wherein all the reason and philosophy of atheism is confuted, and

330 TTje Afclepian Dialogue mifunderjlcod Book I,\'p[M'7vi to,- ('J'loii ^l%vl' Which we find in Apuleius his L atin tranOation thus ven-~Coh.f. 5SS. dered; Doniinus £5? omnium conformato)\ quern retle Deum dicimus, a fe fecioi'dum deum fecit, qui vidcri ^ fenliri pcjjit ; quern fecundum [ileum] fevjibikmita dixerim^ non ideo quod ipfefenliat {de hoc enim an ipfe [entiat anncn alio di-.cemus tempore) fed eo quod videntium fenfus incurrit ;) nuoniam ergo hunc fecit£x fc primum, ^ a fc fecundum., vifuffuecfl ei pulcher, ulpote qui eft o:nnium bonitatepleniffimus, amavit eum ut divinitatis fuc prolem, (for fo it ouglit to b3.read, and not patreni, it being toxov in the Greek, j The lord and maker ofall, "xhom ive rightly call God, ivhen he hod made a fecond god, v'fible andfen-Jible (/ fay, fenftble, not actively, becaufe himfclf hath fenfe, for concerningthis, whether he have fenfe or no, vce fhallfpeak elfewhere, but paffively, becaufehe incurs into our fefifes) this being his firft and only produ^ion, feemcd bothbeautiful to him, and moft full of all good, and therefore he loved him dearly aShis ozvn offspring. Which La5!antius, and after him St. ylujlin ', underderftandingof the perfect Word of God or eternal Aoyoc, made life of it asa teftimony againit the Pagans for the confirmation of Chriftianity ; theyraking it for granted, that this Hermaick book was genuinely Egyptian, anddid reprefent tlie docflrine of the ancient Hermes 'Trifnegifl . But DionyfiusPetavius • and other later writers, underftanding this place in the fame fenfewith LaBantius and St. ylufiin, have made a quite different uk of if, namely,to infer from thence, that this book was fpurious and counterfeited by fomaChriftian. To which we reply, firft, that if this Hermaick v/riter had acknowledgedan eternal Xoyo; ok Word of God, zx\di C3\\c6.\x. a fecond God iiK\