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 communicate 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 tle church; for if they did not, against whom dd they intend them? pagans lay no claim to the church, therefore not against them: catholes they did not intend to exclude: I know not who remains besides, but heretics and schismatcs. 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 wo societies of Christians, differing in external communion, one of them must, of necessity, be either heretical or schismatical in your own sense of tiese 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 tine, 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 notoppose 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

shall be very importunate with you; and, therefore, if you desire to avoid trouble, I pray come out of my debt as soon as may be.

If it be said, that my argument is not contradictory to your conclusion, because it shews only, that the Roman church, with her adherents, was not in St. Cyprian's or St. Augustine's time the catholic church, but was at the time before Luther; I say, to conclude the one, is to conclude the other. For certainly, if it were then at Luther's time so, it was always so; if it was not always, it was not then: for if it be of the essence, or necessary to the church (as is pretended) to be a society of Christians joined in communion with the church and bishop of Rome; then did it always agree to the church, and therefore in St. Cyprian's and St. Augustine's time, as well as at Luther's rising: if it were not always, particularly not in St. Cyprian's time, of the essence, or necessary to the church to be so; then it was impossible the church should acquire this essence, or this property afterwards, and therefore impossible it should have it at the time of Luther's rising. Necessarium est, quod non aliquando inest, aliquando non inest; alicui inest, alicui non inest; sed quod semper et omni.-Arist. Post. Analyt.

Again, every sophister knows, that of particulars nothing can be concluded; and therefore he that will shew, that the church of Rome, and the adherents of it, was the catholic church at Luther's rising, he must argue thus: It was always so, therefore then it was so. Now this antecedent is overthrown by any instance to the contrary; and so the first antecedent being proved false, the first consequent cannot but be false: for what reason

can be imagined, that the church of Rome, and the adherents of it, was not the whole catholic church at St. Cyprian's time, and was at Luther's rising? If you grant, (as I think you cannot deny) that a church divided from the communion of the Roman, may be still in truth, and in God's account, a part of the catholic, (which is the thing we speak of) then I hope Mr. Lewgar's argument from unity of communion is fallen to the ground; and it will be no good plea to say,

Some one church, not consisting of divers communions, was the catholic church at Luther's rising.

No one church can be named to be the catholic church, but the Roman.

Therefore the Roman church was the catholic at Luther's rising.

For Mr. Lewgar hath not, nor can prove the major of this syllogism certainly true; but to the contrary, I have proved, that it cannot be certainly true, by shewing divers instances, wherein divers divided communions have made up the catholic church; and therefore not the dividing of the communions, but the cause and ground of it, is to be regarded, whether it be just and sufficient, or unjust and insufficient.

Neither is the bishop or church of Rome, with the adherents of it, an infallible judge thereof; for it is evident, both he and it have erred herein divers times: which I have evinced already by divers examples, which I will not repeat; but add to them one confessed by Mr. Lewgar himself, in his discourse upon the article of the catholic church, page 84.-St. Athanasius being excommunicated,