Commentary on Romans, Biblical exegesis 1 · Chapter 1 · Section 3 · Subsection 57 – Subsection 58
57. Quest. Whether any of the Philosophers were saued by that naturall knowledge, which they had of God.
1. Catharinus a Popish writer, thinketh that where S. Paul saith here of the Gentiles, when they knew God, they did not glorifie him as God, that he speaketh not of all the Philosophers: a better opinion may be conceiued of Socrates and Plato: it is an hard censure, to send all the Philosophers vntounto hell: Erasmus opinion also is well knowne, who inclineth to thinke that Cicero was saued, praefat. in Tusculan. quaestion.
2. For the deciding of this question: 1. It can not safely be affirmed, that all the Philosophers and other of the better sort among the heathen were all damned: for God might hauehave merciemercy on some of them, and bring them vntounto repentance, and impart vntounto them some more cleare light and knowledge of saluation, then nature could afford: it is therefore hard to set downe, what ende eueryevery one had: God might shew merciemercy in the very instant of the passage of the soule: And we finde that there were some among the nations, that were strangers from the people of God, that had the knowledge of his waies: as Iob with his friends, who liued among the Gentiles, had the knowledge of the true God: the like might be found els-where.
2. Concerning, Socrates and Plato, and other the like in particular, whatsoeuer their ende was, which is secret and hid vntounto vsus, yet by their sayings and doings it can not be gathered, that they had the true knowledge of God, or attained vntounto saluation. First, Socrates, though he priuately among his friends seemed to mislike of the heathen gods, and acknowledged one onelyonly God, yet publikely he worshipped their gods and sacrificed vntounto them, as both Xenophon and Plato excuse him, and free him from that imputation, that he contemned the gods of the Grecians: likewise Plato, though he sometime seeme to magnifie the one God the Creator of all things, yet he alloweth sacrifices done vntounto the heathen gods, and commendeth Socrates for rendring his vowes vntounto them, and that he commanded a cocke to be sacrificed vntounto Aesculapius: to this purpose Euseb. lib. 13. de praepar. Evang. c. 8. & 11. the like Tertullian reporteth of Socrates in Apologes. who in contempt of the heathen gods vsed to sweare by a goat, or a dogge, yet in the end caused a cocke to be sacrificed to Aesculapius: Chrysostome affirmeth the same of Socrates, that he sacrificed to Aesculapius, and of Plato, that he allowed the fables of the Poets of the gods. hom. 3. in 1. c. ad Rom.
Seneca, who in his booke de superstit. which is now perished, but cited by August. lib. 6. de civit. Dei. cap. 10. though he much enueighed against the heathen idols, shewing how they worshipped their gods in the forme of beasts, and fishes, and other shapes, thus writing, numina vocant, quae si spiritu accepto subito occurrerent, monstra haberentur, they call them gods, which if they had spirit and life, & should suddenly meete vsus, would be thought to be monsters: yet in the ende he resolueth, that all this rabble of the gods is to be worshipped, yet so, that we thinke, cultum magis ad morem, quam ad rem pertinere, that this worship rather is for fashion, then in truth: thus, as Augustine inferreth, this graue Philosopher, colebat quod reprehendebat, agebat, quod arguebat, adored that which he reprehended, and acted that which he misliked. Much better is the example of that auncient and reuerend old man Eleazar, who beeing perswaded by his friends to dissemble as though he did eate swines flesh, and so to saue his life: answered, non dignum est aetati nostrae fingere, it is not beseeming our age to dissemble, 2. Macchab. c. 6.
Hermes Trismegistus, that wise Philosopher among the Egyptians, who did teach many things truly of God, in so much that some called him the Egyptian Moses, yet he spake very absurdly and impiously touching the idols of the heathen, as Augustine setteth it downe, lib. 8. de civit. dei. c. 23. that simulachra sunt velut corpora Deorum, &c. that the images were as the bodies of the gods: and he foretelleth, and that with griefe, that the time should come, when the worship of idols should faile among the Egyptians: wherein he seemeth to note those times, when as by the preaching of Christs Gospel, idolatrie should be banished: wherein he sheweth himselfe an enemie and adversarie to Christ. If this were the behauiour of the most famous Philosophers, who contrarie to their owne iudgement worshipped idols, what is to be thought of the rest? and what argument can we hauehave of their saluation, who both liued, and died for ought we know, in so grosse idolatrie? Therefore howsoeuer God might hauehave merciemercy vponupon some of them vponupon their repentance, yet it is most certen, that they beeing without the faith of Christ, could not be partakers of life euerlasting. Faius.
Quest. 58. Seeing that the naturall knowledge, which the heathen had was not sufficient vntounto saluation, how are they thereby made inexcusable?
1. Pareus dub. 16. answereth that they to whom sufficient knowledge and strength is denied to attaine vntounto saluation, may hauehave some excuse of their ignorance and weakenesse, if these 4. conditions be obserued. 1. that this their ignorance and imbecillitie commeth not by their owne default. 2. if that light of nature which they had, they had followed, and not wilfully depraued. 3. if they had accknowledged their owne wants, and had desired to hauehave the same supplyed by the grace of God. 4. if God had beene any wayes bound to hauehave giuen them further graces to helpe their ignorance and imbecillitie: But none of these things could be pretended by the heathen: for their ignorance and weakenesse came vponupon them by their owne apostasie, and falling away from God: and that light which they had they depraued: neither did they acknowledge their infirmitie, but became vaine and foolish in the opinion of their owne strength: neither is God debter or bound vntounto any, but bestoweth his graces freely.
2. Pererius disput. 16. insisteth onelyonly vponupon the first part of this answeare, shewing that there is a double kind of ignorance, vna est causa culpae, one kind of ignorance is that which is the cause of fault or sinne, and this excuseth: there is an other, cuius causa culpa est, the cause whereof is our fault, and this excuseth not: and such was the ignorance of the heathen, which was caused by their owne wilfull neglecting and abusing of the light of nature giuen vntounto them.
3. Peter Martyr hath yet a further answer: he distinguisheth between the ignorance of the heathen, and their imbecillitie or weakenesse: this the heathen would not hauehave pretended, because they ascribed all vntounto freewill, and therefore they would not hauehave complained of want of strength: the Apostle then toucheth that, which was most likely to hauehave beene obiected by thē, namely, their ignorance: & sheweth how euen in that behalf they were also inexcusable, &c. But seeing as is shewed before, euē their natural knowledge was insufficient to saluation, the same doubt remaineth stil: therfore those two other exceptions concerning their imbecillitie, which P. Martyr mentioneth, as that it happened by their owne default, and that they did not practise that little knowledge which they had, but abused it, may also be admitted, touching their ignorance, as before Pareus answeared sufficiently.
4. Hereunto further may be added, that distinction of ignorance, which Gryneus borroweth from Augustine, not eueris one, which is ignorant is excused, sed is solùm, qui non habuit vnde disceret, but he onelyonly, that had not whence to learne. And therefore S. Paul excuseth himselfe by his ignorance, that he persecuted Christ, I did it ignorantly thorough vnbeleefe, 1. Tim. 1.13. But such was not the ignorance of God, which the Gentiles had, hauing naturall meanes offred vntounto them, which they depraued and abused.