Chapter 12. That God Is Separately Discerned from Idols, That He May Be Only and Wholly Worshipped

We said in the beginning that the knowledge of God stands not in bare speculation, but draws with it the worshiping of him, and by the way we touched how he is rightly worshiped, which point shall be in other places more largely to be set forth. Now I do but shortly repeat, that so often as the Scripture affirms that there is but one God, it strives not for the bare name of God, but together commands this, that whatever belongs to the godhead be not given to any other. Whereby also appears what pure religion does differ from superstition. Eusebeia, in Greek signifies as much as true worship, because always even the blind themselves groping in darkness have found that this rule ought to be held, that God be not disorderly worshiped. The name of religion although Cicero truly and well derives from relegere, to record, or gather up together: yet is the reason that he assigns forced and far-fetched, that good worshipers did often record and diligently weigh what was the truth. I rather think that that name is set as a contrary to wandering liberty, because the greater part of the world unadvisedly takes hold of that which they first meet withal, and flies about here and there: but true godliness, to the end it may stand in steadfast state, Religit, that is to say does gather up itself together within her bounds. Likewise I think superstition to have her name from this, that not being contented with the manner and order prescribed she heaps up together a superfluous number of vain things. But to leave the words, it has always been agreed by consent of all ages, that religion is with false errors corrupted and perverted. Whereupon we gather that it is a very foolish color which the superstitious do pretend, when with indiscreet zeal we give ourselves leave to do all things. And although this confession sounds in the mouths of all men: yet herein a shameful ignorance betrays itself, that neither they cleave to the one God, nor have any regard of order in the worshiping of him, as we have already shown. But God, to claim his own right to himself, cries out that he is jealous, and that he will be a severe avenger if he be mingled with any feigned god. And then he sets forth the lawful manner of worshiping, to hold mankind in obedience. He contains both these points in his law, when first he binds the faithful to himself that he only may be their lawmaker: and then he prescribes a rule whereby to be worshiped after his own mind. Of the law, because the uses and ends thereof are many, I will discuss in a place fit for it. Now I only touch this point, that thereby men are bridled that they run not out of the way to wrong worships. Now as I first said, we must hold in mind, that if all that ever properly belongs to godhead does not rest in God alone, he is robbed of his honor, and his worship broken. And here we must somewhat heedfully mark with what subtleties superstition deceives. For it does not so revolt to strange gods that it seems to forsake the highest God, or to bring him down into the number of other gods: but while she grants to him the highest place, she sets round about him a number of lesser gods, among whom she divides his offices. And so (although cloakedly and craftily) the glory of the godhead is cut in parts, that it remains not whole with him. So in the old time, as well they of the Jews as of the Gentiles did set beneath the father and judge of gods a great rout of gods which should every one according to his degree have in common with the highest God the government of the heaven and earth. So the saints that in a few ages past departed this life, are advanced to the fellowship of God, to be worshiped, called upon, and honored in his stead. And yet with such abomination we think that the majesty of God is not so much as divided, when in deed it is a great part suppressed and extinguished, saving that we retain still a poor opinion of his supreme power: and in the mean time deceived with entangled subtleties we are separately carried to diverse gods.

For this purpose also was invented the distinction of latria and Dulia, as they term them, that is worship and service, whereby they might freely seem to give away the honors of God to angels and dead men. For it is evident, that the worship which the Papists give to saints differs nothing in deed from the worship of God. For all alike without diversity they worship both God and them: saving that when they be charged with it, they wind away with this exception, that they keep still for God the honor that is due to him inviolate, because they leave to him the worship that they call latria. But since the question stands upon the matter, and not the word, who would permit them so carelessly to mock in a matter of all matters most weighty? But to let that also pass, yet win they nothing by this distinction, but to prove, that they give worship to one God and service to another. For Latria in Greek signifies as much as the Latin Cultus, and English worship. Dulia properly signifies service. And yet sometimes in Scripture this difference is confounded together without diversity. But grant it be a perpetual difference, then must we search what both the words may mean. Dulia is service, Latria, is worship. Now no man doubts that to serve, is more than to worship. For many times a man could hardly bear to serve him whom he would not stick to worship. So is it an unequal dealing to give to the saints that which is the greater, and to leave to God that which is the lesser. But many of the ancient authors have used this distinction. What does that matter, if all men do perceive it to be not only unfit, but altogether very foolish?

