An account of the life and death of the Blessed Virgin according to Romish writers with the grounds of the worship paid to her, and a preface in answer to the Apology for the Contemplations, &c. / by a lay hand.

To J. C. D. D. Author of the Contemplations, &c. and the Apology.

SIR,

I Present You here with A Short Account of the Life and Death of the ever blessed Virgin, collected from Authors truly Catholick, and zealous Devoto's; such, as in all likelihood, had long ago performed your Eight Acts of Special Devotion to∣wards her. If I could have got my self to have made some Resolutions, some Affe∣ctions, Praises, Versicles, Responses, Les∣sons and Anthems, to have turned Psalms of David from our Lord to our Lady, and composed some hobling Hymns, with a Covenant at the last, I am persuaded this Book might have passed for a Second Edi∣tion with some Alterations, of Contempla∣tions on the Life and Glory of Holy Mary. There is so near an Affinity between the

Doctrines of them both, the Authors are so very like, the Matter and Substance of them is so very much the same, that I think I have sufficient claim to your Pa∣tronage; and may reasonably shelter my self under the Protection of your Apolo∣gy, which will serve for the one, as well as the other: and I cannot but congratu∣late the good fortune of my Book, that it was born with its Defence ready made. To give you my judgment freely on the matter, •• verily believe your two Books are a more fair and full Exposition of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent in this Point, than what our Representer, Mr. de Meaux, or his Vindicator have given us; be∣cause the Universal Practice of your Church is concordant with, and corre∣spondent to Your Principles, but by no means to Theirs. For what an intolle∣rable injury must there be done to plain natural sence, what extreme violence must there be used, to pull and reduce to a plain Ord pro▪ nobis, such noble and exalt∣ed flights, such vast, exuberant, seraphical and supereminential strains, as are every where to be met withal in the Authors of the Virginal Sodality?

And thou, O most glorious and powerful Mo∣ther of God, pity me, and protect me; for thou art highly acceptable to God, canst obtain Mercies, and wilt procure a Mission of Angels to relieve me, that my Soul may rejoyce in thy fulness and bounty.

Wherefore (for the same reason) now for ever, I chuse thee, O glorious Mother of Jesus, to be my Patroness, Advocate, and Adoptive Mo∣ther, admit me, O powerful Queen of Angels, amongst thy Clients: Suppress my Enemies; Ma∣nage my Cause in the Court of our Requests, &c.

—And thou, O Mother of Mercy, dost still sollicit my Cause at the Throne of thy Son's boun∣ty, art watchful over my motions and dost compas∣sionate my failings. Help, quicken, triumph over my weak desires. Take me into the Arms of thy Pity. Suffer not the Image of Jesus to be razed forth my Spirit, since I have been redeemed, washed and watred with the Blood of Jesus, taken forth of the Centre of thy Amorous Heart.

Ʋnto thy Custody I commit and recommend my self, with all the powers, passions, and motions▪ of my body and mind; and all living and dead; hum∣bly intreating thee, through all thy Mercies and Merits, Priviledges and Power, and by whatever is dearest unto thee, that we may be admitted to

be thy Children, Servants, and Devotees; that we may be protected, directed and assisted, and comforted by thee: and that by thee, we may be presented to God the Father who created us, &c.

You will scorn, I think, to have such Sentences as these (and greater yet than these, if I had leisure to select them) re∣duced to a poor Ora pro nobis. But your com∣fort is, that those dry, insipid Ora pro nobis∣Gentlemen are but very few in number, and dare hardly shew themselves but in the Days and Kingdoms of Conversion. But for a couple of Unreasonable Men, commend me to the Modern Opposers of your Contemplations, the one a Friendly Trimmer, (Speculum B. Virg.) the other an open Vigilantian (Answer to a Catholick Misre∣presented). With the first, joyn all those Misbelievers, who will not away with sound and wholsom Meats, unless they be also toothsom, who so trim in this great Point of Christian Piety towards the Holy Mother of Jesus, as to reduce the whole Design of the Worship of Saints to a bare Admiration, Commemoration, and Imitation of their Virtues; as if the Veneration of the Saints, and our Mediation of Intercession,

directed mediately or immediately unto them, were not in themselves Christian Ver∣tues, or that the Practice of these Vertues were not due by us, to their high rank, &c.

The only way to be revenged on this unreasonable and fearful Trimmer (that I can think of) will be to prove in any to∣lerable manner the truth of the foregoing Period; and the least that he can do, will be to break his Speculum all to pieces; it may be something else.

And next, for that other open Vigilantian, to come and thank you civilly for pub∣lishing, in English, & Permissu Superiorum, your seasonable Treatise, I think it was nothing but a rude affront, for it was in∣deed to thank you for Nothing, since nei∣ther the Design nor Draught was new or singular: i. e. the Doctrine and the Practice delivered in your Book, was from all An∣tiquity, and Universal; if this were made but good, it wou'd crack the heart-strings of that open Vigilantian, which would be a sufficient punishment for his injurious dismembring the very Style of the Contem∣plations, in a most weighty Article. Though, after all, some of your Friends are apt to

think, that the inserting those words [in the Soul of a pure Creature] which you com∣plain so much of, for being left out, will make your Cause never the better, if not somewhat worse; for that Vigilantian thought it but reasonable to enquire, what greater Titles, what more glorious Attri∣butes, you could bestow on the Eternal Son of God in our Nature, than you had bestowed on his Virgin-Mother, although but a pure Creature; and the Question, for ought I see, is like to be yet unanswer∣ed. And therefore, let us leave these two troublesome people, who seem to have no manner of taste or relish of this kind of Virginal Devotion; and are so wholly taken up with that fanciful way of wor∣shipping one God in simplicity and truth; that I believe if the truth were known they have neither of them in all their lives suffered one Ecstatick Introversion in con∣templation of the Grandeurs of Holy Mary.

