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 THIRD DIALOGVE.

THE ARGVMENT.

THe Particular Testimonies of Mi∣nucius Felix, Clemens Alexandri∣nus, S. Augustin, and T••rtullian, ci∣ted by Dr. St. to prove it to haue been their Sense, that the Heathen's Jupiter was the true God, brought to the Test; And the design of the said Fathers shown to be either mis-represented, or both their Words and Sense corrupted by him.

CATHARINVS, EVNOMIVS.

EVn:

Good morrow, Catharinus: I see you are breaking your Fast this morning with the Dr. Haue you met with the Places you desired.

Cath.

I haue, though with more dif∣ficulty, than I imagined, they were so

intermingled with those other passages, which as you observed, proved no more, than either that the H••athens acknow∣ledged one Supream God: or that it was the Sense of the Heathens, that their Jupiter was He. Yet I haue met with some, and those of great Authority, which prove it so clearly to haue been the Sense of the Fathers also, that Jupiter was the Supream God, that I think it cannot be denied.

Eun:

And was it not artificially done of the Dr. to in-lay his Testimonies in such a manner, that the unwary Reader, hearing the Supream God spoken of in some of them, and Jupiter in others, might think the Fathers acknowledg∣ed Jupiter to be the Supream God. But this is what I deny. And doubt not be∣fore we part to make you see, either that the meaning of the Fathers is mis-represented, or both their words and Sense corrupted by him. You may pro∣duce them if you please.

Cath.

Well then Eunomius, what can be more clear than the Testimony of Mi∣nucius * 1.1 Felix? when he saith (and as Dr. St. observes) wisely in this case. They who make Iove the chief God,

are only deceived in the name, b••t agree in the Power. Surely he was farr enough from thinking their Iupiter Father of Gods and Men (which he applauds the Poets for saying) to haue been the Arch-Devil

Eun:

This indeed comes something more home to the purpose, if it be true what the Dr. saith. But what if he haue corrupted both the Sense and words of Minucius, to make him speak as he would haue him? To make this out, there will need no more, than to acquaint you with the design of Mi∣nucius in that place, and to set down his words exact••y as they are in the Oxford Edition 1631. His design was there to convince the Heathens, that * 1.2 the world was governed by one only God▪ not many. To do this he makes use of the Examples of Monarchical Government among men, of one king among the Bees, and one Leader a∣mongst the heards of Irrational Crea∣tures: from whence he inferrs, that much more ought we to acknowledge one Supream and undivided Power in Heaven. This he confirms again from the Practice of the Heathens them∣selves,

who were wont to lift vp their hands to heaven, and say, God is Great, and God is true. And then addes for their further Conviction, the words (as they should haue been) cited by the Dr. viz, Those also who will haue Iupiter to be the Prince or Chief, are dece••v••d in the name, but agree as to the Vnity of Power: I hear the Poets also ext••lling One Father of Gods and Men. By which it is plain, that him∣self intended nothing lesse than to assert Iupiter to be the one Supream God; but that he argued only ad hominem (as we say) from what the wiser Heathens pretended they thought of Iupiter, that they ought to acknowledge, but One Supream God, Maker and Governour of the world. As for his own thoughts concerning Iupiter, you haue heard before what they were, p. 89. where he expressly affirms Saturn, Serapis, and Iupiter himself to be Devils; and proves them to be so from their own Confes∣sions. So farr was He from thinking the Heathen's Iupiter to be the Su∣pream God, as Dr. St. would make his Reader believe; which he could not otherwise do, than by corrupting the

very Text. For the words in Minucius are these. Et qui Iovem Principem vo∣lunt, f••lluntur in nomine, sed de una potestate consentiunt, that is, Those also who will haue Iupiter to be the Prince o•• Chief, are deceived in the name, b••t agree as to the Vnity of Power, i. ē. that there is one Supream God by whom the world is governed: and not as they are translated by the Doctor. They who make Iove the Chief God, are only de∣ceived in the name, but agree in the Power. Where if you compare the En∣glish with rhe Latin, you will find, that first he translates the word Volunt (by which Minucius intimates what the Heathens would haue, but he would not grant,) by the term mak••, as if Minucius assented to it. Then he coggs the word ONLY into the Text, They are only saith he deceived in the name, as if the name did not carry the Person along with it in his Judgment who makes Iupiter to be a Devil: And lastly leaues out the word VNA, s••il potestate, which plainly shew'd the design and Sense of Minucius to be, that although they were deceived in their pretence of assigning Iupiter to

be the Supream God; yet by what they affirmed of him, viz, that He was the Prince or Chief, and the Poets setting forth one Father of Gods and Men, they were sufficiently convinced, that they ought to acknowledge but one Supream and un-divided Power, not many, by Which the world was made and go∣verned; which was the Point that Mi∣nucius was proving in that place. Here then you see, Catharinus, that the Dr. hath not only mis-represented the mean∣ing of Minucius, but corrupted the very Text, by put••ing in and leaving out what he thought might make for his advantage. Neither doth he applaud the Poets for their magnifying Iupiter as the Father of Gods and men, but cites them against the Heathen's Opinion of Plurality of Gods, as acknowledging o••e Father of All. The Dr. observes that what Minucius said was wisely said; and so it was, because he convinced the Heathens, by the Testimony of those who were esteemed the wisest amongst them: But whether it were Wisely or Honestly done of him thus to corrupt the words and Sense of Minucius, I leaue to your Judgment; But am very

sure, that this is not the way to break T. G. of his bad custome.

