from granting this to them that on the contrary we always accuse them of Innovations and denying those Articles which are Fundamental and as necessary and as plainly revealed as many of those others which they admit We always affirm We are in possession of our Doctrines and our Practices that these have been delivered down to us by our Predecessors as Truths revealed to the Prophets and Apostles we always tell them We have the Decisions of a Church in our behalf a Church I say 1 Tim. 3.15 which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth Matth. 16.18 a Church against which the Gates of Hell by the express Promise of JESUS CHRIST was never to prevail Eph. 4.11 12 c. and in which Pastors and Teachers were to remain for ever lest we should be led away with every wind of Doctrine We tell them He who denies one Article revealed by God and proposed by his Church as so revealed is as guilty of the Breach of Faith as he who denies them all because he rejects God's Veracity upon which that Faith is grounded And by consequence we cannot but tell them That whilst they renounce those Articles which we believe are revealed Truths they are guilty of Fundamental Errors and hold not the Ancient and Vndoubted Foundation of the Christian Faith So that the true State of the Controversie in general betwixt Catholics and Protestants is whether they or we do Innovate they in refusing to believe those Doctrines we profess to have receiv'd with the Grounds of Christianity or we in maintaining our Possession And the Dispute is Whether Roman Catholics ought to maintain their Possession for which many Protestants themselves grant they have a Prescription of above 1000 Years or whether the Authorities brought by Protestants against the Roman Catholic Doctrine be so weighty that every Roman Catholic is oblig'd to renounce the Communion of that Church in which he was bred up and quit his Prescription and Possession Which certainly they are not obliged to do unless it can be plainly prov'd they have innovated or taught such Doctrines as overthrow those Truths which are on both Sides allow'd to be Divine This the Bishop of Condom knew they could never do and that our Doctrines when truly represented were so far from contradicting those mutually-received Articles of our Faith that on the contrary they confirm'd our Belief of them And therefore he undertook to separate the Articles of our Faith from what was falsly imputed to us and resolved to propose them according to the received Sence of the Church declared in the Council of Trent And whether he has faithfully perform'd this Undertaking or no is our present Question which we are to examine in these following Articles What do's it therefore avail this Author to tell us Pag. 6. he will in the following Articles endeavour to give a clear and free Account of what they can approve and what they dislike in the Doctrines of the Catholic Church unless he first shew us and that by some Authentic Acts of the Church that those are her Doctrines and secondly give us some assurance of greater Authority then the Prescription of the Roman Catholic Church that they are Novelties or Erroneous ART II. Religious Worship is terminated only in God THat all Religious Worship is terminated in God alone is the Biship of Condom's Assertion Art 2. and the Churches Doctrine to which both this and another later Author agree Answer to a Discourse entituled Papists Protesting c. but both of them will have the Invocation of Saints and the Honour which we pay to Images and Relics to be inconsistent with that Maxim What the Bishop has said is enough to satisfie any one who is not obstinate his Words are these The same Church teaches us Expos p. â— That all Religious Worship ought to terminate in God as its necessary End and that if the Honour which she renders to the Blessed Virgin and to the Saints may in some sence be call'd Religious it is for its necessary relation to God From which Words it is plain the Bishop thought Religious Honour or Worship might be taken in a double sence the first strict and that he acknowledges is only due to God the other in a larger sence which may be paid to Creatures But how this other may be called Religious Honour he tells us is because of the reference which it has to God Thus that Civil Honour or Obedience which we pay to Magistrates if we do it for Conscience sake that is purely to obey the Ordinance of God may be not improperly call'd a Religious Honour or Obedience because by Honouring or Obeying them for God's sake we Honour and Obey God Thus to visit the orphan and the widow in their tribulations is called by St. James a clean and unspotted Religion James 1.27 But if we take Religion in a stricter sence for a Supreme and Sovereign