A iust discharge to Dr. Stillingfleet's vnjust charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome with a discovery of the vanity of his late defence in his pretended answer to a book entituled, Catholicks no idolaters : by way of dialogue between Eunomius, a conformist, & Catharinus, a non-conformist : the first part : concerning the charge of idolatry, &c.

THE SECOND DIALOGVE.

THE ARGVMENT.

THe greatest part of the Testimo∣nies of the Fathers produced by Dr. St. that is, All those which import no more, than either that the Heathens had a natural knowledge of one Supream God, or that it was their Sense that their Inpiter was He, shown to be Inperti∣nent to the Dispute between him and T. G. from the true State of the Question. His injurious usage of the Fathers, blam∣ing them for charging the Heathens with more than they were guilty of, or them∣selves could prove, (being indeed atacite Conf••ssion that he look'd vpon them as Opposit to him) laid open in a clee•• Ac∣count of the Heathen's Theology, and the several ways, the Fathers took to ref••te it, all of them convincing, as is made manifest both from the arguments themselues being rightly applied to their due subjects, and the success they had.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

CA••h.

T'is now, Eunomius, that I expect the performance of your p••omise, which was to shew, that the Dr's Citations out of the Fathers, to prove the Heathen's Iupiter to be the true God, are all either impertinently al∣ledged, or ••heir meaning mis-represented, or both their words and Sense corrupted by him. If you can do this, the Dr. fot ought I can see must stand for his own Child.

Eun:

This I confess is what I promised; and to perform it, it will be necessary in the first place to set down the true State of the ••uestion between the Dr. and T. G. in this Point, which I take to be this, viz, Whether the H••athen's I••pi∣ter were according to the Fathers the true God, that is, whether it were the Father's own Sense that Iupiter was the true God? That this is the true State of the Question between them, is evident from the D'rs own words; For having suffi∣ciently reproached T. G. for affirming the Heathen's Iupiter to be according

to the Fathers, not the true God, but a Devil, what he saith he will undertake to do is to break h••m and his fellows of he * 1.1 bad custome▪ they have got of passing their own foolish Opinions under the name of the Fathers, by giving a full account of the Sense of the Fathers in this Point, and not as T. G. had done from one single passage of a learned, but by their own Church thought Heretical Father. Now what he resolved to correct in T. G. at present was his pretending the Sense of Origen to be the Sense of the Fathers. And therefore in another place, I com∣mend, saith he T. G. f••r his Modesty, * 1.2 that when he had said this was the Sense of the Fathers he produces no more but good Father Origen, and with great judgment supposes, that what he said was the Com∣mon Sense of the Fathers. This appears yet farther from that Religious Assertion * 1.3 of his, that i•• S. Paul may be credited rather than T. G. the Heathen's Iupiter was so farr from being an Arch Devil, that he was the true God, Bless••d for evermore: where you see he makes it to be S. Paul's Sens••, that Iupiter was the true God, and therefore in the next page, having granted it to be Origen's Sense, * 1.4

that he was a Devil, he fupposes O∣rigen therein to contradict S. Paul. So that the Question between them as I said, is whether it were the Sense of the Fathers, that the Heathen's Iupiter, that Iupiter O. M. for example, to use the Dr's own words, that was worship∣ped in the Capitol at Rome, were the true God? * 1.5

Cathar.

This I easily grant to be the true State of the Question. But why are you so sollicitous about it?

Eun:

Because there are many other Questions, which seem to bear some affinity to this, and yet are very different from it, as 1^st. whether the Heathens did not acknowledge one Supream God? 2^ly. Whether themselues did not pretend that they understood this Supream God by Iupiter, and ac∣cordingly gaue to him the Titles due to the Supream Go? 3^dly. Whether the Fa∣thers do not acknowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens? All these Questions I say, how speciously soever connected they may seem to you, yet in truth they are very different from the point in debate between the Dr. and T. G. viz, whether it were the Father's own

Sense, that Iupiter was the Supream God? For 1. Those very Fathers who assert the knowledge of the true God to be in all men by the light of nature, con∣demn the Heathens for worshipping the Creatures instead of the Creator, and particularly for worshipping Iupiter, whom they affirmed to be a Devil, as you heard before. 2^ly Though the Hea∣thens might pretend, they understood the Supream God by Iupiter, yet this was but the Sense of the Heathens, not of the Fa∣thers. And 3^ly though the Fathers ac∣knowledge that this was pretended by the Heathens, yet they might be farr e∣nough in their own Iudgments from think∣ing Iupiter to be the Supream God. From whence it follows, that as many of the Drs. Testimonies as shall be found to carry no farther, than either to prove, that the Heathens did acknowledge one Supream God; or that they themselues owned Ju∣piter to be the Supream God; or that the Fathers related only some sayings of theirs, in which they did so; do evidently fall sho••t of the Question, which was not whether it were the Sense of the Hea∣thens, but of the Fathers themselues that Jupiter was the true God? And here lies

the Trick which I promised to let you see.

Cath.

T'is a Subtilty I confess which as yet I do not fully comprehend: and therefore desire you will explicate your self a litle more vpon each particular.

Eun:

First then I say, that all those Testimonies of the Fathers, cited by the * 1.6 Dr. which serve only to prove that the Heathens had a knowledge of one Su∣pream God, are altogether impertinent to prove it to be the Sense of the Fathers, that Iupiter was the Supream God; be∣cause those very Fathers, who affirm this of them, deny Iupiter to be the true God, and condemn the Heathens for giving the honour due to the true God, to him. And that you may fee this to be so I shall cite you some of their own words. We * 1.7 know, saith Arnobius that the knowledge of God is in all men by nature, but He is not Iupiter. Such is the force of the true Divinity, saith S Augustin, that it cannot * 1.8 be altogether hidden to a Rational Crea∣ture in possession of the use of reason: For excepting a f••w in whom nature is too too much depraved, all mākind conf••sses God to be the Author of the world. But that this was not the Roman's Iupiter he expressly affirms li. 4. de Civ. Deic. 17. 25. Non est Ipse qnem Iovem nominant. And in his

