A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 37
CHAP. XXXVII.
Detect. 28. ANother of their Deceits is this: They make advantage of our charitable Judgement of them, and of their uncharitable judgement of us and all other Chriſtians, to affright and entice people to their ſect. They ſay that we cannor 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 then ours.
I have anſwered this formerly in my [Safe Religion,] but yet ſhall here once more ſhew 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, when ever 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 Keyes 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 threatning 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 joyn 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, meerly 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 hinderance to mens 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 Catholicks: 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 Fryars and Jeſuites, 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 Mounſieur de Renty, and ſuch others (though I ſee in ſome much of error, and meer affectation, yet) I am eaſily perſwaded 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 unpoyſoned, 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 then mine, if he will put dung or poyſon in it. When you have all things neceſſary in a precious Antidote or other Medicine, you may ſoon marr all, by putting in more then all, as the Papiſts do.
The plain truth is, the Papiſts and Reformed Catholicks 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 poyſon, and he that taketh none, are both of them men: and he that takes the poyſon 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 poyſon 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 perſwaded that it is ſafeſt taking poyſon, 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 meer deſign or partiality. 2. That you may ſee, that they make believing in the Pope to be more neceſſary then 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 Catholick Church with the Fathers, Greeks, Egyptians, Abaſſines, 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 it ſelf, whether they be of Neceſſity to ſalvation or not.
I before cited the words of Albertinus the Jeſuite. 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. & 16. pag. 109 &c.
And 1. pag. 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 lawfull, 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 labour 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 Mahometaniſm, 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 pag. 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. & l. denatur. & grat. c. 12. And Vega l 6. c. 20. ſup. Trid. will have no more explicite 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 painfull ſtudies moved him, not to condemn them of hereſie, in a doubtfull 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 explicite faith in Chriſt is neceſſary, as Bonavent. 3. d. 25. and others. Others ſay that to ſalvation at leaſt an explicite 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 explicite Belief of Chriſt or the Goſpel. (ut 4. d. 3. q. 4.) he ſeems at large to prove.]
Pag. 113. he adds [What is clearer, then that at this day, the Goſpell bindeth not, where it is not authentically preached; that is, that at this day men may be ſaved without an explicite belief of Chriſt: for in that ſence ſpeaks the Doctor concerning the Jews. And verily what ever 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 faithfull Scotiſt followeth; and Faber 4. d. 3. Petigianis 3. d. 25. q. 1. and of the Thomiſts Bannes, 22. q. 2. a. 8. Cano, and others.]
And he gathers it to be the mind of the Council of Trent, Seſ. 6. cap. 4. and adds pag. 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 Dictors of the contrary opinion anſwer, that ſuch are not cendemned for the ſin of Infidelty 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 Explicite Belief of Chriſt is neceſſary: except with the invincibly ignorant, to whom an implicite ſufficeth to the life of grace but whether it ſuffice to the life of glory, is a probleme; but it is more probable that here alſo an implicite ſufficeth]
Page 114. he addeth the conſent of Medina re recta in Deum fide, lib. 4. cap. ult. and of Bradwardine fol. 62. that an Implicite belief of Chriſt is ſufficient to ſalvation.
And pag. 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 Inſidels are in their Church and may be ſaved, in his opinion.
And pag. 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 Implicite faith is [to believe as the Church believeth.]
And page 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 ſome one 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 Fryar 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 Chriſts body in the Euchariſt) and believe it: doth ſhe ſin becauſe of this? No: This were too hard and cruell to affirm.]
Pag. 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 pag. 120. he cites Vega lib. 6. cap. 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 lyeth, that if they teach hic & nunc that God would be hated, that a rude Pariſhoner is bound to believe them.]
And ſo page 121. concludeth that he hopeth many of us are ſaved.
Page 122. he citeth the concent of Azorius, To. 1. l. 8. Juſt. c. 6. and Corduba again.
And pag. 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 wayes materially, they merit, for the act of Chriſtian Obedience, which they owe their teachers, as Valentia ſaith, Tom. 3. diſp. 1. q. 2. pag. 5. and others, with Angles, Vaſquez, &c.
Pag. 124, 125. After Cajetan, he cites Zanchez, teaching that thoſe that are brought up among Hereticks are not bound preſently to believe, and yet are not to be accounted Hereticks, 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 pag. 126. he cites Eman: Sa, affirming that even among Catholicks many are excuſed from the explicite 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 any thing aright of the Myſterie of the Trinity and Incarnation; Yea judge perverſly, (or falſly) of them, if you ask them?] And cites Rozella and Midina of the ſame mind. Laſtly gives alſo the judgement of Gr. Valentia fully, for his opinion, Analyſ. fid. lib. 2. cap. 3. lit. D.
In the ſixteenth Probleme page 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 Implicite 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 implicite Belief, is nothing but the explicite actual belief of the Formal Object of Faith, Divine or Humane, 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 every one in the world that believeth that there is a God, muſt needs believe that he is no Lyar; and ſo hath in God an Implicite 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 Implicite faith in Chriſt, in the Popiſh language; becauſe he believeth all that God revealeth to be true; But if an Implicite faith in God will not ſerve, how ſhould an implicite faith in the Church ſerve; unleſs the Church, that is the Pope, be better then God.
See here, whether they make any more of the Chriſtian faith then a meer 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 Implicite faith in the Pope or Church, yea or erring Doctors may ſave, and men may merit by following them in error; but an Implicite 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 explicitely 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 Chriſts Vicar, or Chriſts 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 myſterie opened: that a man may have enough to Juſtifie him, that yet will not ſave him: For moſt of them are here ſaid to hold that a man may be juſtified without an explicite 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 Catholick Church, they ſhall give us leave to ſay that the Greeks and other Eaſtern and Southern Chriſtians are in the ſame Catholick 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 Heretick 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.