Your Books, Sir, I find, are made up of two parts; 1. Reasoning. 2. Authority. For the first, I have nothing to say to it; I believe your Reasons are as good as any that can be brought in defence of such Worship,

and such Practice. And, if I did not think you would take it amiss, I would thank you again and again for that part of your Apology. For the Authoritative part, I con∣fess I am not so well satisfied with it, and it shall be the work of the remainder of this Epistle, to shew how little reason you have to be so, in relation to the three or four first Centuries; and here I am in very good earnest, and cannot help expo∣stulating with you, and others your Wri∣ting Brethren, in the Name both of the Learned and Unlearned of our Nation. Bishop Bonner could not allow a Heretick to be a Gentleman; and Card. Pallavicini says, that whereas, since the Reformation, there have been a very great number of Catholicks, ex∣ceedingly renowned both for their Piety and Learning; the Heresie could not shew even one famous for the first, and not many for the latter. I'm afraid that a hundred years hence, Hereticks will be born without Noses, and shall not be able so much as to learn to read: But had not rage and fury blind∣ed the eyes of that Jesuit, he might have found a thousand, and ten thousand too, dear both to God and Men, both for their

Piety and their Learning. It is very well known how quickly that dawning of Learn∣ing in the World, about the end of the 15th Century, brought forth the Reformation; and it is as well known, how kind the Daughter has since proved to the Mother. And envy must confess, that England has made as great improvements in all Arts and Sciences, and advanced Learning of all kinds, as far as any Nation in the World besides has done. But what is this (you will say) to you? I answer, Very much. It lies upon you very hard, to ac∣quit your selves either of profound igno∣rance in Books, or extreme disingenuity, in imposing spurious, scoundrel, and ex∣ploded Tracts, for genuine and approved. What greater rudeness and affront can you put upon a Nation of so exact a judg∣ment, so critical a taste, and such abun∣dant reading, as the English is, than to think you can foist your wretched stuff upon them, for old authentick Records? But this is your way, and this is your ad∣vantage, that if but one ignorant Reader is seduced by these false Authorities, you have gained one; and if you gain none,

you lose nothing; for disingenuous and unfair dealing in the methods of convert∣ing, is so frequent, that a right Catholick stomach never so much as rises at it, much less is in any danger of revolt.

I am tempted to pursue this Subject somewhat farther; but I will restrain my self, and set about my work immediately, which shall be to shew, that of all the Au∣thorities you have alledged in defence of your Doctrine, for the three first Ages, ei∣ther the Books from which you have them are confessedly spurious, or exceeding doubtful; or if the Books be genuine, the Citations are nothing to your purpose.

To begin therefore with the Testimo∣nies of the first Age; the Holy Scriptures, which are cited abundantly, are most of them such as prove, what no body denies, as that Mary was the Mother of Jesus, her excellent Faith, admirable Purity, pro∣found Humility, perfect Obedience, Fide∣lity and Obsequiousness, Fortitude and Patience, ay, and whatever else you please that is truly excellent, we are ready to be∣lieve, tho' sometimes not from the places brought by you: but why should you say

she is stiled the Spouse of the Holy Ghost, because, Matth. 1. 20. that which is born of her is of the Holy Ghost? how do the Evangelists recommend to us her fervent practice of Ecstatick Prayer, because Acts 1. 14. These all continued in Prayer and Supplication, with one accord, with the Women, and Mary the Mother of Jesus and with his brethren? but how does that submissive resignation of the humble and obedient Maid, Luke 1. 38. Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy Word, prove the amplitude of the spi∣ritual power of Holy Mary, in the Empire of Grace and Divine Favours, suiting to her illustrious Prerogatives, Vertues, and Merits? where is the stupendous efficacy of her single Fiat, be it done, in those words? J. C. D. D. of the holy Order of St. Francis, will tell us; As God's Fiat, in the beginning of Nature, was a demonstrative Mark of his pro∣per Omnipotency, in extracting the whole Fabrick of the World, with all its Moveables and Orna∣ments, out of a meer nothing: So Mary's Fiat, in the beginning of Grace, is an evident token of her appropriated plenitude of Power, proportioned to her fulness of Grace, co-operating with the al∣mighty source of all goodness, gives a being, with

all connatural parts and perfections, to Jesus. Commend me to J. C. for making the most of a thing: but this it is, to have ones head stuffed with the Conformities of St. Francis. Well, but the efficacy of her Mediation of Intercession to God, for Mor∣tals, appears manifestly, in her sollicitous request to Jesus, at the Marriage-Feast in Cana of Galilee, Joh. 2. 3. The Mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no Wine. Had I been J. C. of all places in the whole Bible, I would never have singled out this pas∣sage, to shew the efficacy of her Mediation of Intercession, because of the answer im∣mediately following, V. 4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Ay, but hold, says J. C. Did not our blessed Lord, for the in∣surance of our protection by Holy Mary, and of her effectual mediation to himself for us, give a most ample instance, in his voluntary subjection and obsequiousness to her Commands, from the Age of 12. to 30. Luke 2. 51. And he went down with them to Nazareth, and was subject to them? Now, to speak the truth, I can see no great mat∣ter in these plain words, and if there be any thing in them extraordinary, it is cer∣tainly