first Book de cons. Evang, he proues the Heathens did not worship the true God, * 1.9 because they did not worship the God of the Iews. That there is one Supream Go∣vernour of the world, saith Minucius Fe∣lix, * 1.10 whom we call God, I haue the con∣sent of all men: But as for Iupiter, he * 1.11 reckons him as you heard before, among the Devils. When we see, saith Lactan∣tius, the Worshippers of False Gods ••f∣tentimes * 1.12 confess the One Supream God. what pardon can they hope for their Im∣piety, in not acknowledging the worship of him who cannot possibly be altogether unknown to Mankind: When they swear, or wish, or giue thanks, they do not, saith he, name Iupiter or their many Gods, but God. Thus doth Truth by the sorce of nature break f••om their relucting hearts. Lastly, not to strain your patience too much, That God hath given such or such a Benefit, saith Tertullian, is the * 1.13 Voice of all, as also those other Common Expressions, when they appeal to him as Iudge, God seeth, and I commend it to God, God will restore. O testimony of a Soul, saith he, naturally Christian. But then remarks, that when they say these things, they lift not vp their Eyes

to the Capitol, but to Heaven, which they k••ow to be the Throne of the Living God. In like manner in his Book de Anima, Giue testimony, saith he, O soul, if thou knowest one only God from whom all things * 1.14 are: For we hear thee also saying that God hath given &c. By which Expression thou signifiest there is some such One, and that all power belongs to him; but at the same time thou deniest the rest to be Gods, whilst thou callest them by their own names, S••∣turn, Iupiter, Mars &c. For thou confessest him alone to be God, whom alone thou cal∣lest God. So that when thou sometimes cal∣lest those other Gods thou dost but borrow, or rather steal that name from another, whose properly it is. And again, at the end of the Book, In the very Temples, saith he, thou callest vpon God as Iudge, but dost not appeal to any of the present Gods, that is, who are worshipped in those Temples. O Testimony of Truth which gives Evidence for Christians in the pre∣sence of the Devils themselues! Many other passages could I cite to the same purpose out of Iustin Martyr, Athena∣goras, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Cyprian, and others, were I minded to amuze the world with a great Book: but these may suffice to let you see how Impertinent it

was to the point in debate (viz whether it were the Sense of the Fathers, that Iupiter was the Supream God?) for Dr. St. to stuff out so many Pages with Te∣stimonies to prove that the Heathens had the knowledge of one Supream God in∣grafted in them by nature, when those very Fathers, who affirm it of them, deny Iupiter to be the Supream God, and show from the very Expressions and actions of the Heathens, that they them∣selves acknowledged another distinct from Iupiter to be the true God.

Cath.

Thus farr I think I comprehend your meaning, and must confess that had the Dr. done no more, he had done but litle to the purpose. But there are other Testimonies produced by him, which evidently prove that the Heathens by Iupiter understood and worshipped the one Supream God.

Eun:

This is the 2^d Question, which * 1.15 I said might be proposed. And to say the Truth, Dr. St. gives us a pretty full ac∣count of the Fathers in this matter. But what Fathers are they? The first (in di∣gnity at least) are the two most Reve∣rend Fathers in Iupiter▪ Father R••mulus, * 1.16 and Father Numa, whom he makes litle

Inferiour to Moses and Aaron in their care to instruct the People in the know∣ledge and worship of the One Supream God. To them he joins Father Livy, Father Varro, Father Ennius, Father * 1.17 Plautus, Father Virgll, Father Ovid, Father Tacitus and Father Pliny, who give to Iupiter the Titles of Opt. Max. and of Father of Gods and men. But then for fear these should not be strong enough to do the work he comes in with an Arrier-ban of other Fathers, who bestow vpon him the Titles of Om∣nipotent, and Chief of the Gods, viz, * 1.18 Father Balbus, Father Cicero, Fath•••• Seneca, Father Virgil, Father Soranus, Father Dio Chrysostom, and Father Dio∣nysius Halicarnassaeus. And then to put the matter out of all dispute, he comes over again with Father Plautus, because he affords us many Instances of prayers to * 1.19 the Supream God, as when the Punick Nurse, cry'd out Proh Supreme I••piter! * 1.20 though like a Sawcy Miller he ioyn the Title of Versipellis at the same time to that of Summus Iupiter for the lewd * 1.21 trick he play'd Alcumena in her Hus∣bands absence, leaving her Vtrinque gravidam & ex viro & ex S••mmo Iove.

Father Virgil also is brought in a third and a 4^th time. (No doubt because he was, as the Dr. tells us particularly obser∣ved by the ancient Criticks, to be so Nice * 1.22 and exact in all matters that concerned their Religion, as if he had been Ponti∣fex Max.) and then addes to them, to compleat the number, Father Silius, Father Persius, Father Horace, Father Valerius Maximus, and lastly the dimi∣nutive Father, Father Paterculus, for * 1.23 concluding his Book with that Reli∣gious Invocation, Iupiter Capitoline, Auctor & Stator Romani Nominis. By this you see what Fathers they are, that Dr. St. is conversant with. But what is all this (in case the Heathens did give the Titles of the true God to Jupiter and that in the midst of all his mad pranks, as Father Plautus doth, for which reason I remember I was taught * 1.24 at School to look vpon them as Prosane Blasphemers,) what is all this I say to the Question between the Dr and T. G. which was not as I suppose, whether it were the Sense of the Heathen, but of the Ch••istian Fathers, that their Iupiter was the Supream God? All these Testi∣monies therefore ought to be laid aside

also as Impertinent to the present pur∣pose.

The same I affirm also of those other Testimonies relating to the 3^d Question, * 1.25 in which the Christian Fathers are cited by Dr. St. as acknowledging that the Heathens pretended they understood by Jupiter the Supream God: For they might cite some sayings of the Heathens to that purpose, and yet be of a contra••y Judgment themselues; as if One should tell you, that Dr. St. saith he sits down w••th this contentment, that he hath defended a righteous cause, and with an honest mind, He may think otherwise himself for ought you know. Now that the Fa∣thers were of a contrary Judgment themselues in this Point is manifest, be∣cause (as you heard before) they affir∣med Jupiter to be a Divel, and proved him to be so from his actions; and reje∣cted that pretence of the Heathens as vain and Impious: and consequently all the Testimonies of this kind also, cited by the Dr. are altogether as Impertinent as the Former. These things Dr. St. was not ignorant of, and thinking to mend the matter, has made it worse. For what do you think he does? Very fairly he

takes part with the Heathens against the Fathers by endeavouring to make them appear either Impertinently obstinat•• in not believing the Heathens; or if they did believe them, so perversly I••sincere, as to make them Idolaters wh••ther they would or no, for worshipping Jupiter, and this by such kind of arguments, as according to him gaue the Advan∣tage to the Heathens: And yet this is the man that undertakes to maintain it to be the Sense of the Fathers themselues, that Jupiter was the true God.

