehenſible to any Creature, propter hoc nulla Similitudo ejus ponebatur, therefore was there no Similitude of him placed there the better to denote his Inviſibility. As for the Cherubim he ſays they repreſented the multitude of Angels attending upon his Throne; and there was therefore more than One, that all worſhip might be excluded from them, to whom it had been commanded that they ſhould worſhip onely one GOD. So far was Aquinas from thinking — that theſe Images were any Repreſentations of God, or that any worſhip was to be paid to them, and the ſame has been confeſſed by others of no leſs note of that Church, Vaſquez Lorinus, Azorius and even by his own Viſorius, whom he has before alledged, but is not pleaſed to take notice of on this occaſion.

But here our Author ſuppoſes he has ſomething to boaſt of. For if we may believe him our own great Defender of this charge has given up the Cauſe as to this matter, and confeſſed that it was lawfull to worſhip TOWARDS an Image, pag. 130. but not to give worſhip to one. This is I fear a wilfull perverting of that Learned man's words. The Queſtion was about the Jews Adoration towards the Ark, and the holy of Holies. His Anſwer is this; That they onely directed their worſhip towards the place, where God had promiſed to be ſignally preſent among them, which (ſays he) ſignifies no more to the worſhip of Images, than lifting up our Eyes to Heaven doth when we pray, becauſe God is more eſpecially preſent there. What is there in all this to allow it to be lawfull to give worſhip TOWARDS an Image, but not to it? Nay he plainly deni'd that there were any Images for worſhip there, or any worſhip directed towards them. But there was a Symbol of God's immediate preſence as on his Throne between the Cherubim, and this appointed by God himſelf, and thither the people directed their worſhip, and I deſire this Author, if he can, to tell me what there was more in this, than there is in directing our worſhip towards Heaven when we pray. And whether according to his true and onely Notion of Idolatry, he may not as well ſay that we worſhip Apis or Baal or Moloch, i. e. The Sun, Moon, and Stars, in this, as that the Jews worſhip'd the Cherubim by that?

Nor is there any more Sincerity in what he calls his Second reply, and in which he repreſents him as allowing that the Cherubim might be Adored once a year by the high Prieſt, but not expoſed to the people to worſhip. For in that very place he denies the Cherubim to have been any repreſentations of God, But ſays that his Throne was between them on the Mercy Seat; and adds in plain words, That they were never intended for objects of worſhip. And yet this Author inſults and triumphs upon this, in a very glorious manner, as if the Cauſe had been gained by it. Had that Learned Man ſaid that the high Prieſt adored the Cherubims once a year, then indeed there might have been ſome Colour forthoſe ſweet Expreſſions of ſhameleſs ſhifts and pretences. But this he utterly deny'd; and he might as well have made him confeſs it to be lawfull to worſhip Images, though he diſputed againſt it, and have brought him in allowing that 'twas no Idolatry ſo to do, as to repreſent him confeſſing that the high Prieſt adored the Cherubim once every year. But what defence can there be againſt ſuch Adverſaries, as will make men confeſs what they reject, and affirm what they deny; and yet when they have done, dare to appeal both to God and the World for their Sincerity?

And now from what has been ſaid, I will venture to conclude in behalf of our Church, and of thoſe Learned men of our Communion, who have been concern'd in this Controverſie, that the Notion of Idolatry which both the one Teaches, and the others have Defended, is after all this Author's Clamours againſt it neither new nor unlearned, nor Fanatical, nor Anticatholick, nor Antichriſtian, nor any of thoſe ill things he pretends; but the truly Ancient, Learned, and Catholick Notion of it. The Notion which God in his Holy Word has Eſtabliſhed; Which the Jews received; The Apoſtles taught, and the Chriſtian Church till theſe latter days, that mens intereſt prompted them to ſeek out to themſelves new Inventions, conſtantly maintained. It was by this Notion that St. Paul cenſured the Worſhip of the Golden Calf as Idolatrous, and condemned the Gentile World of the ſame crime, Rom. 1.21, 23. That though they knew God, yet they did not Glorify him as God, but changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into an Image made like unto Corruptible Man, and to Birds, and fourfooted Beaſts and creeping things.

This was the Notion that made our fore-runners in the Faith, chuſe rather to ſuffer Martyrdom than to give Religious worſhip to any Creature whatſoever. And whatever this Author thinks of thoſe Primitive Saints, I am conſident he will find but very few beſides, that will believe they Sacrificed their Lives to their Folly and Paſſion, and died onely to defend a miſtaken Notion of Idolatry.

It was this Notion upon which the Ancient Fathers condemned the Arians of Idolatry; They did not believe Chriſt, to be either the Sun or Moon, or any other viſible or Corporeal Deity, or the Image, of the Supreme and inviſible Godhead. They believed him to be the moſt Divine and excellent Being after God, onely they denied that he was Coëternal and Coëqual with the Father; and yet thoſe Holy, Orthodox Fathers cenſur'd them as Idolaters, becauſe ſuppoſing him to be a Creature they worſhiped him as a God.

And upon the very ſame Notion it is that the Reformed Churches have ever looked upon the worſhip of Images and Saints in the Church of Rome, as deſerving the very ſame cenſure; And I cannot but wonder that this Author ſhould charge the Invention of this Notion upon a perſon now living, which he muſt needs have known both our Church and the Writers of it have conſtantly aſſerted, before any of this Generation ever ſaw the light.