Honour or an adhesion to an Independent Being with all the Powers of our Soul c. it is only proper to God and cannot be paid to Creatures and in that sence the Honour which we pay to our Blessed Lady and other Saints is far from being a Religious Honour Let Mary be Honoured Epiph. Haer. 79. but let God be Adored was the Saying of an ancient Father not with Divine Honour for that is due to God alone Soli Deo honor gloria but with an Inferiour Honour which if our Authors will not have us call Religious we will not dispute about the Name We ought not to deprive God of any thing that is due to him alone that we may give it to his Creatures neither Honour nor Worship nor Prayer nor Thanksgiving nor Sacrifice But yet we may honour those whom God has honoured we may give an inferiour Degree of Worship to those who are in some Degree of Honour above us in this World and why not to the Invisible Inhabitants of the other so it elevate them not above the State of Creatures We may pray to our Friends and Parents here on Earth to pray for us without derogating from our Duty to God and why the same may not be addressed to Saints and Angels who are no less our Friends without robbing God of what is his due is I must confess to me unintelligible If you tell me the first is only Civil or if it may be called a Religious Love or Honour Answ to Papist Protest p. 38. when it is done for God's sake yet it is but an extrinsecal Denomination from the Cause and Motive not from the Nature of the Act and therefore cannot make Gods of them we affirm the same of the second and renounce any other sort of Religious Worship which is so from the nature of the Act and by consequence only due to God This Distinction reflected on will be sufficient to answer all the Objections brought against our Doctrine by both those Authors And we cannot
not defire to add any thing to it That they Advise even Private Confession upon many accounts which the Bishop of Meaux has remarked and which they willingly allow as very useful to the Penitent that is I suppose he allows with the Bishop the Penitential Court of Judicature to be a curb to Liberty Expos pag. 18. a plentiful sourse of Wise Admonitions and a sensible consolation for Souls afflicted for their Sins all which he acknowledges render it very useful and convenient even to those who have no doubt nor scruple But yet he will not have this so beneficial an exercise to be necessary where the Sinner can quiet his Conscience without it but calls it an unnecessary Rack to Mens Consciences So that if a Man be either insensible of his sins or have brought his Conscience to such a pass that it checks him not or be presumptious of Gods Mercies and upon that think himself secure of a Pardon it seems it is not necessary with them he should either have that Curb or those Admonitions whereas we think those Persons have most need of all the helps imaginable and doubt not but that God who gave so large a Commission to his Priest to bind or loose did not exempt those who stand in need of it from a due submission to that Tribunal We assirm therefore that Penance is necessary not for every Man in particular but to those only who have offended mortally after Baptism That true Contrition which must vertually include all the parts of it is sufficient in case of a non-possibility of performing some of them That Confession which is one of the parts of it either public or private is necessary to be performed to a Priest that they who have Authority to bind or loose may know upon what it is they are to pronounce Sentence That tho' our Sentence be absolute yet since we cannot know when the Penitent has those due Dispositions which are required to receive the Benefit of it neither also can we be sure that God always confirms our Sentence These are our Doctrines this we have always held and practis'd and this we affirm to be conformable to the practice of the most Antient and Orthodox Churches and we cannot but be astonished why they should be rejected and no better grounds brought than we suppose Pag. 43. or we must beg leave with assurance to say that such Doctrines ar directly contrary to the Tradition of the Church and to many plain and undoubted places of Holy Scripture If he say he only undertook an Exposition of their Doctrine and therefore was no more oblig'd to prove it than the Bishop of Meaux himself I must tell him the difference is great for the Bishop of Meaux undertaking to Expound a Doctrine establish'd in the Church that very Possession was a sufficient proof of its Antiquity and Universality it being a constant maxim in our Church that no particular Opinions or Practises ought ever to be establish'd as necessary to all and that nothing can be declared as an Article of our Faith