Cath.

Here you must giue me leaue, Eunomius, to tell you, that I think you are too Severe vpon the Dr. for no man of an Ordinary Mother-wit would be∣tray his cause by such a Tacit Confes∣sio, as this is, that he look'd vpon the Fa••hers as Opposit to him.

Eun:

yet I shall prove what I haue said from his own words. For what else doth he mean, when having varnished over the most Obscene and abominable Ceremonies used by the Heathens in the worship of their Gods, with the gentle name only of Indecencies, which the Fa∣thers, saith he, charge the Practice of their Religion with, he addes with a But. * 1.26

that as they were not to be excused in other things, so we ought not to charge them with more than they were guilty of? And what that was, he tells us in the next words; I mean, saith he, when all the Poetical Fables of Jupiter, are applyed to Jupiter O. M. that was worshipped in the Ca∣pitol at Rome. You are satisfied now, I hope, Catharinus, that the Dr. makes the Fathers charge the Heathens with more than they were guilty of, which they could not do, but either they must not believe them, when they pretended Ju∣piter to be the Supream God; or if they believed them, must act against their consciences, and betray their own cause, by applying the Po••tical Fables of Ju∣piter to Jupiter O. M. who was wor∣shipped in the Capitol. Now that this was done by all the Fathers, Dr. St. very well knows. But meer shame would not permit him to lay so great a reproach vpon them all at once, and therefore he picks out two at fi••st viz, A••nobius and Lactantius, with whom he thought he might be more bold, and goes on in this manner. But some Writers, are to be ex∣cused, who having been bred vp in the Schools of Rhetoricians, and practising

that Art so long before, when they came to be Christians, they could not easily f••rbear giving a cast of their f••rmer em∣ployment, As when Arnobius, saith he, had been proving the natural Notion of one Supream God in the minds of men, he brings in the Romans answering, that if this were intended against them, it was a meer calumny, for they believed him, and called him Jupiter O. M. and built a most Magnificent Temple to him in the Capitol: which he (i. ē. Arnobius) endea∣vours to disprove, (mark that) because God is Eternal, and their Jupiter was bo••n, and had a Father and Mother and Vncles and Aunts, as other M••••tals baue. Which indeed, saith the Dr. was an Infallible Argument, that Jupiter of Cr••te could not be the Supream God, but for all that, might not the Romans call the Supream God by the name of Iupiter Opt. Max? where he evidently dis∣allows the discourse of Arnobius, and shows how it was, or might haue been avoided by the Heathens, had he been to answer for them. In the same manner he treats Lactantius, for ripping vp, (as he calls it) all the Extravagancies of the * 1.27 Poets concerning Iupiter, interposing

presently in their behalf, as though the Romans at the same time believed him to haue done all those things, and to haue been the Supream Governour of the world. And when Lactantius to enforce his argument, and confute this pretence of theirs alledges, that th••y themselues confess he same Iupiter to haue been bo••n of Saturn and Rhea, the doctor replyes vpon him, that he might haue done well to haue explained himself a litle more. And what is this I pray, but to tell us, that these F••thers cha••ged the Heathens with more than th••y were guilty of, and that not being able to make good what they charged them with, they thought to fob them off with a cast of their for∣mer employment▪

Having thus broken the Ice he now dares venture to fix the same reproach, though more covertly, on Clemens Al••∣xandrinus * 1.28 also: for having told us, how he understood the Principles of the Hea∣then Theology as well as any, and ex∣posed all their P••e••ical Fables, and Greek mysteries w••th as much advan∣tage as any Christian Writer, he gives us this very honourable account of his performance. After he hath sufficiently, * 1.29

saith he, derided the Poetical Theology and the Vulgar Idolatry, he comes to the Philosophers, who did he saith make an Idol of matter; and after reckoning vp Thales, Anaximenes, Parmenides, and others, he calls them all Atheists, because with a foolish kind of Wis••o•• they did worship Matter, and scorning to worship wood and Stones did d••ify the Mother of them: And so runs out, saith he, after his way (which in the Dr's. Rhetorick signifies he run out of the way) i••to a discourse about the Several Nat••ons, that despised Images, and worshipped the Several Parts of ••h•• Vniverse, and the Symbols of them, as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, and Macedo∣nians. And then reckons vp other Phi∣losophers that wors••ipped the Starrs, as animated Beings; Others, the Planets and the world, and the Stoicks who said, God passed through the meanest parts of Matter. By this account the Dr. gives of Clemens his performance (however he treat him with more respect than he had done A••nobius and Lactantius) yet it is evident he looks vpon his way of confuting the Heathens, as inept and fri∣volous also.

But none is represented by him to haue been so much baffled by the Hea∣thens in the Point of I••piter's divinity as S. Augustin, of whom he saith, It is * 1.30 true, that He argu••s against the Hea∣then's pretence of Iupiter's being the true Go•• from the Poetical Fables about Saturn and Iuno, but conf••sses withall, that they thought it very unreasonable for their Religion to be charged with those Fables, which themselues diso••ned. And hitherto S. Augustin goes along with his Fellows, that is, he argued just as wisely as they had done before him. But this last acknowledgment of the Hea∣thens Pretence it seems wrought a different effect in him, from what it had done in them. For whereas they were so Obstinate as to persist in rejecting and impugning this pretence of the Hea∣thens as vain and absurd, S. Augustin, according to what the Dr. addes of him, was so convinced of the evidence of it, that theref••••e at last he could not deny that they believed themselues, that by the Iove in the Capitol they understood and worshipped the Spirit that quick••ns and fills the world, of which Virgil spake in those words, Iovis omnia plena. And

had not one Wise word to answer for himself, but sit down and wonder, tha•• since they acknowledged this to be the Su∣pream, if not the o••ly Deity, the Ro∣mans did not rather content themselues with the worship of him alone, th••n run about and m••ke so many addresses to the Pe••ty and Inferiour Deities. Thus had Dr. St. been constituted Vmpire, the Victory had been given to the Hea∣thens; and S. A••gustin (at least whilst he argued against them from the Poeti∣cal Fables,) and the rest of the Fathers had been condemned as Imposto••s, for charging the Heathens w••th more than they were guilty of, or themselues could prove. This kind of procedure would haue suited much better with the design of Iulian, than of the Reformation, and it cannot be presum'd, but that that Re∣ligious Emperour, who utterly also re∣jected the Poetical Fables concerning the Gods, would haue had avery high * 1.31 esteem for such a Champ••on.

