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 ARGUMENTS OF THE DIALOGUES.

THE FIRST PART.

The First Dialogue.

EVnomius declares his dis-satisfaction with the Charge of Idolatry, and Dr Stillingfleet's pretending it to be the Sense of the Church of England. The Dr's Endeavours in that part shown to be Insufficient, particula••l•• as to the Book of Homilies, and th•• Rubrick for kneeling at Communion. The sad account of His∣tory we are like to haue f••om him, when he denies Robert Abbo Bishop of Salisbury to have been neve•• till now suspected f••r a Puritan. H•••• ch••rge of Idolatry d••fferent from shat of the true and Genuin Sons of

the Church of England; divers of whom vindicate the Doctrine of the Second Council of Nice concerning the worship of Images, from the note of Idolatry. The true State of the Controversy concerning that Point. pag. 1.

The Second Dialogue.

A Farther Declaration of the Sense of the Church of England concerning the Charge of Idolatry, in answer to what Dr. St. urges from the Testimony of Arch Bishop Whitgift, and the 39. Ar∣ticles. The Lambeth Articles suppressed by Q Eliz. And rejected by K. James: The Dr. desired to reconcile the doctrine of his Irenicum, viz, that nothing is law∣full in the worship o•• God but what he hath expressly command••d, w••th that in his Answer to N. O. that All ••hings are lawfull which are no•• fo••bidden. The true meaning of the 22^th. Article concerning the worshipping and Adoration of Images asserted. pag. 39.

The Third Dialogue.

Several important Consequences, urged by T. G. as following f••om the charge of Idolatry, which the Dr. passes by in si∣lence. His obligation either to deny, or assign a distinct Church in all Ages, pre∣served

from Heresy and Idolatry, with which Christians were bound to ioyn in Communion. T. G's Arguments to shew the Roman Church to be that Church, not answered by the Dr, nor the Question proposed by T. G. concerning the necessity of joining wi••h the Church of England. His I renicall Doctrine, Of the lawfulness of Non-Communion with any Church, that imposeth doubtfull or suspected Practices. The charge of Idolatry not maintainable upon the Dr's Principles without gross self-contradiction. pāg. 64.

The Fourth Dialogue.

Mr. Thorndike's Judgment of the Charge of Idolatry, with Dr. St's. Ho∣nourable Encomium of him. In stead of justifying the Separation he brings the Guilt of the Schism upon himself and the Church of England. A farther displey of his Omissions and Contradictions. His Parallel between the worship of the Heathens, and that of the Church of Rome shown to be Impertinent, and the Worship of God by an Image not to be expressly prohibited in the 2^d Com∣mandment. pag. 98

The Fifth Dialogue.

The Charge of Idolatry not main∣tainable

without subverting all lawfull Ecclesiastical Authority in the Church of England. Dr St's Doctrine in his Ans∣wer to N. O. concerning the Power and Authority of the Church; He is left at liberty to chuse whether he will haue it be a R••tractation or Contradiction of what he asserted in his Irenicum, set down in the 3^d Dialogue. His mistake of the Va∣lidity of Ordination for the lawfull Au∣thority to Exercise the Power conferred by it, shown to be Inexcusable. A Reca∣pitulation of what hath been discoursed in this, and the fore-going Dialogues. p. 131

THE SECOND PART.

The First Dialogue.

ADiscovery of the Vanity of Dr. St's Endless discourses in his late Defence, in Rela••io•• to T. G. His Ex∣cellent Gloss of the Canon of the Church of England, concerning Bowing to the Altar; which the Author of a late Trea∣tise, entituled Patronus Bonae Fidei, by Arguments cast in the Dr's own moulds, contends to be Idolatry, worse than that of the Romanists, or Aegyptians. p. 167.

The Second Dialogue.

What Dr S ought to haue done to maintain his Charge. The first thing was to have laid down the true No∣tion of Idolatry in the Nature of the thing, antecedently to any Positive Pro∣hibition. The Notion he gives of it shown to be insufficient; and the Heathens not justly chargeable with Idolatry by vertue of it. The Consequence ho urges from the worship of Images to a like worship of all other beings declared vseless: and a Spe∣cimen given of his rare Insight in My∣stical Theology pag. 192

The Third Dialogue.

The Second Thing Dr St ought to have done, to maintain his Charge of Idolatry, in the worship of Images, was to shew the doctrine of the Church of Rome in her Councils to be Idolatrous. The doctrine of the Second Council of Nice in that Point, as stated by him∣self, not Idolatrous; and the Practice of bowing to the Altar, according to his Principles, flat Idolatry. An Instance of his reporting faithfully the Authorities he alledges, laid open in a passage cited by him out of Cardinal Lugo. p. 212.

