THE Papist Represented, AND NOT MISREPRESENTED; BEING In ANSWER to the SECOND SHEET of the Second Part of the PAPIST Misrepresented and Represented. And for a further VINDICATION of the CATECHISM truly Representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, In the Point of their Praying to the CROSS.  
LICENCED, December 24. 1686.  
LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, MDCLXXXVII.   

THE PAPIST REPRESENTED, And not Misrepresented, etc.  
WHEN I observe the late Proceedings of some of the Controvertists in the Church of Rome, and the design they have in hand of setting forth their Doctrines and Practices in a way less offensive to others, and more defensible to themselves, than in former Ages; I cannot better resemble it, than to a Carver, that being employed to form an Image of the Virgin Mary or other Saint, concerns not himself to make it like to the Person thereby to be represented, but so as shall best serve to allure and excite the people to a devout Adoration of it. If the Image was strictly to be examined, and we had an Original to compare it with, it's likely there might not be one true Line in the whole Composure, and that it might as well suit any other Person in the World, as him or her whom it pretends to resemble. And thus it will far in many points now introduced upon the Stage by Veron and the Bishop of Meaux abroad, and a late flourishing Pen and others amongst us, which carry in them so little Conformity to the Ancient Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, that Face can hardly be more unlike to Face, than one would be unlike to the other, if impartially compared; and which, if in another Age they had appeared as they do in this, would have been suspected of Heresy, if not condemned for it. For did they in former times Formally pray to the Saints, and frequently beg those things of them, which are only in the power of God to grant? The Papist after the new Mode of Representation, is said to believe all good, whether Spiritual or Temporal, comes immediately from God through the Merits of Christ; 
Pap. Misr. par. 2. c▪ 2.  and that they no otherwise desire the Just in Heaven to pray for them, than they do the Just on Earth, to be Joint-Petitioners with themselves to the Seat of the Divine Majesty. Did they heretofore use, without Scruple, to Worship and to pray to Images, as if the persons thereby represented were before them? 
Ibid c. 2.  We are now told, they give no other Respect, Honour and Veneration to them, than we do to the Bible; and that they can as well pray to the Monument, etc. as to the Image of the greatest Saint in Heaven. Did they formerly adore the Cross, and direct their Prayers to it in the solemn Offices of the Church? It's now only a Rapture, an innocent Wish, a Rhetorical Flight. By which Palliations and Glosses it may well be supposed, they are ashamed or grow weary of their Religion as formely practised and defended; and were they as sincere as liberal in their Concessions, that they are hastening apace to a Reformation of it. But now as we are not to judge of the Virgin Mary and other Saints by the Images and Pictures of them extant in the World (in which the Carvers and Painters do indulge their fancy) for then they would be Black and Fair, little and great, and what not? So we must not Judge of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Rome, by the design of these late Officious Artists; for than we should find contradictions in their Infallible Church, building and pulling down, saying and unsaying, age against age, principles and practices against principles and practices; but we must have recourse to the Originals, and see what their Authentic Authors and Offices do teach, and what is yet practised in those places where their Religion has no Enemy near, to contend with, or to make too curious observations upon it. Which course, as I have already observed in Discoursing upon the Worship given by them to Images, so I shall proceed in this present Argument of the Cross; and show what reason there was for that charge in the Catechism that they Pray directly to it. But here our Author takes up the point betimes, and a strain of Calumny, Insincerity, Defamation charged upon the Catechism, etc. runs through the whole Chapter. And why? Is it because it has produced any false Citations against them, 
Ibid.  or such as are insufficient? No, but the Catechism takes that literally which is to be understood figuratively; and from two words in one of their hymns which literally imply a Prayer to the Cross, takes the occasion of charging them with directly praying to it; whereas the Papists are never any where directed to pray to the Cross, and have no prayers to it. Upon the Reading of this, I was for the present at a stand, how a person of that Communion, and that Undertakes the defence of its public Offices, should be so Ignorant as to profess there are but two words in one of their Hymns to this purpose, and that they have no prayers to the Cross, nor direction about it; or if he did know otherwise, how he should be as confident to assert it, as if no one had ever read their Offices, but themselves. But being now a little wont to his way, I began to think there must be some reserved meaning in these positive assertions; and by looking back a page or two, I find that he and the Catechism are not agreed about the chief Term in Dispute, and that is the Cross. For whereas the charge in the Catechism is, that they pray directly to the Cross, he, with much sincerity, altars the terms, and saith, that the Faithful Catechist produces an argument to prove the Papists so stupid, as to pray directly to a piece of wood, and a mere material Cross. But if that is a mere piece of Wood, which in the Consecration of, the Bishop prays may be made the stability of Faith, and increase of good works, and the Redemption of Souls. If that be a mere piece of wood, which they use all expressions of outward Adoration to, by kiss, prostrations, etc. If that be a mere piece of wood, to which they give Latria, or the sovereign Worship which is peculiar to God; Then indeed they Pray also directly to a mere piece of wood, to increase Grace in the Godly, etc. But if the Cross they thus Consecrate and Bless, and is thus effectual after Consecration; if the Cross they Adore, kiss and prostrate themselves before; if, lastly, the Cross they give Divine and Sovereign Worship to, is not a mere piece of wood, so then neither is that a mere piece of wood, they are said in the Catechism to pray directly to. For it's the same Cross that the one and the other, nay that all of the things here recited of, are in the Catechism applied to. But becaufe I am willing to clear the point, and as much as I can, leave it without exception,  