Cath.

These passages I must acknow∣ledge, argue agreat deal of kindness and tenderness in the Dr. for the poor Hea∣thens, to see them so ill treated by the Fa∣thers. And it was but Christian Gene∣rosity

in him to do them right; especially when the Papists themselues confess they do not take all the Arguments of the Fathers to be Infallible demonstra∣tions.

Eun:

But where was his Christian Generosi••y, when himself charges the poor Papists with mo•••• than they are guilty of, if their Publick Professions are to be believed; at least with what themselues deny? They must be made to take the Saints for Gods, and wor∣ship the very stock•• and Stones as such, whether they will or no. Was all his tenderness spent vpon the Heathens, and none left for his Fellow Christians? Not one kind Parenthesis for them, as well as for the Heathens, (as though there ever had been such F••ols in the world; or * 1.32 * 1.33 if at least any considerable number of them ever did so?) Kissing I see goes by Favour, and the Heathens are more beholden to him, than those of the Church of Rome, though he acknow∣ledge it to be a true Church, as holding all the Essential Points of Faith. As for what you adde of them, that they do not take all the Arguments of the Fathers to be Infallible demonstrations, I think

it very unreasonably applied to the pre∣sent case. But am very well assured, your self cannot deny this to be an I••f••llible demonstration, viz, that the Fathers, while they would not admit the pretence of the Heathens, affirming they wor∣shipped the true God under the name of Iupiter, but set themselues by such ar∣guments, as they (poor men) were able, to consute it, did not themselues believe that Iupiter was the true God, which was what Dr. St. had undertaken to prove against T. G. Or else that they were not as he describes them, M••n of * 1.34 that Exemplary Piet••, great Abilities, and Excellen•• Conduct and Magnani∣mity, as s••t ••h••m aboue the contempt and reproach o•• any but I••fidels and Apostates; when himself, as you haue seen, exposes t••em to the contempt and re∣proach of being Vnequal Matches to the Heathen Achillesses; or which is worse, down right Prevaricators. By this you see what a Full account the Dr. gives us of the Sense of the Fathers in this Point, when the greatest part of the Testimonies he brings reach no farther, than to prove that the Heathens had a natural Notion of one Supream God, or

at most that it was the Sense of the Hea∣thens, that I••piter was He (all which I haue 〈…〉〈…〉 to be Impertinent to the Point in debate) and reproaches the Fathers for endeavouring to disprove them; which is as much, in plain English, as to tell us, that it was not their Sense, that Iupiter was the true God.

Cath.

You are too rigorous, Eunomi∣us, in tying vp an Author alwaies to the strict Method of close arguing. There is a Libe••ty to be given to Writers to make use some times of Rhetorical Or∣naments and Amplifications. And such I take these passages cited by the Dr. to be, which though they come not home to the Question, and therefore are re∣jected by you as Impertinent; yet they serve to illustrate those other Testimonies, that do▪ of which the Dr. hath alledged good store out of the Fathers.

Eun:

This is what I deny; and if you think fit to produce them, I do not doubt, but to make good my promise, that is, to shew, that either the mean∣ing of the Fathers is mis-represented, or both their words and Sense corrupted by him.

Cathar.

But before you proceed to

that, which I am well assured you will never make out, I would gladly receive satisfaction from you in a Point relating to our former discourse; viz, what Iudg∣ment your self make of the Arguments produced by the Fathers to convince the Heathens of Idolatry, and particu∣larly of those from the Poetical Fables, which seem to me to be Ironical and Trivial, rather than Serious and So∣lid.

Eun:

Could I transcribe the Argu∣ments used by the Fathers vpon this Oc∣casion, I durst leaue them to speak for themselves at the Bar of your Judgment. But this would require a Volume, or ra∣ther many Volumes to do, they being well nigh Infinite. I shall therefore at present reduce so many of them as oc∣curr to my Memory to some certain Ge∣neral Heads, from whence you may take a sufficient Prospect not only of the Fathers designs, and the force of their Arguments, but vpon what account alfo it was that they charged the Hea∣thens with Idolatry. To do this with greater clearness, I must desire you to take notice, that as the Heathens had many kinds of Gods for the worship∣ping

of which they were charged with Idolatry so the Fathers had not one only sort of Adversaries to deal with, but many. And

First for the Gods, S. Augustin tells us out of Varro, and Scaevola that the * 1.35 Heathen's Theology gaue a threefold account of them, the one Fabulous, used by the Poets; the 2^d Natural, used by the Philosophers, and the 3^d Civil used by the Priests and People in their publick worship. The first they said was accomodated to the Theater, the 2^d to the Philosophers, the third to the Peo∣ple. But S. Augustin shows the first and the last viz, the Fabulous and the Civil, not to be well distinguished, because the same Gods who were exposed to Derision in the Theaters, were p••oposed as Objects of Ado••ation in the Temples, and had Sacrifices offered to them. So that in rea∣lity they had but two kinds of Gods, the Fabulous or Civil used by the Priests and People, and the Natural by the * 1.36 Philosophers. The Former of these were Originally Dead men, whom the People out of flattery or Affection had place•• in heaven, and the Images erected to their memory; but consequently Evil

Spirits, which as it were incorporated * 1.37 themselves in the Images, and as Minu∣cius Felix saith, by exhibiting themselves present in the Temples, inspiring the Vates, animating the entrails of beasts, governing the flight o•• birds, directing Lots to fall where they pleased, and the like Prodigious effects, gained to them∣selves * 1.38 the Authority and Esteem of Gods, assuming with all to themselves, as Athe∣nagoras saith, the same names with the * 1.39 Statues or Images in which they assisted. Hence the Poets took occasion sometimes to subject them to the Passions of Men, sometimes to give them the Ti∣tles due only to the true divinity; The Priests also, to make a strange mix∣ture or confusion of Poetical Fables and Religious Ceremonies in their pu∣blick worship, at once to delight and * 1.40 delude the People: And the Philo••o∣phers, to invent new Interpretations to avoid the shame of those foul Pra∣ctices, which not only the Poets, but the Historians also attributed to them, * 1.41 as Lactantius shows. And this was the Origen of that sort of Gods which * 1.42 they called Fabulous or Civil, first the favour of the People, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the

delusion of wicked Spirits.

