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

CHAP. II. Our Adversary's positive Proofs for the Salvation of Protestants examined and refuted.

SECT. I. Protestants cannot be sav'd, even in the Opinion of our Adversary, be∣cause they don't fulfill what is requir'd by him to Salvation.

OUr Adversary sayes that there are only two things necessary for Salvation, viz. To live a Life conform to the Law of God. And to Obey Humane Power deriv'd from Him: But these two things are fulfill'd by Protestants, then they may be Sav'd.

The first part he proves by the publick and pri∣vate

use they make of the Holy Scripture, alledg∣ing they take from thence the subject of their mu∣tual Discourses, Meditations and Instructions com∣posing their whole Life to its Model.

I Answer by this their assiduous use of Holy Scripture, they with the light, they think they have from God above other Men, find it is impossible for any meer Man to keep God's Commandements, or to live a Life conform to the Divine Law; yet our Adversary gives us this for a mark that they are in a Saving Way, because they Actually live a Life conform to the Law of God. I need not tell you that these two propositions cannot stand together. If you deny the former, you discredit the SCOTS Catechism, and the torrent of Protestants: If you disallow the latter, our Adversary's Proof is lame of one Foot; let us now see if it can stand on the other. The great Reformer Calvin, not to speak of other Protestants, holds that the Laws of Men are nowise oblidging in Conscience. Nunc, saies he, L. 4. Instit. c. 10. n. 5. ad humanas leges re∣deamus: Si in hunc finem latae sint ut Religionem nobis injiciant quasi per se necessaria sit earum ob∣servatio, dicimus conscienciae imponi qued fas non erat, now (saies he) let us return to Humane Laws, if they be made on the account of binding us in Religion, we say 'tis a restraint lay'd upon our Conscience which was a thing Unlawful to do. Neque enim cum hominibus sed cum uno Deo negoti∣um est Conscientiis nostris. For the business of our Conscience belongs to God alone and not to Men. How is then the observation of them, one of the two things necessary to Salvation? Which was the second part of his proof, that Pro∣testants are in a saving Way. You see our Adver∣sary is here quite of his Feet, the first of his proof

failing by Protestant's Confession, and the other being of no force as a matter indifferent to Salvati∣on. To rise up again, and get favour at least. If he can't credit, with those of his Faction to make us Odious, he saies that Protestants are not of that Opinion of some Catholicks, to wit, that the Pope has a Power to depose a King.

Answer. I avow some Protestants are not of their Sentiment the difference between them and those Catholicks is this, that the Catholick Au∣thors say it but faintly, cum formidine de opposito with fear that the contrary Opinion be true. But Protestants who hold a deposing Power, hold it strongly, undoubtedly with a secure Judgment of the goodness of the Action, having confirmed it by publick Authority of Church and State, and a legal proceeding, as was seen in the Bloody deposing of CHARLES the first our Lawful Soveraign. I grant the Loyal party now has a Horrour of that deposing Power. But it must be confessed the Royal party it self had not that horrour when be∣ing of the Church of England they deposed in like manner Queen MARY of Scotland Lawful Heir of that Kingdom.

Since then the Actions of both the Church of Eng∣land and Kirk of Scotland, or, of both the Prelatick and Presbyterian party make our History blush at what they have done in this matter, should not either of them be asham'd to cast up so often to the R. Catholick Religion that some of Her Chil∣dren have Written, not with assurance, but with a fear that the contrary Opinion was true, that there is a deposing Power in the Pope.

SECT. II. Protestants are in a worse condition than those who never heard of CHRIST.

OUr Antagonist advances an other proof to show that a Protestant can be Sav'd, God, sayes He, illuminates all Men that come into this World, Iohn 1. v 8. then he adds, are not Protestants Men?

Answer. They are Men, and illuminated by God, but if they resist this Light which is given them, and equivalently tell God, as those wicked Men of whom Iob spoke, Iob. 21. v. 14. Scien∣tiam viarum tuarum nolumus, We will not have the knowledge of thy Wayes. They will be found more remote from Heaven, then, if they had not receiv'd it.

He urges we R. Catholicks grant that Infidels who have never heard of CHRIST may be Sav'd and inconsequently deny that hope of happiness to Protestants.