1. I shall show what they mean by a Cross.  
2. I shall prove that they do Adore and Worship the Cross.  
3. That they do pray directly to the Cross they adore.  
The Cross we are now concerned about, is an external Representation of our Saviour Crucified upon it: And so is as distinct from a bare material Cross, a mere Cross of Wood, etc. as what is an Object of Worship, is from that which is none. For by being thus Representative, it's no longer what it was before, a mere piece of Wood; but being in the stead of him whom it Represents, 
De Cruse. l. 1. c. 49.  and sustaining his person, it hath by that means an excellency communicated to it, and which formally altars the Nature of it, as Gretser the Jesuit, a copious writer upon this Argument, doth show.  
For the further explication of which, and to add some authority to the abovesaid character of the Cross, I shall transcribe the sum of what he writes of this matter. 
Chap. 51.  It having, it seems, been objected, That if all the Crosses are to be Worshipped because Christ hung upon the Cross; by the same reason all Thorns, Reeds, Nails, Spears, Sepulchers, etc. are to have the same respect, because Christ was crowned with Thorns, Nailed to the Cross, had his side Pierced, and at last was buried in a Sepulchre.  
To this Gretser Answers, That all Crosses are made in Imitation of the Cross upon which Christ suffered, and of him suffering upon it, and that they may both Represent That and Him. Wherefore we do deservedly honour all Crosses, as they are Images, and an Image is for Representation; but we do not thus honour all Sepulchers, Nails, etc. because they are not Images or Representations of the Sepulchre of Christ, nor of the nails that fastened his Body to the Cross. But if any one doth build a Sepulchre, or erect a Manger, or make Nails, or choose out Thorns in imitation, and for a Representation of the first Sepulchre, Manger, Nails and Thorns, etc. it is no doubt but they may be Worshipped. For than they are endued with, and have in them the Nature of an Image, which is Representation. So that as there is a distinction betwixt Sepulchre and Sepulchre, Manger and Manger; and which distinction is such, that the one is an object of worship, and another is not; so there is betwixt Cross and Cross, that is, betwixt a Cross, either Natural, Accidental, and Artificial when made for other uses, and a Cross that is Representative (as the same Author there shows.)  