The 2^d kind, which they called Na∣tural, had for it's Object the parts of the Vniverse, as the Sun, Moon, and Starrs, the Fire, the Ayr, the Earth &. And although it be appropriated to the * 1.43 Philosophers, yet as Dr. St. himself tells us out of Clemens Alexandrinus, there were Several Nations, that despised I∣mages, and worshipped the Several parts of the Vniverse, and the Symb••ls of them, as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Persians, and Macedonians, (among whom the Aegyptians may be reckoned for that part of their Religion, which concerned the worship of creatures) whom the said Clemens makes to haue been the Phil••sop••er's Ma∣sters in the worship of these Inf••riour Elements, which were made to be Servi∣ceable to men; And then reckons up other Philosophers, that worshipped the Stars, as animated Beings; Others the Planets and the World, and th•• Stoicks who said, God passed through the meanest parts of Matter. If you ask from whence this kind of Idolat••y took it's rise, Vossius, as you heard before assigns it to the Ig∣norance and Inadvertency of men, in * 1.44

not distinguishing the Divine Power which is from God, from that other which is in God, and therefore from the won∣derful works which they discovered in nature, concluded Nature it self to be God, and the parts of it also to be Deities, (very agreably to what the Author of the Book of Wisdome relateth of this matter in his 13^th Chapter) though both the said Vossius and Others adde many other impulsive Causes which concur∣red to plunge the Heathens in this kind of Idolatry; among which Lactantius maketh the chief to be the Devil, who being alwaies an Enemy to Truth, takes * 1.45 pleasure in the Errours of men, and makes it his continual and only business to pour darkness vpon their minds, and blind their Vnderstandings, that they may not look vp to Heaven.

These things premised, it follows clearly that as the Theology of the Heathens (if I may so call it) was manifold, so the ways of defending their worship were divers; and consequently the Ar∣guments produced by the Fathers against them could not be all of one kind, but must needs be different proportionably to the Subjects they were to treat of.

Hence when they were to impugn those who worshipped the ••mages for Gods, they argued from the vileness and Impo∣tency of the matter, of which they were made, from the nature of the Ar∣tificer that made them, the Indignities they sustained from the vilest of crea∣tures, as Bats Flyes, Spiders &c. their having eyes, but not seing, Ears, but not hearing &c. And these Arguments I hope you will grant did conclude that for which they were brought, viz, that the Idols or Images of the Heathens were not Gods.

Cathar.

You need not doubt of it at all: I readily grant them to be absolutely conclusive. But with all I must tell you that I think you haue brought your self by your defending the Image-worship of the Church of Rome, into a snare out of which you will not easily get free: viz, that you will be forced to grant the aforesaid Arguments to be alto∣gether as conclusive against the Images of that Church: for the Absurdities objected agree every Jot as well to them, as to the Images of the Heathens, as the Dr. hath very well obseru'd: They also are made of wood or stone or mettal, haue

eyes and see not, eares and hear not &c.

Eun.

But this with your leaue, Ca∣tharinus, I shall deny, viz that the Ar∣guments of the Fathers are equally con∣clusive against the Images of the Church of Rome, as against those of the Hea∣thens; and I think it no hard matter to free my self of this snare. For the Fa∣thers did not found their Arguments meerly vpon the matter of the Images, and the Art of the Artificers; but vpon these two conditions conjointly taken, viz, that they were held to be Gods, and neverthe less took their Being from wood, or stone, or some kind of mettal, and the Art of the Workman, whereas those of the Church of Rome do not belieue their Images to be Gods, not worship them as such, as the Heathens did. And therefore it was but a Slip-knot which the Dr. tied, when he suppressed the former of these conditions, viz, that the Heathens held their Images to be Gods, and applied the reproaches of the Latter to the Images of the Church of Rome, which, as you your self know very well, declares it belieues no divinity to be in them, for which they ought to be * 1.46

wo••shipped.

Cathar.

This I confess alters the case something, if here ever were such Fools in the world who worshipped their Images as Gods, or if at least any considerable * 1.47 number of the Heathens ever did so, which I perceive is no Article of Faith with Dr. St.

Eun:

Yet nothing, as you know very well, is more plain and Express in Scrip∣ture, than that they did so. And because the Dr. is ever now and then casting in Parentheses to insinuate the contrary, it will not be amiss to repeat a few of the many Texts, that occurr in it: as Levit. 19. 4. Turn ye not unto Idols, nor make to your selves Molten Gods. 2. Kings. 19. 18. They haue cast the Gods of the Na∣tions into the Fire for they were no God, but the work of mens hands, wood and stone; All the Gods of the Nations are Idols Isai. 44. 16. 17. He (i ē the Car∣penter) * 1.48 burn••th part of the wood in the Fire &c. And the residue thereof he maketh a God, even his Graven Imag••: He falleth down unto it, and worship∣peth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, deliver me, For thou art my God. The same is avowed by the Prophet Jeremy.

2. 27. They haue said, to a stock, Thou art my Father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth▪ With them agrees the Author of the Book of Wisdom, (if you think he may be credited) when he saith ch. 14. that One preparing to sail, calleth vpon a peice of wood more r••tten than the Vessel that carrieth him; and again. c. 15. v. 15. They counted all the Idols of the Heathens to be Gods, In fine the chief argument which De∣metrius the Silver-smith. Acts. 19. 26. availed himself of to raise a tumult a∣gainst S. Paul at Ephesus, was to tell those of like occupation with him, that h•• perswaded and turned away much peo∣ple saying, that they be no Gods, which are made with hands. And can any thing be said more expressly, than it is in these places that the Heathens worshipped their Molten Images, as Gods? surely if Dr. Still's words, when he saith, It can∣not enter into his mind how God should haue declared a thing by more Express and Emphatical words, than he hath done, may be applied without temerity to any Texts of Scripture, it may be to these: And therefore if Scripture be the Rule of his Faith, and his meaning be