which was not materially so before that is which was not handed down to us by universal Tradition as a reveal'd Truth Whereas this Author undertaking to give us an Exposition of a Doctrine which dissents from ours so establish'd and of which we are in possession if he would have it bear any weight he ought to have given some solid Reasons for their defection from those Doctrines which had been establish'd in England for above a Thousand Years from the very time that Pagan Idolatry was rooted out by St. Augustin the Benedictin Monk he ought I say to have given some solid Reasons such as were no less than Domonstrations or manifest Revelations to which and to no other those who are in Possession of a Doctrine so establish'd ought to submit and without which all Arguments for a Reformation dwindle into this which is very inefficacious we suppose we have a just reason to reform we think we are in the right we are persuaded it is according to Scripture c. but we are not certain ART XII Of Extream Vnction AS to the Sacrament of Extream Vnction Art 13. p. 44. this Author cannot deny but the words of St. James If any man be sick James 5.14 15. let him call for the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the Name of our Lord. And the prayer of Faith shall save the sick and our Lord shall lift him up and if he be in sins they shall be remitted to him I say he cannot deny but these words exhibit to us an outward Visible Sign and an Inward Spiritual Grace but yet he will not have the meaning of this Passage to reser at all to a Sacrament but only to the miraculous Cures of the Apostles contrary to the express words of Scripture and to the sence of them received and delivered to us by Antiquity The Grace of Curing the Sick was not given to all Priests or Elders alike but only to some select Persons these did not only cure the Sick but the Lame and the Blind their Power of Miracles was not tied to the Ceremony of Unction only all those that were anointed were not cured neither had all they who were cured by them who had the Gift of Healing any assurance by that Cure of the Forgiveness of their Sins Yet St. James here speaks of those only that are Sick he appoints them to call in the Priests in general and not them only who had the Gift of Healing he speaks only of anointing them with Oyl and not of any other Ceremonies used by CHRIST or his Apostles in order to the curing of the Sick He promises The prayer of faith shall save the sick adn the Lord shall lift him up which if it had been meant of Bdily Health those only would have died in the Apostles time who either neglected this Advice or whose Deaths prevented the accomplishment of that Ceremony And lastly he pronounces That if they be in sins they shall be remitted which shews plainly enough it cannot belong only to Bodily Cures as he would have it But he tells us The Rituals of the Roman Church for above Eight hundred years understood it plainly of Bodily Cures and that Cardinal Cajetan himself freely confesses that it can belong to no other Had he only told us that the ancient Roman Rituals shew this Ceremony had a respect to Bodily Cures as well as to the Cures of the Mind he had told us nothing but what our Rituals at this day manifest and what may be gathered from the Council of Trent as the Bishop of Meaux observes Sess 14. de Sac. Extrem Unc. cap. 2. which speaking of the Effects of this Sacrament tells us That the Sick Person do's sometimes by it obtain Health of Body when it is expedient for the Salvation of the Soul Had he told us also only that
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
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 all the rigours imaginable must be inflicted and when Power is wanting must the Pen and Tongue be exercised in painting us as the most hideous Monsters for the Rabble to devour If we be silent we shamefully give up the Cause If we speak and shew our Doctrine in their true and native dress we are represented to be New Reformers Palliating or Prevaricating our Doctrines And tho' we detest all Dissimulation in any case much more in matters of Religion yet even in that we must be represented as Dissemblers who make neither Conscience of Lying Imposing Forging nor any other Villany to support our Cause Is this Justice is this Brotherly Charity is this Christianity We declare this is our Doctrine They who are bred up in it acknowledge it as such they whose Consciences made them forsake their former Errours and embrace the Catholic Faith of which I my self I bless God am one after all strict enquiry find it to be such They who are newly converted daily exclaim against their being formerly deceiv'd and find this Doctrine as here represented to be that and only that which