So that our Author might safely enough declare, 
Misrepr. p. 2. c. 2. c▪ p. 10.  that if his Religion did either teach or practise such stupid Idolatry, as praying to a piece of Wood, he could no more be any longer of her Communion than he could Sacrifice to Molech. For as it's a piece of Wood, it's not the Cross we are here concerned in, not the Cross by Representation, not the Cross by Consecration, which alone, and under that consideration is the object of their Worship. So that though he may continue in that Communion, and make this Protestation against a piece of Wood; yet he cannot be of that Communion and enter the like Protestation against a Representing and Consecrated Cross, and call such application to it, Idolatry. For this Cross we are speaking of, is not only representative, but is also consecrated for that purpose; and there is an Office accordingly, with such Prayers, Rites and Ceremonies as make it as well a Sacred, 
Pontificale in benedic. Nou. Crucis.  as a Representing Object. As for instance, in the consecration of a new Cross of Wood, the Bishop prays in these words; We pray thee, O Holy Lord, etc. That thou wouldst vouchsafe to bless this Wood of thy Cross, that it may be a wholesome [saving] remedy to mankind; 
Salutare.  a stability of Faith, an increase of good works▪ the Redemption of Souls, a comfort, protection and defence against the evil darts of the Enemies, through our Lord, etc. And as if this were not sufficient, after the consecration of the Incense, the Bishop sprinkles the Cross with Holy-Water, and Incenses it; Saying,  
Let this Wood be sanctified in the name of the Fa ✚ ther, and of the S ✚ on, and of the Holy ✚ Ghost. Let the blessing of that Wood upon which the Holy Members of our Saviour hung, be in this Wood; that all that pray and bow down themselves for God, before this Cross, may find health both of Soul and Body, through the same Jesus Christ. But if the Cross be of Metal, etc. then he is to pray to Christ in these Words, Do thou take this Cross [now consecrated] in those hands with which thou hast embraced That [on which he hung] and with the holiness of That, do thou Sanctisy This: And as the World by That was cleansed from guilt, so the devout Souls of thy Servants who offer it, may by the Merit of This Cross be delivered from every sin they have committed.  
So that it's very evident, that as the Cross by virtue of its Representation▪ is quite another thing than a mere piece of Wood; so upon its Consecration, it's endued with another Nature; for than it has Merits of its own; it's healthful both for Soul and Body, and is for the stability of Faith, the increase of Good Works, the comfort of Souls to all them that bow down before it. And here it's sit to be remembered against we come to need it, that there can be no Apostrophe, no Rhetorical Flight, when we not only consider it's a Prayer, and not a Poetical Composure; but that also the Cross here spoken of, is as much distinguished from Christ, as from that Cross he suffered upon.  
By this time, I hope, it's sufficiently proved, that the Cross in dispute, is another thing than a mere piece of wood.  
But though the right stating of a Case goes a great way toward the resolving of it, yet this is not all I intent in it: To proceed therefore,  
2. I shall prove that they do adore and worship the Cross. It has been of late pretended by some, that the Cross is only a Memorative Sign: but this was accounted in the last Age, little better than Heresy: And therefore Gretser saith of the Lutherans, 
De Cruse l. 1. c. 50.  who retained Crosses in their Churches for Remembrance▪ and not for Worship, that they are Enemies to the Cross, and not better than those that wholly reject them▪ For indeed, this is so embodied into the Offices of the Church of Rome, that no one can be truly of that Communion▪ but must thus conceive as they do. Thus we find after the Consecration of the Cross, the Bishop first knelt before it, and doth devoutly adore and kiss it, 
Pontific. ibid.  as do also all that are present, if they so please. But though it be left to the pleasure of the People in that Solemnity, yet it shows what the Church doth intend; and accordingly it doth call upon them in the public Office, to join with her in the Adoration of it; 
Ibid. c. 49. Missal. Rom. in Para●●ev. Fer. 6.  as Gretser doth acknowledge. For the Missal saith, at the uncovering of the Cross, Behold the wood of the Cross, Come, let us adore; upon which all the People fall to the ground. And when the Priest hath wholly uncovered the Cross, and repeated, as before he places it before the Altar, and first himself draws near to adore the Cross; bowing his knees thrice before he kisses it. And then the Attendants at the Altars, and the Clergy and Laity, two and two, as he did, Adore the Cross; the Choir in the mean while singing, We adore thy Cross, O Lord. This I take to be past Controversy in the Church of Rome, where it is not disputed, whether the Cross is to be worshipped, but with what Worship it is to be worshipped. And which indeed is also determined to their hands by the Pontificale in the place quoted in that Catechism which our Author wrote this Chapter against. 
Lud. de Paramo de Orig. S. Inquis. l. 2. tit. 3. c. 8. n. 5.  And therefore when Joh. Aegidius, a Canon of Sevil, had maintained that God was to be worshipped with Latria [Sovereign Worship] and the Cross with Dulia [an inferior sort of Worship (as they call it) which they give to the Saints] he was enjoined a public Recantation, as denying the Adoration of the Cross, contrary to the practice of the Church, which saith, O Crux ave spes union, Hail, O Cross, our only Hope. And in another place. Crucem tuam adoramus, We do adore thy Cross, as Ludovicus de Param● relates it.  