Express Scripture when it is to be had, I see not but it ought to be an Article of Faith with him, that the Heathens, (not an inconsiderable number of them neither, but the Generality of them) worshipped their Images as Gods. This I dare affirm, that He that sees it not plainly assirmed in these Texts of Scrip∣ture, (to which I could adde many out of the Fathers no less cleer and Express,) must haue no better eyes than the I∣mages * 1.49 themselues. But Dr. St. is none of those, for in the very place (p. 700.) where he thrusts in that kind Paren∣thesis * 1.50 (if at least any considerable num∣ber of the Heathens ever did so) speak∣ing of the Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods, he tells us it was vpon this account, that they supposed some Spirit to be incorporated in the I∣mage, and so to make together with it a Person fit to receive worship. And here though he cite not so much as a Covie * 1.51 of one Father, yet I shall do him that right as to acknowledge he speaks their Sense; yet cannot but question his Sin∣cerity, * 1.52 who when he knew that the Arguments of the Fathers against the Images of the Heathens, taken from

the vileness of the matter of which they were made, &c. went all vpon this Sup∣position (at length too acknowledged by himself) viz, that the Heathens held them to be Gods; could yet throw all the same reproaches vpon the Images of the Church of Rome, which he knows expressly denies any divinity to be in them, * 1.53 for himself relates the very words of the Council of Trent in which it is denied.

Cathar.

I confess I know not what can be opposed to such express Texts of Scripture. And therefore granting the Arguments of the Fathers to have been conclusive against the first sort of Idolaters who worshipped their Images as Gods, I desire you to proceed to the rest.

Eun:

But first for the same reason, you must grant them also not to be conclusive against those, who do not worship them as Gods.

Cathar.

Pray content your self,) Good Eunomius) with what I haue granted in relation to the Heathens, and proceed in your designed Discourse.

Eun:

I shall obey you The Genera∣lity of the Heathens, and their publick∣ly-authorized worship being thus beat

down by the Arguments of the Fa∣thers, some of Dr. Sts. Wiser ones came in to their ayd, and affirmed, that they did not worship the Images as Gods, but the Deities represented by them. To this the F••thers returned, that Jupiter himself and the rest of that rabble were Originally Men: that they had Fathers and Mothers, and Vnkles, and Aunts, as other mortals haue: that the Places of their Birth were known, their Se∣pulchers extant, and their Practices known to be such, as showed them to be Monsters or devils, rather than Men. And when the Heathens to remove these reproaches from their Gods, and from themselves replied, that these were the Fictions of the Poets: The Fathers proved the Pretence to be false. 1. From the common belief of the Heathens, who * 1.54 acknowledged Jupiter to be the Son of Saturn and Ops, Aesculapius to be the Son of Apollo &c. 2^ly From the nature of Poetrie, which is not to invent down-right * 1.55 lyes, but to set off things that were done, with certain Artificial Re∣presentations; * 1.56 as also from the Iaten∣t••on of the Poets, which certainly was not to defame their Gods, but to adde

lustre to their Actions by the Additional * 1.57 advantage of some counterfeit colours: By which it appears that in reality, they were not the Actions of Iupiter and the rest, which were the Fictions of the Poets, but the Titles they gaue to them as Gods, and to him as the Supream God, as Lactantius shows by many Examples. * 1.58 And here I cannot omit to give you the words of S. Athanasius vpon this sub∣ject they are so full to the purpose, Some * 1.59 of the Heathens, saith he, are wont to affirm, that the Poets ••y whē they relate any wicked actions of the Gods: but that in setting forth their Praises they do not faign, but speak truth, as when they give to Jupiter the titles of Father of the Gods, and of Supream, and Caelestial, and make him raign in heaven. This I hope is just as the Dr. would haue it; But what saith S. A••hanasiu••? That n••t only himself (a man of so much vnderstanding, as he was) but every man of common Sense will easily see this very reason principally to make against them. For Truth will again d••f••nd it self against them with th•• former demonstrations, I haue b••ought; because the Actions indeed conv••nce them to haue been men; but the Praises tran∣scend

the measure of Human Nature. But these two are contrary and inconsi∣stent with each other: For neither is it proper for Celestial Gods to doe such things, nor lawfull to Supplicate such Gods as do them. What then remains to be understood but that the Praises were false, and faigned out of Flattery, but that the Actions were truly delivered to their per∣petual shame. And this the common cu∣stome easily shows to be true: For there is hardly, any one to be found, who intend∣ing to praise others, accuses their life and manners; but rather extolls them with praises ••o hide the foulness and wickedness of their actions. 3^dly From the Relations * 1.60 of their own most Ancient and most Authentick Historians. 4^thly From the Judgment of the most learned among * 1.61 them, as Varro, Scaevola, Cicero, &c. 5^thly From the Images of their Gods and Goddesses in their Temples, particularly * 1.62 that of Juno, as sister and Wife to Jupiter * 1.63 and of Jupiter himself with an Eagle at his feet carrying Ganimede vpon his back. Lastly from the Plays which were instituted for their worship, in which those very debaucheries were represen∣ted * 1.64 in honour of them. These I take to

cleer and solid Convictions, that Jupi∣ter and the rest whom they commonly worshipped were not Gods, but Men and the most wicked of Men. And therefore.

The Philosophers to ward off the blow, took another way, which was to turn the Gods with their Images, and the Stories related of them to Natural and Mystieal Interpretations, as that by Jupiter they meant the Fire, by Juno * 1.65 the Ayr, by Neptune the Sea, &c. But here also the Fathers show••d evidently * 1.66 from the very Interpretations which themselves gaue, that they did not serve Creator, but the Creatures, viz, the Fire, Ay••, water, &c. And when others, who thought themselves yet more lear∣ned and Wise pretended that they did not worship either the Images, or the Creatures which they said were signified by them, but the I••visible Deities which resided in the one, and presided over the Other, the Father▪ evinced those supposed Deities to be no other than Wicked Spirits or devils, from their exacting Sacrifice to be offered to * 1.67 them which was due only to God, and commanding Obscene Plays to be repre∣sented

in their honour. And for Jupiter in particular they proved him not to be the true God, (as Dr. St. would haue him thought to be) 1. From the Testi∣mony of Nature forcing the very Hea∣thens * 1.68 in the midst of their Idolatries in all their dangers or necessities to recu•••• to God, not to Jupiter. 2. From the Al••ars they erected and Sacrifices they * 1.69 offered to the Vnknown God in time of Earth-quakes &c. the manner whereof is related by Agellius. 3. From the C••n∣tradictions they run themselves into, who made him to be the Supream God, as when Virgil (who, as you heard be∣fore, was so Nice and exact in all mat∣ters th••t concerned their R••ligion, as if h•• had been po••t fex Max.) gives him the Title of Fath••r Almigh••y, and at the same time makes im to be the Aether, and to haue a Wif•• also.

