In the latter case, some―owing to the training received in youth, or to the prejudices of more advanced years, or to the obstinacy of old age-may fail, without foreseeing the consequences, to make further inquiry, or to feel the force of the motives actually submitted for their consideration, and thus live on in involuntary and inculpable ignorance of the Divine precept of becoming members of the true Church. For it should be borne in mind that no effect-even though it may proceed from a sinful act or omission-can be culpable if the connection between the act or omission and this effect has been altogether unforeseen by the agent. It is true that a clear and distinct knowledge of the consequence is not required to make such consequence culpable, but it must be foreseen in some shape, or at least there must be advertence to the obligation of further inquiry when any doubt arises as to the lawfulness of the act or of the omission. This consideration serves to explain how it is that men may live and die outside the true Church, and still not be guilty of a voluntary violation of the Divine precept commanding them to enter it. It is in this way, too, we are to understand-what Suarez lucidly explains-how even infidelity may be inculpable in some men. Although God is prepared to give the grace of Faith to those who do what is in their power-that is, to those who in their infidelity observe the precepts of the Natural Law, according to the theological axiom, Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam-and though they are culpable in the violation of the Natural Law, which is known to them-still, as they may not foresee that its violation will exclude them from the grace of Faith, they are not accountable for this consequence, and therefore their infidelity is not imputed to them as a crime.1

Our proposition is, then, strictly confined-first, to the true Church, and secondly to those who voluntarily die outside its pale, and for such we maintain salvation is impossible.

The proposition in this form in truth needs no formal proof. If it did, we could easily show that Christ established a visible church upon earth-that He commanded His Apostles and their successors to preach His Gospel in every place and through all time-that He promised to be always with His Church, aiding and assisting her in the execution of this sacred duty, and that He denounced the severest punishment against those who refused to receive the religion so preached, or to enter the Church so propagated. "And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every 'The 68th proposition of Baius "Infidelitas pure negativa in his in quibus Christus non est praedicatus peccatum est" was condemned.

creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned."1

But instead of giving a formal proof from Catholic theologians, it will be more to our purpose to adduce the testimony of Protestant authorities on this question, and thus let our readers see with what consistency modern Protestant controversialists impute as a heresy to the Catholic Church a doctrine their forefathers required their followers to believe under pain of heresy.

It is a very curious circumstance connected with the proposition which expresses the Catholic doctrine, that it has been charged by Protestant writers with the very opposite faults of extreme laxity and of extreme rigorism. The latter charge is freely advanced in this 19th century. The former was very prevalent in the 17th. In the Acta Eruditorum, published at Leipsic, Tom. xi., an. 1692, we find in a letter of Leibnitz to Pellisson the following statements regarding the laxity of the Catholic doctrine. There are none so lax as the Catholics, particularly the Jesuits and the Scholastics who agree with them, in admitting not only heretics but even infidels to salvation, so much so that Protestant theologians have deservedly censured them." In the same letter he speaks of the Catholic doctrine as being indulgent and lax in the highest degree. Again, in his third letter to Simon Loeffler he refers to this correspondence with Pellisson, and to the extreme liberality of the Catholic teaching, according to which he says it is possible for infidels and material heretics to be saved; and then he adds: "I have often wondered why this argument is not more frequently and vigorously urged against them by our theologians."2

But the truth is, that while the Catholic doctrine remained unchanged and immovable, Protestant opinion, founded on the Protean principle of private judgment, passed rapidly from the extreme exclusiveness of early Calvinism to the broad benevolence of modern Indifferentism.

So notable was this change, that even Bayle called attention to it in a work written against Jurieu, entitled "The Gates of Heaven opened to the Professors of every Creed, by D. P. Jurieu." On the title page he had inscribed, "Porta patens esto nullo claudatur honesto." But Protestant writers, like all who travel at a rapid rate, imagined that contiguous stationary objects, and not they themselves, were changing their position.

Any one who wishes to find amongst the Protestant theologians a formal proof of the Catholic doctrine, may consult ! Matt. xxviii., 19, 20. Marc. xvi. 15, 16. Epist. ad diversos, Tom. iv.

Palmer, who is singular in this respect-as Dr. Newman somewhere observes that he has tried to reduce Protestant theology to some system and settled method.

In his treatise on the Church he argues from Colossians i, 18" And he is the head of the body of the Church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy." And from John xv., 6—“ If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth." Those who are outside the Church are not members of the mystic body of Christ, and receive no vital influence therefore from the head, and consequently are not in the way of salvation. Again, those outside the Church abide not in Christ, and are compared to the rotten branch separated from the parent trunk. He next shows the necessity of Faith from Hebrews xi., 6-the necessity of preachers having a legitimate mission to preach this Faith, from Romans x. 14, 15; and these are to be found only in the true Church-Ist Corinthians, xii., 28. He dwells with special emphasis on Acts ii., 47-" And the Lord increased daily such as should be saved," as showing that the Church is by Divine appointment the way of salvation.

The "Tradition of the Christian Community at all times" is next advanced in proof of the doctrine of exclusive salvation, in evidence of which Tradition, he cites among the early Fathers, Theophylactus of Antioch, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, Fulgentius, and some of the early Councils.

