A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux

The words of Tertullian, which your Translator hath abused you in, are these: Sed nova jam Dei nostri in ista Civitate proxime editio publicata est, ex quo quidam in frustrandis bestiis mercenarius noxius picturam proposuit cum ejusmodi inscriptione, Deus Christianorum Ononychites; is erat auribus Asininis, altero pede ungulatus, librum gestans & togatus; risimus & nomen & formam. Sed illi debebant adorare statim biforme numen qui canino & leonino capite commistos Deos receperunt. Lately in that City (that is Rome) there was a public show made of our God; wherein a guilty Person hired to fight with wild beasts, and to cousin their rage, proposed a Picture with this Inscription Ononychites the God of the Christians: he had Asses ears, hoofed on one foot, carrying a Book and in a gown: we laughed at the name and shape; but they ought immediately to have adored this double shaped Deity, who have received Gods mingled with Dogs and Lyons heads. You see how well you have given us the words of Tertullian, which you pretend to do, saying, he adds these words. But I confess though he says no such matter, it is like enough he would have wondered at the name of Onochoetes, had the villain given it unto his picture: For neither he, nor any man else knows what it should mean. He knew well enough what Ononychites signified, and laughed at it. It is but Asinungulus, which it may be comes nearer their understanding. I confess some would read it Onochoerites, as if it were compounded of [Greek or Hebrew] and [Greek or Hebrew], because of those words of Epiphanius concerning the Gnostics, [Greek or Hebrew]. Some say their Sabaoth had the form of an Ass, seem of a Hog. But Tertullian in the description ⟨p. 563⟩of the Picture mentions no part of a Hog, nor rejects the abomination of the Gnostics, as was the manner of the Christians when charged with their silliness and folly, as may be seen abundantly in Origen against Celsus. But who, or what your Onochoetes should be, no man knows. But see your further unhappiness. You prove not by your Quotation that which no man denies, namely that the Christians also were charged with the worship of an Asses head, which if you had but looked into Tertullian himself, you must have found him expressly affirming it in the beginning of that Chapter, from whence your story is taken.

The words of Tertullian, which your Translator hath abused you in, are these: Sed nova jam Dei nostri in ista Civitate proxime editio publicata est, ex quo quidam in frustrandis bestiis mercenarius noxius picturam proposuit cum ejusmodi inscriptione, Deus Christianorum Ononychites; is erat auribus Asininis, altero pede ungulatus, librum gestans & togatus; risimus & nomen & formam. Sed illi debebant adorare statim biforme numen qui canino & leonino capite commistos Deos receperunt. Lately in that City (that is Rome) there was a publick shew made of our God; wherein a guilty Person hired to fight with wild beasts, and to cousin their rage, proposed a Picture with this Inscription Ononychites the God of the Christians: he had Asses ears, hoofed on one foot, carrying a Book and in a gown: we laughed at the name and shape; but they ought immediately to have adored this double shaped Deity, who have received Gods mingled with Doggs and Lyons heads. You see how well you have given us the words of Tertullian, which you pretend to do, saying, he adds these words. But I confess though he sayes no such matter, it is like enough he would have wondred at the name of Onochoetes, had the villain given it unto his picture: For neither he, nor any man else knows what it should mean. He knew well enough what Ononychites signified, and laughed at it. It is but Asinungulus, which it may be comes neerer their understanding. I confess some would read it Onochoerites, as if it were compounded of and , because of those words of Epiphanius concerning the Gnosticks, . Some say their Sabaoth had the form of an Ass, seme of a Hogg. But Tertullian in the description