MY Letter to a Peer of the Church of England, which you pretend to answer in that which I now receive from you, hath clear'd me sufficiently in the Opinion of all Men of Sense, of the Mistake you charged me with; However, I am willing to cast away half an Hour in minding you more justly, and more Charitably of your disingenuous Cavils; af­ter which I resolve never to take any notice of such unknown Masks, or Persons who conceal their Names, that their Errors when bafl'd, their Calumnies when clear'd, may not put them to the Blush.

[Page 2]That Part of the Debate betwixt us, which you maintain still, is whether your accusing me, of great Ignorance, or notorious For­gery, for citing a Form of Prayer to the Blessed Virgin, as made by St. Augustin, being taken out of the 35 Sermon de Sanctis, printed in the 10th Tome of his Works; And the Proofs you support your Charge with, evince my Guilt; or rather cast and retort that Blame upon you, and discover your inconside­rate itch of Scribling, tho it be but to nible at three Lines of the Introduction of a Sermon, the Discourse whereof, tho it plainly sets out how unwarantable the Schism of your Church was from Catholic, Unity, you have prudently thought fit to leave untouch'd.

To make out your Charge against me, you offer'd these three Proofs.

The First, That the Title of that Sermon, in the Feast of the Assumption, doth not agree at all to any thing that is near St. Augustins Time.

I answered that your Meaning must be either, That no Feast­day of the Blessed Virgins Assumption was kept in St. Augu­stin's Days; or else, That nothing was piously believ'd or thought of then concerning her Assumption: If the First mean­ing was yours, I prov'd that Instance to be of no Force; be­cause that Titles of a far fresher Date than most Sermons of the Holy Fathers bore, have been affixed to them, which were preach'd on the Days of such Mysteries, or Saints Deaths, as were not then kept holy: Of this I produc'd several In­stances.

As for the Second meaning of those Words, I discover'd the Error, of taking those Words, on the Assumption, in the Sence they now vulgarly bear, whereas in the Holy Fathers Lan­guage, when apply'd to Saints or the Blessed Virgin, they on­ly signified the Day of their Death; of this I brought again many and plain Proofs; next I produced many others, (to which I have more that may be added) to evince that in the Fourth and Fifth Century it was piously believ'd, that the Blessed Vir­gin was assumed in Body into Heaven, tho it was not look'd upon as a certain Truth, made out from any Text of Scri­pture, unquestionable Tradition from the Apostles, or Decision of the present Church. I conceiv'd this to be so full an Answer to your first Proof, as would have forced any one less obstinate [Page 3] than I find you, to have owned it of no value: But let us ex­amin what you reply.

You tell us First, That your meaning was to deny any Belief of the Assumption of the B. Virgin to have been in St. Augu­stins Time, nor consequently any Sermon on that Subject, which this evidently is. Secondly that if Day of Assumption do but almost ever signifie the Day of a Saints Death, why may not this be the Exception? Thirdly, that it cannot be the meaning of this Title, since the Sermon speaks of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and that it was the Custom of the Church to believe, that the Virgin Mary was on the Day of that Solemnity assumed into Heaven.

This is all you add to support your first Proof, that is, first a new Error, next a false Inference, then a plain Cheat and Con­tradiction.

Tis an Error that there was not in St. Augustins time a gene­ral pious Belief (tho uncertain) of the Blessed Virgins Assum­ption: I have made it out in my first Letter, by many Proofs, which (as it is usual with such Writers) you have not been pleas'd to take notice of, and I think unnecessary to repeat: If you desire others, you may find them in Natalis Alexandres Censure, of the Book ascribed to the Holy Bishop Meliton.

'Tis a false Consequence to say, Assumption doth not always signifie the Death of a Saint, therefore here it may signifie the Corporal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, therefore it doth; yet this is your Inference, when you bring that word in that Sense against me, without any Proof for it. 'Tis a wilful Mis­take of yours, by which you make me say: That in the An­cient Writings, Feast or Day of Assumption when apply'd to Saints did only almost always signifie the Day of their Death: It always bore that meaning apply'd to them, tho we sometimes find that in a different Sense it signified the Festival kept on the Day of the Coronation of Princes, or inthroning of Bishops.

