particular Account was given him by Letter touching these Matters of Fact There are two things remaining in the Preface which seem to require a farther Examination because they were not fully Represented to the Bishop The first is the Objection drawn from Cardinal Capisucchi's Book which this Author affirms to contradict the Bishop of Condom's Exposition The other is the Consequence he draws from thence and from other pretended Actions to wit That Roman-Catholics think it lawful even to set their Hands to Pref. p. 13. and approve those Books whose Principles and Doctrine they dislike To the First Whereas he affirms Cardinal Capisucchi to have contradicted the Doctrine of the Exposition we must first take notice The Bishop of Condom's intention was not to meddle with Scholastic Tenets but purely to deliver that Doctrine of the Church which is necessarily and universally receiv'd whereas Cardinal Capisucchi being oblig'd to no such strictness would not it may be contradict the Problematical Niceties of those Schools in which he had been Educated so that what he said might pass without a Censure And yet even in this if his Sence be rightly understood the unbiass'd Reader will plainly see that his Doctrine is the same with that of the Exposition The Bishop of Condom declares Expos p. 8. Sess 24. Dec. de Invoc c. from the Council of Trent That we are forbidden to believe any Divinity or Vertue in Images for which they ought to be reverenc'd That the Honour which is given to them ought to be referr'd to the Prototypes represented by them And this the Cardinal tells us in express Terms Oh! but he tells us of a Divine Worship says this Author paid to the Images of the Holy Trinity of our Blessed Saviour and of the Holy Cross Whether he use that Expression or no I know not having not yet seen the Book but yet this very Author tells us how the Cardinal explicates himself That the Honour which is paid to the Images is only upon account of the Things represented by them and not upon account of the Images themselves as thinking any Divinity in them for to do that he confesses would be Idolatry Ibidem And what is this but what the Bishop of Condom has express'd in other Terms from the Council of Trent That the Honour we render to Images has such a reference to those they represent Sess 25. Dec. de Inv. c. that by the means of those Images we kiss and before which we kneel we adore JESUS CHRIST Nay more the Cardinal tells us That this Honour is not to be paid to them otherwise than upon account of the Things represented by them and as they are in that respect one and the same with the Thing which they represent And what is that but to adore God or JESUS CHRIST in presence of the Image Ibid. Pontif. de Bened Imag. as the Bishop of Condom has express'd it from the Pontifical This St. Thomas explicates by a familiar Example of the Royal Robes For as we plainly see the Purple puts us in mind of the Prince and so do's the Cross of our Crucified Saviour We pay a Sovereign Honour to the King when in His Robes but in Incognito we pay not a Respect with such Formalities 't is not the Purple or the Robes we honour for themselves but as making one with the King nor is it the Cross we honour but in respect of CHRIST If the Honour which we shew to the Purple or the Chair of State may in some sence be call'd Regal or Sovereign Honour 't is only in respect of our King or Sovereign and in like manner if that Honour which is shewn to the Crucifix may in some sence be call'd Religious or which is more Divine 't is purely in respect of JESUS CHRIST who is both God and Man All the difference therefore betwixt Cardinal Capisucchi and the Master of the Sacred Palace is thus easily reconcil'd and if there be any difference it only consists in this that when the Master of the Sacred Palace wrote to the Bishop of Condom he approv'd his Book in which he stuck close to the necessary and universally receiv'd Doctrine of the Church and conform'd himself to the Language of it making a distinction betwixt the Images and things represented by them whereas the Cardinal Capisucchi conform'd himself to a Scholastic Stile and suppos'd the Representative as Representative to be representatively one and the same with the thing represented But I needed not to have taken this pains to reconcile the Bishop of Meaux with Cardinal Capisucchi seeing another particular Examination of the Bishop's Book upon this Point Answ to Papist Protesting c. pag. 91. has reconcil'd the Bishop's Doctrine with that of St. Thomas that is with Cardinal Capisucchi's tho' he erre in the right Explication of both their Doctrines Now Secondly as for his Assertion That we think it lawful to disguise the Sentiments of our Religion and his Confirmation of it from the Procureur General of Paris his Answer to Father Thomassin Pref. p. 14. That they suffer'd in France an Italian should write according to the Principles of his Country but for a Frenchman to do the same was another matter He ought to have made a distinction between Matters of Faith and Scholastic Opinions or to use other Terms the Doctrines of a Church and the Doctrines in a Church Every one knows that the Doctrines of a Church or Matters of Faith being Tenets necessarily and universally receiv'd ought upon no account to be dissembled or disguis'd and he can bring no one Example of that nature But as for Scholastic Opinions or the Doctrines in a Church of which daily Disputes are rais'd in the Schools we see not only one Nation commanding one