The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 7 – Chapter 8
CHAP. 7. How this Propoſition muſt be underſtood: That out of the Church there is no Salvation.
THe Cardinal is continually urging this Propoſition, that there is no ſalvation out of the Church; And that he hath not God for his Father, that hath not the Church for his Mother. It imports then to know in what ſenſe, and how far that Propoſition is true.
I ſay then, that if by the word Church, you underſtand the Church or Aſſembly of the elect, or predeſtinated unto ſalvation, it is clear and queſtionleſs that out of the Church ſo underſtood there is no ſalvation: For whoſoever is none of the elect, is of neceſſity a reprobate.
If by the Church, you underſtand ſome particular Church, as the Greek, the Roman, the Engliſh, it is certain that out of ſuch a Church a man may be ſaved. For example, if the Roman Church were as pure in the faith as it is corrupt, yet a faithful man could be ſaved in any other particular Church of the like purity.
But if by the Church, one underſtands the whole body of thoſe that profeſs themſelves to be Chriſtians, or the whole body of the Orthodox Churches united in communion; it is certain that out of the Communion of the Church taken in that ſenſe a man may be ſaved. For if one were unjuſtly excommunicated from that Church, and ſhould die during that excommunication, he ſhould not be therefore excluded from ſalvation. For God is not ſubject to mens vices, nor obliged to comply with the unjuſt paſſions of Paſtors handling the keyes unrighteouſly, or abuſing them ignorantly. Such a man having the Church for his Stepmother, ſhall nevertheleſs have God for his Father.
It may alſo happen that a Pagan or a Jew being priſoner, or living in a countrey where there is no Chriſtians, will come by reading, or conference, or inſpiration from God, to acknowledge the truth of Chriſtian Religion, and make a reſolution to profeſs it at the next opportunity, and as ſoon as he ſhall have his freedom: if Death prevent ſuch a man before he can openly joyn with the Communion of the Church, I make no doubt but that he may be ſaved, believing in Jeſus Chriſt, though he never did aggregate himſelf to the Communion of the Church. For our Saviours words can never be falſe, Whoſoever believeth in Jeſus Chriſt, hath eternal life, Joh. 6. The thief crucified with Jeſus, and converted when he was neer death, was a Pagan before, or of no religion; we cannot tell that ever he was a Member of the viſible Church, yet he was ſaved.
In this ſenſe then that Propoſition may be true, That out of the viſible Church there is no Salvation. Who ſo by profaneſs or error in the foundation of the faith doth ſeparate himſelf from the Communion of the univerſal viſible Church, and renounceth the Communion of the faithful, to live according to his fancy, and to be no more a Member of the Church, that man cannot be ſaved. Of ſuch men the Apoſtle Jude ſpeaketh ver. 18, 19. where he cals thoſe mockers and ſenſual men that ſeparate themſelves; And the Apoſtle to the Hebrews, chap. 10. v. 25. forbids us to forſake the aſſembling of our ſelves together. In this ſenſe Cyprian in his book of the Unity of the Church, ſaith, He hath not God for his Father, that hath not the Church for his Mother. For he ſpeaks of Schiſmaticks, who out of pride deſpiſe the Communion of the Orthodox Church, and are authors of diſſention and diviſion in the Church.
But in our dayes, this Propoſition, That out of the Church there is no ſalvation, is taken otherwiſe. For thereby they mean that out of the Roman Church, and out of the Popes ſubjection none can be ſaved. One particular Church the furtheſt gone in the way of perdition, condemneth all other Churches to eternal perdition.
Of that queſtion this is an appurtenance: Whether Hereticks and Schiſmaticks can be ſaved? Thoſe are called Hereticks, who by ſome error in the faith have ſeparated themſelves from the Orthodox Church. Thoſe are called Schiſmaticks, not Hereticks, that ſeparate themſelves from the Orthodox Church for ſome cauſes that concern not the faith. As the Donatiſts made a ſchiſm from the Orthodox Church of Africa for the ordination of Cecilianus Biſhop of Carthage, pretending that he had been created Biſhop by Biſhops that had delivered the holy Scriptures unto the perſecutors. But Satan for fear that the Schiſm ſhould heal up, added to it preſently ſome difference in the doctrine, moving a quarrel about rebaptizing of Hereticks.
In this queſtion it is better to ſay too little then too much: For a godly, wiſe man will abſtain from making a raſh judgement of the ſalvation of others, remembring the ſentence of Jeſus Chriſt,Mat. 7.1. Judge not that you be not judged. He will ponder the cauſes of the ſeparation, and diſtinguiſh the perſons. For there be ſome errours in light things, not fundamental in Religion, upon which a ſeparation may happen, by the pride and pertinacy of ſome Paſtors, even of them that are Orthodox: As the error of the Quartadecimani, who celebrated the feaſt of Eaſter preciſely upon the fourteenth day of the Moon of March; for which cauſe Victor Biſhop of Rome ſeparated himſelf from their Communion; Wherein although the error was on their ſide, yet the ſchiſm was on Victors ſide, and he was more guilty then they. To pronounce that the people which is no cauſe of the ſchiſm, is damned eternally for ſuch an error, is a raſh part, and a bold judgement of the ſalvation of others. For no doubt but that ſuch ſeparations commonly happen by the ambition of the Paſtors that lead the people, who groan under that yoke, and deſire concord, grieving for the ſeparation. Yea it may happen that both the Churches that forſake their mutual communion are both in the wrong. It may happen alſo, that the party that hath the truth on his ſide, is cauſe of the ſchiſm, by the harſhneſs, or ambition, or want of charity of them that govern. As when two Brothers are quarrelling, they are Brothers nevertheleſs: So it is poſſible that two diſſenting Churches will be nevertheleſs Members of the ſame body, in Gods account, whoſe wiſdom is not obnoxious to our violence. But men prone to think well of their own righteouſneſs, and having little charity for their Brethren, will pronounce all that keep not communion with them, excommunicate Hereticks and Schiſmaticks, and aſſign their quarter in hell; whereas they ſhould have a tender care to take heed to make up the leaſt breach, by bearing with the weak. I would then put a great difference between the Authors of Schiſm, who are Satans Incendiaries, and the makers of the breach; and the ſimple people that cannot reſiſt the authority of the Paſtors of that Church in which they are born and bred, and have a real inclination to concord.
