A Second Letter TO Father LEWIS SABRAN Jesuite IN ANSWER TO HIS REPLY Imprimatur hic Libellus cui Titulus A Second Letter to F. L. S. December the 2 d. 1687. Jo. Battely LONDON Printed for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard 1688. A Second Letter to Father Lewis Sabran Jesuite in Answer to his Reply Reverend Sir Novemb. 30 th 1687. I Was very glad to hear yesterday of your intentions of giving me an answer to the Letter I wrote to you five days ago I did expect I should find something extraordinary and some reasons or arguments of strength sufficient to convince the world that even the demonstrative argument from Isidore ought to be set aside since you could produce evidences as strong and as positive on the other hand and therefore as soon as I heard it I resolved with my self not to be obstinate in the defence of my charge against you but fairly and honestly to own my mistake if you did bring on your side any thing stronger and more rational than what had been produced against you But when I this day had your Answer from the Press the first perusal of it sufficiently informed me that you had not done that thing which indeed my private reason I must confess did assure me that you could not I mean that you had not given any thing of moment in defence of your self One thing I must own I was surprised at the great alteration in your style betwixt your two Letters This is as blustring and abusive as the other was calm you reflected in your Letter to the Honourable Lord on the insulting and scurrilous lauguage of the Hereticks but for your self you said far be it from me even to return the like we have no such custome neither hath the Church of God Truth say you would blush to be defended by such unwarrantable arms but it seems your mind is altered since and now Truth will not blush to be so defended and you can make use of harsher words which others call insolent language in the defence of Truth but I must do you this justice to own that you have not quitted the resolutions of the former Letter since what you set your self so angryly to defend here is no Truth but a gross Errour as I shall very quickly shew You begin your Letter in a victorious stile and reason good since you say you have the Opinion of all men of sense that your Letter to the Peer of the Church of England hath cleared you sufficiently of the mistake I charged you with I must confess I dare not deny what you say here since I have not spoken with the hundredth part of the men of sense in the Town to know whether it be Truth that you write here however thus far I dare speak that I do not believe it since I am afraid that by the ALL MEN of SENSE here is meant no more than SOME of your own party It was not from an inconsiderate itch of Scribling as you word it that I reflected upon that passage in your introduction to your Sermon at Chester I was provoked to it from that passage's being so much cryed up boasted of and insisted upon as if it had been a most genuine and a most considerable Testimony about Praying to the Virgin Mary from St. Augustine and therefore since I was quickly satisfied that the Sermon out of which it was taken was not St. Augustine's I looked upon it as a duty I owed to the world and particularly to the Nobility of the Church of England some of whom had been urged much with that passage to publish it to the whole Nation in that page that was empty at the end of my Book that that Sermon de Sanctis out of which it is taken was not nor could be St. Augustine's The Reasons I used there have been the subject of this Letter-Controversie betwixt us and though you be resolved never to take any farther notice of such unknown persons who conceal their names yet I am resolved to defend my first Letter to you and I believe I shall convince the world in it that you ought to make some other Reply than you hitherto have to the Demonstrative Argument from Isidore The first and least considerable Reason that I urged against the Sermon was from the Title and Subject of it About this we have had the most ado though I hinted in my Letter to you that the stress of the Controversie did not at all depend upon it But you are resolved to insist upon this and in your Reply you have marshal'd my reasonings for that proof first into a new Errour next into a false Inference then into a plain cheat and contradiction These are very hard words and therefore I come now to examine how I deserve them 'T is an Errour say you that there was not in St. Augustine's time a general pious Belief of the Blessed Virgin 's Assumption You refer me for the proof of what you say there to your Letter to the Peer well I have looked into it and am no more convinced by it yet than I was by my first perusal of it The Authours named in that Paragraph you refer to are the Supposititious Sermon of St. Hierome St. Hephonsus William Bishop of Paris St. Bernard and others but these cannot be the men to shew the General pious Belief of the Assumption in St. Austin's time since you say you find in them that they doubted of or disbelieved her the B. Virgin being assumed in Body into Heaven and methinks these Fathers and others look like a fair argument to prove against your GENERAL pious belief in St. Austin's time To pass them therefore who are either not to the purpose here or against your assertion there are but two Authours more in the Paragraph St. Mellion's Sermon which in your Reply hath changed both its name and is called St. Melitons Book and Nicephorus And now I would fain know of you Sir how either of these Authours prove what you assert a General pious Belief of the Assumption in St. Austin's time as for Nicephorus he lived not till almost a Thousand years after St. Austine so that he is a most unfit Witness for such a purpose but here you will tell me that Nicephorus is urged by you onely to shew that Juvenal Patriarch of Hierusalem proved the Truth of this Mystery to have been received of very Ancient Tradition before Marcian the Emperour To this I answer that Juvenal lived after St. Austine's time and therefore can be no Witness as to his time but passing this the Credit of all this story depends upon Nicephorus Callistus who is of no Authority herein not onely because he lived not till the fourteenth Century but because he is a most fabulous Writer I have not time to insist on or urge what Monsieur Launoy hath offered against this Story especially what he says about the