thing to be taught and another quite the contrary but even one University against another in the same Country nay one College against another in the same University without the least breach of Unity or note of Intriguing Dissimulation Thus Father Thomassin having undertaken a Scholastic Dispute of the Authority of the See Apostolic above that of a General Council a Dispute which is defended in the Schools of Italy but forbid in France and neither generally nor necessarily received by the Church no wonder if the Procureur General of Paris should refuse to suffer it to be Printed Thus also it is the Jesuits have found it convenient upon other accounts also it may be as well as that such as is the difficulty of sending to Rome for the Approbation of every Book c. to take their Licences from their respective Provincials Thus much for his Preface And as for the Collections he has given of some Passages in the Edition printed without the Bishop of Condom's consent we have little to say to them more than what the Bishop has himself answer'd in his Letter unless it be to thank this Author for being so ingenuous as to
but wonder that Persons should use so many endeavours not to understand us Expos p. 10. and because as the Bishop of Condom has observ'd in one sence Adoration Invocation and the name of Mediator are only proper to God and JESUS CHRIST we are astonish'd why they will still misapply those terms to render our Doctrine odious whereas if they would but strictly keep to the sence in which we use them all their Objections and Accusations would loose their force and we might have some hopes of a more Christian Unity ART III. Invocation of Saints AS for the Invocation of Saints Art 3. p. 9. he grants with Monsieur Daillè that several of the Primitive Fathers in the Fourth Age of the Church pag. 7. made Addresses to them but will have them to be only Innocent Wishes and Rhetorical Flights What Authority do's he bring for this Assertion and his farther accusation of these Fathers of the Fourth Century that they did certainly begin to depart from the Practice and Tradition of those before them pag. 8. Did any in that or the following Ages accuse or censure them If not by what Authority do's he condemn those Prayers those Innocent Wishes and Holy Raptures as he calls them because he will not have them to be Prayers as fond things vainly invented c. We only tell you it is lawful to Pray to them and condemn such as censure all those Antient and Orthodox Fathers What Authority have you to oppose us You say it is repugnant to Gods Word shew that Word If you cannot we are in Possession and the Antiquity and Uninteruptedness of our Doctrine besides the Reasonableness and Innocence of it confirms us in our belief and ought to be more prevalent with us than all the Sophistical Arguments brought against us We name them in our Sacrifices and give God thanks for the Victories they have obtain'd through his Grace and humbly beseech him to vouchsafe to favour us by their Intercession if we mention their merits 't is only those Victories they had obtain'd by his Favours which we beseech him to look upon and not to regard our unworthiness even as we beg of him to hear their Prayers which are more prevalent then our own because more pure But this is far from such an idle fancy as if Christ who is our Sacrifice pag. 12. needed as he says the Assistance of St. Bathildis or Potentiana to recommend him to his Father or the deserts of a St. Martin to obtain our forgiveness We detest such thoughts and abominate such Doctrines The Bishop of Condom has fully explicated our Tenets what this Author or others impose upon us we are not to answer for nor are we concerned to maintain the ill consequences which follow from such Impositions ART IV. Images and Relics HIs next Article of Images and Relics complains how the approved Doctrine of our most reputed Writers contradicts what M. de Meaux would have us to think is their only design in that Service Art 4. Pag. 13. Let us examine this a little The Bishop of Condom's business is to explicate the universally approv'd Doctrine of the Church according to the Sentiments of the Council of Trent and not to meddle with Scholastic Opinions or those Practices which are neither necessary nor generally received He tells us therefore Expos Sect. 5. pag. 8. That all the Honour that is given them ought to be referred to the Prototypes represented by them and that we do not attribute to them any other Vertue but that of exciting in us the Remembrance of those they represent That the Honour we render them is grounded upon this that the very seeing of the Image of JESUS CHRIST Crucified cannot but excite in us a more lively Remembrance of him who died upon the Cross for our Redemption That whilst this Image before our Eyes causes this precious Remembrance in our Souls we are naturally moved to testifie by some exteriour Signs how far our Gratitude bears us which exteriour Signs are not paid to the Image but to JESUS CHRIST represented by that Image So that properly speaking according to the Bishop of Meaux's sence and that of the Council the Image of the Cross is to be only look'd upon as a Representative or Memorative Sign which is therefore apt to put us in mind of JESUS CHRIST who suffered upon the Cross for us and the Honour which we there shew precisely speaking and according to the Ecclesiastic Style is not properly to the Cross but to JESUS CHRIST represented by that Cross Not to JESUS CHRIST as present in or with or to