'Tis a Cheat impos'd upon vulgar Readers to insinuate that the 35th Sermon cited by me, doth not speak of the Blessed Vir­gins Death, but of her Assumption in the Sense which that word now vulgarly bears. The Author of it Plainly expresses the contrary in Words, like to those we find in all the Writings of the ancient Fathers on this Subject. They be these: The World is honour'd by so great a Virgins Departure, in what Order or Man­ner [Page 4] she passed hence to Heaven, the Catholic Church doth no way recount: neither is her Body found on Earth, neither is her Assum­ption in the Flesh, (as it is read in the Apocrypha's found in the Ca­tholic Church; this is the true Opinion concerning her Assumption, that not knowing whether in her Body or out of it, as the Apostle hath: We believe her assumed above the Angels. Now what a Contradi­ction is it or a plain Cheat, to say that this Sermon was preach­ed, when the Church did believe, that the Virgin Mary was in the Day of that Solemnity assumed into Heaven.

Next you make a large flourish of 30 lines and an Essay of a School-boys Rhetoric, which moves me to believe that 'tis not long since you are come from it. Your Subject is my gross Error in saying the 14th Sermon de Sanctis was allowed by all, that the Title of it was, In the Feast of all Saints, the Subject, the Praises of a Virgin and Martyr; you took great Pains to find it out as you assure us, thinking there might have been in the Citation some Errors of the Press; but in vain, and therefore you lay it to my Charge. So many particulars as were cited by me, would have sufficiently directed any one that was not resolved to mistake me, that he might fancy something to object against. There are but two 14th Sermons de Sanctis, that of the first ancient Collection, and that in the other Compila­tion of 17, made by the Divines of Paris, the 14th of these I cited, its Title is, In the Feast of all Saints, 'tis on a Virgin Mar­tyr, and that you may mistake it no more, take the first lines of it. We are put in mind by the Solemnity of a Sacred Virgin which bore Witness to Christ, and receiv'd it from Christ publickly put to Death, privately Crown'd, &c. Pray, Sir, be hereafter somewhat less rash in your Rhetorical Declamations, which may do your Work in your Pulpits; but are ever unbeseeming in a Con­troversie Letter, when so empty of all Reason.

Your Second Objection was, That the Divines of Lovain tell us how in several MSS. this Sermon was intituled Fulbertus Camosensis.

I answered, this was no Proof in this Case; St. Ambrose's Sermons, St. Peter Chrysologus's, and others being not less un­questionably owned to be theirs, tho some antient MSS. inti­tled others to them. I gave several Instances of this Truth, which I conceiv'd to bear away all Force from your Objection, which is all pretended unto, being in Possession of the ancient [Page 5] and general Perswasion that 'this Sermon was St. Augustins ge­nuine Work.

You have in your Answer, brought to support your weak proof, First, that I omitted to take any notice of half of it, to wit, That the Benedictins of Paris had MSS. in which this Sermon had no Authors name prefix'd. Secondly, you ask me whether I would prove, because St. Ambrose his Sermons have appear'd in ancient MSS. under other Authors Names, that therefore this Sermon must be St. Augustin's, tho' it bears not his Name either in the MSS. used by the Lovain Doctors, or the Benedictins of Paris. Thirdly, you say that ancient Fathers Sermons are known to be theirs, from their Stile, or because asserted to them by the most and best MSS. Your first Answer is ridiculous, your second of no force, and besides evidently false and contradictory; the third against your self.

Were it not ridiculous, after a positive Witness produced for a Plaintiff, who challenges for his, Goods found in anothers hands; when such an Evidence is proved of no force, to present another, who only says, that he knows not to whom such Goods be­long? Were it not a pleasant folly, to value much such a Wit­ness, and pretend the adverse party must be much afraid he should be heard? I pitied your weakness, Sir, in bringing such an ad­ditional proof, and pass it by, because I love not to insult on an erring Adversaries patent mistake.

But doth it follow from several Fathers Sermons appearing in MSS. under others Names, that this 35th. Sermon must be St. Augustin's? No, Sir; but it evidently follows, that it may be, for all the reason you offer to disprove it. But with what disin­genuity and real forgery do you insinuate (pag. 7.) That this Ser­mon bears not his (St. Augustin's) Name either in the MSS. used by the Lovain Divines, or by the Benedictins; when you own your self, that the Lovain Divines only say it is not in several of their MSS.?

But do you not egregiously destroy your own Cause, when you appeal to most ancient MSS. and the known Stile of the Author? Was not that eminent Doctor of the Catholic Church, St. Thomas of Aquine, better acquainted with St. Augustin's Stile, (being call'd Augustinus Contractus) than you dare, (if yet there be any thing you dare not attempt) presume your self to be? Had he [Page 6] not as great a plenty, He and all his Contemporaries, and of fresher Manuscripts?

Your last Instance was, That Isidore being quoted in that Ser­mon, 'tis certain that it was not written two hundred years after St. Augustin, and probably not till a thousand years after Christ, being Fulbertus his work.