silence of the Historians who lived in near or since that time down to Nicephorus who is the first and onely Authour according to him that broached that fable about Juvenal and Marcian the Emperour I have one argument to urge against your Juvenal and that is that it is impossible he could shew any such ancient Tradition for the Assumption since it is granted that the Writers of the Church before him never mentioned any such thing and which is more since this very Doctrine about Assumption was condemned in the same Century in a Council at Rome by Gelasius Pope with 70 other Bishops What I urge here concerns your Authour St. Melito the supposititious book under whose name was condemned as Apocryphal But pray Sir how do you prove to us that this Book under St. Melito's name was before St. Austine's time the first news we hear of it is not till above 60 years after St. Austine's time and the same time that we hear of the Book we hear of its being condemned as an Apocryphal thing Yet I will grant to you what I do not believe that the book was older will any man of tolerable sense argue from this Book a General Pious Belief of the Assumption in St. Austine's time when this very Book that taught it was condemned as Apocryphal at Rome in the same Century I cannot but stay here to wonder a little at your saying there that IF this Sermon be not S. Melito's Genuine work it must be of some other Authour nigh those times I can be no longer angry that you should stand up so obstinately for the 35 th Sermon de Sanctis when I find you at most but dubious whether that Book for so I would call it under Melito's name be genuine or no Whereas all the men of Learning in the Church have long since thrown it up as spurious and Apocryphal I have already shown how it was condemned by a Pope in Council as Apocryphal twelve hundred years ago Not long after that our Venerable Bede fell most severely upon it and lays to the charge of the Authour of it Ignorance and downright lying so that De La Bigne was about striking it out of his Bibliotheca Patrum but though he satisfied himself with some reasons for his continuing it there yet this is his Conclusion about it notwithstanding what hath been said above it is certain that this Book is falsely ascribed to S. Melito that it is Apocryphal and of no Authority and to be altogether rejected for its mixtures of Truth and falshood He then tells us that the Spanish Index Expurgatorius have ordered the whole of the Book from the 8 th Chapter to be expunged and I can assure you that the History of the Assumption is the subject of those Chapters which the Index hath ordered to be struck out And yet you Sir after all this and more which I could add are not satisfied of that Book 's being spurious Which thing among Learned Men I am sure will not add any Lustre to one who writes himself of the Society of Jesus but will satisfie the World what sort of an Adversary I have to deal with Having shewn that your Melito and your Nicephorus are of no Credit and there being no other Authours offered for my Conviction I pray Sir where and how have you shewn the General pious belief of the Virgin 's Assumption in St. Austin 's time And what ground had you for your charge of a new Errour in me when you are not able to evince the thing all see at least that you did not doe it there The next charge is a false Inference my words upon which you ground it are these if the Day of Assumption do not ever signifie the day of a Saints Death why may not this be the exception Upon this you charge me with inferring that if Assumption do not always signifie the Death of a Saint therefore here it may signifie the Corporal Assumption of the blessed Virgin therefore it doth I own that this last therefore it doth is not onely a false but a silly inference but I am sure it is not mine I onely said why may not this be the Exception I appeal to my words just put down and to all Scholars whether this be ingenuous dealing so that your second charge is fallen But before you pass to your third great charge you accuse me of a wilfull mistake in making you say that in the ancient Writings Feast or Day of Assumption when applyed to Saints did onely almost always signifie the day of their Death Well Sir and did not you say so your self in your first Letter is not the almost of your own putting in there These are the very words you used there as if Feast or Day of Assumption in the Writings of Ancients did ALMOST EVER signifie any thing else but the Day of a Saints Death I must confess Sir that I thought I had to doe with one who would admit of his own words and not charge them upon his Adversary as if they were his with one that understood English but I must now take my Lot what ever it is Your next charge is of a Cheat in endeavouring to insinuate that the 35th Sermon did not speak of the Virgin 's Death but of her Assumption in the Vulgar sense of the word But wherein is the Cheat I put down there the very words of the Sermon well but say you Assumption here does only signifie her Death and you quote a passage of the Sermon for it which is very accurately translated I am not throughly satisfied of this and my reason is this because as I was before I saw your Letter satisfied that there was not a necessity of taking Assumption here in the Vulgar sense so I was fully assured that the Authour of the Sermon hath determined for neither sense but hath left it doubtfull whether she were assumed Corporally or no You next take me to task about the mistake you made in quoting the 14th Sermon de Sanctis and you advise me to be less rash in my Rhetorical Declamations But I cannot see my fault here You did quote the 14th Sermon de Sanctis I went thither and when I could not find it there I lookt into those Sermons I mentioned in my Letter and not finding it in any of them I concluded it to be your mistake and did believe that some body had imposed upon you I afterwards looked over all the Sermons de Sanctis and not finding it any where I thought you had been deceived and I hope it was no fault to tell you so as I then did But you will have it that I was resolved to mistake you that I might fansie something to object against There are say you but two 14th Sermons de Sanctis that of the first ancient Collection and that in the other Compilation of Seventeen made by the Divines of Paris I am not Sir to be
