161

E
CHAPTER 12
HOW GOD IS TO BE SO DISTINGUISHED FROM
IDOLS THAT PERFECT HONOR MAY BE GIVEN
TO HIM ALONE

1. TRUE RELIGION BINDS US TO GOD AS THE

ONE AND ONLY GOD
e
Moreover, we said at the beginning f340 that the knowledge of God does not
rest in cold speculation, but carries with it the honoring of him. In passing,
we also touched upon how he is to be rightly worshiped, a point that will
have to be dealt with at greater length in other places. f341 Now I only
briefly repeat: as often as Scripture asserts that there is one God, it is not
contending over the bare name, but also prescribing that nothing belonging
to his divinity is to be transferred to another. From this it is also clear in
what respect pure religion differs from superstition. Undoubtedly, for the
Greeks the word eujse>beia meaning “religion,” also connotes befitting
reverence. For even the blind themselves, groping in darkness, felt the need
of adhering to a definite rule, to avoid the perverted honoring of God. Even
though Cicero truly and learnedly derives the word “religion” from the
word relegere, f342 the reason that he assigns is forced and farfetched: that
upright worshipers often reread and diligently weighed what was true.
Rather, I believe that this word is opposed to giddy license; for the greater
part of the world thoughtlessly seizes upon whatever is at hand, nay, even
flits hither and thither. But godliness, to stand on a firm footing, keeps
itself within its proper limits. Likewise, it seems to me that superstition is
so called because, not content with the prescribed manner and order, it
heaps up a needless mass of inanities.
But discussion aside, all ages have always agreed that religion was vitiated
and perverted by falseness and error. From this we conclude that when we
allow ourselves anything out of heedless zeal the excuse that the
superstitious pretend is silly. Yet even though this confession cries out
from all men’s lips, a foul ignorance appears; for, as we have already
 162
taught, f343 they neither cleave to the one God nor manifest any delight in
honoring him. But God, to claim his own right, declares himself a jealous
God, and a severe avenger if he be confused with any fictitious god [cf.
<022005>
Exodus 20:5]. Then he defines lawful worship in order to hold
mankind in obedience. He combines both under his law, first when he
binds believers to himself to be their sole lawgiver, and then when he
prescribes a rule whereby he is to be duly honored according to his own
will. As for the law, since its use and purpose are manifold, I will discuss
it in its own place. f344 I now touch merely on this point, that by it a bridle
has been imposed upon men, to prevent their sinking into vicious rites.
But what I have set down in an earlier section is to be kept in mind, that
unless everything proper to his divinity resides in the one God, he is
despoiled of his honor, and the reverencing of him profaned.
b
Here we must more carefully attend to those subtleties with which
superstition disports itself. Indeed, it does not so decline to other gods as
seemingly to desert the highest God, or to reduce him to the level of the
rest. But while it concedes to him the supreme place, it surrounds him
with a throng of lesser gods, among whom it parcels out his functions. The
glory of his divinity is so rent asunder (although stealthily and craftily)
that his whole glory does not remain with him alone. f345 Thus, in the past,
men, Jews as well as heathen, put a vast throng of gods under the father
and ruler of the gods. Each of these gods according to his rank held in
common with the highest god the government of heaven and earth. Thus a
few centuries ago the saints who had departed this life were elevated into
copartnership with God, to be honored, and also to be invoked and praised
in his stead. Indeed, we suppose that by such an abomination God’s
majesty is not even obscured, while it is in great part suppressed and
extinguished, except that we retain some sterile notion of his supreme
power; emeanwhile, deceived by the trappings, we are drawn to various
gods.

2. A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE*

d
In fact, the distinction between latria and dulia, as they called them, was
invented in order that divine honors might seem to be transferred with
impunity to angels and the dead. f346 For it is obvious that the honor the
papists give to the saints really does not differ from the honoring of God.
 163
Indeed, they worship both God and the saints indiscriminately, except
that, when they are pressed, they wriggle out with the excuse that they
keep unimpaired for God what is due him because they leave latria to him.
But since the thing itself, not the word, is in question, who can permit
them to make light of this most important of all matters? But — to pass
over this also — their distinction in the end boils down to this: they render
honor [cultus] to God alone, but undergo servitude [servitium] for the
others. For latrei>a , among the Greeks means the same thing as cultus
among the Latins; doulei>a properly signifies servitus; and yet in
Scripture this distinction is sometimes blurred. But suppose we concede it
to be unvarying. Then we must inquire what both words mean: doulei>a
is servitude; latrei>a , honor. Now no one doubts that it is greater to be
enslaved than to honor. For it would very often be hard for you to be
enslaved to one whom you were not unwilling to honor. Thus it would be
unequal dealing to assign to the saints what is greater and leave to God
what is lesser. Yet many of the old writers used this distinction. What,
then, if all perceive that it is not only inept but entirely worthless?

3. HONORING IMAGES IS DISHONOR TO GOD*

d
Let us drop fine distinctions and examine the thing itself. When Paul
reminds the Galatians what they were like before they were illumined in
the knowledge of God, he says that “they exhibited dulia toward beings
that by nature were no gods” [ <480408>Galatians 4:8 p.]. When he does not
call it latria, is their superstition for this reason excusable? Assuredly, by
labeling that perverse superstition dulia, he condemns it no less than if he
had used the word “latria.” And when Christ fends off Satan’s insult with
this shield, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God’”
[<400410>Matthew 4: 10], it is not a question of the word “latria.” f347 For
Satan demanded of him only a reverent kneeling. f348 Likewise, when John
was rebuked by the angel because he fell down on his knees before him
[<661910>Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9], we ought not to suppose John to be so
senseless as to wish to transfer to an angel the honor due God alone. But
because any reverential act that has been joined with religion cannot but
savor of something divine, he could not have “knelt” to the angel without
detracting from God’s glory. Indeed, we often read that men were
worshiped: but such an act was, so to speak, a civil honor. Religion,
 164
however, has another concern; as soon as it has been joined with an act of
reverence, it carries the profanation of divine honor along with it.
We can see this in Cornelius [<441025>Acts 10:25]. He had not advanced so ill
in godliness as not to pay God alone the highest reverence. Therefore,
when he prostrated himself before Peter, undoubtedly he did not intend to
worship Peter in place of God, yet Peter earnestly forbade him to do it.
Why, unless because men never so articulately discern between the
honoring of God and of creatures without indiscriminately transferring to
the creature what belonged to God? bThus, if we wish to have one God, we
should remember that we must not pluck away even a particle of his glory
and that he must retain what is his own. eTherefore Zechariah, when he
speaks of the restoration of the church, eloquently asserts not only that
“God will be one” but also that “his name will be one” [<381409>Zechariah
14:9 p.], in order no doubt that he may have nothing in common with
idols. What sort of reverence God requires will be seen elsewhere in its
proper place. f349 For by his law it pleases him to prescribe for men what is
good and right, and thus to hold them to a sure standard that no one may
take leave to contrive any sort of worship he pleases.
But because it is not expedient to burden my readers by mingling many
things, I do not yet touch on that matter. It is enough to recognize that,
whenever any observances of piety are transferred to some one other than
the sole God, sacrilege occurs. And first, indeed, superstition contrived
divine honors either for the sun and the stars or for idols. Then followed
ambition, which, by adorning mortals with the spoils of God, dared
profane everything sacred. And although there remained the principle of
worshiping a supreme Being, it was a common custom to offer sacrifices
indiscriminately to tutelary divinities, lesser gods, or dead heroes. So
inclined are we to lapse into this error that what God rigorously reserves
for himself alone we distribute among a great throng.