that Cross as if the Cross it self were the Object of our Worship as another Answerer represents our Doctrine Answer to Papist Protesting Sect. 5. passim but to him in Heaven whose becoming Man and dying for us we remember by looking upon the Cross So that JESUS CHRIST is the sole Object of our Adoration and not the Cross The Cross therefore whether taken as Wood or Stone or moreover as the Image of JESUS CHRIST Crucified is not properly the Object of our Worship but is a Help to recall our wandring Thoughts back to a Consideration of the Benefits we have received by his dying for us and whilst we have these good thoughts in our Minds our Affections are inflamed and we in presence of that Image which occasioned those pious Affections shew by some exteriour Act what are our inward Sentiments and pay our Adorations to our Redeemer but not to the Image that represents him This is the Pure and Innocent Doctrine of the Church without mixture of Scholastic Subtilities and this the above-named Author acknowledges to be very innocent Ibid. p. 84. It is says he a very innocent thing to worship GOD or CHRIST when any Natural or Instituted Sign brings them to our minds even in the presence of such a Sign as if a Man upon viewing the Heavens and the Earth and the Creatures that are in it should raise his Soul to God and adore the Great Creator of the World or upon the accidental sight of a Natural Cross and why not upon the designed sight of an Artificial one should call to mind the Love of his Lord who died for him and bow his Soul to him in the most submissive Adorations But because he could not deny this to be Innocent therefore he will not have it to be the Doctrine of our Church but will have the Use of Images in our Church to be not primarily for Remembrance but for Worship Ibid. Pag. 85. and this he tells us the Council of Trent expresly teaches but is far from proving it The Council indeed tells us as he cites That the Images of JESVS CHRIST Sess 25. Dec. de Invoc c. c. are to be had and retained especially in Churches not as he renders it especially to be had and kept in Churches and that due Honour and Veneration is to
as the thing intended by the word Consubstantial was all along of Faith before that Council so was the thing intended by Transubstantiation ever believed by the Faithful in all Ages The thing intended by the word Transubstantiation is expressed by the Council of Trent in these words If any one shall say Sess 13. Can. 2. That the Substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist together with the Body and Blood of our Lord JESUS CHRIST and shall deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole Substance of Wine into the Blood the Species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church do's most aptly call Transubstantiation Let him be Anathema This Council having before expressed our Belief of the true Ibid. Can 1. Chap. 1. real and substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST in the most Holy Sacrament brings this Transubstantiation or Conversion of one Substance into another as the natural Consequence of it But because there are many sorts of Conversions of one Substance into another all which may be called Substantial Conversions and by consequence the word Transubstantiation might be properly enough used to express that Change therefore it is manifest the Church do's not intend here to fix the Manner of that Conversion but only to declare the Matter viz. That the body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST becomes truly really and substantially present the Bread and Wine ceasing to be there truly really and substantially present tho the Appearances thereof remain This Matter is that which is of Faith and was always so before the Council of Lateran but as for the Manner how this Conversion is made it is even at present a disputable Question in the Schools It being then manifest that our Dispute with protestants is not about the Manner how JESUS CHRIST is present but only about the thing it self whether the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST be truly really and substantially present after the Words of Consecration under the species or appearance of Bread and Wine the Substance of Bread and Wine being not so present let us examine whether the Authorities he brings as to both his Assertions have any force against our Tenets He tells us first That Lombard Scotus and many others confess that there is not in Scripture any formal Proof of Transubstantiation and cites in the Margin Lombard 4. Sent. dist 10. But there is no such thing in him as I shall more fully shew in declaring his Doctrine He brings in Scotus also 4. Dist 2. Qu. 11. whereas there are only two Questions in that Distinction His next Quotation is Bellarmine Bellar. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. ff Secundo dicit who he says confesses and cites many others of the same Opinion That there is not any formal Proof from Scripture that without that Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it 'T is true Bellarmine here acknowledges that Scotus said there was not any Place in Scripture so express that it would evidently compel any one to admit of Transubstantiation without the Churches Declaration which he confesses is not altogether improbable For says he altho the Scripture which we have mentioned above do's appear to us so clear that it may compel a Man who is not perverse to believe it yet whether it be so or no we may justly doubt since Learned and Acute Men such as in the first place Scotus was have thought the contrary And this is all he says 'T is true also that Scotus in 4. Dist 11. Qu. 3. n. 5. brings this Objection That nothing is to be held as of the Substance of Faith but what is expresly to be had out of Scripture or is expresly declared by the Church or evidently follows from what is plainly contained in Scripture or plainly determined by the Church But that it neither appears manifestly from Scripture nor from the Churches Declaration nor is it evidently inferred from either that the Substance of Bread do's not remain in the Eucharist And answers it n. 15. thus That the Church has declared it in the Council of Lateran c. Firmiter Credimus In which Chapter he tells us the Truth of some things which are to be believed are more explicitly declared than they were in the Apostles Creed or in that of Nice or that of St. Athanasius So that from hence some have concluded that Scotus probably held this Assertion That the Scripture did not evince it as also the other That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not so explicitly believed before that Council of Lateran as it was since But this is no more than what he or any one might say of the Consubstantiality of the Son before the Council of Nice It is also to be taken notice that this Distinction of P. Lombard was wholly written upon the Manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament and other Scholastic Disputes of that nature and not upon the thing it self as of Faith and therefore no wonder if Scotus writing upon that Distinction should grant how that manner of Conversion which he thought was a Consequence of the Council of Laterans Definition was not so explicitly known before that Council as since or not clearly found in Scripture But if you look upon him Dist 10. qu. 1. n. 2 3. where he is to treat of the Real Presence of CHRIST's Body and Blood under the species of Bread and Wine he tells us that it is a Truth which was expresly delivered from the beginning even from the very time of the Institution of the Eucharist His Words are Ista enim veritas a principio fuit expressè tradita ex quo Eucharistia fuit instituta And he adds That the Foundation of that Authority are the Words of the Institution This is my Body and this is my Blood which he says cannot be taken Figuratively if we observe the Rule of St. Augustin Aug. 83. Quest qu. 69. That the Circumstances of Scripture do clear the Sense of it For CHRIST having added to these Words This is my Body this Circumstance which shall be brokeâ— for you and to these Words This is my Blood thâ—â— Circumstance which shall be shed for you it is manifest they ought to be taken in a Literal sence Then he tells us That Cardinal Cajetan acknowledges That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the Words the other might with as good warrant have been received and quotes him in 3. D. Thomae qu. 75. art 1. But he says no such thing nay rather the contrary as will appear to any one who reads that Article in which he tells us That we learn from the Truth of the Words of our Lord taken in their proper sence that the Body of CHRIST is truly in the Eucharist which is the first thing says he which we learn concerning this Sacrament from the Gospel
But the second continues he which the Gospel has not explicated we have expresly received from the Church that is the Conversion of Bread into the Body of CHRIST which he says we have not only received from the ancient Doctors of the Church but from the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third De Summa Trinit Fide Cath. Firmiter credimus where both Points are expressed viz. That the Body and Blood of CHRIST are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine which regards the first And it follows The Bread bein transubstantiated into his Body and the Wine into his Blood by Divine Power After this he speaks of the Reality of CHRIST's Body in the Eucharist and of the Manner how it becomes there viz. by Conversion and of the first he says Sciendum est omnes circa primam novitatem continentiae re voce consensisse dum omnes communiter fatemur corpus Christi prius non contentum sub hac hostia modo veraciter contineri quamvis circa modum quo continetur variae sint opiniones i.e. We must know that all Persons are at perfect agreement both as to the manner of Expression and as to the thing it self when we speak of the first new Change which is there made of the thing contained seeing we all commonly confess that the Body of CHRIST which was not at first contained under this Host is now truly there contained tho there be various Opinions concerning the manner how he is there contained Then summing up several of those Opinions as Whether it be by such a Change as is made by Nutrition or Whether the Bread be Annihilated or Whether it be by a true Conversion he undertakes to prove that it is by a Conversion which do's produce and effect the Presence of CHRIST in the Host and freely confesses that this Conversion is not explicitly mentioned in the Gospel but only deduced from the words This is my Body by the Doctors of the Church After which returning to his first Point in which he had concluded that the Body of CHRIST was truly in the Sacrament he tels us In hoc omnes fideles conveniunt sed modus quo est in disputationem vertitur All the Faithful agree in this but as to the manner how he is there that is a disputable Question This is in short the Intent of that Article which