I ſhould now add ſomewhat in Anſwer to thoſe bitter reflexions he has made upon the ſame Reverend Perſon, whom he ſeems to have reſolved at any rate to run down: But though the Charge be ſevere, yet is it ſo inartificially laid, as plainly ſhews there was no Achitophel in the Contrivance; And I will onely ſay that whoſo ſhall conſider the little Credit he had in thoſe days, to which this Author refers, with them whom himſelf looks upon as the Contrivers and Managers of that Plot which he would be thought to lay to his Charge, will ſoon diſcover a great deal of ill will utterly ruined, for want of a little skill in the management of it.

But we ought not to wonder, if he who in the beginning of his Diſcourſe flew out into ſuch violence againſt all the Abettors of this Charge as a company of Fanatick, Anti-monarchal Villains has in the Cloſe thought fit to fix ſome particular marks of his Diſpleaſuere, upon the laſt and moſt Learned Aſſertor of it. This was the leaſt he could do to make amends for the misfortune of a approving and Licenſing that very Book which was written in Defence of this Charge. And it is well for us all that there are ſome men in the World, who as Ʋlpian tells us can do no injury, Sive pulſent five concivium dicant.

How far this Author may be reckoned in the number of theſe I ſhall leave the final reſult of his Judgement in this caſe to ſatisfie the world, viz. That Idolatry made the Plot, and the Plot made Idolatry, and the ſame perſons made both. For whether this can be the reſult of any man's Judgment that is well in his Head, I ſhall leave it to thoſe who have no Diſtempers there to determine.

But he has delivered himſelf, as he will anſwer for his Integrity to God and the World. To this Judgment I now leave him: And though I fear it be too late to provide againſt the ſentence of the Laſt, yet I heartily pray he may conſider what he has done, and how he will ſtand in Judgment before the other.

FINIS.

Books lately Printed for Will. Rogers.

THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, truly Repreſented; in Anſwer to a Book intituled, A Papiſt Miſrepreſented, and Repreſented, &c. Quarto.

An Anſwer to a Diſcourſe intituled, Papiſts proteſting againſt Proteſtant Popery; being a Vindication of Papiſts not Miſrepreſented by Proteſtants: And containing a particular Examination of Monſieur de Meaux, late Biſhop of Condom, his Expoſition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in the Articles of Invocation of Saints, Worſhip of Images occaſioned by that Diſcourſe. Quarto.

An Anſwer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences, between the Repreſenter and Anſwerer. Quarto.

A View of the whole Controverſie, between the Repreſenter and the Anſwerer; with an Anſwer to the Repreſenter's laſt Reply; in which are laid open ſome of the Methods, by which Proteſtants are Miſrepreſented by Papiſts. Quarto.

The Doctrine of the Trinity and Tranſubſtantiation, compared as to Scripture, Reaſon and Tradition; in a new Dialogue between a Proteſtant and a Papiſt, the firſt Part: wherein an Anſwer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Tranſubſtantiation, in the Books called, Conſenſus Veterum, and Nubes Teſtium, &c. Quarto.

The Doctrine of the Trinity, and Tranſubſtantiation, compared as to Scripture, Reaſon and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Proteſtant and a Papiſt, the Second Part: Wherein the Doctrine of the Trinity is ſhewed to be agreeable, to Scripture and Reaſon, and Tranſubſtantiation repugnant to both. Quarto.

An Anſwer to the Eighth Chapter of the Repreſenter's Second Part, in the firſt Dialogue, between him and his Lay-Friend.

Of the Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith. By a Perſon of Quality: With an Anſwer to the Eight Theſes, laid down for the Tryal of the Engliſh Reformation; in a Book that came lately from Oxford.

Sermons and Diſcourſes, ſome of which never before Printed: The third Volume. By the Reverend Dr. Tillotſon, Dean of Canterbury. Octavo.

A Manual for a Chriſtian Souldier, Written by Eraſmus, and Tranſlated into Engliſh. Twelves.

A new and eaſie Method to learn to Sing by Book, whereby one (who hath a good Voice and Ear) may without other help, learn to Sing true by Notes. Deſign'd chiefly for, and applied to the promoting of Pſalmody; and furniſhed with Variety of Pſalm-Tunes in Parts, with Directions for that kind of Singing.

A Perſwaſive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. By John Tillotſon, Dean of Canterbury, in Octavo, Price Three Pence.

A Diſcourſe againſt Tranſubſtantiation. In Octavo. Price Three Pence.

The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began, as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book. Quarto.

A Letter to a Friend, Reflecting on ſome Paſſages in a Letter to the D. of P. in Anſwer to the Arguing Part of his firſt Letter to Mr. G.

The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friend, againſt the Furious Aſſaults of Mr. I. S. in his ſecond Catholick Letter. In four Dialogues. Quarto.

A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy, D. D. and late Miniſter of St. Lawrance-Jury, Lond. Jan. 7th. 1685/6. By W. Sherlock. D. D. Maſter of the Temple.

A Vindication of ſome Proteſtant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick-Communion, from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome. In Anſwer to a late Pamphlet, Intituled, An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, evinced from the Concertation of ſome of her Sons with their Brethren the Diſſenters. By William Sherlock, D. D. Maſter of the Temple.

A Preſervative againſt Popery: being ſome Plain Directions to unlearned Proteſtants, how to Diſpute with Romiſh Prieſts. The firſt Part by William Sherlock, D. D. Maſter of the Temple.