CHAP. XXXVII. They conclude that theirs is the safer Religion, because it is most uncharitable and damneth
CHAP. XXXVII. They conclude that theirs is the safer Religion, because it is most uncharitable and damneth others, and ours the less safe because the more charitable.
D etect. 28. Another of their Deceits is this: They make advantage of our charitable Judgment of them, and of their uncharitable judgment of us and all other Christians, to affright and entice people to their sect.
They say that we cannot be saved, nor any that are not of the Roman Church: But we say that a Papist may be saved: They say that we want abundance of the Articles of faith that are of necessity to salvation: We say that the Papists hold all that is necessary to salvation: Luther saith that the Kernel of true faith is yet in the Church of Rome; therefore say they, Let
Protestants take the shell. And hence they make the simple people believe, that even according to our own Confessions, their Church and way is safer than ours.
I have answered this formerly in my [Safe Religion,] but yet shall here once more show you the nakedness of this Deceit.
1. The Papists denying the faith and salvation of all other Christians, doth no whit invalidate our faith, nor shake our salvation. Our Religion doth not cease to be true, whenever a peevish adversary will deny it, or accuse it.
Men are in never the more danger of damnation, because a Papist or any other partial Sectary will tell them that they shall be damned. We believe not that the Pope hath so far the Power of the Keys of Heaven, as that he can keep out whom he please. We have a promise of salvation from Christ, and then we can bear the threatening of a Pope. When Bellarmine judgeth
Pope Sixtus damned himself, its strange that he should have a power before to dispose of Heaven for others, and shut out whom he pleased, that must be shut out himself. The Novatians, Donatists, Anabaptists, or any such Sect, that held the substance of the Christian faith, might have pleaded this
Argument as well as the Papists: for they also have the courage to pass the sentence of damnation upon others, if that will serve turn: and we have the Charity to say, that some of them may be saved.
2. If by the Papists own confession, Charity be the life of all the graces or holy qualities of the soul, and that which above all others proveth a man to be Justified, and in a state of salvation, then judge by this Argument of their own, whether our charitableness, or their uncharitableness be the better sign: and whether it be safer to join with the charitable or the uncharitable?
Yea with them that are so notoriously uncharitable, as to condemn the far greatest part of the Church of Christ, merely because they are not Papists.
3. When we say that a Papist may be saved, it is with all these limitations.
1. We say that a Papist as a Christian may be saved, but not as a Papist. As a man that hath the Plague may Live; but not by the Plague. 2. We say that Popery is a great enemy and hindrance to men's salvation; and therefore that those among them that are saved, must be saved from Popery, and not by it. 3. We say, that therefore salvation is a rarer thing among the Papists, then among the Reformed Catholics: where it is most difficult, it is like to be most rare: many more of the Orthodox are like to be saved then of the
Papists. 4. And we say, that where Popery prevaileth against Christianity, and so much mastereth the heart and life, that the Christian doctrine is not Practically received, there is no salvation to be had for such without Conversion. Thus is it that we say a Papist may be saved. And for my part, I will not be the more uncharitable to them, for fear of giving them advantage. I know Hunnius hath written a Book to prove them no Christians, and Perkins hath written another to prove, that a Papist cannot go beyond a Reprobate: and I must needs say so too, of all those in whom
Popery is predominant practically, and overcometh Christianity. But yet I doubt not, but God hath thousands among them that shall be saved: partly of the common people that are forced to forbear contradicting the Priests; and that understand not, or receive not all the mysteries of their deceit: and partly among the Friars and Jesuits, where some of them take in the venom but speculatively: or not predominantly and practically give themselves to Mortification and an holy Life: though I have known none such, yet when I read the writings of Gerson, Kempis, Thaulerus, Ferus, Barbanson,
Benedictus Anglus, the Life of Monsieur de Renty, and such others (though I see in some much of error, and mere affectation, yet) I am easily persuaded to believe, that they had the spirit of God, and that there are many more such among them. But I should be sorry if Holiness were not much more common among us, and freer from the mixtures of error and affectation.
4. And for our saying that they have the Kernel, and so much as is necessary to salvation, it is true; but it is the same Kernel that we hold: and we have it undefiled and unpoisoned, and the Papists mix it with the venom of their Errors. He that hath all things in his meat and drink that I have in mine, may yet make it worse than mine, if he will put dung or poison in it.
When you have all things necessary in a precious Antidote or other Medicine, you may soon mar all, by putting in more than all, as the Papists do.