as applicable to St. Joseph, as the Bles∣sed Virgin, and therefore J. C. took care to translate them to his purpose, Jesus went down with Mary, to Nazareth, and was sub∣ject•• to Her. But this is no usual fraud of the Adversaries of the Catholick Church to lop the Sacred Scriptures themselves, thereby to support a drooping Party and Passion; No, not this, to speak of! the Party indeed we have to deal with, does not droop very much, but certainly the Cause does, that wants such supports as these. In the next place, the application of the 44th (with us the 45th) Psalm to the Virgin Mary, upon the Autho∣ties of Athanasius (Serm. de Deipara) and Greg. Nazian. (Traged. de Ch. Patiente) is hardly to be endured, when the literal sence of it is so suitable to the love of So∣lomon to his Egyptian Lady, and the Mysti∣cal, to that of our blessed Lord to his Spouse the Church. But if these two pie∣ces (of which I shall speak in their proper places) were sufficient to authorize your applying that Psalm to the Virgin, yet what shall authorize you to construe, Vultum tuum deprecabuntur, by, Shall pay homage to this Di∣vine

Mother, and set it down as the words of the Psalmist? nothing that I know of, but Quidlibet audendi libertas pro Sancta Matre Ecclesia. And thus I have done my Obser∣vations (for I do not pretend to answer or confute the reason of the Authorities al∣ledged here, or elsewhere) on your Scrip∣ture Quotations. And truly if this be the Use that is to be made of it, I think it rea∣sonable, it should be withholden not from the Laity alone, but Clergy also.

The first Authority, purely humane, is the honourable Testimony of St. Andrew the Apostle, who stiles her an Immaculate Virgin, in these words, It was necessary that Christ, born of an Immaculate Virgin, should restore that Life Everlasting which all had forfeited. Here is nothing in this Citation but what we all agree very well in; but the Autho∣rity of the Piece we think very question∣able, and because it is made use of, upon other occasions, by your Writers, and the Putney Convert, I will give you some of the Reasons, for which we think it not authentick. Sixtus Senensis says nothing of it, but gives us warning to be cautious in such matters (quoting Eusebius for it) as

relate to the Acts and Passions of the Apo∣stles, and says that in the Acts of St. An∣drew, there are abundance of ridiculous stories, about Egeas, and Maximilla, &c. Possevin and Bellarmin think there is all the reason in the World to believe the Passion of St. Andrew genuine; 1st. Because no body had questioned it. And how should they, when it had not long been made com∣mon, by the Translation of Cardinal Sirlet, Gentian Hervet, and another, from the Greek of Simeon Metaphrastes, at the request of Lip∣pomannus Bishop of Verona, from whom Su∣rius took it? 2. Because it has nothing of Novelty in it. If the Church of Rome will let Sp. Sanctum, procedentem ex Patre, in filio permanentem, pass for the Doctrine of St. An∣drew, I have nothing to answer. Let them chuse which they please; for that of Ba∣ronius, saying it had lately crept into some Copies, and was not in a great many others, will not go far with us, barely upon his credit. 3. Because the famous Hymn, Sal∣ve Sancta Crux, was undoubtedly taken from this Passion of St. Andrew. That it might very well be, and yet the Passio S. And. ne∣ver the more genuine, unless it could be

proved, that this Hymn were 15 or 16 hun∣dred years old. 4. Because Johannes a Lo∣vanio, Aloysius Lipomanus, and the Correctors of the Roman Breviary, think it a very ge∣nuine Piece. To this Bellarmin shall an∣swer, namely, that he knew a great Man, (that will go for two sure) that call'd this Passion in question: and farther, that it was very vigorously disputed by grave and learned Men, before it could pass. 5. Petrus Damiani, (who died 1072.) and St. Bernard, in a Sermon on the Vigil and Feast of St. And▪ (which Labbe knows not if it be his or no) cite this Piece as authen∣tick. We have nothing to say to this, but that it might pass for true in the days of St. Bernard, and before. But the Question is, If it be the Presbyters of Achaia, as is pretended. To the Reasons aforemention∣ed, Labbeus adds the auxiliary forces of hard words, and vile injurious reproaches on the Protestant Authors that had exposed this Piece as spurious, and indeed it is all the Arguments that he has brought, both in this and other Points, against their Cri∣ticks. And whoever shall turn over that Jesuits Books, cannot chuse being concerned

to find a man of his laborious industry and learning, so agitated by the rabid Spi∣rit of his Order, as to pass all bounds of moderation, and good manners, towards men of learning, though differing from him in their judgment. We are more obli∣ged to Monsieur du Pin, a late French Author, both for his candor and good nature, whose words I will set down at full concerning this present Matter.