The Fourth Dialogue.

Another Instance of D•• Sts repor∣ting faithfully, shown in a passage he cites out of S. Gregory Nyssen in the case of the Arians. The doctrine of the same S. Gregory concerning an Inferiour Respect due to the Saints, and their Reliques. The Argument the Dr. brings from th•• practice of the Arians, shown to be In∣congruous, and manifestly different from that of Roman-Catholiks towards Saints and Images. His Excellent Defence of a Testimony out of Arnobius formerly mis∣represented by him, and Subtil Obser∣vations upon the doctrine of the Council of Trent in the matter of Images. The Remedies devised by him for avoiding Idolatry in the worship of Images▪ equally applicable to bowing to the Al∣tar, or the Chair of State. p. 233

THE THIRD PART.

The First Dialogue.

THe Notion of the Heathen's ••do∣latry imposed on T. G. by Dr. S•• refuted from the Places out of which is was pretended to be gathered. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Question brought to try all, viz whether the Heathen's Jupiter were according to the Fathers, the true God, o•• a Devil? The fo••mer asserted by Dr. St, the latter by T. G. and proved by plain and unde∣niable Testimonies of mo••e t••an a whole Jury of Fathers besides Origen. The Dr's mighty Argument from the Inscri∣ption to the Vnknown God, shown to be not only Impertinent, but against him∣self. p. 275

The Second Dialogue.

The greatest part of the Testimonies 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 Jupiter was He, ••h••wn to be Impertinent to the Dis∣pute between him and T. G. from the true State of the Question. His injurious usage of the Fathers, blaming them for charging the Heathens with more than they were guilty of, or themselves could prove, (being indeed a tacite Consession that he look'd vpon them as Opposit to him) laid open in a cleer account of the Heathen's Theology, and the several ways the Fathers took to refute it, all of

them convincing, as is made manifest both from the arguments themselves being rightly applied to their due subjects, and the success they had. pag. 307

The Third Dialogue.

The Particular Testimonies of Mi∣nucius Felix, Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Augustin, and Tertullian, cited by Dr. St. to prove it to haue been their Sense, that the H••athen'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. p. 352▪

The Fourth Dialogue.

Catharinus waves the Question of Jupiter's being she true God: and in∣forces the Parallel from the Heathen's acknowledgment of one Supream Being, to which. Dr. St contends that they referred the worship of their Inferiour Deities. Another notable Instance of his unfaithfull reporting a passage of Tho∣mas Aquinas; and the Generality of the Heathens shown by most evident Argu∣ments to haue believed and worshipped a mult••tude of Gods properly so called and esteemed by them. What kind of Notion the Vulgar Heathens had of the Divi∣nity

explained, and the Parallel between their worship, and that of the Church of Rome shown to be unjust, and rejected as such by Eminent Divines of the Church of England. pag. 392.

The Fifth Dialogue.

The Dr's Parallel from the Practice of the Wiser Heathens, shown to be Un∣parallel upon many accounts: and the Argument from God's Appropriation of certain external Acts to his worship, a meer Sophism made up of Equivocations, False Suppositions, and Self-contradic∣tions, and after all to conclude nothing against the doctrine of the Church of Rome, or the definition of Idolatry gi∣ven by T. G. p. 435

The Sixth Dialogue,

The Church of Rome not justly chargeable either for not reserving any External Act of Religious worship pro∣per to God, or for giving any appropriate to God, to Creatures▪ The Dr. un happy again in his ci••ing of Card. Lugo; and his arguments from the Text. Matth. 3. 10. and the term, Religious worshsp, solved by his own distinctions. No suc∣cour to his cause f••om the determination of Circumstances, as assigned by him▪

Mr. Daillés doctrine, [that sign instituted by men to signify any thing, though of Religion, are to be interpreted by the publik Practice of those who use them,] a very Just Discharge to the Dr's unjust Charge of Idolatry, in the parti∣cular Instances, o•• Invocation, Erec∣ting Temples, burning Incense, &c. as they are practiced in the Church of Rome: and T, Gs. Answer to the Dr's old Scruple, why sacrifice may not be used to the Saints, in like manner as other External acts are, shown to haue been pertinent and satisfactory, and his denying Christ himself to be offered, as a Sacrifice upon the Altar, shown to be repugnant to the Sense of the true and genuin Sons of the Church of England. A Friendly Advice to him out of St. Augustin. p. 464.