Now leaving nice subtleties, let us weigh the matter itself. When Paul puts the Galatians in remembrance of what they were before they were enlightened in the knowledge of God, he says that they gave Dulia service to those that of nature were no gods. Although he names not Latria or worship, is their superstition therefore excusable? He nevertheless condemns their perverse superstition, which he terms by the name of Dulia service, no less than if he had expressed the name of Latria, worship. And when Christ repels the assault of Satan with his shield, that it is written, you shall worship the Lord your God, the name of Latria was not brought in question. Satan required but an adoration. Likewise when the angel reproved John, because he fell down on his knees before him, we ought not to think that John was so mad that he would give to the angel the honor that was due only to God. But because it was not possible, but that all worship that is joined with religion savors somewhat as pertaining to God, therefore he could not adore the angel, but that he must take away somewhat from the glory of God. We read indeed often, that men have been honored: but that was a civil honor, as I may so call it. But religion has another rule, which so soon as it is joined with worship, brings with it a profane abuse of the honor of God. The same may we see in Cornelius. He had not so slenderly profited in godliness, but that he had learned to give the sovereign worship to God alone. Therefore when he fell down before Peter, he did it not with this meaning to worship him in the stead of God. And yet did Peter earnestly forbid him to do that which he did. And why so? But because men do never so narrowly put difference between the worship of God, and of his creatures: but that without diversity they give away to the creature that which belongs to God. Therefore if we have one God, we must remember that nothing, be it never so little, must be taken away from his glory, but that he keep still that which is properly his. Therefore Zechariah when he preaches of the repairing of the Church, in plain words expresses: That there shall not only be one God, but also that there shall be one name of God, to the end that he have nothing in common with idols. What manner of worship God requires, we shall see in another place when it falls in order. For it pleased him in his law to prescribe to men what is lawful and right, and so to bind them to a certain rule, that every man should not give himself leave to devise what form of worship he likes. But because it is not expedient to load the readers with heaping many matters together, I will not touch that point yet. Only let it suffice for this time to keep in mind, that every carrying away of the dutiful behaviors of godliness to any other than to God alone, is not without robbery of God. And first superstition devised to give divine honors to the sun, or other stars or idols: then followed ambitious pride, which garnishing mortal men with spoils taken from God, presumed to profane all that ever was holy. And although this principle remained among them, to honor the sovereign deity, yet it grew in use indifferently to offer sacrifices to spirits, lesser gods, or dead men of honor. So slippery is the way to slide into this fault, to make common to a number that which God severely challenges to himself alone.

We said at the beginning that the knowledge of God does not consist in bare speculation but draws with it the worship of God — and along the way we touched on what right worship looks like, a point that will be set forth more fully elsewhere. Now I only briefly repeat this: whenever Scripture affirms that there is but one God, it is not contending merely over a name. It also commands this: that whatever belongs to the Godhead must not be given to any other. This shows what pure religion and superstition differ in. The Greek word eusebeia means true worship, because even those who are blind and groping in darkness have found that this rule must be maintained: God must not be worshipped carelessly. The name religion, though Cicero rightly and well derives it from relegere, meaning to record or gather together, gives a forced and far-fetched reason: that devout worshippers often recalled and carefully weighed what was true. I think rather that the name stands as the opposite of wandering liberty, because the greater part of humanity rashly seizes whatever it first encounters and goes chasing here and there. But true godliness, to maintain its steady state, gathers itself within its own bounds. Likewise, I think superstition gets its name from this: not content with the prescribed manner and order, it heaps up a superfluous abundance of empty things. But leaving words aside, it has always been agreed across all ages that religion is corrupted and perverted by false errors. From this we gather that the pretense the superstitious use to excuse themselves is very foolish — claiming the freedom to do all things in the name of ill-considered zeal. And although this confession is on everyone's lips, a shameful ignorance betrays itself here: they neither cling to the one God nor maintain any proper order in His worship, as we have already shown. But God, claiming His own right, cries out that He is jealous — and that He will take severe vengeance if He is mixed with any invented god. Then He sets forth the lawful manner of worship to hold humanity in obedience. He covers both these points in His law: first by binding the faithful to Himself alone as their lawgiver, and then by prescribing a rule by which He is to be worshipped according to His own mind. Of the law, because its uses and ends are many, I will discuss it in a fitting place. For now I only touch this point: that through it people are restrained from running off into unauthorized worship. As I first said, we must bear in mind that if all that properly belongs to the Godhead does not rest in God alone, He is robbed of His honor and His worship is broken. Here we must note with some care the subtle ways in which superstition deceives. It does not revolt to foreign gods in such a way as to appear to forsake the supreme God or to lower Him to the level of other gods. Rather, while granting Him the highest place, it surrounds Him with a crowd of lesser gods — among whom it distributes His offices. And so, though cloaked and craftily, the glory of the Godhead is carved into pieces, and it no longer remains intact with Him. So in ancient times both Jews and Gentiles placed beneath the father and judge of the gods a great crowd of gods, each of whom shared, according to his rank, in the government of heaven and earth along with the highest God. So the saints who have died in recent centuries are elevated to share in God's place — to be worshipped, called upon, and honored in His stead. And yet with such abominations we suppose that the majesty of God is not so much as diminished — when in fact a great part of it is suppressed and extinguished, except that we still retain a bare opinion of His supreme power, while we are enticed by entangling subtleties and drawn away to various gods.