Cath.

But the following Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, who al∣lows * 1.3 and applauds the Heathens for giving to Iupiter the Title of the Su∣pream God, both in his Admonition and Misce lanies, may I hope serve to do it. For having shown that Thales conf••ssed God's Omnipotency and Omnisciency, that Epicharmus attributed Omnipo∣tency to him, and Homer the Creation of the world, which he described in the Shield of Achilles, he makes this Ob∣servation, (as if it w••re purposely in∣tended saith he for T. G.) He that is called both in Verse and Prose Iupiter carries our apprehension to God, (not to the Arch-Devil as T. G. saitb.) And then cites the Testimonies of Euphorion and Aeschilus about Iupiter, which for T. G's better information he sets doWn both in Greek and English, viz, Iupiter is Aether and Earth and Hea∣ven and all things, and if there be any thing aboue all, Iupiter is it: Which Clemens is so farr from thinking an improper speech, that he saith it was spoken with a great deal of decency and

Gravity concerning God. And now I pray tell me, Eunomius, if Dr. St. had not a great deal of reason to subjoyn as he doth; By this it appears that those who boast so much of the Fathers are not over-conversant with them; but Fa∣ther Bellarmin, and Father Coccius serve them for a whole Jury of them. And then commends T. G. for his mo∣desty, that when he had said, this was the Sense of the Fathers, he produced no more but good Father Origen; and is so kind-hearted to him, that though I believe, saith the Dr. he hath heard how he hath been condemned for an He∣retick, yet he with great judgment sup∣poses that what he said was the Common Sense of the Fathers. What say you to this Eunomius.

Eun:

That we haue here a Second Part to the same tune, or another Fit of ranting like that of the two God fa∣thers, and Covie of one, But what hath Clemens done either in his Admonition or Miscellanies to put the Dr. into it? He saith indeed that what the Poets say about Jupiter's being all things, was spoken with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God, and that

He who is called both in Verse and Prose Iupiter, doth under the glorious Titles Attributed to him of Omnipotent, Omniscient &c. carry our Apprehen∣sion to God; but doth it follow from hence, that it was the Sense of Cle∣mens himself that Iupiter who was worshipped in the Temples, was that true God? Cannot I say, it was spoken with a great deal of decency and Gravity by Dr. St. of himself, that his design, as he saith, is to represent the matters in difference truly, to report faithfully, * 1.4 and to argue closely, and that these things spoken of him carry my Appre∣hension to an Ingenuous and Sincere Writer of Controversy, but it must be my sense, that Dr. St. of whom they are said, must be the Man? This was the case of Clemens. His design in his Admonition was (and the Dr. could not be ignorant of it, for he cites the words) to shew that there is a certain * 1.5 Divine Influence distilled vpon all men, especially on those who apply themselves to learning, by vertue of which they are forced to confess One God, incorruptible and unbegotten, who abides for ever aboue the highest Heavens. And in the Fifth

Book of his Miscellanies he falls vpon the same Subject again, viz, that there is a Natural knowledge of one Omni∣potent God among all considering men. For proof whereof he cites many pas∣sages of the Philosophers and Poets, and some of them applying to him under the name of Iupiter, those things which truely and only belong to the One Su∣pream God: From whence he draws this Conclusion at the End of the Book, that the East and West, the North and South haue one and the same inbred no∣tion of the Government of one Supream Disposer of things. But farr more the Inquisitive Philosophers of Greece, who attribute a Wise Providence to him who is Invisible, and the only most Power∣ful, and most Skilful Contriver of things. By which it appears, that when Cle∣mens said, that He who is called Iupiter both in Verse and Prose carries our Ap∣prehension to God, and that what Aes∣chilus said of Iupiter's being all things was spoken with a great deal of decency and gravity concerning God; his mean∣ing was not to assert Iupiter to be that Supream Being; but from the Epithets and Titles of Omniscient, Omnipotent

&c. (Which their own Philosophers and Poets attributed to Iupiter, or to God under his name,) to convince them, that there was but one only Supream Being, Maker and Governour of the World. For, whether they did Wisely or no in calling him Iupiter, yet the things they said of him, did evidently oblige them to acknowledge such a Being to be the Contriver and disposer of all things; not that Clemens himself asserted them to belong to the Iupiter, who was worshipped by them: As (to make use of the former Paralel) when Dr. St. ascribes to himself, Fidelity, Exactness, Closeness in arguing &c. whether he do wisely or no in doing so (of which by this time you may have some cause to doubt) yet most certainly it follows from his applying them to himself that he acknowledges them to be the true and laudable Qualities of a Cont••••∣vertist; not that I who cite him saying so of himself, acknowledge them to be found in him: For I think I haue evinc'd the contrary by many Arguments al∣ready, and foresee if you hold on in your design, I shall haue occasion to do it farther. As for the Judgment

