churches of Asia; for which vain matter, Victor, bishop of Rome, excommunicated the churches of Asia. And yet I believe you will not say, that either the church excommunicating, or the church excommunicated, ceased to be a true member of the church catholic. The case is the same between the Greek and the Roman church; for though the difference between them be greater, yet it is not so great as to be a sufficient ground of excommunication; and therefore the excommunication was causeless, and consequently brutum fulmen, and not ratified or confirmed by God in heaven and therefore the church of Greece, at Luther's rising, might be, and was, a true member of the catholic church.

As concerning the places of fathers, which you allege, I demand, first, If I can produce you an equal or greater number of fathers, or more ancient than these, not contradicted by any that lived with them or before them, for some doctrine condemned by the Roman church, whether you will subscribe it? If not, with what face or conscience can you make use of, and build your whole faith upon, the authority of fathers in some things, and reject the same authority in others?

2. Because you urge St. Cyprian's authority, I desire you to tell me, whether this argument in his time would have concluded a necessity of resting in the judgment of the Roman church, or not? If not, how should it come to pass, that it should serve now, and not then; fit this time, and not that? As if it were like an almanack, that would not serve for all meridians: if it would, why was it not urged by others upon St. Cyprian, or repre- · sented by St. Cyprian to himself for his direction,

when he differed from the Roman church, and all other that herein conformed unto her, touching the point of rebaptizing heretics; which the Roman church held unlawful and damnable; St. Cyprian not only lawful, but necessary; so well did he rest in the judgment of that church: Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam? says he in the comedy. And Cardinal Perron tells you in his epistle to Casaubon, that nothing is more unreasonable, than to draw consequences from the words of fathers, against their lively and actual practice.

The same may be said in refutation of the places out of St. Augustine; who was so far from concluding from them, or any other, a necessity of resting in the judgment of the Roman church, that he himself, as your authors testify, lived and died in opposition of it, even of that main, fundamental point, upon which Mr. Lewgar hath built the necessity of his departure from the church of England, and embracing the communion of the Roman church; that is, the supreme authority of that church over other churches, and the power of receiving appeals from them. Mr. Lewgar, 1 know, cannot be ignorant of these things; and therefore I wonder, with what conscience he can produce their words against us, whose actions are for us.

If it be said that St. Cyprian and St. Augustine were schismatics for doing so; it seems, then, schismatics may not only be members of the church, against Mr. Lewgar's main conclusion, but canonized saints of it; or else St. Augustine and St. Cyprian should be razed out of the Roman calendar.

If it be said, that the point of rebaptization was

not defined in St. Cyprian's time; I say, that in the judgment of the bishop and church of Rome, and their adherents, it was: for they urged it as an original and apostolical tradition, and consequently at least of as great force as any church definition. They excommunicated Firmilianus, and condemned St. Cyprian as a false Christ, and a false apostle, for holding the contrary; and urged him tyrannico terrore to conform his judgment to theirs, as he himself clearly intimates.

If it be said, they differed only from the particular church of Rome, and not from the Roman church, taking it for the universal society of Christians in communion with that church; I an

swer,

1. They knew no such sense of the word, I am sure never used it in any such; which whether it had been possible, if the church of Rome had been in their judgment, to other churches in spiritual matters, as the city was to other cities and countries in temporals, I leave it to indifferent men to judge.

2. Secondly, That they differed not only from the particular Roman church, but also from all other churches that agreed with it in those doctrines.

3. Thirdly, I desire you would answer me directly, whether the Roman church, taking it for that particular church, be of necessity to be held infallible in faith by every Roman catholic, or not? To this question, I instantly desire a direct answer without tergiversation, that we may at length get out of the cloud, and you may say, Coram, quem quæritis, adsum. If you say, They are not bound to believe so; then it is no article of faith,

nor any certain truth, upon which men may safely rest without fluctuation, or fear of error: and if so, I demand,

1. Why are all your clergy bound to swear, and consequently your laity, (if they have communion of faith with them) by your own grounds, bound to believe, that the Roman church is the mistress of all other churches? Where, it is evident, from the relation and opposition of the Roman to other churches, that the Roman church is there taken for that particular church.

2. Secondly, Why then do you so often urge that mistaken saying of Irenæus, Ad hanc ecclesiam necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam? Falsely translating it, as Cardinal Perron in French, and my L. F. in English-All churches must agree with this church? for convenire ad signifies not, to agree with, but to come unto; whereas it is evident, for the aforesaid reason, that the Roman is here taken for that particular church.

3. Thirdly, If that particular church be not certainly infallible, but subject to error in points of faith; I would know, if any division of your church should happen, in which the church of Rome, either alone, or with some others, should take one way, the churches of Spain, and France, and many other churches, another, what direction should an ignorant catholic have then from the pretended guide of faith? How shall he know which of these companies is the church, seeing all other churches, distinguished from the Roman, may err, and seeing the Roman church is now: supposed subject to error, and consequently not certain to guard those men, or those churches, that adhere unto it from erring?

4. Fourthly, If that particular church be not infallible in faith, let us then suppose, that de facto it does err in faith; shall we not then have an heretical head upon a catholic body? A head of the church, which were no member of the church? Which sure were a very strange and heterogeneous monster! if to avoid these inconveniences, you will say, that Roman catholics must of necessity hold that particular church infallible in faith; I suppose it will evidently follow, that St. Augustine and St. Cyprian (notwithstanding those sentences you pretend out of them) were no Roman catholics, seeing they lived and died in the contrary belief and profession. Let me see these absurdities fairly and clearly avoided, and I will dispute no more, but follow you whithersoever you shall lead.

3. Thirdly, I answer, That the places alleged are utterly impertinent to the conclusion you should have proved; which was, that it was impossible, that two societies of Christians, divided upon what cause soever in external communion, may be in truth, and in God's account, both of them parts of the catholic church: whereas your testimonies, if we grant them all, say no more than this'; that the societies of heretics, which are such as overthrow any doctrine necessary to salvation; and of schismatics, which are such as separate from the church's communion, without any pretence of error in the church, or unlawfulness in the conditions of her communion; I say, they prove only this, that such societies as these are no parts of the church: which I willingly grant of all such as are properly and formally heretics and schismatics; from which number I think (with St. Augustine)