The plain truth is, the Papists and Reformed Catholics are both Christians, and Christianity is enough to save them that mar it not, but keep it practically and predominantly: even as a man that takes poison, and he that taketh none, are both of them men: and he that takes the poison may be said to have all the same parts and members as the other; and yet not be so likely to live, as he that lets it alone: And I cannot say but many that take it may recover: and if you ask me Which be they? I say, All those that timely cast it up again, or else whose strength of Nature prevaileth against it, and keepeth it from mastering the Heart or vital Powers, shall be recovered and live: but those in whom the poison prevaileth and is predominant, shall die. So all those Papists that so receive the Errors of Popery, as either to cast them up again; or that they are not predominant to the subduing of the power of Christian Faith and Holiness, (by keeping them from being sincere, and practical, and predominant) these shall be saved, but not the rest.
Now if upon these grounds, any man shall think that Popery is the safer way, because we say, that they have all that is necessary to salvation
(objectively in their Creed) and that a Papist may be saved; upon the same terms that man may be persuaded that it is safest taking poison, because that he hath all the parts of a man that takes it, and possibly nature may prevail, and he may live. But yet I shall choose to let it alone.
5. The same Papists that say, that a Protestant cannot be saved, do yet maintain that an Infidel may be saved, or one that believeth not the very
Articles of the Christian faith. You will think this strange. But I will a little insist on the proof of it, to these uses. 1. That you may see, that their
censures proceed from mere design or partiality. 2. That you may see, that they make believing in the Pope to be more necessary than believing in Christ, or in the Holy Ghost. 3. That you may see, how holy their Church is that admitteth of Infidels. 4. That you may see, on how fair grounds they deny, that we may be one Catholic Church with the Fathers, Greeks,
Egyptians, Abyssinians, Armenians, Waldensis, &c. because of some differences; when yet they themselves can be one Church with Infidels, or such as deny the Articles of the Creed, or at least believe them not. 5. And that you may see, how well their Religion hangs together, and also how well they are agreed among themselves, even about the essentials of Christianity itself, whether they be of Necessity to salvation or not.
I before cited the words of Albertinus the Jesuit. I shall now give you many more, and more fully, which Frans. à Sancta Clara hath gathered to my hands in his Deus, Natura, Gratia, Problem. 15, and 16, p. 109 &c.
And 1, p. 110, he tells us himself that [the Doctors commonly teach, that a just and probable ignorance ought to excuse: and that it is probable, when one hath a probable foundation (or ground) as a Country-man, when he believes that a thing is lawful, drawn by the Testimony of his Parish Priest or Parents: or when a man seeing reasons that are probable on both sides, doth choose those which seem to him the more probable, which yet indeed are against the truth, to which he is otherwise well affected: in this case he erreth without fault, though he err against the truth, and so labor of the contrary ignorance] [Hither is it to be reduced, when the Articles of Faith are not propounded in a due manner, as by frivolous reasons, or by impious men: for then to believe, were an act of imprudence, saith Aquin. 2. 2, q. 1, ar. 4.]
So that if the truth of Scripture be so propounded as to seem most improbable, it is no sin to disbelieve it: and if such are excused, as by a Parent or Parish-Priest are seduced, and that have not a due proposal of the Truth, then it must follow, that the Heathens and Infidels are innocent, that never had Christ proposed any way to them, and by their Parents have been taught Mohammedanism, or Paganism. But what if I can prove, that even the want of a due proposal is a punishment for their sin? And that they ought themselves to seek after the truth? And that it is long of their own sins that necessary truths do seem improbable to them? Will sin excuse sin?
And p. 111, he telleth us, [That as to the Ignorance of things necessary as means (to salvation) the Doctors differ; for Soto 4, d. 5, q. 5, and l. denatur.
& grat. c. 12. And Vega l. 6, c. 20, sup. Trid. will have no more explicit faith required now in the Law of Grace, then in the Law of Nature. Yea
Vega loco citato, and Gab. 2, d. 21, qu. 2, art. 3, & 3, d. 21, qu. 3, think that in the Law of Nature, and in cases in the Law of Grace, a man may be saved with only Natural Knowledge, and that the habit of faith is not required.
And Horantius (being of the contrary opinion) saith, that they are men of great name that are against him, whose gravity and great and painful studies moved him, not to condemn them of heresy, in a doubtful matter, not yet judged] (O happy Rome that hath a judge that can put an end to all their controversies! And yet cannot determine whether it be Necessary to salvation to be a Christian!) [Yea (saith S. Clara) Alvarez de Auxil. disp. 56, with others, seems to hold that to Justification is not required the knowledge of a supernatural object at all. Other say that both to Grace and to Glory an explicit faith in Christ is necessary, as Bonavent. 3, d. 25, and others. Others say that to salvation at least an explicit faith in the Gospel, or Christ is required, though not to
Grace or Justification. And this is the commoner in the Schools, as Herera declareth, and followeth it.] And for Scotus S. Clara saith [I take him to be of that opinion that is not necessary as a Means to Grace or Glory to have an explicit Belief of Christ or the Gospel. (ut. 4, d. 3, q. 4.) he seems at large to prove.]
