Whether there can be invincible ignorance of positive divine law?

I say : Invincible ignorance of divine positive law can be given, not only among infidels, to whom the Gospel has not been announced, but also among the faithful, to whom it has been announced¹. ¹ 2a 2ae, q. 10, a. 1.

The first part is certain and is admitted by all the orthodox, especially after the condemnation of this proposition : « Negative infidelity, in those among whom Christ has not been preached, is sin. » It is number 68 among the Baians condemned by St. Pius V.

It is proved 2°. According to ordinary law of God, the unique medium of knowing the mysteries of faith is the preaching of the Gospel, according to that word Rom., X, 14 : How shall they believe him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? Whence Christ, Joann., XV, 22, says of the Jews : If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin — namely of infidelity, as Aug. interprets it, Tract. 89 in Joann.

And thence flows the second part, which one or another denies, being herein singular against the unanimous sense of the others. For if, because the Gospel is announced in no manner to infidels, invincible and blameless ignorance of all the mysteries and precepts of faith can exist in them, therefore those also among the faithful to whom it is not sufficiently announced, or as regards certain precepts, can invincibly and blamelessly ignore them : because what the defect of promulgation of the whole law effects with respect to infidels, that does the defect of promulgation of this precept effect with respect to a particular person; especially since from one precept known, another cannot be deduced with which it holds no connection.

It is confirmed. Divine positive law thrusts knowledge of itself upon us no more than human law. But invincible ignorance of human law can be given. Therefore.

You will say against the first part : Every ignorance of divine positive law at least necessary to salvation is culpable. Therefore vincible. — Proof of the antecedent. It arises from fault; for if man were to convert himself to God as he ought and can by the help of grace, which God denies to no one, as we said in the first part, God would instruct him concerning those things necessary to salvation, either through internal inspiration, or through a preacher, as St. Thomas teaches, Lect. 3 on chapter X Rom., and elsewhere. But ignorance which follows from fault is culpable. Therefore.

Answer. I deny the antecedent. In proof whereof I distinguish the minor. Ignorance which follows from fault is culpable, if it was foreseen in the fault, or could humanly have been foreseen, I concede; if it was neither foreseen nor could have been foreseen, I deny. For, that an effect following per accidens upon some voluntary cause be voluntary and imputable, it must, as I said so often already, be foreseen, or morally able to be foreseen, as about to follow from that cause. But they of whom the question treats neither apprehend, nor can morally apprehend, their conversion to God to be an ordered and suitable medium for driving away the ignorance of faith, concerning which they do not even think, or ever thought. Confer what I said in my great Work, tract on God, dissert. VII, art. 8, obj. 5.

You will insist Every adult can attain salvation, as is plain from what was said art. 8 cited. Therefore he can drive away the ignorance of those things at least necessary unto salvation.

Answer. I distinguish the consequence. Therefore he can physically drive away ignorance etc., insofar as he can be instructed by God, and would in fact be instructed, were he to convert himself to him, I concede the consequence; morally, so that it be imputed to him as fault, if he drive it not away, I deny, since he knows not that he can, nor that necessary knowledge would follow from his conversion. But there is no implication [contradiction] that someone can morally attain the end which he knows, and be able to attain the means only physically, when he knows them not.