which Clemens himself made of the Heathen's Iupiter, you heard before, how he affirms not only the lesser Gods * 1.6 to be Devils, but the more Honourable among them, viz, Apollo, Diana, Latona, Ceres, Proserpina, Pluto, Her∣cules, and (as though ••t were purpo∣sely intended for Dr. St.) ipse Iupiter even Iupiter himself, to be Magni Doe∣mones, Great Devils, and not that He was the true God, Blessed for evermore, as Dr. St. saith. Here perhaps the Dr. will say, that Clemens runs out after his way; because he runs not the same way * 1.7 with him. But by what hath been said it appears, that they who boast so much of giving a full account of the Fathers, are not over∣conversant with them, un∣less the meaning be that they are too bold with them, in making them speak quite contrary to their meaning as the Dr. doth here with Clemens. Are there any more, whom you think fit to produce?

Cathar.

I know not what to say to these things, unless I should take the pains my self to examin the Books, which I think I shall not do.

Eun:

And so did Dr. St. too; other∣wise

he would never haue given us such a full account of them, as he hath. But pray tell me, Are there any more, whom you think fit to produce?

Cath.

Yes: The Great S. Augustin, * 1.8 in his 4^th Book of the City of God. cap. 9. where, as Dr. St. saith, he confesses that the Romans believed him whom they worshipped in the Capitol to be the King of the Gods as well as Men: And to re∣present that, they placed a Scepter in his hand, and built his Temple vpon a high Hill; and that it is he of whom Virgil saith, Jovisomnia plena; and the same in Varro's Opinion that was worshipped by some without an Image, by whom the same S. Au∣gustin saith, he meant the Iews. Can you deny these to be the words of S. Augustin? And if not, can any thing be more plain?

Eun:

What to do? To prove it to be the Sense of S. Augustin, that Jupiter whom the Romans worshipped in the Capitol, was the true God? This Ideny. They prove indeed that the Heathens endeavoured to save themselves from the shame of worshipping a Devil by these pretended Arguments; But what is that to the Que∣stion, which is not what was the Sense of the Heathens, but of the Fathers?

Cath.

You are very precise I see in keeping to the State of the Question.

Eun.

And it is but necessary, when if a Father chance, (though but by way of an Objection, as these words of S. Au∣gustin are) to cite the Testimony of a Poet or Philosopher, wherein they either prophanely ascribed to Jupiter the Attri∣butes of the true God, or fondly and ab∣surdly applied to the true God the name of Jupiter, presently it must be believed that the Fathers acknowledged Iupiter that was worshipped in the Capitol, to be the true God. But S. Augustin was so farr from thinking him so, that he looks upon it as no other than a Pretence of the Heathens to save themselues from confusion, as manifestly appears. 1^st From the word Volunt (for we haue that un∣lucky word here too, Ipsum, (se. Iovem) Deorum omnium dearumque Regem esse volunt:) which as I said before signifies what they would haue, but S. Augustin would not grant, viz, their Iupiter to be the King of the Gods as well as Men, as the Dr. reads it. Hence in the 17^th chapter of the same Book, he saith, Iovem Deorum Regem pro sua Opinione confingunt, that they faign Iupiter in their

own Opinion, (not his) to be the King of the Gods: and in the 25^th chapter he shows that themselves believed Happi∣ness not to be given by Iupiter, but by some God whom they did not know. And if he proved the very pretence in them to be false, surely he was farr enough himself from thinking the thing to be true, viz that their Jupiter was the true God. 2. From the words immediately foregoing those cited by the Dr. For there he derides the Heathens, (and it was his way too) for ascribing the greatness and conti••uance of the Roman Empire to Ju∣piter: Nimirum ergo Jovis hoc opus est. This then, without any peradventure saith he, is the Work of Jove, for they will haue him to be the King of all the Gods and Goddesses, and then 3. Having in the same Ironical way proposed the Arguments, made use of that time by the Heathens to support their pretence (and now brought in anew by the Dr. to sup∣port the same) viz, that they put a Scepterin his hand, and built his Tem∣ple upon a high hill &c. he sets himself to confute them as absurd and foolish. And first he shews the Opinion of Var∣ro, (who believed Iupiter to be the

same with the God of the, Iews, to be con∣tradicted by the practice of the Romans; If it be so, saith he, why is He so ill trea∣ted * 1.9 at Rome, as to make or dedicate a Simulacre to him? Then in the very next chapter He proves at large that which way soeuer they take Iupiter, either as * 1.10 the Son of Saturn, and the Brother and Husband of Iuno, according to the Poets and Historians; or so as to under∣stand by Iupiter the Fire, and by Iuno the Ayr according to the Philosophers, non est ille de quo dictum est, Iovis om∣nia plena, It is not He of whom it is said, All things are fill'd with Iove, if Iuno also fill some part, and therefore Virgil must contradict himself, when he said not as a Poet, but as a Philoso∣pher, as S Augustin notes.

Tunc Pater Omnipotens foecundis im∣bribus Aether Conjugis in gremium laete descendit.