Opinions are divided about the Acts of the Pas∣sion of St. Andrew, written by the Presbyters of Achaia, which are in Surius's History of the Saints, Nov. 30. Baronius, Bellarmin, and some other Catholick Criticks receive them, but a great many more reject them. The Ancients knew no other Acts of St. Andrew, than such as were corrupted by the Manichees, of which St. Au∣stin, Philastrius, and Pope Innocent the first make mention, and which Gelasius puts into the number of Apocryphal Books: But it is cer∣tain, that those were not the same with these we are now speaking of; and it is yet as certain that these latter Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew, were never cited by any that lived before the 7th or 8th Century. Such as Remigius Autissiodorensis, who died

about 900. Petrus Damiani, 1072. Lanfranc, St. Bernard, and Ivo of Chartres. By which we see we cannot be assured of the truth of it. Thirdly, Not only the Mystery of the Trinity is explained in these Acts, in such a manner as we may well suspect they were made since the Council of Nice; but they also teach the error of the latter Greeks concerning the Holy Ghost, saying he proceeds from the Father, and abides in the Son. I know it is pretended, that there are Manuscripts in which this passage is not found, but who can tell whether these passages were not rather blotted or left out of some Copies, than added or put into others. And therefore this Passion ought at least to be looked upon as a doubtful thing, and such as St. Jerome says we may not make any use of, to prove any matter of Faith. Thus far that learned person, and we thank him for his ingenuity. And has J. C. D. D. or any of his Writing Bre∣thren, any thing material to say to all this? when they have, let them quote, Aloys. Lipom. e Presb. Achaiae again, but not before. But setting aside the Authority of these learned people, let any ingenuous,

any uninfected man, set himself to read this Piece, and if he do not find enough to make him suspect it, I am very much mi∣staken; there he will find Egeas telling St. Andrew how the Principes Romani, the Ro∣man Emperors had ordered the Christian Religion to be rooted out. After great disputes, Egeas puts Andrew in Prison, but upon the hearing of it, all the People of the Province come to the Apostle, and would have broken up his Prison, and freed him, and were hardly restrained by St. Andrew from going presently to kill Egeas; but he preached a Sermon of Pas∣sive Obedience (for which I don't find they laugh'd at him) to the people, and so the Pro-Consul escaped. Amongst other things, St. Andrew tells Egeas, that Christ had sent him to that Province, where he had converted a mighty number of people from idolatry. Ay, says Egeas, I know you have; there is not a City in all Achaia whose Temples are not quite forsaken and empty since your preaching: and therefore I'll make you sacrifice first, that all who have been seduced by you, may return to their old Worship. Is there

any thing likely in all this? Did the people use to gather together so early in defence of Christianity, against their own Governors? Were not the Christians the hate and scorn of all the World? Were not the Judges and Governors forced to restrain the rage of the common people, in their prosecutions of the poor Saints? and how come all things so mightily changed in Achaia? that all the Heathen Temples should in a manner be quite deserted in so little a time, will not easily be believed, by any who understand the state of those times. After St. Andrew had hung upon the Cross two days, Egeas came, at the cla∣mor of his own Brother Stratocles, and 20000 followers, to take him down; but the good Apostle prayed to Christ, that they might not be able to do it, and as many as stretched out their arms to try, stupebant, and could not.

What follows, seems to me, to be done purely in imitation of Joseph of Arimathea, and is thus: How a certain woman, called Maximilla, an honourable person, (Sena∣trix, to answer to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Luke 23. 50.) a chaste and holy Matron, (to answer to Jo∣seph,

a just and honourable man) as soon as she knew the Apostle was dead, came to the Cross, and with all reverence, took down the Body of the Apostle, and buried it with Spices and Oyntments, and laid him in a Sepulcher, which she had prepa∣red for herself. At this Egeas was in burn∣ing wrath, and ordering a Bill of Com∣plaint (an Indictment of Riot, against the Peace of his Sovereign Lord) to be drawn up to the Emperor, against Maximilla, and 20000 of the People, was, in the midst of his anger, caught up by the Devil into the Air, and thrown down headlong into the midst of the forum, and died presently. Whose Estate his Brother Stratocles would never touch, because his Brother had pol∣luted it with killing the Apostle. These things were done in Patrae of Achaia, Ʋbi praestantur adhuc gloriosa ejus beneficia, us{que} in praesentem diem. And this Example so terri∣fied all the Country, that they turned Christians immediately. I hope our English Missionaries, after this, will be so ingenu∣ous as to lay aside the Passion of St. Andrew. Your next Authority is fetch'd from S. Pe∣ter's Liturgy, of which Sixtus Senensis, Posse∣vinus,

and Bellarmin, say not one word; and Labbeus says enough to let you see he is persuaded it is none of his; and thinks it so plain, that there is no need of consult∣ing Protestant Criticks for Arguments a∣gainst it, but I would not have the Reader think he calls them Protestant Criticks; no, Allophylos bacchantes consulere, Profanos Criticos, Alastoras Haereticos, Beelzebub Deum Accaron con∣sultum ire, are the best words they can get from him. But let us hear what Card. Bona says on this matter, Rer. Liturg. l. 1. c. 8. About the end of the last Century, Gulielmus Lindanus, from Card. Sirlet's Copy, put out the Liturgy of S. Peter, Gr. and Lat. with a learned Apology for it: but whoever shall read it carefully, will, with me, confess, that nothing can be concluded hence, but that Peter, by word of mouth, or writing, delivered a Liturgy to the Church of An∣tioch first, and then to that of Rome: but that this (which he says Sirlet found in Apulia) should be it, he by no means proves; and no body will believe it who can di∣stinguish truth, from falshood; For if this were S. Peter's Liturgy indeed, how comes it to pass, that the Roman Church, which

amidst so many storms of Persecution, hath carefully preserved his Relicks, and Epistles, should yet neglect this noble For∣mula of Sacrificing? how comes it, there was nothing seen of it for 1500 and more years, in the Catholick Writings? and thus that Cardinal goes on at a mighty rate, but because the afore-mentioned Ellies du Pin, Doctor of the Sorbon, and at present in great repute with the Church of France, hath dispatch'd this business effectually, and made use of Card. Bona's Arguments, and because I find I grow tedious, I will take leave to translate a short Chapter of his, which will give you full satisfaction in the point of Liturgies, and will also be an∣swer to your third Citation out of the Li∣turgy of S. James, Minor.