Pg. 113, he adds [What is clearer, then that at this day, the Gospel bindeth not, where it is not authentically preached; that is, that at this day men may be saved without an explicit belief of Christ: for in that sense speaks the Doctor concerning the Jews. And verily whatever my illustrious Master hold with his Learned Master Herera, I think that this was the Opinion of the Doctor (Scotus,) and the common one, which also Vega, a faithful
Scotist followeth; and Faber 4, d. 3. Petigianis 3, d. 25, q. 1, and of the Thomists Banns, 22, q. 2, a. 8. Cano, and others.]
And he gathers it to be the mind of the Council of Trent, Ses. 6, c. 4, and adds p. 113. [Its effectually proved by the Doctor, from Joh. 15. If I had not come and spoke to them, they had not had sin: I know the Doctors of the contrary opinion answer, that such are not condemned for the sin of Infidelity precisely, but for other sins that binder the illumination and special help of God. But verily the Doctor there argueth, that the Jews might by circumcision be cleansed from Original sin, and saved without the Gospel: and accordingly he may argue as to all others, to whom the Gospel is not authentically promulgate: Else his reason would not hold. And our most grave Corduba l. 2, qu. Theol. q. 5, subscribes to this opinion, saying
—since the promulgation of the Gospel an Explicit Belief of Christ is necessary: except with the invincibly ignorant, to whom an implicit sufficeth to the life of grace but whether it suffice to the life of glory, is a problem; but it is more probable that here also an implicit sufficeth]
Pg. 114, he addeth the consent of Medina re recta in Deum fide, lib. 4, c. ult. and of Bradwardine fol. 62, that an Implicit belief of Christ is sufficient to salvation.
And p. 115, he saith that this is the way to the end debates of them that think the Article of the Trinity, of Christ, of the incarnation, &c. are necessary to salvation, though not to Justification: and answering them, he saith that [such are not formally without the Church.] You see then formally
Infidels are in their Church and may be saved, in his opinion.
And p. 116, after a blow at Vellosillus he citeth also Victoria Relect. 4 de Indis. & Richard. de Med. Villa, 3:25, art. 3, qu. 1, and others for this opinion: And tells you what his Implicit faith is [to believe as the Church believeth.] And p. 118, he answereth from Scotus the Question, Whether such persons may hold the contrary error to the truth that they are ignorant of: and saith, No, (out of Scotus:) while it is preached but in someone place, till he know it to be believed as a truth by the Church, and then he must firmly adhere to it. Which the charitable Friar applieth to England as excusable for not believing some of their Articles. And he citeth Petigianis saying, [If a simple old woman shall hear a false opinion from a false Prophet, (as that the substance of the bread remains with Christ's body in the Eucharist) and believe it: doth she sin because of this? No: This were too hard and cruel to affirm.] Pg. 119, he citeth Angles, and agreeth with him, [that such as have no knowledge of these things to stir them up, are not bound so much as to seek information.] And p. 120, he cites Vega lib. 6, c. 18, saying that as [Ignorance purae negationis about many Articles of faith, may be without fault: so there is the
same reason of Ignorance pravae dispositionis.] Which he maintains against Gerson and Hugo. And S. Clara adds of his own [To speak my sense freely, I think that the common people committing themselves to the instruction of the Pastors, trusting their knowledge and goodness, if they be deceived, it shall be accounted Invincible Ignorance, or probable at least: So Herera: which excuseth from fault. Yea some Doctors give so much to the Instruction of Doctors, on whom the care of the flock lieth, that if they teach hic & nunc that God would be hated, that a rude Parishioner is bound to believe them.] And so p. 121, concludeth that he hopeth many of us are saved.
Pg. 122, he citeth the consent of Azorius, To. 1, l. 8. Just. c. 6, and Corduba again.
And p. 123, saith [It seemeth to be the common Opinion of the Schools and Doctors at this day, that the Laity erring with their Teachers or Pastors, are altogether excused from all fault: yea by erring thus many ways materially, they merit, for the act of Christian Obedience, which they owe their teachers, as Valentia saith, Tom. 3, disp. 1, q. 2, p. 5, and others, with Angles, Vasquez, &c.
Pg. 124,125. After Cajetan, he cites Zanchez, teaching that those that are brought up among Heretics are not bound presently to believe, and yet are not to be accounted Heretics, till they refuse Belief sufficiently propounded to them—] And he cites Alph. à Castro, and Simanchas, Aragon, and Tannerus, and Faber for the same.
And p. 126, he cites Eman: Sa, affirming that even among Catholics many are excused from the explicit knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation, specially if there want a Teacher: For what (saith he) shall we say that an infinite number of Christians, otherwise good people, perish, that scarce
know anything aright of the Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation; Yea judge perversely, (or falsely) of them, if you ask them?] And cites Rozella and Midina of the same mind. Lastly gives also the judgment of Gr.
