CHAP. XVI. Their confounding the Essentials and Integrals of Christianity
CHAP. XVI. Their confounding the Essentials and Integrals of Christianity.
D etect. 7. By what hath been said, you may discern how to deal with them, when they would industriously confound the Essentials and the Integral parts of our Faith: for this is another of their juggling's.
They cannot endure to hear us distinguish the fundamentals (that is, the Essentials) of our Religion from the rest: and therefore they call out to us for a Catalogue of our fundamentals; and would persuade us that whatsoever is matter of faith, is of Necessity to salvation to be believed, and those are damnable Heretics that deny them, and therefore we must not make any such difference. See Knot against Chillingworth. Their design in this is to persuade people that the world must be wholly of their mind in matters of faith, or else they cannot be saved. And by this trick they would prove that the Protestants and many other Churches are all Heretics, and therefore have no place in General Councils, and are no parts of the Catholic Church. But let us consider how judiciously they proceed.
1. We must desire the Papists to tell us whether Christianity be anything or nothing? If anything, it hath its Essence: and 2. Whether this Essence of
Christianity be Knowable or not? If not, then they cannot know a Christian from another: and they cannot know the Church from other Societies. If it be knowable, then its Essence must needs be knowable. 3. And we would be informed by them, whether all true Christians in the world are of the same stature or degree of knowledge and explicit belief? If they be, then there's no difference between Fathers and Babes, Strong and Weak, Priest and People; and then the Jesuits have no more Knowledge or Faith then the simplest woman of their Church: but if there be a difference, then 4. We would know whether the Essence of Christianity be varied according to these degrees. If so, then there are as many sorts of Christianity in the world, as there be degrees of Faith; which they have more wit, I suppose, then to affirm. If not, then the Essence of Christianity is distinguishable from the Integrity or superadded Degrees, which is the thing that we contend for. 5. We desire also to know whether the Apostles did not go on to teach their people more, after they had made them Christians, in a state of salvation. And whether the Priests, Friars, and Jesuits will give men up, and teach them nothing more when they have made them Christians. I know they will say, There's more to be taught. And if so, then the Essentials of Christianity are distinguishable from the Integrals or Degrees. 6. And we would know else how they will understand that in Heb. 5:10,11,12,14, and 6:1,2. [For when for the time ye ought to be Teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the Oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat. For everyone that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil: therefore leaving the Principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying
again the foundation, &c.] Tell us now whether the Apostle do not here distinguish between babes and strong men; milk and strong meat; the principles or foundation and perfection? 7. And we would know of them whether all that is Revealed by God be of absolute Necessity to every man's salvation that do or may hear it? If so, then no man can be saved that knoweth not all that God hath revealed; and then no one in the world can be saved: for here we know but in part. And their own Commentators differ about the word of God, which showeth that they are imperfect in the Knowledge of its sense. And their Pope knows it not, or else he is shamefully to blame, that will not tell it the world, and reconcile his
Commentators and Disputers. But if all revealed be not of Absolute Necessity, then we may have leave to distinguish between points absolutely
Necessary, and the rest.
8. And we would know whether all shall be damned, that know not as much as the most Learned and Wise? If not, then still we may have leave to distinguish. 9. Further we demand, whether any ignorance or error that is culpable, will stand with Charity and Salvation? If not, then who shall be saved? If yea; then we may still distinguish the points of Absolute Necessity from the rest. 10. We demand also, whether the whole holy Scripture be the word of God? If so, then whether we ought not to believe it all as far as we can understand it? And if so, whether it be not all, de fide matter of Faith? If not, they must tell us, what part of God's word is to be believed, and what not. If yea; then certainly men may err de fide in points of Faith, and yet have Charity, and be saved: as their disagreeing Commentators, Casuists and Schoolmen do. 11. We would know whether the matters that their
Divines are disagreed in, be Revealed by God, or things unrevealed? If not revealed, do they not deserve to be kicked out of the world, for troubling
the world so with unrevealed things? If they be Revealed, are they not Revealed to be believed, and so are de fide? 12. And we would know whether there be not some things Essential to true Obedience, and some things not Essential? If not, then no sinner hath sincere Obedience, and can be saved: If yea; then why may not the same be said of faith? 13. Also we would know, when they baptize the Adult, whether they require any profession of the faith from them or not? If not, they may as well baptize
Infidels or Heathens. If they do, then what is that profession? Is it a profession of every particular truth that God hath revealed to be believed?