Of Liturgies falsly attributed to the Apostles, Page 21.

We need only to reflect a little on the Celebra∣tion of the Eucharist in S. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, and on what Just. Martyr, and others of the first Ecclesiastick Writers have deli∣vered down on that Subject, to be persuaded that the Apostles and their Successors celebrated the

Sacrifice of the Mass, with great simplicity. This is what has been observed by all who have written on the Liturgies, who agree, that Mass was, in the first days, performed without much Ceremony, and a very few Prayers made use of; but that by little and little both Prayers and Ceremonies en∣creased, to conciliate the greater reverence to the Sacrifice. At last the Churches ordered and set down in Writing, the manner of Celebrating, which was called the Liturgy. And the reason of their differing, proceeded from their conforming to the several Ʋsages and Customs of several places. And because men are naturally carried to change something in their exterior part of Worship, there have therefore many things been added from time to time to these Liturgies. This Remark alone, may suffice to let you see, that the Litur∣gies which carry the Apostles names, and Evangelists, are truly none of theirs; but to prove it invincibly, we need only exa∣mine them one after another.

The Liturgy, or Greek and Latine Mass, attributed to S. Peter, and published by Lindanus, 1589. from Card. Sirlet's MS. which was not very old, and which has since been printed at Paris by Morellius, 1595. cannot be S. Peter's, for the follow∣ing

reasons. There is mention made of S. Sixtus, Cornelius, and S. Cyprian, (the last of which died 258). The Virgin Mary is there called the Mother of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a term which was not in common use be∣fore the condemnation of Nestorius. [Card. Bona in his Defence of S. James's Liturgy, quotes Evagrius, and Theodoret confessing that the ancient Fathers both called the blessed Virgin 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and believed her to be so. But certainly S. Cyril of Alexandria, who was present at, and a great part of the Church of Ephesus, in 4••1, did not be∣lieve the Apostles S. Peter and S. James to have ever called her so, when he says in his Epistle, about the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The admirable Disciples have deli∣vered us down this Faith, though they have not made mention of the word or term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Therefore S. Cyril did not know of any Liturgy of S. Peter or S. James, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is mentioned. But this by the way, and now to Du Pin again.] The Canon of the Latin Mass, which S. Gregory says was made by a Scholasticus, i. e. a learn∣ed Man, of the fifth Century, is there in∣serted

entire: besides, it has Prayers in it, taken out of Gregory's Sacramentary, S. Ba∣sil's, and S. Chrysostom's Liturgies. There they pray for the Patriarch, a term not known before the end of the fourth Century, and for the most Religious Emperors. In a word, had this Liturgy been S. Pe∣ter's, the Church of Rome would have made use of it, and it could not have been un∣known for so many Ages. These reasons made the learned Card. Bona say this Li∣turgy was spurious, and had certainly been composed by some Greek Priest lati∣nized, because it was taken partly from the Greek and partly from the Latin Litur∣gies, and then was christened S. Peters, either to gain it more Authority, or be∣cause it contained a great part of the Ro∣man Liturgy.

The Ethiopick Liturgy, that bears the Name of S. Matthew, is visibly supposi∣titious; there they pray for the Popes, for Kings, for Patriarchs, and Arch-bishops; the twelve Apostles are there invoked; there they mention the four Evangelists; speak of the Synods of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus; there they sing the Nicene Creed

with the Particle Filioque; there they men∣tion Athanasius, Basil, and S. Gregory, the Epact; Golden Number, and Trisagion, by which we see this Liturgy was of latter date.

There remains no more but the Li∣turgy attributed to S. James, which Men of Learning have taken pains to defend, but to no purpose; for though it be an∣cienter, than those we have examined, since it is cited by the Council in Trullo, after the fifth General Council, [held ac∣cording to Petavius, 707.] Yet however, we cannot say, that S. James was the Author, or that it was made in his time. For, 1st. the Virgin is in this Liturgy call'd the Mother of God; the Son and Holy Ghost are said to be Consubstantial with the Father; terms which were not in use in S. James's time, for if they had, is it credible, that this Authority would not have been alledged in the Coun∣cils of Nice, Ephesus, and Constantinople? ••. We find here the Trisagion, and the Glo∣ria Patri, which were not commonly used in the Church, till the 5th Century; for though you should prove they were used

before, yet you must own, that it was not the common custom of the Church so to do. 3. There they pray for such as were shut up in Monasteries; but who can say there were Monasteries in S. James's time? 4. There is mention made of Confessors, a term not used in the Divine Offices till a great while after S. James, even in Card. Bellarmin's own judgment. 5. This Litur∣gy speaks of Temples, and Incensing of Altars, and does any one believe, there were such things so early? 6. The whole Liturgy is full of Citations out of S. Paul's Epistles, most of which were written after the death of S. James. And one cannot fairly say with Card. Bellarmin, and Bona [and Labbe] that these things were added to S. James's Liturgy; because there is no manner of likelyhood, people should add so many passages; and besides, the Cere∣monies throughout the whole, do by no means agree with the Apostles days. Thus far du Pin, and I hope you will either cre∣dit or confute him. I durst not for my life venture any Authors with you, but genuine Catholicks, and therefore I have not so much as looked on Perkins, Cooke, Ri∣vet,

Aubertin, Blondel, or Daille, with several others, for fear you should apprehend any foul play.