Tanc P••te•• Omnipot••us faecundis im∣bribus Aether Conjugis in gremium latae descendit.

And Plau••us in like manner in the same verse makes him to be the Supream God, and an A••ulterer when speaking of Alcumena he saith.

Vtrinque g••avida & ex viro & ex Summo Jove.

—Et hic nunc intus hic cum illa cubat.

4. From the filthy and abominable A∣ctions he not only permitted, but exacted * 1.70 to be represented in his honour. And lastly from the Confession of Jupiter him∣self, that he was a devil, as you heard before out of Minucius Felix and Ter∣tullian. And I take his own Testimony in this matter to out-weigh all those of the Poets and Orators cited by Dr. St.

As for those who seriously and so∣berly asserted one Supream Being, Crea∣tor and Governour of the world, Invi∣sible, unbegotten, Omnipotent &c. but called him by the name of Jupiter, the F••thers 1^st Proved by the aboue said and other Arguments, that it as not He who was worshipped in the Capi∣tol, as you haue heard; and then con∣demned them not only as absurd in so * 1.71 doing, but as contum l••o••s and ••ap••ous for applying to the true G••d the name of ••o abominable a Wretch, whether man or lev••l Lastly they justly charged even Plato himself and the rest of them, at least with external Idolatry for con∣curring with the Vulgarin the worship * 1.72 of many Gods. And the matter of fact

is confessed by Vossius. * 1.73

And now, Catharinus, I hope by this time you see, that which way soever the Heathens turned themselves they were unanswerably confuted by the Fathers; And the very Sequel makes it manifest, viz, the Subversion of all the Severall kinds of Idolatry, and the Conversion of the world to Christianity, which certainly had never followed had the Fathers been such unequal Matches to the Wiser Heathens, and their argu∣ments even those from the Poetical Fa∣bles to weak and frivolous as Dr St. would haue them thought to haue been, that he might estab••ish Jupiter Capito∣linus in the throne of the Supream God. For, as S. Augustin saith, if those rela∣tions were true, they prove him to haue * 1.74 been a most wicked man; and if they were False, and only faigned by the Poets, they prove him to be a devil, who exat∣ted and took delight to haue such abo∣minable practices ascribed to him and represented in his honour.

Cath.

I cannot but thank you for this Short, yet cleer Account you haue given me of the Heathens Theology, and the Several ways which the Fathers took to

refute it. Had you deduced the whole matter at large, cited the Passages of the Fathers, and dilated vpon them with your own Animadversions, I think you might haue out done the Dr. him∣self in being Voluminus. Yet whilst you studied brevity, me thinks there is one Principal part of it omitted by you; And that is Varro's Opinion who believed the same God to be worshipped by the Jews and the Romans, as S. Augustin con∣fesseth, but under another name, and with * 1.75 this difference, that the Romans wor∣shipped him by an Image, but the Jews would admit of no Image in his Worship.

Eun:

You haue done well to mind me of this, because he was, (as the same S. Augustin calleth him) the most Acute and learned of all the Romans. And if such a man erred, much more may we think the Vulgar did. Now that what he asserted was not true, S. Au∣gustin shows by Arguments which can∣not be answered. 1. Because the Romans, who received the Gods of other Nations * 1.76 whom they had conquered, would never admitinto their Religion the worship of the God of the Jews. 2. Because the God * 1.77 of the Jews forbad any other Gods to be

worshipped besides him; but Iupiter for∣bad not even Saturn himself, and that, af∣ter he had driuen him out of his king∣dome, to beworshipped as a God, though he stood in competition with him for the Title of Supream; as being thought by others to be the God of the Jews, * 1.78 and that Deity, into whom the Philoso∣phers resolved their Interpretations. 3. Because, had the Romans believed Ju∣piter * 1.79 to be the same with the God of the J••ws, they would not haue treated him so contumeliously at Rome, as to make a Simulacre to him. Perhaps you will check at the new-fashioned word Simulacre, but you must know, first that it comes from France where it is in use, among Authors of great note. 2. That the fashion of it is the same with that of Spectre, used by Dr. St. p. 682. and 3. That the word Simulachrum seems to be used here by S. Augustin in the common acception of the Heathens, that is, for such an Image as by Dedication was believed by them to haue some di∣vinity incorporated in it, for which it ought to be worshipped, and the ma∣king such an one to Jupiter, had the Ro∣mans believed him to be the same with

the God of the Jews is what as S. Augustin saith, would haue been a contumely to him. 4. Because Varro, who, had he been free from the preju∣dice * 1.80 of custome which involved him also in the worship of many Gods, would haue asserted the Worship of one only God, and that without a Simulacre, yet himself believed and taught this God to be no other than the Soul of the world, whereas the true God, as S. Augustin replyes vpon him; was not the Soul of the world, (if there were any such thing) but the Maker and * 1.81 Creator of it. And then lamenting as it were that so great a man should come so neer the Truth, and miss it, he expresses that favourable Opi∣nion of him, that had he been ad∣vertised of the Mutability of a S••ul, together with the Impious and Irre∣ligions Consequences, which followed * 1.82 from his Assertion, and could haue born vp against the Tyranny of an old Errour, he would in all likelyhood much rather haue believed that In∣commutable Being, which created the Soul it self, to be the true God. And with these and the like Arguments he

triumphed over that great Dictator of the Romans in all kind of learn∣ing.

Cathar.

These Arguments indeed seem to me convincing. But I am yet to seek, whether these and the rest also produced by the Fathers may not be looked vpon by Dr. St. as casts of their former employment, when he so carnestly maintains Jupiter Capitolinus to be the true God; and I doubt whe∣ther they would haue had the same success, had he been then alive to ma∣nage the Cause.

Eun:

You may think as you please of the Dr's wit and abilities in this Point. But thus much I think is evident to any man of Common Sense, that if the Fathers did not most grossly con∣tradict themselves, or were not (to use the Dr's Phrase) such a pack of * 1.83 Hypocrites and Impostors, as to im∣pugn in others what they believed themselves, the Passages alledged by him out of them, to show it to haue been their Sense, that Jupiter who was worshipped in the Capitol was the true God, must be mis-represented, or cor∣rupted by him.