Answer. There's no ill consequence here to deny a capacity of Salvation to him who puts a hinde∣rance to it, and to grant it to him, who puts none. The Infidel who hath never heard of CHRIST, doing what lyes in him by living according to the Light of Nature, make's way to Grace. But the Protestant, who rejects Faith offered to him by God and his Church, willingly shuts up the avenue to a further Grace, and untill he remove this obstacle

by an humble submission of his Judgment to Faith, he continues in an impossibility to please GOD.

O! but you are uncharitable, sayes He, to per∣swade the simple People, that a Protestant can't be Sav'd.

I ask him, can a R. Catholick be Sav'd? If he saies, no, where is his Charity for us? If he affirms, we may, then they who according to Protestants are Idolaters may be Sav'd. If so, whom will you exclude from Heaven?

But to return to his Objection, since he denies Charity to us, and we only Faith to him, Charity being a greater Vertue then Faith according to St. Paul, is not he in this more Uncharitable to us, then we to him?

He goes on, do not Protestants believe all Fun∣damentals contained in the three Creeds and Scrip∣ture?

I Answer. First, since that there are Funda∣mentals as condistinguished from Intigrals, or not Fundamentals, is a Fundamental point with him; I ask, in what CREED, or Book and Chap. of Scripture is this Fundamental contained? If he can't find this; then that hereafter he speaking with Catholicks may distinguish a Fundamental from an Integral, as he calls it. Let him take this notion of a Fundamental from us, to wit, that all things contained in Holy Scripture are Fundamentals in this sense, that we are bound to believe them un∣der pain of Damnation, when they are sufficiently propos'd to us by the Church, as reveal'd by God in the Scripture.

For to disbelieve God revealing that Christ me••t a blind man on the way of Iericho destroyes as much his veracity, as to distrust him revealing that his Son became man. By this notion of Funda∣mentals

we perfectly distinguish the Faithful foul from a Infidel or Sectarian. And therefore it is not given without ground or reason.

Again when Christ commanded the Gospell to be preached to Men, did he command the things only which you call fundamentals, to be Preach'd, or the whole Gospel. if things only you call Fundamentals, why were the Apostles so exact to give us the whole Gospel, that it's thought Damnable not only to add, but to pair from it? If he commanded the whole Gospel to be Preached, and consequently to be believ'd, how can he be sav'd, who refuses to believe the least Integral of it when it's sufficiently proposd to him as re∣uealed by God.

SECT. III. It is not Lawfull to follow a probable Opinion in matter of belief.

NOw I come to his Achiles, this dreadful Argument to Romanists, this Argument in in his Judgment above the reach of all Ra∣tional Solution. It runs thus.

Who Follows a probable Opinion neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently. But who bolds that Protestants may be sav'd, followes a probable O∣pinion. Then he neither sins nor does rashly or Imprudently.

The major, saies he, is Commonly admitted by Iesuits and others. And a probable Opinion is that which Learned, Prudent and Pious Men hold.

But that a Protestant may be sav'd, is an Opin∣ion that Learn'd, Prudent and Pious Men hold; then it is a probable Opinion that Protestants may be sav'd.

Ans. I distinguish the major, in matter of Faith, on which absolutly depends Salvation, he does not Sin who follows a Probable Opinion; I deny; in other matters I grant. If we hold a Priest to Sin (and all Judicious Men think we ought to do so in our Principles) who makes use, in the Bap∣tism of a dying Child, of that which is only prob∣ably Water having at hand sure Water, Because he makes a mortal breach of Charity against his Neighbour exposing the Child's Salvation. Am not I damnably Injurious to my self to follow a prob∣able Opinion in matter of Faith, without which I cannot be sav'd, when I have my choice of tak∣ing a sure way? am not I bound to be as Chari∣table to my self, in a matter of that consequence as to my Neighbour.