And now I leave you and your Bre∣thren to consider on the Liturgies, and pass to your last Citation out of Dionysius the Areopagite; not that I intend any thing against the words, but to let you see how little reason you have to believe those Books which pass under Denis his Name, to be his, notwithstanding you have a great many learned Men on your side. Sixtus Senensis, and Possevinus, are positive in the point, and so is Bellarmin, although the first acknowledges that Cardinal Ca∣jetan, and the third Constantine Council, believed otherwise, and the latter, that Valla and Erasmus [quidam scioli] thought otherwise; O great Apollo! who would not pass for a Dunce, when Valla and Erasmus pass for Smatterers! But Cardi∣nal Pallavicini, Lib. 1. cap. 23. has thrown the latter as low as a Man can go, but at the same time he falls himself into the lowest degree of contempt, with eve∣ry understanding Reader. Ph. Labbeus has, I know not how, obtained of him∣self,

to be indifferent in the case. And Casimir Oudin, a late ingenious moderate Critick, lays the matter down so fairly and plainly, that though he does not expresly say it, yet you may easily con∣clude his opinion of the Book to be, that it is spurious. But Du Pin has done the business effectually, and therefore I will not grudge the pains of making an ab∣stract of his judgment, from the Reasons following.

1. The manner of these Books first ap∣pearing looks suspicious; they were un∣known to all antiquity, and at last pro∣duced by the Severiani, Hereticks, in a Conference held with the Catholick. Bi∣shops at Constantinople, in the Emperor's Palace, in Five hundred thirty two, to support their Errors by. But what do the Catholicks say to this? How can you shew us, (say they to the Hereticks) that these Testimonies you say are Dionysius his, are so indeed? had they been so, they could not have been unknown to blessed Cy∣ril. But why do we mention St. Cyril; for if St. Athanasius had believed them to be St. Denis his, would he not have made

use of that Authority, to prove the Con∣substantiality of the blessed Trinity, a∣gainst the Blasphemies of Arius? but now since none of the Ancients has cited them, how can you prove them to belong to Dionysius? thus that Council argued then; but afterwards, finding nothing in the Books repugnant to the Faith, they were admitted for genuine. But Du Pin could not find that the Council had taken care to answer their own Arguments and Ob∣jections. To this he adds, that they are wholly omitted by St. Jerome and St. Au∣stin, whose purposes they would have served very well, had they known them.

2. The Style and Method are very dif∣ferent from the way of Writing in the first and second Age of the Church. The Style is puft, affected, and unnatu∣ral; the meanest simplest things are am∣plified extravagantly; the Periods are artificial, and his Reasons ranged in great order, which looks more like a Phi∣losopher, writing at leisure, and with pre∣meditation.

3. The Subject of these Books does not at all agree with the times of St. Denis. The Christians in the first Ages were taken up in three sorts of Works, in making Apologies for their Religion, in Letters of Instruction to the Faithful, and ex∣horting them to Martyrdom; and last∣ly, in writing against Hereticks. Now the subject and design of Denis all along is clear another thing: it is to speak of My∣steries in the most exquisite and curious manner possible, to explain them by Plato's Principles, and in the Terms of that School, not to propose them with the simplicity of the Ancients, but to find out all sorts of Difficulties, and answer them; to raise Questions, more nice than useful, concerning the Nature of God, and the different Orders of Angels. He explains the Trinity clearer than Atha∣nasius himself; he rejects dextrously the Errors of the Nestorians, Eutychians, and Anthropomorphites; he speaks of the Church as flourishing, and in peace, and makes no mention of Martyrs or Persecutions. In the last Chapter of the Hierarchy, he defends the Baptism of Infants by an∣cient

tradition. We say (says he) here∣upon, that which our Bishops (taught by ancient tradition) have delivered down to us. Tradition must needs be very ancient in St. Denis his days. He describes the Ceremonies of Solemn Bap∣tism, such as were in use when the Church was freed from Persecutions, with a great deal of pomp. He speaks of Temples built expresly, in which there was a Sanctuary separate from the other parts, of incensing of Altars, and Ceremonies used about the Energumeni, Catechumeni, and Penitents. He speaks of Monks, and describes their way of Con∣secrating. He dedicates a Book to Ti∣mothy, and quotes in it an Epistle of Igna∣tius, now Timothy was dead, and Onesi∣mus in his place, when Ignatius wrote his Epistles. He cites and explains the Go∣spel, and Revelations of St. John, as Ca∣nonical and Authentick, which was not received for such (the Revelations that is) for some Ages after; and St. John had hardly written them in Denis his life∣time. He quotes the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, written a little before his

Martyrdom, which was in Trajan's time, 108. when all agree that Denis himself suffered in Domitian's time, unless those who to reconcile this contradiction have lengthened out his days to 109 and 118, without any good grounds; little think∣ing that the lower they removed him, so much the nearer they came to the truth. He quotes a Passage out of one Clement a Philosopher, which is found in the Eighth Book of Clemens Alex. Strom. that lived in the Third Century. I am weary of confirming the spuriousness of Dionysius. He who is not satisfied with what is already set down, must read Du Pin himself, who has treated this matter so fully, and yet in short, that he has left nothing to doubt of.