I answered, That it was evident, the Isidore quoted there could not be him you mean, or any of that Name that lived after St. Au­gustin, and therefore must be some one of those many and illustri­ous Isidores who lived in and before his time. This I proved evi­dently from the following words of this very Sermon in debate. In our time no Author amongst the Latins can be found, who treating of the Blessed Virgins Death hath been positive and express; for no one could be ignorant of what so famous an Author as St. Gregory Fur. had in his History plainly and fully written in the sixth Age, or of that Sermon cited under the Name of St. Hierom, and cer­tainly written by one who lived near the time of the fourth Gene­ral Council; a Sermon cited by the famous Hinkmar Bishop of Rhemes in the ninth Century. J. Odilo, and several others of the same Age of Fulbertus, or of the Book adscribed to St. Meli­ton, which was piously valued by many, as John Camosensis, Contemporary to Fulbertus, acknowledges. This was a full An­swer; but you must attempt to disprove it.

First, you say, That I cannot prove that any of those Isidores who were before St. Augustin were Writers. Secondly, that had I look't into the Lovain Edition of St. Augustin, I should have seen out of what Book of that Isidore, who lived in the seventh Century, the passage is taken. Thirdly, That my believing this Sermon to be St. Augustin's, because Thomas Aquinas (who is no less eminent a Saint for your refusing to call him so) believed it, after the Judgment of the Lovain Divines, and present Benedictins of Paris, is an unbecoming obstinacy. Your first Answer is childish; your second was answered in my first Letter; your third a proof of a most proud rashness, in slighting the Authority of a Doctor so eminent, that above one half of the Divines of the Christian World do own him for Master, and bind themselves to maintain all he hath taught.

After I have proved that the Sermon, in which one Isidore is ci­ted, must of necessity have been made in or about St. Augustin's [Page 7] time; is it not a childish Answer, to pretend that I must besides prove some Isidore before his time was a Writer, before I can make out that it was not that Isidore (who lived not of two hun­dred years after him) that he cited in his Writings?

I have also in my Letter to the Protestant Peer shewed that the Citation of Isidore could not be made out to be taken out of the Book cited by the Lovain Doctors, the doubt there proposed be­ing obvious, having been made before St. Augustin's time, by St. Epiphanius, &c.

But pray, Sir, by what Equivocation will you excuse him who shall say, No body writ of such a subject positively, only mean­ing that what was written was not true? yet thus you make the holy Bishop Fulbertus to speak. I never said (as you intimate) that St. Bernard disbelieved the blessed Virgins Assumption, his Epistle 174. shews he piously believed it, tho' not as certain. Let me add, That if you will but read the Sermon in debate, and Fulbertus his second Sermon of the Nativity of the B. Virgin, you will be forced to own the same could not be Author of both; the One assuring us, that the Church taught nothing of the Corporal Assumption of the Virgin; the Other teaches, that Christian Piety (all pious Christians) believed that Christ raised gloriously his Mo­ther, and placed her above the Heavens; and that even St. John Baptist did partake of her Glory.

As for the 18th. Sermon de Sanctis, which I said was owned by the Lovain Divines, let me tell you, that you impose upon less thinking Readers, when you represent that my assertion as false. Natalis Alexandre, one of the latest Critics, acknowledges they own it, and on that score cites it. But your proof, I confess, forced a smile from me; 'tis that they put this Note before it, Some at­tribute this Sermon to Fulgentius. Your Inference hath as little of common sense, as this following one would have of force against me; that I own some have attributed the 35th. Sermon de Sanctis to Fulbertus, therefore I do not believe it to be St. Augustin's. This Inference is to me a piece of very new, and very rare Logic.

Here, Sir, I part with you, hoping I have satisfied all reasonable men that I had ground enough to cite this 35th. Sermon of St. Augustin's, without ignorance or forgery, and that my charge against you. That the Church of England is condemned by your own words, as guilty of Schism, for separating from the Church of Rome [Page 8] on that account of the Invocation of Saints, which was taught by St. Au­gustin, and all the Fathers of his Age, and the precedent Century, is evidently made out beyond the possibility of a seeming Answer, or it would have had it, from One who hath Time and Confidence enough to nibble at a short Prayer set in the entrance of a Ser­mon, tho' not on design to clear any point there debated; and to accuse me of Forgery and Disingenuity, without any proof in hand to make good so heavy a charge, and to justifie his most insolent boasting. I am sorry, Sir, that you force from me harsher words than I would ever use, except in the defence of Truth, which you unavoidably put me upon, who nevertheless shall ever so far distinguish betwixt the Man and his Errors, as to be equally a constant Enemy to These, and,