No sure: for then none but Doctors must be baptized. Nor they neither. Or is it a profession of some particular Truths only? If of some only, why of those more than the rest, if they be not the Essentials distinguishable from the rest? And do they make men true Christians by baptizing them, or not? If they do, then sure the Baptismal faith must contain all that is Essential to Christianity. 14. We desire also to be informed by them, what is the use of the Churches Creed, and why they have used frequently to make confession of their faith? Was it not the whole faith Essential to Christianity which they confessed? If not, then it was not fit to be the badge of the Church; or of the Orthodox: if yea; then it seems those Creeds had in them the essentials distinguished from the rest. 15, we would know whether everything delivered or defined by any General Council, be of such necessity to salvation, that all must explicitly believe them all that will be saved? If so, then whether any Papist can be saved, seeing they understand them not all?
If not, then sure a distinction must be made.
16. And we would know how they can countenance ignorance so much as they do, if all things revealed be of equal necessity to salvation. 17. And what mean they to distinguish of Implicit and Explicit faith? Is it enough to
believe as the Church believes, and not know what in any particular? Then it is not de fide, or necessary to salvation to believe the resurrection of Christ, or of man, or the life to come. For a man may believe that the Church is in the right, and yet not know that it holdeth any of these. Is it enough to believe the formal object of faith (which with us is God's veracity) without the material? Or is it enough to remain Infidels, and only believe that the Church are true Believers? If you hold to this, you make no act of faith, but one (the believing that the Church, that is, the Pope or Council are true believers) to be of Necessity to salvation. But if there be something that is Necessary to be actually (that is explicitly) believed, then must not that be distinguished from the rest and made known? 18. Whence is it that you denominate men fideles, believers with you? Is it from a Positive faith, or for not holding the contrary? If the latter, then Stones, and Beasts, and Pagans, and their Infants may be believers. If the former, then that Positive faith from whence all believers are denominated must be known. 19. Is not that true faith and all that is essential to Christianity, which doth consist with saving grace or (to use your phrase) with true
Charity? If not, then either Infidels and no Christians may have true Charity, or else true Charity may be in the unjustified; or both: If yea,
(which doubtless you will yield) then sure men of lower knowledge and faith then Doctors, may have true Charity; and therefore true faith. 20.
Lastly, I appeal to your own confessions. Bellarmine often distinguisheth between the points that all must of Necessity explicitly believe, and the rest.
And Suarez in three parts. Thom. Disp. 43. Sect. 4, saith of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell [If by an Article of faith we understand a truth which all the faithful are bound explicitly to know and believe, so I do not think it necessary to reckon this among the Articles of faith, because it is
not altogether necessary for all men] Here you see that Suarez distinguisheth between Articles of Necessity to all, and those that are not: and that he excepts even the Descent into Hell from this number of Articles
Necessary to all I might cite many more of your writers; but the thing is well known.
But perhaps you will say, that though all that is de fide, be not necessary to be believed explicitly by all, yet implicitly it must. I Answ. 1, that which you call Implicit believing is no believing that point, but another point: yea a point that doth not so much as infer that: for it followeth not [the Church is infallible, therefore Christ descended into Hell.]
2. And we believe all that is de fide with an Implicit faith as well as you:
But it is an Implicit Divine faith, and not human: For we are sure that All that God saith is true; and this Divine veracity is the formal object of our faith. And we believe that all that is in Scripture is true, and that all that was ever delivered by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is true.
Obj. But all that is de fide is so necessary, that it will not stand with salvation to believe the contrary, or deny or dis-believe any point of faith.
Answ. 1. That cannot be true, For no man can prove that a point may not be denied and disputed against by a true Believer as long as he is ignorant that it is true, and from God: the same ignorance that keeps him from knowing it, may cause him to deny it, and gainsay it. 2. Do not your own differing
Commentators, Schoolmen and Casuists (on one side at least) dispute voluminously against some Truths of Divine revelation? If you change a man's mind from the smallest error by dispute, do you take that to be a change of his state from death to life? Aenaeas Sylvius thought a General
Council was above the Pope: but when he came to be Pope Pins the second, he thought the Pope above a General Council; was this a change from death
to life? It seems by his Bull of Retractation, he thought so, but so did not several General Councils: was the Catholic Church Representative at the Council of Basil, or Constance, or Pisa in a state of death and damnation for believing the Pope to be subject to a General Council? Or was the Council at Lateran (another Representative Catholic Church) in a state of death for holding the Contrary? Must either Pope John the twenty second, or Pope
Nicolas be damned because of the contrariety of their Decrees? If the Council of Toletane the first ordain that he that hath a Concubine instead of a wife, shall not be kept from the Sacrament, doth it prove them all in a state of death? If Bellarmine confess that the sixth General Council at Constantinople have many errors, doth it follow that the Catholic Church representative was in a damnable state? If the second Council at Nice maintain the corporeity of Angels, and the first Council at the Latarane maintain the contrary, doth it follow that one of them was in a state of death? I think not: (though I am sure it proves a General Council fallible, when approved by the Pope, and therefore Popery a deceit.) Bellarmine sometime tells us of the change of his own mind.
