will bear it or not; then I shall but lose my labour; for this is not to try your church by the fathers, but the fathers by your church.

The doctrines which I undertake to justify by a greater consent of fathers than here you produce, for instance, shall be these:

1. That God's election supposeth prescience of man's faith and perseverance.

2. That God doth not predetermine men to all their actions.

3. That the pope hath no power in temporalities over kings, either directly or indirectly.

4. That the bishop of Rome may err in his public determinations of matters of faith.

5. That the B. Virgin was guilty of original sin. 6. That the B. Virgin was guilty of actual sin. 7. That the communion was to be administered to the laity in both kinds.

8. That the reading of the Scripture was to be denied to no man.

9. That the opinion of the millenaries is true. 10. That the eucharist is to be administered to infants.

11. That the substance of bread and wine remains in the eucharist after consecration.

12. That the souls of the saints departed enjoy not the vision of God before the last day.

13. That at the day of judgment, all the saints shall pass through a purging fire.

All these propositions are held by your church either heretical, or at least not catholical; and yet in this promise of yours you have undertaken to believe them as firmly as you now do this, that two divided societies cannot be both members of the catholic church.

Ad §. 8. Is it not then the answerer's part to shew, that, the proofs pretended are indeed no proofs? And doth not he prove no proofs (at least in your mouth) who undertakes to shew, that equal or greater number of the very same witnesses is rejected by yourselves in many other things? Either the consent of the fathers, in any age or ages, is infallible, and then you are to reject it in nothing; or it is not so, and then you are not to urge it in any thing: as if the father's testimonies against us were swords and spears, and against you bulrushes.

you

Ad §. 9. In effect as if should say, If you answer not as I please, I will dispute no longer. But you remember the proverb-will think of it -Occasionem quærit, qui cupit discedere.

Ad §. 10. I pray tell me, is not therefore a note of illation, or a conclusion? And is not your last therefore this-Therefore her judgment is to be rested in? Which, though it be not your first conclusion, yet yours it is, and you may not disclaim it; and it is so near of kin to the former, (in your judgment I am sure) that they must stand or fall together; therefore he that speaks pertinently for the disproving of the one, cannot speak impertinently towards the disproving the other; and therefore you cannot so shift it off, but of necessity you must answer the argument there urged, or confess it ingenuously to be unanswerable.

Or if you will not answer any thing, where the contradiction of your first conclusion is not in terms inferred, then take it thus: if St. Cyprian and St. Augustine did not think it necessary in matters of faith to rest in the judgment of the Roman church and the adherents of it; then

either they thought not the catholic church's judgment necessary to be rested on, or they thought not that the catholic church. But the antecedent is true, and undeniably proved so by their actions, and the consequence evident; therefore the consequent must be true in one or other part: but you will not say the former is true; it remains, therefore, the latter must be, and that is-That St. Augustine and St. Cyprian did not think the church of Rome, and the adherents of it, to be the catholic church.

Ad §. 11. But I tell you now, and have already told you, that in your discourse before Mr. Skinner and Dr. Sheldon, I answered your major, as then you framed your argument, as now your minor, thus: If you understand by one company of Christians, one in external communion, I deny your major: for I say, that two several societies of Christians, which do not externally communieate together, may be both parts of the same catholic church; and what difference there is between this, and the conclusion I told you you should have proved, I do not well understand.

Ad §. 12. And is it possible you should say so, when every one of the places carries this sense in its forehead, and seven of the eleven in terms express it-That they intended only to exclude heretics and schismatics from being parts of the church; for if they did not, against whom did they intend them? pagans lay no claim to the church, therefore not against them: catholics they did not intend to exclude: I know not who remains besides, but heretics and schismatics. Besides the frequent opposition in them between -One church on the one side, and heretics and

schismatics; who sees not, that in these places they intend to exclude only these pretenders out of the church's unity?

Lastly, Whereas you say, that the places say— That the church cannot be divided, and that they account those divided who are of a diverse faith, or a diverse communion: I tell you, that I have read them over and over, and unless my eyes deceive, they say not one word of a diverse communion.

Ad §. 13. Whereas a heretic, in your language, is he that opposeth pertinaciously the common faith of the church: in mine-He is such a one, as holds an error against faith with obstinacy: verily a monstrous difference between these definitions. To oppose, and hold against (I hope) are all one: faith, and the common faith of the church, sure are not very different; pertinaciously, and with obstinacy, methinks might pass for synonimous; and, seeing the parts agree so well, methinks the total should not be at great hostility. And for the definition of a schismatic, if you like not mine (which yet I give you out of a father) I pray take your own; and then shew me (if you mean to do any thing) that wheresoever there are two societies of Christians, differing in external communion, one of them must, of necessity, be either heretical or schismatical in your own sense of these words. To the contrary, I have said already (and say it now again, that you may not forget it) the Roman and the Asian churches in Victor's time, and the Roman and the African in St. Stephen's time, differed in external communion, and yet neither of them was heretical; for they did not oppose pertinaciously the common faith of the

church: neither of them was schismatical, for they did not separate (never making mention of the case at all) but were separated by the Roman church, and that upon some cause, though it were not sufficient.

Ad §. 14. The Donatists did so (as Facundus Hermianensis testifies), but you are abused, I believe, with not distinguishing between these two -They did pretend, that the church required of them some unlawful thing among the conditions of her communion; and they did pretend, that it was unlawful for them to communicate with the church. This I confess they did pretend; but it was in regard of some persons in the church, with whom they thought it unlawful to communicate; but the former they did not pretend (I mean while they continued mere schismatics) viz. That there was any error in the church, or impiety in her public service of God: and this was my meaning in saying-A schismatic is he, which separates from the church without pretence of error, or unlawfulness in the conditions of her communion; yet if I had left out the term unlawfulness, the definition had been better, and not obnoxious to this cavillation; and so I did in the second paper, which I sent you for your direction; which, if you had dealt candidly, you should have taken notice of.

Ad §. 15. I have replied (as I think) fully to every part and particle of your argument; neither was the history of St. Cyprian's and St. Augustine's opposition to the church of Rome, an excursion or diversion, but a clear demonstration of the contradictory of your conclusion; viz. That the Roman church, &c. and therefore her judgment not to be rested upon. For an answer hereto, I