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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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,