is required of them to believe in order to their being Members of Our Church Nay even they who are the fiercest against us are desir'd to try the Experience themselves and see whether upon the profession of these Truths they will not be admitted to our Communion What can we say or do more to make our selves be believ'd We who refuse to take those Oaths which thwart our Conscience tho' we lose all our Temporal advantage by the refusal are yet ready to take any Oaths that this is our Doctrine But yet we must not be believ'd And shall not a strict account be one day given for all these Scandals unjustly thrown upon us Lay not O God these Sins to their charge but open the Eyes of all the People of this Nation that they may see thy Truth and embrace it to the eternal good and comfort of their Souls Amen A Copy of the Bishop of Meaux's Letter ✚ A Meaux 6. Auril 1686. Mon Reverend Pere IL ne sera pas difficile de repondre a vostre lettre du 3 ni de satisfaire aux objections de fait qu'on vous envoye d' Angleterre contre mon Exposition dela Doctrine Catholique Le Ministre Anglois qui l'a refutée dont vous m'enuoyez les objections n'a fait que ramasser des Contes que nos Huguenots ont voulu debiter ici qui sont tombez d'eux mêmes sans que j'äye eu besoin de me donner la peine de-les combattre Cet Auteur dit premierement que la Sorbonne n'a pas voula donner son Approbation a mon Liure Mais tout le monde scait ici que je n'ai jamais seulement songé a la demander La Sorbonné n'a pas accoutumè d'approuver des Liures en corps Quand elle en approuveroit je n'aurois eu aucun besoin de son Approbation ayant celle de tant d'Euêques étant Euêque moymême Cette Venerable Compaignie scait trop ce qu'elle doit aux Euêques qui sont naturellement par leur carractere les urais Docteurs de l'Eglise pour croire qu'ils ayent besoin de l'approbation de ses Docteurs Joint que la pluspart des Euêques qui ont approuvé mon liure sont du corps de la Sorbonne moymême je tiens a honneur d'en estre aussi Cést une grand foiblesse de me demandre que j'aye a produire l'appobation de la Sorbonne pendant qu'on voit dans mon liure celle de tant de scavants Euêques celle de tour le Clergé de France dans l'assemblée de 1682. celle du Pape même Vous voyez par la mon Reverend Pere que c'est une fausseté toute visible de dire qu'on ait supprimé la premiere Edition de mon Liure de peur que les Docteurs de Sorbonne n'y trouvassent a redire Je n'én ai jamais publié ni fait faire d'Edition que celle qui est entre les mains de tout le monde a laquelle je n'ai jamais ni osté ni dimiuüé une syllabe je n'ai jamais apprehendé qu'aucun Docteur Catholique y pust rien reprendre Voila ce qui regarde la premiere objection de l'Auteur Anglois Pour ce qu'il ajoûte en second lieu qu'un Catholique dont il designe le Nom par une lettre capitale avoit ecrit contre moy quand cela seroit ce seroit tant pis pour ce mauvais Catholique Mais c'est comme le reste un conte fait a plaisir C'est en vain que nos Huguenots l'ont voulu debiter ici Jamais personne n'a oiü parler de ce Catholique ils ne l'ont jamais pû nommer tout le monde c'est moqué d'eux En troisiême lieu on dit que le Pere Crasset Jesuite a combattu ma Doctrine dans un liure intitulé la veritable devotion envers la Sainte Vierge Je n'ai pas lû ce liure mais je n'ai jamais oiü dire qu'il y eut rien contre moy ce Pere seroit bien faché que je le crûsse Pour le Cardinal Capisucchi loin d'ètre contraire a la Doctrine que i'ai enseignée on trouvera son Approbation expresse parmi celles que jay rapportées dans l'edition de l'Exposition de l'an 1676. Et c'est luy qui comme Maitre du sacré Palais permit l'an 1675. l'impression qui se sît alors a la Congregation de propaganda fide de la version Italienne de ce liure Voila ceux que les Aduersaires pensent m'opposer Quant a ce Monsieur Imbert a Monsieur le Pasteur de Sainte Marie de Malines qu'on pretend avoir esté condamnez encore qu'ils alleguassent mon Exposition your guarend de leur Doctrine c'est a scavoir s'ils l'alleguoient a tort ou a droit Et des faits avancez en l'air ne meritent pas qu'on s'en informe davantage Mais puisqu'on desire d'en estre informé je vous dirai que cet Imbert est un homme sans nom comme sans scavoir qui crût justifier ses extravagances devant Monsieur l' Archeuêque de Bordeaux son Superieur en nommant mon Exposition a ce Prelat qui en a souscrit l'approbation dans l'assemble de 1682. Mais tout le monde vît bien que le Ciel n'est pas plus loin de la terre que man Doctrine l'etoit de ce qui avoit auancè cet Emporté Au reste jamais Catholique n'a songé qu'il fallût rendre a la Croix le même honneur qu'on rend a J. C. dans l'Eucharistie ni que la Croix auec J. C. dust estre adorée dela même maniere que la nature humaine