And the Retractations of Austin (a better man) tell us of the change of his mind in many things: And yet it followeth not that he was in a state of death and unjustified before.
Obj. But all that is de fide is of Necessity to the Salvation of some, though not of all. Answ. 1. If that be granted, yet you must grant us leave to distinguish between Points necessary to be believed by all, and points that are not thus necessary to all. 2. But in what case is it that you mean, that other points are of Necessity to some? 1. Is it to those some that know them to be of Divine Revelation? We easily grant you that: But that is not because the Things themselves are simply necessary to Salvation, but
because a Belief of God's veracity, and the Truth of all that he Revealeth in general, is of necessity: and he that Believeth that God is True (verax) cannot choose but believe all to be True which he knows God revealeth. He that thinketh God to be a Liar, in one word, doth not believe his veracity, and so hath no Divine faith at all. And therefore you need not fear lest any one should be guilty of not believing that which they know is the word of God, but those that take God to be a Liar, and that is those that take him not to be God, and so are Atheists. But still the thing of Absolute necessity is but first to believe in General that God is true in all his word, secondly and to believe the truth of the essential points of Christianity in particular
(embracing the Good propounded in them.) Now its true that secondarily all known Truths are of necessity to be believed, because else our General belief of God's veracity is not sincere. But yet we must say that antecedently even to that person, these superadded truths were not of Necessity to his Salvation to be believed, because they were not of such
Necessity to be Known; and if they had not been known, you would say yourselves there had not been such Necessity of Believing them.
But if you go further, and say, that all that were obliged to know them, or that had opportunity, or the Revelation if the truth, and yet did not, and thereupon deny them culpably, are in a state of death; I deny that, and shall prove it false. Its true, that a willful refusing the Light, because men love darkness rather than light, is a certain sign of a graceless wretch. But every culpable ignorance and unbelief is not Damning ignorance or unbelief.
1. Otherwise no man should be saved: For no man is void of culpable ignorance, and consequently of culpable unbelief. Had we never been wanting in the use of means, there's no man but might have known more then he doth. Is there any one of you that dare refuse to ask God forgiveness
of your ignorance, unbelief, or the negligence that is the culpable cause of them, or that dare say, you need no pardon of them? 2. If you plead for venial sin, how can you deny a venial unbelief upon venial ignorance? But then I pray you learn more wit and piety, 1. Then to say that your venial unbelief or sin is no sin, save as Analogically so called; or 2. Then to say it deserves a pardon, or deserves not everlasting punishment. But if you will call it venial, because being consistent with the true Love of God and habitual Holiness, and saving faith, the Law of Grace doth pardon it, and not condemn men for it, thus we would agree with you that there is venial sin; but then you must yield us that there is venial unbelief.
3. And we easily prove all this from the Law of God. It is the nature of the preceptive part to constitute Duty only, and the violation of that is sin: But it is the sanction, the promise and threatening that Determines of the Reward and Penalty: Now it is only the old Law of works that makes the Threatening as large as the prohibition, condemning man for every sin: but so doth not the Law of Grace. The precept still commandeth Perfect obedience, and so makes it a duty; but the promise maketh not perfect obedience the condition of Salvation; but Faith, Repentance and sincere
Obedience, though imperfect. The Law of Nature still makes everlasting Death due to every sin: But it is such a Due as hath a Remedy at hand provided and offered in the Gospel; and is actually remedied to all true believers. So that as it is not every sin that will damn us, though damnation be due to it (because we have a present Remedy;) so it is not every culpable ignorance or unbelief that will damn us, though it deserve damnation, because the Gospel doth not only not damn us for it, but pardons it, by acquitting us from the condemnation of the Law. All this may teach you, not only to mend your abominable doctrine about Mortal and venial sin, but
also to discern the reason why a man may deny some points of faith that are not of the essence of Christianity, and yet not be damned for it, because the Law of Grace doth not condemn him for it, though he be culpable, because the Law of Grace may command further then it peremptorily condemneth in case of disobedience. It is the Promise that makes faith the Condition of Life, though it be the Precept that makes it a duty: Now it saveth not as a performed Duty directly, (because the precept gives not the Reward) but as a performed Condition: And therefore unbelief condemneth not effectually as a mere sin directly, but as such a sin as is the violation or nonperformance of that condition. But it is not a belief of everything that is preceptively de fide, which is made the condition of life.