And thus I have dispatched, I think, your honourable Testimonies of the First Age, by shewing, that there is not one of them genuine, and authentick, even in the judgment of Authors of your own Com∣munion.

Your Testimonies of the Second Age are fetch'd indeed from genuine Au∣thors, but I will leave any man to

judge how fairly you have represented them.

The first is a Passage out of Irenaeus, which you have given us by halves, and therefore I will set it down at full, as I find it, Lib. 5. cap. 19. in a barbarous translation. As the one (Eve) was sedu∣ced, by the words of the Devil (per An∣gelicum sermonem) to fly from God, pre∣varicating his word, so the other (Mary) was told by an Angel, (per Angelicum ser∣monem evangelizata) that she should bear God, obeying his Word; and as the one was seduced to fly from God, so was the other induced to obey God; that the Virgin Mary might become the Advo∣cate of the Virgin Eve (not as you have translated it, of the guilty Children of Eve) and as Mankind was bound over to death by a Virgin, it might be also by a Virgin loosed: the Virgin-obedience of one being fairly set against the Virgin∣disobedience of the other. If Irenaeus means to be understood literally, as you seem to think, I should not doubt to say he was grosly mistaken; for it was certainly the obedience of Christ Jesus,

God-Man, alone, that could be fairly set against the disobedience of our first Parents, and by whom our debt was paid, and we set free from the bonds of Everlasting Death; but take the whole parallel in any tolerable sence; and make what you can of Advocata.

If you want any farther satisfaction about this Citation, I refer you to A Di∣scourse concerning the Worship of the blessed Virgin, and the Saints, Printed 1686. where you may find it, as also on your fol∣lowing one out of Tertullian, where you may find the true translation of the La∣tin words, set down by you, (Apol. pag. 97.) which you seem to be utterly igno∣rant of.

Your third Quotation is out of Justin Martyr, where you say (Apol. pag. 97.) he doth in express words vindicate this Age of the Church, from the imputation of Atheism, impos'd by Pagans, for the Practice of Saint-Servitude, acknow∣ledging the Fact, but denying and re∣futing the Crime, in that Christians give them, not Divine, but only Saint-Wor∣ship, Just. Martyr, Ap. 2. Good God! that

ever any reasonable creature should be thus imposed on! the Christians cal∣led Atheists, for practising Saint-Ser∣vitude! acknowledging their Saint-Wor∣ship, but denying it to be a fault! distinguishing betwixt latreutick, and dou∣leutick Worship! let me live and die a barbarous Monk, if I know what to say to you; or if I am not ashamed at my heart to confute a D. D. in a mat∣ter so plain. Had the modern Saint∣Worship prevailed in Justin Martyr's time, the Christians had never been called or thought Atheists, for many good rea∣sons. But Sir, when I have given you the true translation of the Passage in Justin, I will leave you to the instru∣ction and correction of your Superiors, if you are ignorant of your mistakes; but if not, to the checks of your own Conscience, and to the punishment you owe to violated Truth and Honesty. Al∣though (says the Father) we profess our selves Atheists, with respect to those whom you look upon as Gods; yet not in respect of the true God, the Parent and Fountain of Wisdom and

Righteousness, and all other Excellen∣cies and Perfections, who is infinitely free from the least contagion or spot of Evil. Him, and his only begotten Son, (who came from him and taught these things both to us, and to the compa∣ny of good Angels, who follow and are conformable to his Will) and the Spirit of Prophecy (i. e. the Holy Ghost) we worship and adore, honouring them in Truth, and with the Highest Rea∣son, &c.

We are now come to the Testimonies of the Third Age, St. Cyprian, Eusebius Alexandrinus, (whom I cannot in all my Catalogues of Authors discover) Origen, and Methodius; of the three first I shall say nothing, because I think they have said nothing themselves; when their Passages are produced, you may receive satisfaction, but because abundance of your Modern Authors have quoted St. Cy∣prian de Caena Domini, and think it very ancient at least, as Mr. Sclater, and the Convert of late, in Reason and Au∣thority. I shall shew you in short, in what esteem it is held by your own Au∣thors.

Bellarmin disowns it, but will have it an Ancient and Learned Au∣thor's. Labbeus places it where it should be, with Arnoldus Abbas Bonaevallis, who flourished about 1160. O wonderful An∣tiquity! a little more than five hundred years old! Casimir Oudin, gives him the same place, and so does Du Pin. And this is the grave Gentleman that is brought in, to be an Author of the Third Century. Of Methodius, the last, but only Testimony of this Age produ∣ced in words by you, I have this to inform you, that Sixtus Sene••sis, and Bellarmin say nothing of this Piece. Pos∣sevin likes it well. Labbe gives it us in the Edition of Combesis, 1644. but passes no judgment on it. Du Pin says it was never cited by the Ancients, nor num∣bred up by Photius; but yet has some∣what of his style, only more swelling, and more full of Epithets; he explains the Mysteries of the Tinity▪ Incarna∣tion, the Divinity of the Word, (whom he calls Consubstantial to the Father abundance of times) the Trisagion, and the Virginity of blessed Mary even after

her bringing forth Jesus Christ, and Ori∣ginal Sin, so clearly, that there is rea∣son to doubt, if nothing was added to this Serm••n after its first composure. But let us see what Reasons Casimir Oudin, Pag. 22. can bring for his fathering this Piece on one Methodius, Patriarch of Con∣stantinople, in the Year 840.