After this he proceeds for divers chapters together to refute the Several Interpre∣tations, which the Learneder Heathens had devised to make their Pretence ap∣pear plausible, as that all the Gods were but one and the same Iupiter; that God is * 1.11 the Soul of the world, that those whom they * 1.12 * 1.13

called Gods, were but Divine Gifts &c. And although the Dr. may sleight these arguments of S. Augustin also as casts of his former employment, (for I believe he hath heard of him that he was a Rhetorician before his Conversion, as well as T. G. of Origen that he was thought to be Heretical,) yet they evi∣dently evince at least, that it was not his own Sense, that the Heathen's Iupiter was the true God. And if what I haue said here, and before, be not sufficient * 1.14 to convince you of it, hear what he saith in the 17^th chapter of the same Book * 1.15 where he argues against Iupiter's being the Supream God from their making Victory a Goddess. Will they say, saith he, that Iupiter sends the Goddess Vi∣ctoria, and she in Obedience to the King of Gods takes part with them to whom she is sent, this saith he, is truly said, not of that Iupiter, whom in their Opinion they faign to be the King of the Gods, but of Him who is the true King of Ages. As for their Iupiter you heard befor•• what his Verdict was, where he said, * 1.16 that none but wicked Spirits, or Devils, were worshipped in their Temples; not so much as King Iupiter himself excep∣ted.

And now, pray tell me Catharinus if the Dr. had not great reason to vaunt, that he had given a full and clear Evi∣dence * 1.17 of the consent of all the Fathers in this matter, and that not taken from any single or incoherent passages, but from the Series and Design of their discourses, when he imposes vpon us for the Sense of S. Augustin, what S. Augustin pro∣poses as an Objection of the Heathens and sets himself to confute with all the wit and learning he had. And your self as yet haue not been able, nor I am con∣fident, ever will be able to pick out of all the Testimonies of the Christian Fa∣thers alledged by him, so much as a Covie of one, who asserts it as his own Sense, that the Heathen's Iupiter was the true God?

Cath.

Here you bring the matter in∣deed to a Pinch. But giue me leaue to tell you, that for all your confidence you may be, and are mistaken. For there is one yet behind whose Authority may stand for many.

Eun:

Who is that I pray?

Cath.

No lesse a man than Tertul∣lian.

Eun:

Tertullian? Though I believe

the Dr. hath heard how he also hath been condemn'd for an Heretick, as well as Origen; yet if you can show, that he acknowledged Iupiter that was worship∣ped in the Capitol to be the true God, I shall resign my Iudgmens so farr, as to suppose that what he said was the Common Sense of the Fathers.

Cath.

And if I do not manifestly prove it out of him from the Testimonies al∣ledged by the Dr. I shall willingly, for what I am concerned in it. yeild up the Cause.

Eun:

Let us then bring the matter to an Issue, and hear what it is, that Ter∣tullian saith.

Cath.

First, as Dr. St. observes, He appeals to the Consciences of men for the * 1.18 clearest Evidence of one true and Su∣pream God. For in the midst of all their Idolatries, saith he, they are apt vpon any great occasion to lift vp their hands and Eyes to heaven, where the Only True, and Good God is. Then he men∣tions * 1.19 their common Phrases, God gives, and God sees, and I commond you to God, and God will ••estore: All which do shew the Natural Testimony of Conscience as to the Vnity and Supream Excellency of

God. And in his Book ad Scapulam, (Pray mark it well) God, saith he, * 1.20 shewed himself to be the Powerful God, by what he did vpon their Supplications to him under the name of Jove. Now although the two first passages prove no more, but that the Heathens had a Notion of one Supream Being ingraf∣ted in their minds by nature, (which you will not allow to come home to the Question) Yet this last clearly evinces that Jupiter, whom they wor∣shipped in the Capitol, was this one Supream Being, both from the Testi∣mony of Tertullian, and of God him∣self, by the Miracle he did vpon their Supplications (i. ē. the Supplications of the Heathens) made to him under the name of Jove.

Eun:

A Miracle! Here you haue brought the matter to a brave Issue indeed. But did Tertullian then in good earnest say that God did a Mira∣cle to shew himself the Powerful God vpon the Supplications the Heath••ns made to him under the name of Jove? Dr. St. you know is not over fond of proving doctrines by Miracles, and I cannot but wonder he should now make

use of one to establish a doctrine so con∣trary to that of the Holy Scriptures both Old and New. For what I read there is, that All the Gods of the Heathens * 1.21 are Devils, as the Septuagint translate it, that they sacrificed their sons and daughters to Devils; and again, (as if * 1.22 it were purposely intended for Dr. St.) They Sacrificed to Devils, and not to God. What the Heathens offer in Sa∣crifice, they offer to Devils, and not to God. Methinks it might haue sufficed to haue laid this Infamous Brat of Ju∣piter's being the true God Blessed for evermore, at S. Paul's door, and not to father it vpon God himself. Such bad customes as these are to be broken, least they grow vp into open Blasphemy; and I shall endeavour to make the right Fa∣ther stand for his own child. But first are you sure Catharinus, that it was vpon the Supplications of the Heathens that the Dr. avouches Tertullian to say, that God did this Miracle?