Tours had written in the sixth Age This is Sir affirming without proving and though a contrary affirmation is sufficient against such a proof yet I gave you there not onely the Instance of the Authour of this Sermon which I can certainly prove to have been written much after Gregory's time but the Instance of St. Bernard I will add but one more to them which I question not will satisfie all reasonable persons Isidore of Sevil lived in the beginning of the seventh Century and is allowed by all to have lived at the beginning of it and to have been not onely near Gregory of Tour's time but near his Countrey and therefore to have had the best opportunities of knowing this famous History you so much insist on and yet these are his words at the end of his account of the Life of the Virgin Mary no History informs us particulary that Mary suffered Martyrdom by the Sword nor is her Death ANY WHERE READ of nor her Burial to be found any where As this Instance shews that Isidore was ignorant of Gregory of Tour's writing and therefore no wonder that others were who lived farther from his time so it holds as strong against the forged Melito and St. Hierom and shews that Isidore was equally ignorant of them all or looked upon them as so very fabulous and Apocryphal that not one of them did deserve the name of an History And therefore as to the Equivocation that I make Fulbertus guilty of when I make him say No-body writ of such a Subject positively onely meaning that what was written was not true I must tell you Sir that you wrong me very much in this passage your onely meaning that what was written was not true is a very great misrepresentation of my words I did insist there upon Fulbertus 's not knowing as well as not regarding Gregory of Tours I need onely to put down my own expressions used in that Letter to let the world see how I am used by you My words were these in relation to Gregory of Tours It is no errour to suppose the Authour of that Sermon had never seen Gregory of Tour's book and therefore might have that expression concerning no Latin Authour treating of the Virgin Mary's Assumption or we may very well suppose that if he had he reckons his Story among those Apocryphal ones which were THEN WRIT but REJECTED by the Church of God. Whosoever will compare these expressions of mine and your charge will easily see that there was no equivocation on my part but a great deal of misrepresenting on yours Your next charge against me is as true and you tell me that you never said as I intimate that St. Bernard disbelieved the blessed Virgin 's Assumption I cannot but wonder at such strange behaviour whether you or I am the guilty person here will quickly be seen by putting down both our words about this in the two Letters which I will set one against the other that all may see the Truth or falshood of this accusation F. Sabran's Expressions in the Letter to a Peer p. 7. St. Bernard and others writ Sermons on our B. Lady's Assumption although in those very Orations we find they DOUBTED OF or DISBELIEVED her being assumed in Body into Heaven My Expressions in my Letter to F. Sabran p. 7. and not in St. Bernard who so very long after either DOUBTED or DISBELIEVED the Story of the ASSUMPTION in the vulgar corporal sense It is time to return to the business of St. Isidore you had said in your Letter to the Peer that there were several Isidores before St. Austin and that the Isidore quoted here in the 35 th Sermon must be one of them to which I answered that though there were never so many Isidores before St. Austin yet can you or dare you offer to shew that any of them were Writers All the Answer you give in your Reply to this is that it is childish But is it Sir really so the Isidore quoted was a Writer I demanded of you to shew that any Isidore before St. Austin was a Writer I do not wonder at your being disordered at this Question though all the World cannot but see how very fair and reasonable but the mischief is neither St. Hierom nor Bellarmine make mention of any such a Writer before St. Austin and therefore it was the wisest because the best answer that could be given to say mine was childish But that I might drive you from so weak a pretence I told you that we are certain that the Isidore quoted in the Sermon is He that lived in the Seventh Century and that if you did look into the Louvain Edition when you wrote your Letter to the Peer you could not have miss'd seeing what Book of his the Passage is taken from Your Reply to this is very short you say it was answered in your first Letter what answered before it was objected I said not a syllable in my Postscript nor you in your Letter to the Lord about what Book of St. Isidore this passage is taken from or that the Book was mentioned in and might be seen in the Louvain Edition and yet you tell me that you have answered this in that Letter But I easily see what it is that you mean by the Answer it is I suppose that which you next insist on in the Reply that the citation of Isidore could not be made out to be taken out of the Book cited by the Louvain Divines the doubt there proposed being obvious having been made before St. Austin 's time by St. Epiphanius I would fain know Sir what we must gather hence is it that because the doubt was made by Epiphanius before St. Austin's time therefore it was not made by Isidore who lived so long after St. Augustin's time or is it because the doubt was made then by Epiphanius therefore it could not be made by Isidore afterwards Either I see no Logick or no sense here and certainly Sir it is neither inconsistent nor impossible nor improbable that Isidore should in the seventh Century make such a doubt about the words of Simeon as St. Epiphanius had made in the fourth But all this illogical fluttering is to no purpose our debate is not about the doubt it self or the sense or words of the passage but whence the passage it self is taken out of what Authour and out of what Book the words in the 35 th Sermon de Sanctis are borrowed and here that I might put an end to the Excursions about things of no moment to the Controversie and fix you I did refer you to the Book Chapter and Page in Isidore out of which the passage in the Sermon is taken But to this I find not a syllable of answer made nor the least notice taken of it so that I should have suspected that your half hour had been out which you were willing to cast away upon answering me and therefore that you would say