dians:" so to the seventy-ninth heresy he gives this title, "Against the Collyridians, who offer to Mary:" so hæres. 78 and 79. he sets down what he heard of them; but no where, that they held this opinion of her. I conclude, therefore, that he never conceived this opinion to be a part of their heresy, and they were no further chargeable with it, than as a probable consequent upon their practice.

My third is, because, had the Collyridians held her God, they would have worshipped her all the year long, and not only once a year at a solemn time, as Epiphanius says they did.

My fourth is, because, if Epiphanius had known, that they held her God, he would questionless have urged them with those attributes which are given to God in Scripture, as eternity, immortality, impassibility, omnipotence, &c. and shewed them, that if they believed the Scripture, they could not think of her any of those things; if they did not, they had no reason to think of her any thing more than of an ordinary woman.

My fifth is, because, had their opinion been, that the blessed Virgin was God, a great part of Epiphanius's discourse were plainly ridiculous; both where he says only without proof, she was not a God, but a mortal creature, which to them that held the contrary should not have been said, but proved; but especially where he speaks to this purpose, (as he does very frequently) that the honour of oblations was not to be given to angels or men, much less to women, but only to God: for what had that been to the Collyridians, if they thought her (as is pretended) a sovereign power and deity? To what purpose was it for Epiphanius to ask, Quis propheta? "What prophet ever

permitted, that a man, much less a woman, should be adored, though he be yet alive? Nor John, nor Tecla, nor any other saint. For neither shall the old superstition have dominion over us, that, leaving the living God, we should adore his creatures:" to what end, I say, was all this, if they thought her not a saint, nor creature, but God himself, and the Lord of all? How did this argument touch them? Ne angelos quidem-"He suffers not the very angels to be adored, how much less the daughter of Anna." If they thought her not the daughter of Anna, but God eternal, in vain had it been to say to them-Not to a woman, no, nor to a man, but to God alone, is this mystery (of oblation) due. So that the angels themselves are not fit subjects for such an honour. Or again: "Let the creature be turned to the Creator: let shame at length compel you to worship God alone." Or, lastly, that, so often repeated: "Let Mary be honoured, but the Lord only adored." For they might have answered all this in a word, saying, All this discourse sits beside the cushion, and concerns us and our offerings nothing at all: for we believe the blessed Virgin, to whom we offer, neither man, nor woman, nor angel, nor creature, but a deity.

A sixth reason let it be this: If Epiphanius did indeed say of the Collyridians, as is pretended, that they held the Virgin Mary God, and so difference their practice from the papists; then the author of this answer, and Petavius in his translation, needed not to have directed to him what he should say, nor make him say so, whether he will or not: but it is evident they do so, as of the author of this answer I have already shewn; and, for Petavius's part, I will so present it to your

view, that if you will not shut your eyes, you shall not choose but see it.

First, then, hæres. 78. prope finem, he (Petavius) set in his margin, quidam Deum Mariam esse crediderunt; and, to countenance this with a loquuntur of his own putting in, makes them speak of her like mad men, i. e. they said she was God; whereas in Epiphanius's Greek they say just nothing.

Secondly, To fasten the pretended opinion on them, he translates кEvopoνnua, novum dogma; presuming, it seems, Kevopνnua would easily be mistaken for kaivopwvnua; and therefore means nothing by it, but a vanity or folly.

Thirdly, He translates Touroye, illud; and so makes it look backward to that pretended novum dogma of the Collyridians; whereas it signifies there (and) and looks forward to their practice.

Fourthly, With the help of a colon, he stops the sense at commentas fuisse; whereas in Epiphanius there is but a comma, and the sense goes on without suspension.

Fifthly, With an adeo ut, he brings in their action, as an effect of their former opinion; whereas Epiphanius lays nothing to their charge but their action only: so that, whereas Epiphanius's words truly translated run thus: "Another thing I have received with great astonishment, that others being mad concerning the blessed Virgin, have and do go about to bring her in in the place of God; being mad, I say, and beside themselves: for they report, that certain women in Arabia, have brought this vanity of offering a cake to her name:" Petavius makes them thus: "Not without admiration we have heard another thing, that some in these things that concern the most holy Virgin, have

proceeded to that degree of madness, that they would obtrude her upon us for a god, and speak of her as madmen: for they report, that certain women in Arabia have invented that new opinion; so that to the Virgin's name and honour they offer by way of sacrifice a cake or wreath of bread."

Again, in the same hæres. ἱερουγεῖν διὰ γυναικών he translates advantageously, per mulieres sacrificia facere. Whereas iepovyev is more general than sacrificia facere, and signifies sacris operari, or sacros ritus peragere.

Again, in the same place, whereas Epiphanius says, simply and absolutely, "let no man offer to her name;" he makes it, "let no man offer sacrifice to her name;" as if you might lawfully offer any thing, provided you do not call it a sacrifice.

So again, hæres. 79. besides his putting cunningly-ipsa fuit-which before we took notice of; he makes no scruple to put in dogma and sacrificium, wheresoever it may be for his purpose. Epiphanius's title to this heresy is, Against the Collyridians, who offer to Mary-Petavius puts in---sacrifice.

Again, in the same page, before D. he puts in his own illo dogmate; and whereas Epiphanius says-in all this, (he makes it) in all this opinion.

Page. 1061. ró Onλurns vπovolās, he translates, this womanish opinion; whereas uróvoa, though perhaps it may signify a thought, or act of thinking, yet I believe it never signifies an opinion, which we hold.

Ibid. at B. Tolouro, this he renders, this opinion. Page 1064, at C. " Nor that we should offer to

her name," simply and absolutely; he makes it, "Nor that we should offer sacrifice to her name. So many times is he fain to corrupt, and translate him partially, lest in condemning the Collyridians, he might seem to have involved the practice of the Roman church in the same condemnation.

My seventh and last reason is this: Had Epiphanius known, that the Collyridians held the Virgin Mary to be a sovereign power and deity, then he could not have doubted, whether this offering was to her, or to God for her; whereof yet he seems doubtful and not fully resolved, as his own words intimate, hæres. 79. ad fin. Quam multa, &c. "How many things may be objected against this heresy For idle women, either worshipping the blessed Virgin, offer unto her a cake, or else they take upon them to offer for her this foresaid ridiculous oblation. Now both are foolish, and from the devil.”

These arguments, I suppose, do abundantly demonstrate to any man not veiled with prejudice, that Epiphanius imputed not to the Collyridians the heresy of believing the Virgin Mary God; and if they did not think her God, there is then no reason imaginable, why their oblation of a cake should not be thought a present, as well as the papists offering a taper; or that the papists offering a taper, should not be thought a sacrifice, as well as their offering a cake: and seeing this was the difference pretended between them, this being vanished, there remains none at all: so that my first conclusion stands yet firm; that either the ancient church erred in condemning the Collyridians, or the present errs in approving and practising the same worship.