And this puts me in mind of bringing this Matter to a Conclusion, which I shall do, by showing,  
3. That they do directly pray to the Cross. This was asserted in the Catechism, but I must not say proved, till I have cleared the Point. But however if it was not proved, there was somewhat fairly offered towards it; when it produced the express words of the Breviary in justification of it; which before I proceed I shall recite. The words are these; Hail O Cross, our only Hope! do thou increase Grace in the Godly, and blot out the Sins in the Guilty. In exception to what the Catechism hath produced this for, our Author hath said as much as the Cause will bear, and to give him his due, with Art▪ and Smartness enough: And to give what he hath said its full sense, I shall, without taking notice of the extravagant Censures, and inveterate Expressions scattered through the whole, sum up what he hath said: And it comes all to this; That this Hymn is of ancient composure; that it's an Hymn and not a Prayer, and so being Poetical, it's but a Rhetorical Flight and Apostrophe, frequent in Scripture, and the Fathers; that there are but two (that is, I suppose, a few) words in one Hymn to this purpose; that the Church hath no Prayer to the Cross, nor are They ever directed any where to pray to it. In fine, he saith, the meaning of their Church in saying that Hymn, is, Hail, O Christ, our only Hope, etc. I am apt to think that he will grant, upon the perusal of the whole, that I have done no injury to what he hath said, by this short and close account of it.  
But now if I shall be able to prove that this is a Prayer as well as an Hymn, and that there are parts of their Office to corroborate the sense I have given of it; if I prove that their Church hath Prayers to the Cross, and directs the People to pray to it, I think there will need little more to vindicate the Catechism from all that Defamation he hath so plentifully cast upon it.  
In the first place, 
Bellarm. de Scriptor. Eccles. An. 300.  he tells us that this Hymn is found in St. Ambrose's Works. So Bellarmine indeed saith it was in the Paris Edition 1540, which he used; and yet there are other Editions in which it is not. So that I may as well say, it is not in St. Ambrose's Works, as he may say that it is, and both alike true. But is this any credit to it? Then it would be so to the Hymns, Optatus votis omnium, & Christ, qui lux es & dies, etc. which Bellarmine saith are unworthy of so great a Name, and not to be attributed to him. But however if St. Ambrose be not the Author of it, he has found out a Learned Bishop to father it upon, one Vincentius Fortunatus, who, he saith, composed it to be sung by his Church on Passion Sunday. But though he hath not favoured us with the See this Bishop had, yet I easily apprehend whom it is that he means, and that is Venantius Fortunatus, which Mistake I shall be so candid as not to impute to his ignorance in these Matters, but to the haste, which he that intends to write a Weekly Packet of Controversy must be more or less liable to. 
Ibid. de Venant. Fortun.  But yet I am not satisfied in the Point; for though he has the learned Bellarmine before him, that seems to say, or is willing to have it believed, that this Bishop was the Author of this Hymn; yet I find others doubting of it; and amongst them is Gretser, who though a diligent Reader, and one as willing and ready to lay hold of what might serve for his Purpose, as Bellarmine, or any Man whatsoever, yet speaks very doubtfully of it, 
Lib. 1. de Cruse, c. 53.  and saith, some do attribute it to Theodulphus [Bishop of Orleans], others to Fortunatus; the former of which lived 265 Years after the latter, according to Bellarmine. So that the truth is, there is no certainty at all in this Matter, which our Author hath yet so positively asserted.  
But be that as it will, it's no great matter who is the Author of it, nor indeed what the sense of that Author was, for as long as we know what Church doth constantly use it, and in what sense that Church doth take it, we have enough for our purpose: And that is the thing to be now enquired into. I grant that the words here quoted, are part of an Hymn, and that there are several things to be Indulged to a Poetical Fancy, that are not otherwise to be Indulged: and therefore if there was nothing in their Church, to induce and oblige us to take it in a sense quite different from what he imposes on it, it would not be fair or ingenuous to force a proper sense upon it, when the nature and reason of the thing, as well as their own declaration, require it to be taken in an improper. But when we know that the Cross is among them, a Representation of our Saviour's Passion, and has for that reason a Worship given and ordered to be given to it as a Representing Object. When we know that it's also consecrated, and upon its Consecration is supposed to have altered its Nature, and to have Divine Virtues communicated to it, or to have a power of communicating such Virtues to those that adore it. When, further, the Passage quoted from this Hymn is conformable to the other Offices of the Church, we have no reason in the World to take it in his sense, when we have thus the current sense of their own Church against it.  
