The novelty of popery, opposed to the antiquity of true Christianity against the book of Cardinal Du Perron, entituled, A reply to the answer of the most serene James, King of Great Britain / by Peter Du Moulin ... ; translated out of the French by the authors eldest son Peter Du Moulin ...

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 As∣sembly 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 uni∣ted 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 excommunica∣ted 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 un∣righteously, 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 coun∣trey where there is no Christians, will come by reading, or conference, or inspi∣ration 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 Com∣munion 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 sensu∣al 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 dis∣sention 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 fur∣thest 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 se∣parated 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 Or∣thodox Church of Africa for the ordination of Cecilianus Bishop of Carthage, pretending that he had been created Bishop by Bishops that had delivered the ho∣ly 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, re∣membring the sentence of Jesus Christ,* 1.1 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 judge∣ment of the salvation of others. For no doubt but that such separations com∣monly happen by the ambition of the Pastors that lead the people, who groan un∣der that yoke, and desire concord, grieving for the separation. Yea it may hap∣pen 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, ex∣communicate Hereticks and Schismaticks, and assign their quarter in hell; where∣as 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 Au∣thors 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 igno∣rant 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,* 1.2 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 con∣demneth 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 Dona∣tists 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) 1.3 a false Christ, a false Prophet, and a deceitful workman. As on the other side, Cy∣prian Epist. 74. calls Steven proud, ignorant, lover of Hereticks, Enemy to Christians.

M. du Perron beats incessantly upon the necessity of Communion with the Ro∣man 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 remote∣ness of the situation?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Mat. 7.1.
• * 1.2

  Pag. 669.
• (a) 1.3

  Psuedo Christum & Pseudo Apo∣stolum & do∣losum operari∣um. Epistola Fir∣miliani quae est 75. inter Epistolas Cy∣priani, §. 21. & 22.