THE

ANSWER TO THE FIFTH CHAPTER:

The separation of protestants from the Roman church, being upon just and necessary causes, is not any way guilty of schism.

1. AD § 1-7. In the seven first sections of this chapter there be many things said, and many things supposed by you, which are untrue, and deserve a censure. As,

2. First, "That schism could not be a division from the church, or that a division from the church could not happen, unless there always had been and should be a visible church." Which assertion is a manifest falsehood; for although there never had been any church visible or invisible before this age, nor should be ever after, yet this could not hinder but that a schism might now be, and be a division from the present visible church. As though in France there never had been until now a lawful monarch, nor after him ever should be; yet this hinders not but that now there might be a rebellion, and that rebellion might be an insurrection against sovereign authority.

3. That it is a point to be granted by all Christians, that in all ages there hath been a visible congregation of faithful people." Which proposition, howsoever you understand it, is not abso

lutely certain. But if you mean by faithful, (as it is plain you do,) free from all error in faith, then you know all protestants with one consent affirm it to be false; and therefore, without proof to take it for granted, is to beg the question.

4. "That supposing Luther, and they which did first separate from the Roman church, were guilty of schism, it is certainly consequent that all who persist in this division must be so likewise:" which is not so certain as you pretend. For, they which alter without necessary cause the present government of any state, civil or ecclesiastical, do commit a great fault; whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent who continue this alteration, and to the utmost of their power oppose a change, though to the former state, when continuance of time hath once settled the present. Thus have I known some of your own church condemn the Low-countrymen, who first revolted from the king of Spain, of the sin of rebellion; yet absolve them from it, who, now being of your religion there, are yet faithful maintainers of the common liberty against the pretences of the king of Spain.

5. Fourthly, "That all those which a Christian is to esteem neighbours do concur to make one company, which is the church.” Which is false; for a Christian is to esteem those his neighbours who are not members of the true church.

6. Fifthly, "That all the members of the visible church are by charity united into one mystical body." Which is manifestly untrue; for many of them have no charity.

7. Sixthly, "That the catholic church signifies one company of faithful people." Which is repugnant to your own grounds; for you require,

not true faith, but only the profession of it, to make men members of the visible church.

8. Seventhly, "That every heretic is a schismatic." Which you must acknowledge false in those who, though they deny or doubt of some point professed by your church, and so are heretics, yet continue still in the communion of the church.

9. Eighthly, "That all the members of the catholic church must of necessity be united in external communion." Which, though it were much to be desired it were so, yet certainly cannot be perpetually true. For a man unjustly excommunicated is not in the church's communion, yet he is still a member of the church. And divers times it hath happened, as in the case of Chrysostom and Epiphanius, that particular men and particular churches have upon an overvalued difference either renounced communion mutually, or one of them separated from the other, and yet both have continued members of the catholic church. These things are in those seven sections either said or supposed by you untruly, without all show or pretence of proof. The rest is impertinent commonplace, wherein protestants and the cause in hand are absolutely unconcerned. And therefore I pass to the eighth section.

10. Ad § 8. Wherein you obtrude upon us a double fallacy one, in supposing and taking for granted that whatsoever is affirmed by three fathers must be true; whereas yourselves make no scruple of condemning many things of falsehood which yet are maintained by more than thrice three fathers. Another, in pretending their words to be spoken absolutely, which by them are limited

For

and restrained to some particular cases. whereas you say St. Austin, c. 62. 1. 2. cont. Parm. infers out of the former premises, "that there is no necessity to divide unity:" to let pass your want of diligence, in quoting the 62d chapter of that book, which hath but 23 in it; to pass by also, that these words, which are indeed in the 11th chapter, are not inferred out of any such premises as you pretend: this, I say, is evident, that he says not absolutely that there never is or can be any necessity to divide unity, (which only were for your purpose,) but only in such a special case as he there sets down; that is, "When good men tolerate bad men, which can do them no spiritual hurt, to the intent they may not be separated from those who are spiritually good, then," saith he, "there is no necessity to divide unity." Which very words do clearly give us to understand, that it may fall out (as it doth in our case) that we cannot keep unity with bad men without spiritual hurt, i. e. without partaking with them in their impieties, and that then there is a necessity to divide unity from them; I mean, to break off conjunction with them in their impieties. Which that

it was St. Austin's mind, it is most evident out of the 21st chapter of the same book; whereto Parmenian demanding, "How can a man remain pure, being joined with those that are corrupted?" he answers, "Very true, this is not possible, if he be joined with them; that is, if he commit any evil with them, or favour them which do commit it. But if he do neither of these, he is not joined with them." And presently after, "These two things retained, will keep such men pure and uncorrupted; that is, neither doing ill nor approving it.'

therefore seeing you impose upon all men of your communion a necessity of “ doing," or at least "approving," many things unlawful, certainly there lies upon us an unavoidable necessity of dividing unity, either with you or with God; and whether of these is rather to be done, be ye judges.

11. Irenæus also says not simply, (which only would do you service,) there cannot possibly be any so important reformation as to justify a separation from them who will not reform; but only, they cannot make any corruption so great as is the perniciousness of a schism." Now "they" here is a relative, and hath an antecedent expressed in Irenæus, which if you had been pleased to take notice of, you would easily have seen that what Irenæus says falls heavy upon the church of Rome, but toucheth protestants nothing at all. For the men he speaks of are such as propter modicas et quaslibet causas, "for trifling or small causes divide the body of Christ; such as speak of peace, and make war; such as strain at gnats, and swallow camels. And these," saith he, " can make no reformation of any such importance as to countervail the danger of a division." Now seeing the causes of our separation from the church of Rome are (as we pretend, and are ready to justify) because we will not be partakers with her in superstition, idolatry, impiety, and most cruel tyranny, both upon the bodies and souls of men, who can say that the causes of our separation may be justly esteemed modica et quælibet causæ ? On the other side, seeing the bishop of Rome, who was contemporary to Irenæus, did (as much as in him lay) cut off from the church's unity many great churches, for not conforming to him