Cath.

Yes▪ for he makes this Preface before the Testimony of Tertullian, that he will now look into the Sense of Writers of the Latine Church against the Heathens Idolaters; and accordingly it

is of them that he speaks in the two for∣mer passages, and the particle their (viz Supplications) evidently relates to them. Besides, when was it ever heard that Christians made their Supplications un∣der the name of Jove? Origen, as th•• Dr. notes, saith that by reason of the abundance of filthy and obscene Fables, * 1.23 which went of their Jupiter, the Chri∣stians would by no means endure to haue the true God called by his name. And S. Paul, as your self observed, though he cited a place out of Aratus, where he had mentioned Jupiter twice before, yet would not himself make use of the name. Nor do I believe that Dr. St. himself will ever think fit to put into his Letany, or to conclude any of his Works with that Invocation of Pater∣culus, Jupiter Capitoline, Auctor & Stator Romani nominis. There is a deco∣rum to be observed in the use and appli∣cation of words by reason of the change they are subject to from time and other Circumstances; as it would be absurd at present to make use of the Old Trans∣lation of those words of the Apostle, Paulus Servus Jesu Christi, Paul the Knave of Jesus Christ.

Eun:

Very well. It was then vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to God under the name of Jove, that Dr. St. avouches Tertullian to say, that he did the Miracle. But what will you say, Catharinus, if Tertullian expressly af∣firm, that it was done vpon the Suppli∣cations of the Christians made to God, but that the Heathens after it was done, would haue ascribed it to Jove?

Cath.

Marry then will I never trust Testimony of Father more for Dr. St's sake.

Eun:

You mean I suppose cited by him; and you haue reason to do so from the experience you haue had in ••ther Instances, but in none more f••lly, not more foully than in this, where he hath corrupted the words and Sense of Ter∣tullian, in so subtil, and yet palpable a manner, as is not easy to be found in any other. Haue you the works of Ter∣tullian?

Cath.

Yes, here they are, the Place cited by the Dr. is Lib. ad Scapulam. cap. 4. Pray turn to it.

Eun:

Lo, here it is. And the words are these. Marcus quoque Aurelius in Ger∣manica expeditione, Christianorum mi∣litum

Orationibus ad Deum factis, im∣bres ins••i illa impetravit. Quando non geniculationibus & Jejunation••bus nostris etiam siccitates sunt depulsae? Tunc & Populus adclamans Deo Deorum & qui solus Potens, in Iovi's nomine Deo nostro testimonium reddidit, that is to say if I haue not forgot my Grammar, that Marcus Aurelius in the German Expe∣dition, when his Army was ready to perish for want of water, obtained rain by the Supplications of the CHRI∣STIAN SOVLDIERS made to God. And indeed saith he when were not such Kind of calamities removed by the Prayers and Fasting of us Christians? Then the People also with their Accla∣mations to the God of Gods, and who alone is Powerful, gaue Testimony to our God under the name of Iove. These are the words; and the design of Tertul∣lian if I mistake not, in this passage was to convince Scapula, that he ought not to persecute the Christians, by whose Prayers so miraculous a•• Benefit had been obtained of God; and the more, because the very Heathens them∣selves, though according to their cu∣stome, they made their acclamations to

Iove, yet under that name by the Titles they gaue him of God of Gods, and a∣lone most Powerful, they gaue Testimony to the God of the Christians, who had wrought the Miracle. Now what does Dr. St? He jumbles together the Suppli∣cations of the Christian Souldiers, and the Acclamations of the Heathens, the God of the Christians and Iupiter, and makes the Sense to be, that God shew'd himself to be the Powerful God by what he did vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Iove. And can any thing be more contradictory to the words and Sense of Tertullian than this is? Tertullian saith expressly that what God did, was vpon the Sup∣plications * 1.24 of the Christians made to him. Dr. St. makes him say, it was vpon the Supplications of the Heathens. Ter∣tullian saith that the Heathens by the Acclamations they made to the God of Gods as they called Iove, gaue Testi∣mony to the God of the Christians under that name. Dr. St. makes him say, that God wrought the Miracle vpon their Supplications to him under the name of Iove.

Cath.

The First part of this is plainer

than I could wish it for Dr. St's. credit. For I see the words in Tertullian are, Orationibus CHRISTIANORVM ad Deum factis, by the Prayers of the Christians made to God, not of the Hea∣thens. But I do not so well understand the latter. For when Tertullian saith they gaue Testimony to our God under the name of Iove, what can his meaning be, but that they intended to honour him under that name, to whom they had before ad∣dressed their Supplications?