I could wiſh alſo that a man ſhould not be pronounced an Heretick, that is ignorant of ſome Article of Faith by a ſimple and negative Ignorance, ſuch as is that of Infants; not by an obſtinate ignorance, which armeth it ſelf with reaſons againſt the Truth. Thus the Apoſtles were at firſt ignorant of the Reſurrection, and were not Hereticks for that.
I wiſh alſo that an Errour be not preſently called an Hereſie, when it is about a light thing, not about the Fundamentals of Faith. It was with ſome ſeverity that the Luciferians were liſted among the Hereticks, becauſe they would not receive to Epiſcopacy thoſe that had held the ſame degree among the Hereticks; alſo for the traduction of the ſoul.
But above all, M. du Perrons judgement ſeems to me raſh and bold,Pag. 669. in the fourth Chapter of the third Obſervation; where he ſaith, that there are ſome points, of which if the Church ſhould bate one ſyllable, ſhe ſhould ceaſe to be the true Church of Chriſt, and would remain the Synagogue of Satan. Among which points he ranketh the doctrine of the Baptiſm of Hereticks. Whereby he condemneth the whole African Church in Agrippines and Cyprians Age, and calls it the Synagogue of Satan, and inwraps good Cyprian in the ſame condemnation. For they did not receive the Baptiſm of Hereticks, no more then the Donatiſts that came ſince, and have followed them in that point: For which cauſe Steven Biſhop of Rome called Cyprian (who was far better then he)(a)Pſuedo Chriſtum & Pſeudo Apoſtolum & doloſum operarium. Epiſtola Firmiliani quae eſt 75. inter Epiſtolas Cypriani, §. 21. & 22. a falſe Chriſt, a falſe Prophet, and a deceitful workman. As on the other ſide, Cyprian Epiſt. 74. calls Steven proud, ignorant, lover of Hereticks, Enemy to Chriſtians.
M. du Perron beats inceſſantly upon the neceſſity of Communion with the Roman Catholick Church, maintaining that out of that Communion, there is no Salvation. But he forgets to reſolve a difficulty, Whether an Orthodox Church living in another Hemiſphere then ours, and for want of Navigation, not ſo much as knowing that there is a Roman Church, muſt be deprived of Salvation; the defect not coming from her, but from the nature of the place, and the remoteneſs of the ſituation?
CHAP. 8. Whether the True Church be alwayes in Sight? State of the Queſtion.
IT is not a point diſputed, Whether the Church of the Elect be Viſible; for it is a thing confeſt of all, that the Elect are not diſcernable with the eye. The queſtion is, Whether the Church to which we muſt joyn, that we may be ſaved, be alwayes expoſed to our eye?
We are alſo agreed upon this, That they that belong to that true Church, ſee and know that it is the true Church. Alſo that ſuch as are not of that Church, as Pagans, Jews, and Hereticks; ſee indeed that Society of men which is called the Church, but ſee not that it is the true Church. Theſe are the words of Bellarmine, chap. 15. of the third Book of the Church, One may ſee a Society which is the Church, but one ſeeth not that it is the true Church. Cardinal du Perron ſaith the ſame, Chap. 19. To Hereticks and Schiſmaticks, the Church, Pag. 63.though never ſo eminent, hath alwayes been obſcure and hidden; not for want of light and eminency of her own, but by reaſon of their darkneſs and blindneſs.
So there is two wayes of ſeeing the Church, The one to ſee her only as ſhe is a Society of men; the other to ſee that ſhe is the true Church. Thus the Jews ſaw Jeſus Chriſt, but did not ſee that he was the Chriſt, the Redeemer. In the firſt way many Pagans, Jews and Hereticks ſee the Church; but none but thoſe that are of the Church, or have knowledge enough to joyn with it, ſee that it is the true Church. So far we are agreed.
The queſtion between us is, Whether the true, pure, and Orthodox Church be alwayes expoſed to thoſe mens ſight that are without the verge of the Church, and whether they can ſee her at leaſt as a Society of men, for without that they could not aggregate themſelves to her?
Our Adverſaries maintain, That the true Church is alwayes in ſight, and viſible to them that are without. We on the contrary hold that the true Orthodox Church never was expoſed to the ſight of all the men of the world, there being alwayes many Nations that never heard of Chriſt, nor of Chriſtian Church; And ſuch hard and contrary times coming ſometimes upon the Church, that the Church ſeemeth to vaniſh and be diſſipated, or extinct by perſecutions; of which I will bring ſome examples in the following Chapter.