An answer, to a little book call'd Protestancy to be embrac'd or, A new and infallible method to reduce Romanists from popery to Protestancy

SECT. IV. The formal Protestant cannot be sav'd.

ALtho he thinks he has won the cause by his last Argument, yet he brings another to prove that a Protestant, nay a formal Protestant may be sav'd. And to prevent our an∣swer, he sayes, that R. Catholicks, as he was taught distinguish the formal Protestant from the material, in this, that the material is in an invincible Igno∣rance, the formal in a vincible Ignorance. But before he goes further, I must tell him that he is either short of Memory, or that he took ill up his Lesson of the formal Hereticks. For R. Catholick Divines, teach not that he is a formal Heretick, who lives in a vincible Ignorance, altho' grosly culpable, and affected too, if he be not pertina∣cious, but he only is a formal Heretick who with obstinacy defends an Errour.

Hence St. Aug. Epist. 162. speaks thus. Qui sententiam suam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, &c. parati corrigi cum invenerint veritatem, nequaquam sunt inter Hereticos reputandi, id est, Who defends their Opinion, tho false and perverse, but without any obstinacy ready to submit when the Truth shall be shown them, are not at all to be counted Hereticks.

So when our Adversary tells me that a formal Protestant, may have stronger Arguments (viz. as they appear to him,) against Transubstantiation

then for it, he is in an invincible Ignorance and so may be Sav'd. I infer from that antecedent, not, and so may be Sav'd. But, and so is only a ma∣terial Protestant, according to the notion of a ma∣terial Protestant given, and agreed upon by our Adversary, and so indeed the material Protestant may in this case be Sav'd, not the formal. But, then he will tell you there is no formal Protestant, for who knowing his Error defends it, is an Hy∣pocrite, &c. not a True Protestant.

Answer. There are likely many such among those who pass in the esteem of their Brethren for true Protestants, Men, I say, carried away either by Passion or Interest to speak against their know∣ledge. As among R. Catholicks there are but too many, who are led by Interest or Passion to do that which they know to be Damnable and against their Conscience.

And now not to speak of those who have been, and are known to be of this Category, I bring you a Reason for the proof of what I have said, which is this. It's certain all the Arguments, R. Catho∣licks bring for the proof of their Religion, are not clearly and with full satisfaction solv'd by Protestants; or else why would so many of their Learn'd Men, as I could Name some, come to us for Truth's sake, not only without any Humane inticement, but on the contrary with great Worldly prejudice, and renouncing of natural satisfaction, which is not remark'd in our Learn'd People going to them, when their Lives, after they have left us, are con∣sidered without passion.

Now if this be true that our Arguments are not fully solv'd by them, many of their Learn'd Men must see this, as I was told of a Minister in France, (when I was among the French) who, when his

Wife startl'd by what he uttered in a Discourse, said to him after, if that be true, why do we live as we live? He answered Her, Que Diable veut tu que je fasse avec toy & mes Enfans, that is; What the Devil wilt thou have me do with Thee and my Children? To wit, if he Liv'd according to what he thought. Thus they seeing the R. Catho∣lick Truth, and Teaching Protestancy are formal Protestants, who as long as they remain so, cannot be Sav'd.

Many of the material Protestants are, it may be, much held in their way by the Physical Arguments, they frame to themselves against Transubstantia∣tion.

And this depends much of the notion of a Body which hath been given them in Philosophy.

For, if they have been taught, for example, that the nature of a Body consists in an actual extension of its parts, and that accidents are not distinct from the substances; it presently appears to them im∣possible that the whole Body of CHRIST can be in every the least particle of the Host, and there under the sole Accidents of Bread.

But we Catholicks when we see such notions can∣not stand with what the Holy Scripture saies, the Holy Fathers unanimously teach, and the whole Church hath believed from the Apostles time down to us; we condemn them, knowing that Reason must captivate it self to Obey Faith, not Faith sub∣mit her self to Reason.

Don't think for what I have said that I acknow∣ledge a material Protestant, who has no doubt in his Faith secure as to his Salvation, no; I do not indeed deny but that he may be Sav'd, but I do not absolutely say that he will be Sav'd, for he se∣ing so great changes in the Protestant Religion since

its rise, the R. Catholicks alone remaining alwayes the same, seeing Preachers who were thought Learn'd and Good-men, and who had stood stiff to the Covenant as conform to the Word of God, now solemnly renounce it, acknowledging they have got a new Light, he can't I say well, but doubt, whether he ought to follow them in this Light, or in the Light for which they said before as much, as for this.

And since they changed from the former, it may be hereafter they will change from this to a third, there being no more infallibility in this, then in the former. And if he doubt, he is bound to en∣quire, and hearing, that the R. Catholick Church believes Her self to be infallible in what She de∣livers of Faith.

