tion of it, as it will appear to any one that considers them well, how their force lies in thesi, not in hypothesi; not that the church was not then divided into more societies than one, but that she could never be.

§. 3. As for his instance to the contrary, wherein he believes I will not say the churches excommunicated by Victor, ceased to be true members of the catholic; if I say so, I say no more than the ancient fathers said before me: Irenæus, when he desired Victor, μn #ρокÓTTε, not to cut off so many and great churches; and Ruffinus, Reprehendit eum, quod non bene fecisset abscindere ab unitate corporis, &c.

§. 4. But howsoever the case of excommunication may be, the division of external communion, which I intended, and the fathers spake of in the alleged authorities, was that which was made by voluntary separation.

§. 5. Whereby the church (before one society) is divided into several distinct societies, both claiming to be the church; of which societies, so divided, but one can be the catholic; and this is proved by the authorities alleged; which authorities must not be answered by disapproving them, as he does, (for that is to change his adversary, and confute the fathers' sayings, instead of mine) but by shewing their true sense or judgment to be otherwise than I alleged it.

§. 6. To his demand upon the places alleged, I answer, that I do not build my whole faith of this conclusion upon the authority of those fathers; for I produce them, not for the authority of the thing, but for the exposition. The thing itself is an article of the Creed, unam catholicam, grounded in

VOL. III.

Y

express Scripture, Columba mea unica. But because there is difference in understanding this prophecy, I produce these authorities, to shew the judgment of the ancient church, how they understood it; and the proper answer to this is, either to shew, that these words were not there, or at least this meaning, and to shew their meaning out of other places more pregnant.

§. 7. And I promise, that whensoever as equal a consent of fathers can be shewed for any thing, as I can shew for this, I will believe it as firmly as I do this.

§. 8. But this is not the answerer's part, to propound doubts and difficulties, but to satisfy the proof objected.

§. 9. And if this course be any more taken, I will save myself all further labour, in a business so likely to be endless.

§. 10. His second answer to the places is wholly impertinent; for therein would he disprove them from teaching a necessity of resting in the judgment of the Roman church; whereas I produced them only to shew, that among several societies of Christians, only one can be the catholic; and this against his second answer says nothing.

§. 11. In his third answer he makes some shew of reply to the authorities themselves, but he commits a double error: one, that he imposes upon me a wrong conclusion to be proved; as will appear by comparing my conclusion in my paper, with the conclusion he would appoint me.

§. 12. Another, that he imposes upon the authorities a wrong interpretation, no way grounded in the words themselves, nor in the places whence they were taken, nor in any other places of the

same fathers, but merely forged out of his own brain. For, first, the places do not only say, that the societies of heretics and schismatics are no part of the church; but that the church cannot be divided into more societies than one: and they account societies divided, which are either of a diverse faith, or a diverse communion. Neither do they define heretics or schismatics in that manner as he does.

§. 13. For an heretic, in their language, is he that opposeth pertinaciously the common faith of the church; and a schismatic, he that separates from the catholic communion, never making any mention at all of the cause.

§. 14. And if his definition of a schismatic may stand, then certainly there was no schismatic ever in the world, nor are there any at this day; for none did, none does separate, without some pretence of error, or unlawfulness in the conditions of the church's communion.

§. 15. And so I expect both a fuller and directer answer to my argument, without excursions or diversions into any other matter, till the judgment of antiquity be cleared in this point.

Mr. Chillingworth's Answer.

is

Ad §. 1. The minor of my argument, you say, very weak, being grounded upon a false supposition, that a protestant could name no other church professing a diverse faith from the Greek, which was the catholic church; and your reason is, because he might name the Roman. But in earnest, Mr. Lewgar, do you think that a protestant, remaining a protestant, can esteem the Roman

church to be the catholic church? Or do you think to put tricks upon us, with taking your proposition one while in sensu composito, another while in sensu diviso? For if your meaning was, that a protestant, not remaining but ceasing to be a protestant, might name the Roman for the catholic; so I say also to your discourse, that a protestant, ceasing to be a protestant, might name the Greek to be the catholic church; and if there were any necessity to find out one church of one denomination, as the Greek, the Roman, the Abyssine, which one must be the catholic; I see no reason, but he might pitch upon the Greek church, as well as the Roman; I am sure your discourse proves nothing to the contrary. In short, this I say, if a Grecian should go about to prove to a protestant, that his church is the catholic, by saying (as you do for the Roman) some one was so before Luther, and you can name no other, therefore ours is so; whatsoever may be answered to him, may be answered to you. For as you say, a protestant ceasing to be a protestant, may name to him the Roman; so I say, a protestant, ceasing to be a protestant, may name to you the Grecian. If you say, a protestant remaining a protestant, can name no other but the Roman for the catholic; I may (very ridiculously, I confess, but yet as truly) say, he can name no other but the Grecian. If you say, he cannot name the Greek church neither, remaining a protestant; I say likewise, neither, remaining a protestant, can he name the Roman for the catholic. So the argument is equal in all respects on both sides; and therefore either concludes for both parts, (which is impossible, for then contradictions should be both true) or else (which is

1

certain) it concludes for neither. And therefore, I say, your ground you build on, That before Luther some church of one denomination was the catholic, (if it were true, as it is most false) would not prove your intent. It would destroy, perhaps our church, but it would not build yours. It would prove, peradventure, that we must not be protestants, but it will be far from proving that we must be papists: for, after we have left being protestants, (I tell you again, that you may not mistake) there is yet no necessity of being papists; no more than if I go out of England, there is a necessity of going to Rome. And thus much to shew the poorness of your ground, if it were true. Now, in the second place, I say it is false; neither have you proved any thing to the contrary.

Ad §. 2. You say, the authorities you have produced, shew to any that consider them well, that the church could never be divided into more societies than one; and you mean (I hope) one in external communion, or else you dally in ambiguities and then I say, I have well considered the alleged authorities, and they appear to me to say no such thing; but only, that the societies of heretics and schismatics are no true members of the church: whereas I put the case of two such societies, which were divided in external communion by reason of some overvalued difference between them; and yet were neither of them heretical, or schismatical. To this I know you could not answer, but only by saying, That this supposition was impossible; viz. That of two societies divided in external communion, neither should be heretical nor schismatical; and therefore I desired you to prove by one convincing argument, that this is