with the Greek or Roman church. And it is most certain that they have nothing to do with the doctrine of protestants.

55. "It being therefore granted that Christ had a visible church in all ages, and that there can be none assigned but the church of Rome; if follows that she is the true catholic church, and that those pretended corruptions for which they forsook her are indeed Divine truths, delivered by the visible catholic church of Christ. And that Luther and his followers departed from her, and consequently are guilty of schism, by dividing themselves from the communion of the Roman church. Which is clearly convinced out of Dr. Potter himself, although the Roman church were but a particular church. For he saith, 'whosoever professes himself to forsake the communion of any one number of the body of Christ, must confess himself consequently to forsake the whole.' Since therefore in the same place he expressly acknowledges the church of Rome to be a member of the body of Christ,' and that it is clear they have forsaken her; it evidently follows, that they have forsaken the whole, and therefore are most properly schismatics.

56." And lastly, since the crime of schism is so grievous, that according to the doctrine of holy fathers rehearsed above, no multitude of good works, no moral honesty of life, no cruel death endured even for the profession of some article of faith, can excuse any one who is guilty of that sin from damnation; I leave it to be considered, whether it be not true charity to speak as we believe, and to believe as all antiquity hath taught us, that whosoever either begins or continues a division from the Roman church, which we have proved to be Christ's true militant church on earth, cannot without effectual repentance hope to be a member of his triumphant church in heaven. And so I conclude with these words of blessed St. Augustin:* It is common to all heretics to be unable to see that thing which in the world is most manifest, and placed in the light of all nations; out of whose unity whatsoever they work, though they seem to do it with great care and diligence, can no more avail them against the wrath of God, than the spider's web against the extremity of cold.' But now it is high time that we treat of the other sort of division from the church, which is by heresy.

Cont. Parm, lib. 2. c. 3.

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 a be visible church.' Which assertions is a manifest fasehood; 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 absolutely 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 if 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 continuence 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 and restrained to some particular cases. For 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 62nd 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 approv ing it." And 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 modice et quælibet cause? 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 in an indifferent matter upon a difference, non de catholico dogmate, sed de ritu, vel ritus potius tempore, “not about any catholic doctrine, but only a ceremony, or rather about the time of observing it;" so Petavius values it; which was just all one, as if the church of France should excommunicate those of their own religion in England for not keeping Christmas upon the same day with them: and seeing he was reprehended sharply and bitterly for it by most of the bishops of the world, as Eusebius testifies, and (as Cardinal Perron,† though mincing the matter, yet confesseth) by this very Irenæus himself in particular admonished, that for so small a cause (propter tam modicam causam) he should not have cut off so many provinces from the body of the church; and lastly, seeing the ecclesiastical story of those times mentions no other notable example of any such schismatical presumption but this of Victor; certainly we have great inducement to imagine that Irenæus, in this place by you quoted, had a special aim at the bishop and church of Rome. Once, this I am sure of, that the place fits him, and many of his successors, as well as if it had been made purposely for them. And this also, that he which finds fault with them "who separate † Perron Replic. 1. 3. c. 2.

*

Euseb. Hist. 1. 5. c. 24.

upon small causes," implies clearly that he conceived there might be such causes as were great and sufficient; and that then a reformation was to be made, notwithstanding any danger of Civision that might ensue upon it.

12. Lastly, St. Dennis of Alexandria says indeed, and very well, "that all things should be rather endured, than we should consent to the division of the church:" I would add, rather than consent to the continuation of the division, if it might be remedied. But then I am to tell you, that he says not, All things should rather be done, but only, All things should rather be endured or suffered: wherein he speaks not of the evil of sin, but of pain and misery; not of tolerating either error or sin in others, (though that may be lawful,) much less of joining with others for quietness' sake, (which only were to your purpose,) in the profession of error and practice of sin, but of suffering any affliction, nay, even martyrdom in our own persons, rather than consent to the division of the church. Omnia incommoda, so your own Christopherson, enforced by the circumstances of the place, translates Dionysius's words, all "miseries should rather be endured, than we should consent to the church's division."

13. Ad § 9. In the next paragraph you affirm two things, but prove neither, unless a vehement asseveration may pass for a weak proof. You tell us first, "that the doctrine of the total deficiency of the visible church, which is maintained by divers chief protestants, implies in it vast absurdity, or rather sacrilegious blasphemy." But neither do the protestants alleged by you maintain the deficiency of the visible church, but only of the church's visibility, or of the church as it is visible, which so acute a man as you, now that you are minded of it, I hope will easily distinguish : neither do they hold that the visible church hath failed totally and from its essence, but only from its purity; and that it fell into many corruptions, but yet not to nothing. And yet if they had held, that there was not only no pure visible church, but none at all, surely they had said more than they could justify; but yet you do not show, neither can I discover, any such "vast absurdity or sacrilegious blasphemy" in this assertion. You say, secondly, that the "reason which cast them upon this wicked doctrine was a desperate voluntary necessity because they were resolved not to acknowledge the Roman to be the true church, and were convinced by all manner of evidencé, that for divers ages before Luther there was no other." But this is not to dispute, but to divine, and take upon you the property of God, which is to know the hearts of men. For why, I pray, might not the reason hereof rather be, because they were convinced by all manner of evidence, as Scripture, raason, antiquity, that all the visible churches in the world, but, above all, the Roman, had degenerated from the purity of the gospel of Christ, and thereupon did conclude there was no visible church, meaning by no church," none free from corruption, and conformable in all things to the doctrine of Christ.

66

14. Ad § 10. Neither is there any repugnance (but in words only) between these, as you are pleased to style them, "extermi