Infallibility, if it were true, being (as confess'd by all) a certain means to settle Men in Conscience, and secure them from all doubts in matters of Re∣ligion, he is bound to enquire, and try if Roma∣nists have any solid ground to bring for this their Tenet, and if he find it good, in Charity to him∣self he's bound to embrace it.

Next, tho' a material Protestant have no doubt, he is not in an equal condition in order to Salva∣tion, because if he fall into grievous Sin, he has no other Remedy then an Act of Contrition, or of Sorrow for it, purely for the Love of God, he has offended, which is not so easily had. Where∣as the Catholick has frequent Sacramental Confes∣sion and by it pardon from God, which is clearly intimated to us, in Io. 20. chap. v. 23. The Sins which you remit are remitted to them. A Protestant may say I believe from that passage it not ill, but Lawful to Confess to a Minister of the Church, but not that we are bound.

But weigh then, say I, the following Words, Whose Sins you retain (or do not pardon) are re∣tained, (are not pardon'd;) this can't be under∣stood of Protestants Excommunication, for if you don't, or can't pardon, with what Authority do you, or can you retain? Both parts belonging to the Function of the same Ministers of God. Also the Excommunication is not a formal retaining of Sin, but a thing destinct, and a sign of your retaining it, posterior to the retaining of it. Moreover, how can the Priest know which Sin he may remit, and which he must retain, if you do not Confess them to him?

And St. Augustin in Confirmation of this Con∣fession, sayes, in his 49. Hom. of the 50. Hom. Tom. 10. Do Penance as it is practised in the Church, and let no Man say (occulte ago, apud Deum ago) I do it secretly in the ••ottom of my Heart. Ergo, saies he, Sine causa dictum est quaecunque Solveritis, &c. Matth. 16.19? Frus••ramus Evangelium, fru∣stramus verba Christi, did Christ then say that in vain, sayes He, to the Ministers of the Church. Whose Sins ye remit are remitted to them? We fru∣strate the Gospel, and make void the Words of Christ.

Besides (many as some Apostats,) come to have no doubt in the Protestant Religion, by a punish∣ment from God. Eo quod charitatem veritatis non receperunt ut salvi fierent, ideò mittes i••lis Deus ope∣rat onem Erroris, ut credant mendacio, saies St. Paul ad. Thess. 2. cap. 2. v. 10. Because they have not cherish'd o•• embrac'd the Truth which God out of Love manifested to them, that by it they might be Sav'd, therefore ••od will send. them the Operation of Error to believe ••••ing. He will send i. e. saies St. Augustin L. 2. de Civit. Dei cap. 19. Will permit

the Devil to do those things, viz. to bring them to believe lying.

These People conscious to themselves of their te∣pid or vicious Life, in the Religion they were in, ought not to ground themselves upon their want of doubt in the way they have taken, but to use much humble Prayer to God to enlighten them.

Here I add something our Adversary saies, to justifie himself, in a Letter to a Friend, Sure I am, saies He, that a knowing Man, as one may have Reason to think me to be in such matters, can never resist a known Truth. So if I be in an Error, 'tis not an Error of Will, but Iudgement, for which God damns no Man, provided this Error be invin∣cible, as undoubtedly mine is, allowing what your prepossession inclines you to believe, that I am really mistaken: There being an invincible Error, but less reflected on, that comes from knowledge as well as an other more talked of in the Schools, that pro∣ceeds from want of knowledge.

Answer. Did not Origen and Tertullian resist a known Truth? If not, why were they con∣demned? If they did resist it, may not you also? Were they less knowing than you? Or less Vertu∣ous in their Moral Life then you? One fault was found in them, to wit, that they would not sub∣mit their Judgement to the Church. And this is found in you.

Tho' God damns no Man for an Error of Judge∣ment. He may damm a Man for the Sin, to pu∣nish which, he withdrew his Grace, and for want of which Grace, this Man sell into that Error of Judgement. So a drunken Man Dying, tho' he is not Damned for what proceeds from Drunkeness, for a Blasphemy uttered in that time, yet he may be damned for the Sin, which brought him to this distemper of his Reason.

Neither flatter your self with an invincible Error proceeding from knowledge, there is no such; an Error of Judgement is an Ignorance of Truth, and therefore that Error proceeds from Ignorance, and not from knowledge. A Fool upholding his Opi∣nion against a number of Wise Men, thinks this his. Opinion proceeds from his knowledge, which o∣thers have not, and that he speaks with a great deal of sense. In the mean while, the Wise Men present, pitty him, seeing all he sayes is but non∣sense, and that all this Discourse, in which he runs out, proceeds from his Ignorance. So that what he esteems in himself to be Light, is truely Dark∣ness.