Again, can my understanding tell my Will that she may prudently command him to give a certain and infallible assent super omnia above all that may be said (such as the assent of Faith is) to an object, to command which, she is only mov'd by a probable motive? what it an Angel, come after this assent is made, from Heaven and tell me the thing I as∣sented to, is false, as I fear'd, or might have reasonably fear'd 'twas, having only a probable motive to beleive the contrary. Might not he ac∣cuse me not only of Imprudence but also of bold∣ness to make my self believe that God said it, and so Father upon him, as other articles of my Faith, this which is found to be false, which I might have justly fear'd having only so slender a ground as a probable Opinion is, to believe it?

A Subsect: 'Tis not a probable Opinion that a Protestant may be sav'd.

MOreover I deny that it is a probable O∣pinion that Protestants may be Sav'd. First Because the Church has defin'd the contrary, which definition excludes all probability from that Opinion. (Secondly,) I deny that Learned and Pious Men hold that Opinion. Our Adversary foreseeing this our negative, adds, dare we say that Protestants are neither Learn'd nor Pious? and then with a triumphing Jock he quots that Verse of Horace.

Auditum admissi risum teneatis amici.

To our Imagin'd confusion. But fair and softly. Would you think that a publick Professor of Philo∣sophy should from a copulative deny'd inferr the ne∣gative of both the members, as it from this deny'd copulative,

Our Adversary is a Souldier and a Physitian

He should presently say, then, according to you I am neither a Souldier, nor a Phisitian. Who would not laugh at this Illation? And consequently if I de∣sire you not to laugh, Reader, or Hearer, it is not at us, but at him for his simplicity, il, ne, faut, pas chanter devant la Victoire, (saies the French-Man) He should not have aplauded himself afore a clearer Eye then his, had seen his Victory.

When I say Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious, I don't say, they are neither Learn'd nor Pious; there's a great difference between these two propo∣sitions.

I say that Protestants are not Learn'd and Pious, because they who are Learn'd (viz. in matters of Faith) see the Truth, and they who are Pious em∣brace it, when they see it.

Since Protestants then do not embrace the R. Ca∣tholick Faith, which has appear'd as the only true to all Antiquity, as I may easily show, and clear∣ly shines to Men (who have not their understand∣ing vailed, 2 Cor. 3.15.) out of the Holy Scrip∣ture, as I shall make appear anon, either they do not see it, and those are not Learn'd, or they see it and do not embrace it according to that video meliora proboque deteriora sequor, that is to say, I see what is Good, and approve of it, but in the mean time I practice what is Evil,) and those are not Pious.

But while I say they are not Learn'd and Pious in order to Salvation, I don't deny that many of them are very knowing Men in matter of Philoso∣phy, Astrology, Mathematicks, and such like Sciences; and also Men of moral Lives. But, Quid mihi proderat saies St. Augustin, Ingenium per omnes Doctrinas liberales agile, cum in Doctrina pietatis errarem? What did it avail me to have had a Wit fitted for all Liberal Arts, whilst I was Igno∣rant of the Art of saving my Soul erring in the Doc∣trine of Piety? Out of the True Church there is no Sanctity, and without True Sanctity there is no True or solid Piety.

Let me give our Adversary one Light more by which he may see the weakness of his Argument.

I give, and not grant that it is a probable O∣pinion

that a Protestant may be Sav'd, and sup∣pose that Sempronius relying on it becomes a Pro∣testant.

Now, I say either Sempronius certainly believes that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture (for they are no where else) or not? If the former, then he does not rely upon a pro∣bable Opinion only, for his being a Protestant, but upon a certainty; if the latter, then he is not a true Protestant who has the Articles of his Faith not from Church or Apostolical Tradition, but from Scripture only. So a Man can never become a Protestant (who must believe that all the Articles of his Faith are clearly set down in Scripture) relying only on this Principle, 'tis a probable Opinion that a Prote∣stant may be Sav'd.

I ask again our Adversary, whither this Principle, a Man may follow a probable Opinion in matter of Religion.

Be a true or false Principle? If false, then a Man may prove a true Religion by a false Princi∣ple. If true, then a Man may prove the Religion which is false in the Opinion of our Adversary, to be a true Religion, by a true Principle, which is ab∣surd, viz. the R. Catholick Religion is proven to be true, because Catholicks, of whom many are Learned and Pious, nay some Protestants, whose Authority makes with him a probable Opinion, hold it to be a saving, and consequently a true Re∣ligion.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

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.