I think I have made it evident before, in what I have said of the Consecration of the Cross, that the Cross is considered as a distinct thing from our Saviour, because they pray to him to bless the Cross, and to have such and such Virtues communicated to it and by it. I think also it has been made evident, that the Cross itself is to be considered and proposed as an Object of Adoration. And then, why is it more absurd to pray to the Cross, than it is thus to adore it? Or, why is it absurd to pray to the Cross for That, which they have prayed before may be communicated to the Cross? But because this is but reasoning (though such reasoning as is natural and plain) therefore I shall appeal to the Hymn itself, which I shall transcribe.  


Vexilla Regis prodeuut,  
Fulget Crucis Mysterium,  
Quo carne carnis Conditor  
Suspensus est patibulo.  
Arbor decora & fulgida,  
Ornata Regis purpura,  
Electa digno stipite  
Tam Sancta membra tangere, etc.  
O Crux Ave spes unica,  
Paschale quae fers gaudium  
Piis ad auge gratiam.  
Reisque dele crimina.   

The Banner of the King comes forth,  
The Mystery of the Cross doth shine.  
On which Cross, the maker of Flesh hath hung.  
A comely and bright Tree,  
Adorned with the Purple of the King,  
Chosen out of a Stock worthy, etc.  
To touch so sacred Members,  
Hail, O Cross, our only Hope,  
Increase Grace in the Godly.  
And blot out the Sins of the guilty.    
Then in one of the places quoted in the Catechism immediately follows this Sequence, 
Fest. Invent. Crucis ad Vesper.  The sign of the Cross shall be in Heaven, when the Lord shall come to Judgement. But this is not all; for it follows further, O Cross, brighter than all the Stars, which alone hast been thought worthy to bear the weight of the World! Sweet Wood, bearing the sweet Nails and sweet Burdens; save the present Company, gathered together this day for thy praise.  
From whence I observe, 1. That the word Cross in this Hymn, cannot be applied to Christ, but to the Cross distinct from him: For else, the Cross which is the Banner of the King, would be the King himself; the Cross on which the Maker of Flesh hung in his Flesh, would be the same with the Maker of Flesh; The Tree which touched his sacred Members, be the same with the Members touched by that Tree. 2. I observe that the Cross which is saluted with Hail, O Cross, our daily Hope, is the same with the Cross upon which Christ hung; and therefore must be the Cross this Salutation is directed to. 3. That the same, or what is equivalent to it, which our Author supposeth here to be said poetically, is prayed for; Sweet Wood, save the present Company. But because all the Contradictions in the World will not open some Men Eyes, I shall give our Author the sense of Persons as considerable in his own Church for Learning and Authority, as himself may be presumed to be. And first of all, let us hear Dominicus Soto, a Divine (as I remember) in the Council of Trent, who, it seems had not learned our Author's sense of this matter; 
Dom. Soto de Instit. & Jure. l. 2. q. 3. art. 2. in fin.  for he saith, We ought to worship the Images themselves; for the Church doth not say, we worship Thee, O Christ, but thy Cross, O Crux ave, spes unica, etc. Catharinus leads us a little further, 
Catarrh. de cultu & ador. Imag. p. 133, & 137.  for he saith, We direct our words and signs of Adoration to the Images, to which likewise we burn Incense: As when we say to the Cross, O Crux ave spes unica, etc.  
And so Aquinas and others tell us, 
V. Simon. Majolus pro desens. sacr. Imag. centur. 13. c. 14.  that Latria is to be given to Images, because the Church in praying to the Cross, speaks to it as if it were Christ himself.  