Valentia fully, for his opinion, Analys. fid. lib. 2, c. 3, lit. D.
In the sixteenth Problem p. 127, he puts another Question, Whether the Law of Nature and Decalogue may be unknown without fault? And saith that though Alex. Ales say, No, yet [It is the more common and received
Opinion, (citing Adrian, Corduba, Herera, & alios communiter) that there may be such invincible ignorance in respect of the Law of Nature and the Decalogue.] And note for the understanding of all this, that this which they call an Implicit faith in Christ, is no actual faith in Christ at all. He that only believes as the Church believes, and knows not that the Church believes in Christ, in the Resurrection of Christ, &c. hath no actual belief in Christ or the Resurrection at all. Ignoti nulla fides: If I believe that one of you is true of his word, it doth not follow that I actually believe the particular propositions which I never heard. This which they call an implicit Belief, is nothing but the explicit actual belief of the Formal Object of Faith, Divine or Human, as that God is True, or the Church True and infallible; but it is no belief at all of the particular material object.
And note that everyone in the world that believeth that there is a God, must needs believe that he is no Liar; and so hath in God an Implicit belief.
Now if this will save men, without a particular belief in Christ, then Christianity is not necessary: Every Turk, and Jew, and Infidel that believeth in God, may then be said to have an Implicit faith in Christ, in the Popish language; because he believeth all that God revealeth to be true; But
if an Implicit faith in God will not serve, how should an implicit faith in the Church serve; unless the Church, that is the Pope, be better than God.
See here, whether they make any more of the Christian faith then a mere shooing horn, to draw and keep men to their side. By a General Council and the Pope it is determined that no man can be saved out of their Church; as headed by the Pope: To believe in the Pope is of Necessity to Salvation; but to believe in Christ, in his Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, is not so. An Implicit faith in the Pope or Church, yea or erring Doctors may save, and men may merit by following them in error; but an Implicit faith in God himself will not save, if we believe not in the Pope. So that if we were
Infidels we might be saved, so we were of the Church of Rome, and believed in the Pope: but the Holiest Christian that believeth explicitly in God, and all the Articles of the faith, cannot be saved, if he believe not in the Pope. Do you think they believe these Doctrines themselves? Or rather frame them to the building of their Kingdom?
And what a wonder is it that Learned Doctors see not their own contradiction? They suppose a man to believe in the Pope, or as the Church believeth, and yet not to believe in Christ! And is not the Church essentially a company of Christians; the spouse, and body, and school, and Kingdom of Christ? And is not the Pope essentially the pretended Vicar of Christ? How then can they believe in Christ's Vicar, or Christ's School, or Kingdom, or followers, before they believe in Christ himself?
And by all this you may perceive the Holiness of the Roman Church, and the nature of that Discipline or Church Government that all the world must needs submit to, or be damned. Even such as takes in Infidels and all, and layeth the Church as common to the world, for as many as will but believe in the Pope and Clergy.
You see here also another mystery opened: that a man may have enough to Justify him, that yet will not save him: For most of them are here said to hold that a man may be justified without an explicit faith in Christ, or that the knowledge of Christ is not necessary to his Justification, but to his salvation it is (Though the other half say, that its necessary to neither) And if a man die in a Justified State, must he be condemned? When Paul saith,
Rom. 8:30. Whom he justified, them he also glorified.
You see also here what their Baptism doth, that can ex opere operato infallibly put away the sins of all these Infidels, and so the Eucharist, &c.
And yet they must not be saved for all that their sins are all done away. O what a Maze is the Romish Divinity! And you see how well they are agreed about these fundamentals, when half of them think that an Actual belief in Christ is necessary to salvation, and not to Justification; and others that its necessary to both: and a great part that its necessary to neither. And you see here the benefit of having an Infallible Living judge of controversies, and expounder of Scriptures: and how admirably he hath ended all their differences.
And again I say, If formally these Unbelievers are in their Catholic Church, they shall give us leave to say that the Greeks and other Eastern and Southern Christians are in the same Catholic Church as we are, when we differ not so much.
And when they have made the Non-belief of Articles of the faith consistent with salvation, they will never while they breath be able to confute him that on the same grounds affirmeth the contrary belief consistent with salvation, in case of the same want of teaching and sufficient means.
And by this time I hope you see of how small moment the Popish Censures are, when they judge that a Protestant cannot be saved.
Its true that S. Clara here judgeth otherwise: but 1. Its said his Book was burnt or condemned at Rome for it. 2. He alloweth Infidels as much. 3. And he proveth himself a Heretic by it at Rome; seeing a General Council and Pope have determined the contrary, even that it is necessary to salvation to be a subject of the Pope of Rome.