Finally, he quotes the testimony of the Reformers, but before giving their individual expressions of opinion, we may here insert the very words of the different Confessions of Faith, which, with remarkable uniformity, are found to contain the doctrine of exclusive salvation, at least as rigorously as it is held in Catholic teaching.

Ist. The Helvetic Confession2 teaches-"So much importance do we attach to communion with the true Church of Christ, that we deny that they can live before God who are not in communion with the Church of God, but have separated themselves from it. For as there was no escape outside the Ark of Noah when the human race was destroyed by the flood, so we believe that outside Christ, who gives Himself to His elect in His Church, there is no salvation, and we therefore teach that those who wish to live must not separate themselves from the Church of Christ."

2nd.--The Saxon Confession3 declares: "This is a sweet source of consolation, that the heirs of eternal life are nowhere Art. xii., 1551.

1 I. 10.

2 Art. xvii., 1536.

to be found but in the assembly of those who are calledaccording to the expression of the Scripture."-" And whom he predestined, these also he called."1

3rd. The Scottish Confession2 says: "We steadfastly believe in one church We entirely detest the blasphemy of those who teach that men who live according to the laws of equity and of justice, no matter what religion they profess, will be saved. For as without Christ there is no life nor salvation, so no one can be partaker of His merits, except such as the Father has delivered up to the Son Jesus Christ. It is necessary that these should come to Him in due time, that they should profess His doctrine, and believe in Him."

4th.-The Belgian Confession is, if possible, more positive and explicit.3 We believe in one Catholic or Universal Church We believe that this sacred assembly, or congregation, is composed of those who are to be saved, and that there is no salvation out of it, and that no one, no matter what his dignity or importance may be, should separate himself from it . . . but on the contrary, that all and each should join themselves to this society, and carefully consult for the unity of the Church, and submit both to its doctrine and discipline. Hence, it is the duty of all the faithful to separate themselves from those who are outside the Church, and to associate themselves with this sacred assembly of the faithful . . even though the hostile edicts of kings or civil rulers should forbid this under pain of death. Whosoever, therefore, recedes from the true Church, or refuses to join it, manifestly resists the precepts of God."

5th. The Gallic Confession is so like the preceding, both in language and in sentiment, that it is unnecessary to transcribe it.

6th. The Bohemian Confession teaches: "That he is a true member of the Church who preserves the unity of the spirit of Christ, who does not introduce divisions, nor excite sedition. Of such a one, St. Paul speaks in his Epistle to the Ephesians," &c."

7th. We might quote to the same effect, and as containing the same doctrine, the Confession of the Presbyterian Divines assembled at Westminster.

8th. The Athanasian Creed, which was retained till a recent time in the Book of Common Prayer in its entirety, contains the following passages: "Whosoever wishes to be saved, must first of all hold the Catholic faith, which, unless a man hold whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall be 1 Romans viii., 30. 2 Art. xvii., 1560. 3 Art. xxviii. 4 Art. xvi. 5 Art. viii.

6 iv., 3.

lost for ever." And again, the closing words are, "This is the Catholic faith, which, unless a man hold faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

9th. We may now close our enumeration of the Protestant Confessions of Faith by a reference to the 18th Article of the Church of England, which declares that "they also are to be accursed that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law."

We might also refer to the Baptism Service still in use in the Protestant Church-to the Collect read on Good Fridayto more than one Catechism of Protestant doctrine, in all of which the same teaching is contained: but we have already stated enough, and more than enough, to show from public and authentic records what the belief of the Reformers and of those who succeeded them was on the necessity of belonging to the true Church, and on the impossibility of salvation for those who voluntarily died outside its fold.

We may now briefly refer to the opinions expressed by individual Reformers, and by the most distinguished later Protestant authorities on this question.

Calvin says: "Outside the bosom of the Church no remission of sin is to be hoped for, nor any salvation, according to the expressions of the Prophets Isaias and Joel . . ." Again, he says: "No crime is so great as withdrawal from the Church. It is a denial of God and of Christ."1

Luther. Catechismus Major P. ii. Symb. Apost. act. iii., has almost the very words used by Calvin : "Extra hanc Christianitatem ubi huic Evangelio locus non est neque ulla est peccatorum remissio quemadmodum nec ulla Sanctificatio adesse potest."

Melancthon says: "Nor outside this congregation of the faithful is the voice of the Gospel to be heard, nor is there any invocation of Christ, nor are there any heirs of eternal life."

We might also appeal to Jurieu, to James I., and to his theologian Casaubon, to Pearson, Bishop of Chester, who, in his Exposition of the Creed,2 compares the Church to the Ark of Noah, to the houses sprinkled with the blood of the Paschal Lamb, and, finally, to the house of Rahab, where, and where only, the inhabitants were saved.

To Parker, also, Bishop of Oxford, who defies any one to point out a precept more strongly inculcated in the Scripture, than that of maintaining the unity of the Church. In fine, to 'Institutes. lib. iv., c. i., p. 10. Isaias xxxvii., 32. Joel ii., 32. Ezechiel xiii., 9.

2 2nd Article.