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 PUBLISHER TO THE READER

THe Design of these Dialogues dis∣covering it self in the Title Page, and the Particular Subjects they treat of being set down in the Summary annexed, and the Table at the End, supersede the troubling the Reader with any long Pre∣face. I shall therefore only touch briefly upon some few things, which I conceive his Curiosity would lead him to demand, if he knew of whom.

The First is concerning the Author, who he is, and it is his desire that his name should be concealed, not to put the Dr. into the Temptation of giving him a like occasion of complaint, as he had done formerly to T G when having gotten the knowledge of his being the Author of a certain private * 1.1 Paper in answer to some Objections

made by him, he published the said Paper in Print with such Characteristical notes of the Author, as might easily discover who he was, and in terms so invidious, as were apt to create the greatest Prejudice against him.

The Second is, what determin'd the Author to make choice of this way of Dialogue between a Conformist and a Non-Conformist, and I have heard him say, it was Dr St's constant acting of both parts in his Writings without any manner of Retractation; and no Method seemed more apt to make the Reader sensible of this Artifice, than to distri∣bute the Parts to the Proper Persons, and make each rehearse for himself.

The Third is the Style, in which if the Dr chance to meet with some of those which he calls hard words, and which he saith he is so used to, that he * 1.2 can easily pass them over, yet in case this good Resolution should fail him, he can haue no just reason to complain, they being either All or the greatest part of them as appears by the Citations in the Margent, transcribed from his own Ori∣ginal, and but the Echos of his own Reproaches. And I doubt not, but the

Reader after he hath considered all things, will find them to be much beneath the merits of his Intole∣rable Vapouring without cause, and the bitter Sarcasms, with which he treats T. G. who for the moderation used by him in his Reply had gained the repute of a Civil and modest Adversary in the judg∣ment of many Learned men of the Church of England.

The Fourth is, why some Passages are more largely insisted on in this Treatise, which the Reader perhaps will think did not deserve the Pains that is bestowed on them, and particularly that Religious Question concerning the Heathen's Jupiter, whether according to the Fathers he were the true God or a Devil? But the great advantage the Dr thinks it to be to his Cause, to maintain him to be the true God, and the discussing this Point * 1.3 to be so very material towards the true Vnderstanding the nature of Idolatry, as to deem it worth the while to spend a hundred and twelve Pages in giving a full account of the Sense of the Fathers concerning it, is to be considered, as also his unreasonable triumphing over his Adversary for having asserted Jupiter

according to the Fathers to be a devil, and the Impression all this must make upon an unwary Reader, together with the great abuse he puts upon the Fathers by mis-representing their Sense, and cor∣rupting their words▪ as is shown in the Third Part of this Treatise Dial. 3.

The last is, how it can be expected, that a litle Anonymous Book in 12^o of 500 Pages should ever pass in the world for a Just Answer to a Volume of Dr Stillingfleet's in large 8^vo consisting of neer 900. in which the Citations too are without number, the Arguments without measure, and the Discourses o•• rather Excursions without end. But for that I must referr the Reader to the Treatise it se••f, in which he will sind all the material difficulties of the Dr's D••fence relating to the Charge of Ido∣latry, proposed in his own words with their due Strength and light (and often times with advantage) by Catharinus, and ful••y refuted by Eunomius. T'is not Noise and Bulk which make an Answer, but Truth and Reason. For as S. Au∣gustin saith Quid est loquacius vanitate? Quae non ideo potest quod Veritas, quia * 1.4 si voluerit, etiam plus potest clamar••

quam Veritas. There is nothing so full of words as Vanity: Yet we are not there∣fore to think, that Vanity can do what Truth does, because if it be resolv'd not to hold it's peace, it can make a greater Noise, than Truth it self.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Cath. u•• Idol. Preface.
• * 1.2

  Def. p. 4.
• * 1.3

  Def. p. 24
• * 1.4

  li. 5. de Civ. Dei ••. ult.