Eun:

No such matter I can assure you, Catharinus: but what the Heathens meant was to rob the God of the Chri∣stians of the honour, and transferr it to their Iove by giving to him the Title of God of Gods &c. but in so doing, they gave Testimony to our God that he alone was the most Powerful, who had done this Miracle vpon the Supplications of the Christians; This is what Tertullian meant to tell us not that the Heathens, had addressed their Supplications to the true God under the name of Iove. And that you may see this was his Sense, pray hear what he saith in the 40^th chap. of his Apologetick against the Heathens, where he describes both the

manner of their Supplications, and to whom they made them, and reproaches them with their bad custome of ascribing to their false God Iupiter, what the Christians had obtained of the only true God by their Prayers When there is fear, saith he, of a bad year through too much drouth, you (speaking to the Priests of the Heathens) wallowing in luxe and wantonness, offer sacrifices for rain to Iupiter, command the People to go barefoot, and seeking Heaven in the Capitol, expect the Clouds to showr down from the Roof, averse in so doing both from G••d and Heaven. But we (Chri∣stians) in the mean time depriving our selves of all sustenance, and even dry'd vp with fasting. and rowling our selves in Sack-cloth and Ashes, strike Heaven with Envy, and move God himself with compassion. Et cum misericordiam extor∣ferimus, Jupiter honoratur. And when we haue by these means extorted mercy, Iupiter must haue the honour. Where you see he evidently distinguishes the God of the Christians from their Iove to whom they intended the honour. And that it was so in this very passage we are vpon, is acknowledged by Dr. St. himself, * 1.25

when speaking of it in another place, he saith, that by those words of Ter∣tullian, [Then the whole Army made this Exclamation, Deo Deorum] it is evident, saith he, they intended this ho∣nour to their own Iove: And now I hope Catharinus, you are satisfied of the Sense of Tertullian, that he makes both the Acclamations, and Supplications of the Heathens to haue been directed not to the true God under the name of Iove, but to that Deity whom they belieued to reside in the Capitol, as distinct from him. But what will the Dr. do to save himself from the shame of so notorious a Falsification of the words and Sense of Tertullian, as to make him ascribe that to the Supplications of the Hea∣thens made to Iove, which Tertullian expressly saith was obtained by the Sup∣plications of the Christians made to God?

Cath.

I doubt not but he will find a elew to bring himself out of this Laby∣rinth, though I confess I am lost in it my self.

Eun:

Will he cite Iulius Capitolinus and Dio? The former of which attri∣butes the miracle to the Prayers of M.

Aurelius himself; the latter to a parti∣cular Providence of God, yet mention∣ing withall a report that it was done by the Magical Operation of one Ar∣nuphis. These indeed are two of his Faihers, but will not serve his turn, so well as Father Bellarmin, and Father Coccius do T. Gs. For Eusebius tells us, that this miraculous Event was deli∣vered * 1.26 to Posterity, both by the Hea∣then and Christian Writers, but with this difference, that the Heathens as being averse from Faith, relate it in such a manner, as it doth not evidently appear, that it was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians; But the Christian Writers, as being Lovers of Truth recount the matter plainly, but truly as it was done; viz vpon the Sup∣plications of the Christian Souldiers, and then cites Apollinarius and Ter∣tullian for it. So that if the Christian Fathers may be credited rather than the Heathen, this miraculous deliverance was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians.

But now, (as I remember he saith of * 1.27 T. G. (I haue reason to consider the temper of the Person I haue to deal with.

Who knows but the Testimony of one Heathen Father, (especially such a one as he describes M. Aurelius to be) may weigh more with him, than the * 1.28 Testimonies of t••enty Christian, whom he can send to school again, when he pleases, to learn to explain themselves better, as he doth the Christian Cicero Lactantius p. 43. Let us then hear how M. Aurelius himself relates the matter in his Letters to the Senate.

And thus it was, that being in great distress for want of water, he sent for those who are called Christians in his Army, and intreated their help. And when they had cast themselves vpon the earth, they not only prayed for me, saith he, but also for the whole Army, that some Redress might be given to the Hunger and Thirst, with which we were pressed, for it was five days, that we had not taken so much as a litle water, because none was to be had, we being then in the midst of Germany shut in with Mountains on every side. But as soon as they had cast themselves vpon the earth, and made their Sup∣plications to that God, whom I was ignorant of (it seems then it was not

Iove,) presently there fell vpon us from heaven a very cool and refreshing shower, but vpon our Enemies Hail in the likeness of Fire, and Flashes of Lightning. And that God who cannot be resisted nor overcome presently heard their Prayers and Supplications. Where∣fore, saith he, let us from hence∣forward permit them to be Christians, least by their Prayers they obtain like Arms against us. And then commands that no man presume to inform against * 1.29 them vpon the account of their being Christians, under the penalty of being burnt alive.