From which Authorities, we may perceive how little heed is to be given to our Author (though he writes as if he held the sense of their whole Church in the hollow of his hand) when he affirms, 
Page 12.  That the meaning of Catholics in saying that Hymn, is, Hail, O Christ, our only Hope! And that in the holy time of the Passion, in which that Hymn is sung, their whole Devotion and Prayers are directed to Him. By which words one would at first think, 
See the defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England. Append. p. 121.  our Author was much of Imbert's mind, a Disciple (as he himself thought) of the Bishop of Meaux, who when the Cross was shown to the People on Good-friday, frankly and openly declared, We adore not any thing of what we see, but Jesus Christ crucified; and that he might expect the same Censure for it, as that poor Man met with from his Diocesan. But our Author has prudently provided for his own Security; for by adding a word or two, he has rendered his Exposition harmless, and secured himself from the fate of Imbert: For a line or two before, he saith, The Catholics do not understand the words of this Hymn Barely of the material Cross, but of Christ crucified. And indeed our Author is not alone, nor the first in this Exposition, for thus it's also expounded in a French Office, 
L'Office de la Semaine Sancte, Francois & Latin. 8o à Lion, p. 1667. Remarks, p. 317.  viz. This Adoration is not terminated only on the Wood, but on Jesus Christ who was nailed thereon: [Cette Adoration ne se termine pas au Seul Bois, mais à J. C. qui y a esté attaché]. So that for the future, when we meet with such Expositions, that do seemingly translate the Worship from the Cross wholly to our Saviour, we are to understand that there is some reserved Qualification, to moderate it, such as merely, barely, only, that is implied, or expressed perhaps a line or two before or afterwards. And having now this Key, we may pretend to understand the meaning of our Author's Exposition, and, if you will take his word, the meaning of all Catholics, which is this, Hail, O Cross, our only Hope, And, Hail, O Christ, our only Hope; that is, Christ is their only Hope, but so as the Cross is their Hope too; and the Cross is their only Hope, but so as Christ is their Hope also. So that whilst our Author charges the Catechism with pointing to a false and mistaken sense, he himself has, much to the advantage of the Hymn, expounded it into Nonsense. A word, I must confess, I borrow from him, and which puts me in mind of the last Tire, that he discharges upon the Catechism; but though in managing of this he hath spent the greatest part of his Sheet, 
Page 11.  I shall dispatch it in few words. If, saith he, for these words in this Anthem, their Church must be blackened with the Infamy of Idolatry, and praying directly to the Cross; then stand clear Paul, have a care Chrysostom, beware O Creed, and you Common-prayer Book, look to yourself. For if you have but a grave Catechist that will faithfully represent you; you'll be infallibly set out for nothing better than Professors of Folly and Nonsense, bundles of Absurdities and Profaneness, etc. One would think that this Author, from a certain pique he has taken against what he so often calls a Grave Catechism, had forgotten all Gravity, and Respect to the most serious matters. Stand clear, have a care, beware. Who and what are these addressed to? No other than a holy St. Paul, an excellent St. Chrysostom, and the chief Sum of the Articles of our Faith. For God's sake are there no more decent Forms of Speech to describe these things by? And are we to discourse of them as if we were at some light and rustical Pastimes? But what can be strange in this kind, when it shall be suggested that there is as much reason to say St. Paul reverenced the material Cross above all things in Heaven and Earth, 
Page 11.  because he saith, God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ: As much reason to say, he looked upon the Wood of the Cross, as that which had purchased Man's Reconciliation to God, because he saith, Man was reconciled to God in one Body, by the Cross; as there is for saying the Church of Rome prays directly to the Cross, because she salutes it with Hail, O Cross, our only Hope: and as if there was no more reason to apply this to a material Cross, than there is these and the like Texts of St. Paul He doth indeed intimate, and would have it understood, that the material Cross is herein concerned. For thus he saith, To do right to St. Paul, St. Chrysostom, 
Page 12.  etc. besides giving a bare Narrative of their Expressions, it ought to be explicated to the People that in these high Encomiums they do not understand the mere material Cross. But when he can prove there was any material Cross then used, and that those Encomiums do in any sense belong to it, than it will be time enough to answer further to his Exceptions; but till that time, what I have already said about the Notion of a Cross, the Consecration, the Adoration of it, and I will venture to say their Prayer to it, is sufficient to show, that though there be good reason to understand St. Paul in a figurative sense, there is none to understand the Phrase, before recited and used in the Romish Church in that sense. If our Author expects an Answer to his Heathenish Catechism, (as he calls it) which is a Name very proper for it; I shall, instead of that, only put a few Questions, and conclude.  
Q. Whether the Crosses used in the Religious Service of the Church of Rome be mere pieces of Wood, & c?  
Q. Whether they may not, and are not to adore the Cross, though they may not adore a mere piece of Wood?  
Q. How the Cross which they pray to Christ to bless, is made the stability of Faith, and increase of good Works?  
Q. How the Cross upon which Christ hung, may be Christ who hung upon the Cross?  
FINIS.