Cathar.

That if you please shall be tried at our next meeting.

Eun:

Pray pick out the choicest and most convincing Testimonies you can. For you know, as the Dr. himself hath told us, that this Point is very material toward the true understanding the na∣ture * 1.84 of Idolatry.

Cathar.

You need not recommend that to my care, I shall give you enow to make a full consent of the Fathers.

Notes

• * 1.1

  p. 24.
• * 1.2

  p. 78.
• * 1.3

  p. 7.
• * 1.4

  p. ••.
• * 1.5

  p. 14.
• * 1.6

  1▪
• * 1.7

  Li. 1. Adv. Gent. p. 9.
• * 1.8

  Tract. 106. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.9

  c. 2••.
• * 1.10

  p. 54.
• * 1.11

  p. 89.
• * 1.12

  Li. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.13

  Apol. c. 17.
• * 1.14

  •• 5.
• * 1.15

  2.
• * 1.16

  p. 3••. 34. 39.
• * 1.17

  P. 35. 36.
• * 1.18

  P. 44.
• * 1.19

  P. 46. 49.
• * 1.20

  Poenul. Act. 5. Sc. 3.
• * 1.21

  In Am∣phitr. Prol.
• * 1.22

  p. 46.
• * 1.23

  p. 54.
• * 1.24

  Am∣phitr. in Prol. & Act. 5. Sc. 1. Summus Impera∣tor Di∣vum at∣que ho∣minum Iupiter, Is se di∣xit cum Alcume∣••a clam ••onsue∣tum cubi∣••••bus.
• * 1.25

  3.
• * 1.26

  p. 40. 41.
• * 1.27

  p. 42.
• * 1.28

  p. 74.
• * 1.29

  p. 75.
• * 1.30

  p. 94.
• * 1.31

  p. 88.
• * 1.32

  p. 541.
• * 1.33

  p. 706.
• * 1.34

  Ep. D••∣dic.
• * 1.35

  Li. 6. de civ. Dei c. & li. 4. c. 27. Euseb. li. 4. de Praep. E∣vang. in Praef.
• * 1.36

  Arnob. li. 1. Ter∣tull. A∣pol. c. 10. lact. li. 1. c. 8. S. Aug. li. 8. de civ. Dei. c. ••6. Cic.
• * 1.37

  li. 2. de nat. Deo.
• * 1.38

  Vid. S. Aug. de civ. Dei li. 8. c. 22.
• * 1.39

  p. 66.
• * 1.40

  S. Aug. li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 27. 32.
• * 1.41

  Lict. li. 1. c. 8. & 11.
• * 1.42

  S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. E∣vang. c. 23.
• * 1.43

  Def. p. 15.
• * 1.44

  De Idol. Praefat. 1.
• * 1.45

  Li. 2. c. 1.
• * 1.46

  Concil. Trent. Sess. 25.
• * 1.47

  Def. p. 541. p. 706.
• * 1.48

  Ps. 69. 5.
• * 1.49

  ••. Iren. Li. 3. c. 6. S. Cy∣pr. li. 3. ad Quir.
• * 1.50

  Arnob. li. 1. min. Fel. in Oct. S. Aug. in Ps. 41. & li. 2. q. sup. Exod q. 71. S. Cyril. li. 6. cont. Jul.
• * 1.51

  S. Aug. li. 8. de civ. Dei. c. 23. 26.
• * 1.52

  Arnob. li. 1. adv. Gent. Euseb. li. 3. de vit a Const. S. Athan. Orat. cont. Gent. S. Chrysost∣in Ge∣nethl. a∣pud Theodo∣ret. Dial. 1.
• * 1.53

  Def. p. 613.
• * 1.54

  Lact. li. 1. c. 11.
• * 1.55

  Lactan. li. 1. c. 11.
• * 1.56

  S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. E∣vang. c. 23. & S. Athanas. ••rat.
• * 1.57

  Lact. S. A∣than. contr. Gent.
• * 1.58

  Loc. Sup. Cit.
• * 1.59

  Orat. contr. Gent.
• * 1.60

  Lact. Aid. S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. Evang. c. 23.
• * 1.61

  S. Aug. li. 4 de civ. Del. c. 23.
• * 1.62

  Lact. in Loc. cit.
• * 1.63

  S. Aug. li. 1. de cons. E∣vang. c. 23. & de civ. Dei. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 4. c. 30.
• * 1.64

  S. Aug. li. 4. de Civ. Dei. c. 26.
• * 1.65

  Athe∣n••g. Le∣gat. p. 66.
• * 1.66

  S. Aug. de cons. Evang. li. 1. c. 23. & li. 20. cont. Faust. c. 9. 19.
• * 1.67

  S. Aug. in Ps. 96. & 113. & li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 26. & li. 10. c. 4.
• * 1.68

  Tertull. de Te∣stim. A∣nimae.
• * 1.69

  Minuc. Fel. p 17. Agell li. 2. c. 28. apul. Voss li. 1 de I. dol. c. 2.
• * 1.70

  S. Aug. li. 2. d•• civ. c. 13. & li. 4. c. 26.
• * 1.71

  Orig. cont. Cels. li. 4. & 5. Lact. li. 1. c. 11. S. Aug. li. 4. d•• civ. Dei. c. 27.
• * 1.72

  S. Aug. li. 10. de civ. Dei. c. 3.
• * 1.73

  Li. 1. de Idol. c. 4. p. 12. 13. & li. 1. c. 41. p. 151.
• * 1.74

  Li. 2. de civ. Dei. c. 1 3. & li. 4. c. 26. 27. 28. & li. 6. c. 6.
• * 1.75

  Li 4. de civ. Dei▪ c. 9. & li. 1. de Cons. E∣vang. c. 22.
• * 1.76

  S. Aug. de Cons. Evang. li. 1. c. 17. 18.
• * 1.77

  Ibid. c. 18▪ & 22.
• * 1.78

  Ibid. c. 22. 23.
• * 1.79

  Id. li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 9.
• * 1.80

  Ibid. cap. 31.
• * 1.81

  S. Aug. de cons. Evang. li. 1. c. 23.
• * 1.82

  Li. 4. c. 12.
• * 1.83

  Def. p. 494. 495.
• * 1.84

  Def. p. 24.