This is what M. Aurelius himself related to the Senate. And what * 1.30 will the Dr. say to the Testimony of so Eminent a Father? Will he criticize as his custome is in like cases, vpon the Mountains, and the five days want of water, and the Hail in the likeness of Fire, to make the story seem Improbable, and the letters to haue been forged by the Christians? That will not do his work; for Dio another of his Fathers confesses that M. Aurelius did write of this miraculous deliverance to the Se∣nate, though he omit to set down the words of the letter, out of the like good

will, we may suppose, to the Chri∣stians, as he had before omitted to de∣clare that it was obtained by their Pray∣ers, although he went not so farr (as the Dr. does) as to affirm it was done vpon the Supplications of the Heathens. But Tertullian in his Apologetick against the Heathens affirms expressly, that the * 1.31 Letters of M. Aurelius were extant in his time, in which he ascribes his deli∣verance to the Prayers of the Christians, who, as it happened, served in that Ex∣pedition. And in this he is approved by Eusebiu•• in his Chronicon. Now I appeal to your self, Catharinus, if you can imagin, that so grave a man as Tertul∣lian, who evermore made the Sincerity of the Christians one main Article of his Apology, would tell a lye in so no∣torious a matter of Fact, and of which there were some yet alive who might convince him; or insolently dare, vpon an uncertain report of letters written by M. Aurelius attribute that Victory to the Prayers of the Cbristians, which had been obtained by his own prayers, were it true what Father Julius Capito∣linus relates, or vpon the Supplications of the Heathens, as Dr. St. will haue it.

This is the Summe of what Baronius hath delivered at large concerning this * 1.32 matter, with so great Evidence, that which way soeuet the Dr. turn himself, he must needs find himself like M. Aurelius, shut in with Mountains, and stand in need of the Prayers of good Christians to God to help him out; unless he think the Supplications of the Hea∣thens to Jove, may be as available for him, as he makes them to haue been for Aurelius. And indeed whoever con∣siders, how prodigal he is both of his pains and credit to Apologize for them, must needs see the great obligation they haue to give him the Assistance of their Prayers.

But I haue not yet done with the Dr. vpon this Point. Scapula to whom Ter∣tullian wrote that Book was President of Carthage, a man that threatned utter destruction to the Christians, un∣less they would renounce Christ, and offer Sacrifice to the Gods. To appease his fury Tertullian writes this Book, wherein he first exposes the Innocent life of the Christians, and then the * 1.33 Punishments, which had fallen vpon many of those, who had persecuted them,

and the great Blessings and Benesits, which others had received, who had treated them with clemency, and amongst the rest the miraculous Victory given to M. Aurelius in the German expedition, the passage cited by Dr. St. This being the Scope of Tertullian in that Book, I would gladly know if any man of Com∣mon Sense can conceive him to haue been so Sensless, as to think to per∣swade Scapula not to compell the Chri∣stians against their Conscience to burn Incense to Jove, by telling him that God had shown himself to be the Power∣full God by what he did in the aforesaid Expedition vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Jove. This surely had been the ready way not to allay, but to enslame the Fury of the Persecuter, to see a People so obstinate that whereas they acknowledged the miraculous effect of Prayers made to God under the name of Jove they would not burn Incense nor sacrifice to him under the same name. Nor can I see how the Primitive Christians were excusable in their sufferings, any otherwise than as Weak Brethren who wanted good in∣formation, when as Origen saith, they

were ready to undergo any torments ra∣ther than to confess Jupiter to be God. Was this then an Apology for so Wise a man as Tertullian to make? No; But it is such an One, as Dr St. it seems would haue thought fit to make had he been in those Circumstances. Otherwise he would never haue taken so much pains to fix it vpon Tertullian, though he could not do it but by corrupting his words as you haue seen, and affirming what He saith was done by the Prayers of the Christians to God, to haue been done vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Jove. So foul a Passage as this was never fet∣ch'd from the Store-houses of Father Bellarmin, or Father Coccius, but of a much more Primitive Father, than either of them; of whom the Prophet Esay cites a saying [I will be like to the most High] which afterwards serv'd for an Original for the Poets and Orators to write by, when they gaue to Jupiter the Title of Pater Omnipotens & Su∣premus.

Cath.

Hold there, Good Eunomius. You know very well Humanum est labi. Every slip. is not a kick with the

Cloven-foot. The Wisest man may be over-seen in the Sense of an Author, through hast or inadvertence, or heat of disputation: And this is the utmost which I think you ought or can impute to Dr. St. in this case.

Eun:

In this I confess you speak like a Good Christian. And I should be ready to close with you in the same Judg∣ment, were I not well assured, that Dr. St. knew the contrary of what he affir∣med, to be the Truth. What if I shew you his own words some pages before in which he affirms expressly, that what was done at that time, was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians to God, and that the Heathens intended to rob him of the honour, and give it to their own Jove, and that this was the Sense of Tertullian in the very place cited now by him in favour of the Hea∣thens?

Cath.

This will seem to me as strange, as the Hail which fell in the likeness of Fire.

Eun:

Pray take his Book; It lies there before you, and read what he saith of this matter. Pag. 47.—Pray read it out.

Cath.

When the miraculous Victory was obtained by M. Antoninus over the * 1.34 Marcomanni by the Prayers of the Chri∣stians, (as Tertullian and Apollinaris say vpon good grounds, although the Heathen Historians attribute it to the vertue of Antoninus, or to some Magi∣cians with him) the whole Army made this Exclamation, saith Tertullian, Deo Deorum & qui solus Potens, whereby they did saith he, in Jovis nomine Deo * 1.35 nostro Testimoninm reddere: by which it is evident they intended this honour to their own Jove; for in the whole Army only the Legio Fulminatrix are suppo∣sed to haue been Christians; And besides this vpon Antoninus his Column at Rome, Baronius tells us there is still to be seen the Essigies of Iupiter Pluvius, destroy∣ing men and horses with Thunder and Lightning.