For this purpose also was invented the distinction of latria and dulia — worship and service, as they call them — by which they could seem to freely assign the honors of God to angels and departed men. For it is evident that the worship the Papists give to the saints differs in no real way from the worship of God. They worship both God and the saints in exactly the same way — except that when charged with it, they slip away with the excuse that they still keep for God the honor due to Him inviolate, since they reserve for Him the worship they call latria. But since the question is about the matter itself and not just the word, who should allow such careless mockery on a question of the greatest possible weight? But even setting that aside, they gain nothing from this distinction except to prove that they give worship to one and service to another. For in Greek, latria means the same as the Latin cultus and English worship. Dulia properly means service. Yet in Scripture this distinction is sometimes blurred without any clear difference. But even granting that it is a fixed distinction, let us examine what both words mean. Dulia is service, latria is worship. Now no one doubts that to serve is more than to worship. Many a person could hardly bring themselves to serve one they would readily worship. It is therefore an uneven arrangement to give the saints the greater thing while leaving God the lesser. Many of the ancient writers used this distinction, it is true. But what does that matter, if everyone can see that it is not only unfitting but utterly absurd?

Now setting aside fine subtleties, let us weigh the matter itself. When Paul reminds the Galatians what they were before they were enlightened in the knowledge of God, he says that they gave dulia, service, to those who by nature were no gods. Though he does not name latria or worship, is their superstition therefore excusable? He nevertheless condemns their perverse superstition, which he names by the word dulia no less than if he had used the word latria. And when Christ repelled Satan's assault with the shield of Scripture — 'You shall worship the Lord your God' — it was not the word latria that was in question. Satan required only an act of adoration. Likewise when the angel rebuked John for falling on his knees before him, we should not think John was so irrational as to intend to give the angel the honor due only to God. But because it was unavoidable that any worship joined with religion would carry the flavor of belonging to God, he could not adore the angel without taking something away from the glory of God. We read that men were often honored, but that was a civil honor, as I may call it. But religion has another rule — one that, as soon as it is joined with worship, carries with it a profane abuse of the honor due to God. The same can be seen in Cornelius. He had not made so little progress in godliness that he had not learned to give supreme worship to God alone. Therefore when he fell down before Peter, his intention was not to worship him in the place of God. And yet Peter earnestly forbade him from what he was doing. Why? Because people never draw the line between worship of God and worship of His creatures so precisely that they do not, without distinction, end up giving to the creature what belongs to God. Therefore if we have one God, we must bear in mind that nothing — however small — must be taken away from His glory, but that He must retain what is properly His. Therefore Zechariah, when he speaks of the restoration of the church, states plainly that there shall not only be one God, but also one name of God — so that He would have nothing in common with idols. What kind of worship God requires will be seen in another place, when it comes in order. For it pleased Him in His law to prescribe to people what is lawful and right, and so to bind them to a fixed rule, so that each person would not freely invent whatever form of worship he pleased. But since it is not fitting to burden readers by crowding many matters together, I will not address that point yet. For now let it be enough to keep in mind that every diversion of the duties of godliness to any other than God alone is a robbery of God. First, superstition devised giving divine honors to the sun, the stars, and idols. Then ambitious pride followed, adorning mortal men with spoils taken from God and presuming to profane whatever was holy. And although the principle of honoring the supreme deity remained among them, it became common practice to offer sacrifices to spirits, lesser gods, and honored dead men. So easy is it to slide down the path of sharing with a multitude what God jealously claims for Himself alone.