is far from what this Author has imposed upon him Next he tells us That the generality of our Commanion confess that if the Words of Consecration refer to the Bread which is changed by them they must be taken in their Figurative sence Pag. 74 75. But this has been sufficiently cleared already Lastly He tells us That this Doctrine was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 years after CHRIST and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day What Doctrine do's he here mean Not that of the Schools concerning the manner of CHRIST's Existence in the Sacrament for a little after he tells us That Anathema's have been pronounced against them and they esteemed Heretics and Schismatics for opposing it But the Church never yet proceeded so far as to declare the Manner or censure any Opinions concerning it By this Doctrine then which he tells us was not of Faith till the Council of Lateran he must understand the Doctrine of the Church and say That the Body and blood of JESUS CHRIST was not till then believed to be truly really and substantially present under the species or appearances of Bread the Substance of Bread being not so present after Consecration But how do's he prove this He first brings Scotus cited by Bellarmine but we have already examined his Concessions pag. 84. which make but little for our Adversary Then he quotes Gabriel cited by Suarez T. 3. Disp 50. sect 1. But Suarez there undertaking to prove two Assertions the first That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is made by a true Conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of CHRIST which he tells us is of Faith and the second That this Sacrament is made by a true Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body and of the Wine into the Blood of CHRIST he tells us That the word Transubstantiation taken in its proper and strict sence signifies transitum seu conversionem totius substantiae in totam substantiam a Transition or Conversion of a whole Substance into a whole Substance After which he concludes thus From this Doctrine of Faith we may gather first That the Scholastics as Scotus and Gabriel are to be corrected and secondly That the thing it self was ancient and perpetually believed in the Church Non suerit tam apertè explicata sicut mode est tho perhaps in former times it was not so fully explicated as now it is In the last place he quotes Lombard L. 4. Dist 11. Lit. A. But it is manifest that Lombard speaks there only of a Scholastic Tenet Which to the end you may see as also what was esteemed of Faith in his time before the Council of Lateran I will give you a short account of his whole Doctrine as to this Point He begins his eighth Distinction telling us Lomb. in 4. dist 8. Lit. B. That the Blessed Sacrament was instituted when JESUS CHRIST after the Typical Lamb gave to his Disciples his Body and Blood in the Last Supper Then speaking of the Form This is my Body c. Lit. C. he tells us Cum haec verba proferuntur conversio fit panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi That when these words are pronounced there is made a Conversion of Bread and Wine into the Substance of the Body and Blood of CHRIST Then speaking of a Sacrament as being the Sign of a Sacred thing Lit. D. he tells us what is the sign and what is the Thing in this Sacrament The Form i.e. Appearance says he of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament is the Sign of the Sacred thing So that the species bear the Name of the Things which they were before that is of Bread and Wine But the thing signified is twofold the one contained under those species and signified by them the other signified but not contained The thing contained and signified is the Flesh of Christ which he took from the Blessed Virgin and the Blood which he shed for us But the thing which is signified and not contain'd is the Unity of the Church in those who are Predestinated Called Justified and Glorified So that there are says he three things to be distinguish'd one which is only a Sacrament and not the thing viz. the visible species of Bread and Wine another which is the Sacrament and the thing viz. the proper Flesh and Blood of Christ and a third which is the thing and not the Sacrament viz.
But any thing must pass now to deceive the vulgar tho' Men of Sence see the contrary Another Argument he brings to delude the Authority of the Church of Rome is to make her apss only for a particular Church But how often have they been told that Catholics do not take the Church of Rome as it is the Suburbican Diocess to be the Catholic Church but all the Christian Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome And that this is the true Church appears by the marks of it deliver'd in the Nicene Creed no other Church being able to pretend to that Unity Sanctity Universality and Antiquity which she is manifestly invested with The true Church must be one and by conquence free from Schism which destroys that notion which some of late have held that the true Church is that Catholic Church which is composed of all Christians the Roman the Grecians the Armenians Prtoestants c. all which they acknowledge to be Members of the True Church tho' they may be rotten ones and this notion our Author seems to have of it when he tells us that the Roman Church has in all ages made up but a part of the Church Pag. 77. and that not always the greatest neither The true Church must be also Holy and must by consequence be free from Heresie and teach no Erroneous Doctrine