Eun:

Behold here a very fair Con∣fession, and Conviction too from Dr. St's. own mouth. For 1^st it is here confessed by him, that the Victory was miracu∣lous. 2^ly That it was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians made to God.

3. That this is so affirmed by Tertullian in the very place alledged by him.

4. That he acknowledges it was so affir∣med by him upon good grounds, which were chiefly the letters of M. Aurelius to the Senate. 5. That he judged the Grounds vpon which he spake to be Good, notwithstanding that the Hea∣then Historians attributed it to the ver∣tue of Antoninus, or to some Magi∣cians with him, as you heard before out of Julius Capitolinus and Dio. 6. That the whole Army by their Exclamation Deo Deorum & quisolus Potens, inten∣ded to give the honour to their own Jove; and confirms it farther himself from the Effigies of Jupiter Pluvius still to be seen vpon Antoninus his Column at Rome. And now after so clear a Confes∣sion of all these things, what could move so subtil a ••it as Dr. St. to make Ter∣tullian say, that God shewed himself to be the Powerful God by what he did vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Jove? Had he first said this, and afterwards told us, that the Victory was obtained by the Prayers of the Christians, as he confesseth Ter∣tullian saith vpon good grounds it was, I might haue thought he had corrected himself vpon a Second Consideration of

the Grounds, vpon which Tertullian saith it. But having first acknowledged them to be good (notwithstanding the Pretensions of the Heathen Historians) after this I say in spight of those grounds, to make Tertullian say, that God gave the Victory vpon the Supplications of the Heathens to him under the name of Love, is an argument to me not so much that Dr. St. was grown very sl••epy when he wro••e this, or that be wrote it in a dreā, * 1.36 (as he saith of T. G.) as that he wilfully shut his eyes, when he was broad awake. And therefore I hope, Catharinus, you will not forget. 1^st What you stipulated with me, when we entred vpon the Exa∣mination of this Place, viz, never more to trust Testimony of Father cited by Dr. St. For were not the Instances so many, and so pregnant, as hath been shewed, of his f••ul Play in this Kind; yet th••s alone is so notorious, that it may suffice in the Judgment of all Impartial men to implead him guilty of having forf••••ted all R••ght of ever hereafter being believed in any Testimonies he alledges. 2^dly That vpon the whole you will con∣fess, that after all his vapouring of the fall Account he would give us of the Sense

of the Fathers in this Point, and after the brave Covie of Partridges he tells us he had found, he hath not produced so much as a poor Covie of one Christian Father, who asserts it to be his Sense, that the Heathen's Iupiter (or as he calls him, their own Iove) was the true God; but all the Testimonies he brings out of them are either impertinent to the Que∣stion, or their design mis-represented, or the very Text it self corrupted, as hath been shewed. And so with your leave I bid you once more Farewel.

Cath.

For the present I am content. But I cannot let you go so for good and all. You must promise to let me see you again.

Eun:

And again if you please. Now I haue pass'd my time, a day or two or three more or less will break no squares. I will attend you.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Def. p. 8.
• * 1.2

  p. 51. 52. 53. 54.
• * 1.3

  Defence p. 77. 78.
• * 1.4

  Praef. to Rom, I∣dol.
• * 1.5

  Def. p. ••6.
• * 1.6

  p. 29••.
• * 1.7

  Def. p. 75.
• * 1.8

  Def. p. 44.
• * 1.9

  Li. 4. de civ. Dei. c. 9.
• * 1.10

  c. 10.
• * 1.11

  c. 11.
• * 1.12

  c. 12.
• * 1.13

  c. 24.
• * 1.14

  p. 296. 297.
• * 1.15

  c. 17.
• * 1.16

  Psal. 96.
• * 1.17

  Def. •• 102.
• * 1.18

  Def. p. 62. Ter∣tull. A∣polog. c. 17.
• * 1.19

  Id. de Test. A∣nimae.
• * 1.20

  Ad Scap. c. 4.
• * 1.21

  Ps. 96. Ps. 105.
• * 1.22

  Dent. 32. 1. Co••. 10.
• * 1.23

  Def. p. 9. Orig. contr. Cels. li. 4.
• * 1.24

  Christia∣norum militum Oratio∣nibus ad Deum factis.
• * 1.25

  Def. p. 47.
• * 1.26

  Hist. Eccl. li. 5. c. 5.
• * 1.27

  Def. p. 6.
• * 1.28

  p. 11. 31. 32.
• * 1.29

  Vid. Euseb li. 5. c. 20. a∣pud Ba∣ron.
• * 1.30

  An. 176. & Res∣criptum l. apud Pamel. in Ter∣tull. Apol. c. 5.
• * 1.31

  Cap. 5.
• * 1.32

  Baron. ad An. 176.
• * 1.33

  Li. ad Scap.
• * 1.34

  Dr. St's. Def. p. 47.
• * 1.35

  li. ad Scap. c. 4.
• * 1.36

  Def. p. ••20.