1st. This Oration was pronounced in some great Council, or Assembly, where abundance of Bishops were met (whom he calls Honourable Fathers and Bre∣thren) to celebrate that Festival with great joy; which agrees very ill with the times of Persecution, in which Me∣thodius the Elder lived, under Diocletian and Maximian, by whom he was mar∣tryed, 302 or 303. but all things agree with the times of Methodius the Youn∣ger. 2ly. The Oration has in it, (speak∣ing to Christ) Thou art the True Light, of the True Light, very God, of very God, which plainly alludes to that Ex∣pression in the Nicene Creed, before the making of which Methodius was long dead. 3ly. He plainly falls upon Nesto∣rius, and confutes his Heresie at every

turn; he affects on purpose to call often on the Virgin Mary, by the Name of Mother of God; but Nestorius his Here∣sie was condemned an hundred and thirty years after Methodius his time. 4ly. There is so near an affinity between this Ora∣tion and the rest of Methodius Junior's Works, that an Egg is not liker an Egg; and Oudin instances in some parti∣culars. 5thly. The Author thus speaks, Before Thee there was no other God, the Son of God the Father, and after Thee there shall be no other Son Consub∣stantial to the Father; which very term argues the Author to have lived after the Nicene Council, therefore not Methodius.

Thus have I finished what I engaged for, as to the Testimonies of the three first Ages, and though I intended to take the Testimonies of the Fourth Age, into some kind of examination also, yet be∣cause I find I have already taken too much liberty, I will ease both you and my self, when I have told you, that St. Basil has three Liturgies which go under his Name, and Cardinal Bona, says Goar, (who wrote learnedly on Liturgies) complains how

hard it is to discern the genuine and true Text of St. Basil, from the Additions made by later hands; he says the like also of St. Chrysostom's Liturgy, so that you must not be too confident. Cardi∣nal Bellarmin passes the censure of light∣ness on Gregory Nazianzen's Tragedy, Chri∣stus Patiens, out of which you had your Quotation, and pray remember it is Poe∣try. The Epistle of St. Hierom. 10. ad Paul. & Eustoch. is expresly rejected by Possevin. The Sermon de laudibus Mariae, out of which you cite your Testimony, is rejected by Petavius, and Labbeus, as none of Epiphanius's. And lastly, the Sermo de Sanctiss. Deipara you cite under St. Athanasius's name, is cast by, for abun∣dance of reasons given by Baronius, and Bellarmin; Oudin, shall shut up all. De San∣ctissima Deipara Virgine—Opus de quo dubi∣tant Baronius & Bellarminus, sed Spinel∣lus & Maraccius fulcire, atque Athanasio vindicare conantur; hoc ordinarium est valde Devotis, ut inter extases suas (Ecstatick In∣troversions) non habeant gustum: sed indiscri∣minatim omnia approbent satisfacientia suis ex∣taticis excessibus uti hac in parte contigit Spi∣nello

& Maraccio (& J. C. D. D.) Ma∣rianis Devotis. All the English I shall give this, is, that it is a Spec••••um for J. C. D. D. of the Holy Order of St. F••••••∣cis, made by one Cafimir Outin, a friend∣ly Trimmer.

And now, since I have been all this while clearing honest Authors of the spu∣rious Brats laid to their charge, it is but fit I should let you know, that the follow∣ing Piece is none of my own, but a learn∣ed and renowned French-man's, which I have drest up in English, with some little alteration of the style, and addition of some little matters. If you shall think fit to answer either the Preface or the Book, you must only clear the Authorities I have been calling into question, and there's an end. For I affure you, I intend to make no other Answer to you than Mr. W. of Oxford does to his Opponents, viz. by tran∣slating The Conformities of St. Francis, by honest Batholomew of Pisa; and when that's answered, I'll write the Life of Pope Alex∣ander the Sixth, with a Discourse at the end, of the Continency of the R. Clergy; and then a Discourse of the Church-Govern∣ment

under Donna Olympia, in which I shall make out, that the Worship or Ado∣ration paid to her Brother-in-law, Pope Innocent the Tenth, was somewhat more than Saint-servitude.

Thus, Sir, (beseeching you, in the Name of God, and for the sake of common Chri∣stianity, to propagate no more this Do∣ctrine and this Practice, so grievous and afflicting to the Reformed World; and which makes our Holy Religion the Scorn and Scandal of all Jews, Turks, and Infidels) I remain

Your humble Servant.

Notes

• Contempl. pag. 86.
• Ibid.
• Pag. 99.
• Pag. 101.
• Apology, Pag. 13.
• Ibid.
• Pag. 14.
• Apol. p. 16.
• Pag. 18.
• Apparat. cap. 7.
• Apol. 90.
• Ap. 89.
• P. 90.
• P. 91.
• Ibid.
• Pag. 92.
• Ibid.
• Ap. p. 18.
• P. 93.
• Apolog. 94.
• Martyrolog. 30 Nov.
• Nouvelle Bib∣liotheque, p. 47.
• Du Pin, 47.
• P. 4••.
• Surius, Nov. 30.
• Nouvelle Bibl.
• Supplement. de Script. Ecc. Paris, 1686.
• Du Pin, p. 90.
• Du Pin, 92.
• Apology for Contempl. p. 97.
• Supplem.
• Bona Rerum. Lit. l. 1. c. 9.
• Supplem. p. 32.