which how it stands with that Idea which this Author insinuates that the Church of Rome has erred event in necessary points of Faith and is yet a Member of the True Church is worthy a mature Consideration This indeed made the first Reformers who accused the Roman Catholic Church of Idolatry and Superstition say that the Church of JESUS CHRIST was hidden fled into the Wilderness See the Protestant Authors cited by Brereley in his Protestant Apology Tract 2. Cap. 1. Sect. 4. and invisible for 1000 or 1200 years that the Pope was Antichrist and the Church of Rome Antichristian But the Men of our Age being sufficiently convinced that the Church of Christ was to have Kings and Queens for Nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers that she was to have Pastors and Teachers in all Ages Whitakers contra Duraeum l. 3. p. 260. that the Administration of the Sacraments and the Preaching of the true word of God were the Essential Proprieties of the Church c. and that all these marks do necessarily denote a Visible Church and finding moreover they could never prove any Christian Kings before Luther Converted to Protestancy or any visible Pastors or Teachers of their Doctrine or any Assembly that Administred the Sacraments as they do or Preached the word of God in their Sence and finding they could not deny the Conversion of many Kings and Nations to the Religion established in the Church of Rome found themselves obliged also to admit her as a part of the True Church tho' a corrupted one and would rather destroy the Sanctity of Christs Church and her Vnity than acknowledge themselves to be justly cut off from being Members of her The third Mark is Catholic which is universal as to Place Time and Doctrine that Church cannot be the true Church the sound whereof is not gone through the whole Earth and is not it self spread over and visible in all Nations that cannot be the true Church which has not continued in all Ages Visible Holy and Uniform neither lastly can that be the true Church which either adds or diminishes from the Doctrines revealed by God to the Prophets and Apostles so that those are as guilty of the Breach of Faith who refuse to believe what has been taught as those who impose new Doctrines The last mark of the Church is that she must be Apostolic that is grounded upon the Doctrines and Faith of the Apostles and deriving a continual Succession from them All which marks are so far from being applicable to the Church of England or to the Universal Church according to the notion given of it be these late Writers that a Man of the smallest judgment if Impartial cannot but see the fallacy thereof ART XXII Authority of the Holy See and of Episcopacy AS for his two other Articles The Opinion of the Church of England as to the Authority of the Church and that of the See Apostolic and Episcopacy I have nothing to say to him but to desire him to remember his promises Pag. 81. and to enquire what is the Authority the Antient Councils of the Primitive Church have acknowledged and the Holy Fathers have always taught the Faithful to give to the Successour to St. Peter and whether the first Four General Councils might not be termed neither General nor Free with as much Reason as the Council of Trent or those others acknowledged by all the Western World and most of the Eastern Churches before the new pretended Reformation The Conclusion I Come now to his Close in which he sums up all the Poison of his Book lays what he pleases to our charge and draws what Consequences he will to inflame his Reader He tells us of Bitter and Vnchristian Hatred we have conceiv'd against them Pag. 82. and desires to know what warrant we have for it I desire all unprejudic'd Persons to consider whether we have not more reason to complain than he Here was a Church established in England Truths delivered to her with Christianity it self were here Practis'd and Preach'd Religious Houses were here endow'd with ample Revenues c. when behold a Pretended Reformation comes destroys this Church dissolves all the Constitutions of it changes the established Doctrines and alters many of its antientest Practices pulls down Religious Houses and Churches alienates the Revenues turns the Religious Inhabitants into the wide World make Laws against all those who should defend that Doctrine Imprisonment loss of Goods and Fortunes nay even of Life it self are the Punishments ordained for them who are found guilty of Practising or Preaching that Religion And what less could such a Church do than Excommunicate they who thus Renounc'd her Doctrines Contemned her Authority and persecuted her Children But this Excommunication must be called Severity and unchristian hatred And if we declare that all those who forsake the Unity of the Church are guilty of Schism and they who will not acquiess to those Points of Faith which God has Revealed and the Church which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth has declar'd to have been so Reveal'd are guilty of Heresie and that Heresie and Schism will bring inevitable damnation to all those who die without repenting of them we must be esteem'd uncharitable I must therefore Retort his Popular Argument and ask him and all unprejudic'd Protestants what they can find in all our Doctrines when truly Represented to warrant that bitter and unchristian hatred they have conceiv'd against us a hatred which has occasioned so many Penal and Sanguinary Laws and still makes them use all endeavours to keep them in full force against