no manner of concern, we fhall only inform them that the remainder of this firft Part contains the following Enquiries. What Sin is become neceffary to us fince the Fall? What fort of Sin is annex'd to invincible Ignorance, and what are the Effects of it? What Damage our Liberty has fuffer'd by the Fall of our firft Parents? What Grace is in its own Nature irrefiftible, and is commonly denied us?

BUT who would have fufpected Janfenifm was taught on the other fide of the Alps? We have been commonly made to believe that the Ultramontain Doctors are univerfally Orthodox, i. e. their Sentiments entirely conformable to the Doctrine of the Court of Rome. Our Author, however, has found a Treatife published at Padua by Father Lorenzoni, a Prieft of the Oratory; who according to him, is as much mistaken in the Sense of St. Augustin, as Janfenius, or any of his Difciples or Defenders. That Piece is intituled, A Theological Differtation on the x, xi, and xiith Chapters of the Book of Correction of Grace. The Confutation of that Piece is the Matter of the third Part of this Treatife. On a careful perufal of the whole, it appears that only the Jefuits, and their profeffed Admirers, understand St. Auguftin, or are in Poffeffion of the Catholick Doctrine. He thinks the Janfenifts quite routed, when he tells us, that no Answer has ever appear'd to what was written against them by Mr. Fenelon and Father Dechamps. But all the World will not allow that a Book is unanswerable, because never actually anfwer'd,

Our Readers will pardon our paffing from the first to the third Difcourfe, when they are apprifed that they both turn on the fame modern

Con

Controverfies, though on different Branches of them. This is called a Differtation on the Law of Mofes, and divided into four Parts. In the first we have the state of the Question between the Apostles and the Jews: in the fecond of that between the Orthodox Fathers of the Church and the Manicheans: in the third we are prefented with the Difpute between St. Auguftin and the Pelagians; and the fourth is defign'd to reprefent, explain and determine the Difference between those who appear in Defense of the Faith deliver'd in the Council of Trent, and the Perfons, whom on all Occafions he ftiles the modern Hereticks. He is of Opinion that this Distinction is the more neceffary, because the Divines whom he opposes, have made it their Bufinefs to confound things, though at the fame Time they affect to speak plainly and clearly. In the fourth Part we are inform'd, that the late Bishop of Ypres was more extravagant and abfurd on the. Impoffibility of obferving fome of God's Commandments, than either of the two capital Reformers, Luther and Calvin. It is obfervable, that here, as in all the other Parts of his Performance, our Author begins with the Air of a Conqueror, and endeavours to engage his Readers Attention and Approbation, by promifing to confute his Adverfaries. But in this learned and curious Age, Men will affert their Right to a Liberty of judging for themfelves, and examining the Force of an Argument, before they pronounce in favour of a Writer, who advances it. He enquires what was the End, which God propofed to himself in the Institution of the old Law; and what Affiftance or Grace was given under the Mofaical Difpenfation. He then draws a Parallel

between

between Manicheifm and Fanfenifm, as by him represented; and, pretending to copy St. Auguftin's Sentiments on each difputed Point, does all in his Power to deprive the modern Hereticks of the Patronage of their boafted Mafter.

OUR Readers will certainly be surprised to find that the Confideration of Mr. Bayle's Reflexions on St. Auguftin takes up so small a Part of a Work, which the general Title of it feems to promise fhould be chiefly, if not folely directed against that Author. But this furprize will ceafe, when they are told that our learned Writer ranks that Gentleman and the Janfenifts in the fame Clafs of Hereticks, and, fuppofing their Intereft infeparable, imagines the Confutation of both the fame.

THIS is not the firft Attack made on the Hiftorical and Critical Dictionary. Perfons of all Communions have long been of Opinion that the Author of it takes an uncommon and unwarrantable Liberty with the most venerable Writers of Antiquity; that he is fcandaloufly free even with the most facred Names, and is a profefs'd Advocate of a licentious Scepticism. Mr. Bayle was the Son of a Calvinist Minifter; but at the Age of 22, having read feveral Books of Controverfy, and converfed with fome able Men of the Romish Communion, he quitted the Religion, in which he had been educated, and studied Philofophy under the Jefuits at Toulouse. But he was foon difgufted of his new Profeffion; which fome have imputed to his natural Levity, tho' he pretended that the exceffive and idolatrous Worship given to Creatures by the Romanifts, obliged him to return to the reform'd Religion; while others have doubted whether he was ever ferious in the Profeffion of any; for after he had relinquished Popery, he wrote a fatyrical Piece

on

on the Proteftants, under the Title of Advice to the Refugees, for which he was deprived of his Profefforfhip at Rotterdam; and then took his Revenge on all Religions by compiling his famous Dictionary.

ST. Auguftin is ufually placed at the Head of the fevere Cafuifts; and accordingly his Authority has fometimes been waved, and poftponed to that of fome modern and more complaifant Doctors. It is very furprizing to find a Writer, who will not allow of Lying, even for faving a Father's Life, nor any thing contrary to Chastity, even on the Confideration of procuring a Perfon's Salvation by Baptifm, accused of doubting whether a Woman, with the Permiffion of her Husband, may confent to the impure Defires of another Man, with a View of faving her Hufbands Life. St. Auguftin is thus represented by Mr. Bayle, who adds, that he seems more inclin'd to approve of, than to condemn fuch an Action. St. Auguftin relates an historical Fact of this Kind, which happen'd at Antioch above fo Years before he penn'd his first Book on our Lord's Sermon on the Mount. All the Circumftances of it may be found under the Article of Acyndinus, a Name, which as our Author obferves, was allow'd a Place in his Dictionary only to afford an Opportunity of introducing, what he might think an agreeable Story.

MR. Rivet, a Proteftant Divine, had reproved St. Auguftin for this pretended doubt, before he was attack'd by Mr. Bayle; but was of Opinion that the Father feems rather difposed to condemn the Action in Question. The true ftate of the Cafe is this. St. Auguftin enquires whether the Words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 4. The Woman bath not Power over her own Body, but her Huf

band.

band: In like Manner the Man hath not Power over bis own Body but his Wife; ought to be fo understood, that a Man may, with his Wife's Permiflion, have Commerce with another Woman, who is neither married, nor divorced from her Husband. To which he answers in the Negative; left, fays he, it should be concluded that a Woman is allow'd the fame Liberty with the Consent of her Husband, which he adds, is univerfally denied, Quod omnium fenfus excludit. According to our Author, St. Auguftin here means that it is not contrary to the Law of Nature for a Man to converse with two Women, as it is for a Woman to converfe with two Men; and that, if the Words of the Apoftle are fo taken, that a Man may have Commerce with another Woman, with his Wife's Permiffion, it would follow from the fame Words, that a Woman likewife might, with her Husband's Allowance, take the fame Liberty with another Man; which is contrary to the Law of Nature; fo that the Text, here quoted, defigns to confine both Man and Woman to the Person to whom they are united by Matrimony.

ST. Auguftin, in the Sequel of his Discourse, adds: Tho' there may be fome Cafes, in which it may feem a Woman's Duty to act thus in favour of ber Husband, with his Confent, as was done at Antioch, &c. Here our Author tells us, that both Mr. Rivet, and the Critic under Examination, not obferving thefe Words, which is univerfally denied, imagin'd the holy Doctor propofed an Exception to the Evangelical Law, which allows a Man but one Wife, and a Woman but one Husband; whereas he speaks onlyof the Law of Nature, which he had alledged to fupport his Interpretation of St. Paul's Words; and

ftarts