A Trial of the Romish Clergys Title to the Church, Text and commentary · Quoted chapter 4
A. D.
CHAP. IIII. That this one infallible faith neceſſary to ſaluation, must alſo be entire.
A. W.
Whereas you ſay obſcurely in your title, Faith muſt be entire, your meaning is, that a Chriſtian muſt beleeue all things appointed by God, & propoūded by the Church to be beleeued. Wold you not hauehave ſaid ſo, if you had loued plainneſſe? What if I ſhould ask you a reaſon, why the title of this Chapter is not ſet downe in the ſame forme the reſt are? Faith is neceſſary, Chap. 1. is one, Chap. 2. is infallible, Chap. 3. But in this 4. Chap. muſt be entire. Can you giuegive me a ſufficient reaſon of this difference?
A. D. §. 1.
This one infallible faith, without which we cannot pleaſe God, muſt alſo be entire, whole and ſound in all points: and it is not ſufficient to beleeue ſtedfaſtly ſome points, miſbeleeuing or not beleeuing obſtinately other ſome, or any one.
A. W.
There are two things to be conſidered in your propounding of this queſtiō, concerning the entireneſſe of faith: in what ſenſe all points muſt be beleeued, and what it is to miſbeleeue, or obſtinately not to beleeue. Whatſoeuer is deliuered in Scriptures, is a matter of faith, becauſe it is the word of God, who can neither deceiue, nor be deceiued, and hath propounded it to men for a truth to be beleeued. But yet there is a great difference betwixt things ſet downe in Scripture: and that difference is in 2. reſpects. For neither are all points therein true, in the like ſenſe, mThom. opuſ. 3. in compend. Theol. cap. 1. Holcot. in 1. q. 1. ad 6. argum. princip. et in 3. q. 1. art. 6. prim.neither is there like neceſſitie of beleeuing eueryevery particular. Concerning the former, the generall reaſon why all things in the Scriptures are true, is this, becauſe all things therein are recorded, & deliuered by God for true; therfore queſtionles they are true: yet (as once before I noted) onelyonly ſo farre forth true, as they are intended to be held for true by the holy Ghoſt, the author of the Scripture. Whatſoeuer is regiſtred therein by vvay of report, as a ſtory, is to be taken as true, onelyonly in reſpect of ſtory, that we may not doubt whether ſuch or ſuch things were done and ſaid, or no. There is no doubt to be made, but that the fiue bookes of Moſes, the bookes of Ioſua, Iudges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, &c. containe a true and certaine ſtory of thoſe things whereof they intreate. But in theſe bookes we hauehave ſome worthy and holy ſpeeches of godly men: ſome leud and blaſphemous words of profane wretches. The former are to be acknowledged for the truth of God eueryevery way. As for example, it is true that *Gen. 49. 1. 2. &c.Iacob vttered thoſe propheſies of the twelue Patriarks his ſonnes; and it is alſo true, that thoſe propheſies of his, were the very truth of God. It is as true, that n2. Reg. 18. 30 & 19. 4. 6.Rabſhaketh deliuered thoſe blaſphemous threanings againſt the Lord and his people; but it is not true, that thoſe words came from God, as Iacobs did: ſo Iacobs were to be taken as eueryevery way true; Rabſhakeths onelyonly as truly reported from his mouth.
Now that all points are not alike neceſſary to ſaluation, no man can make any queſtion, if he remember that a man may be ſaued, though he hauehave neuer heard of many things that are recorded in the Scripture: which is the caſe generally of the greateſt part both of Proteſtants and Papiſts, and hath alwayes bene the caſe of Chriſtians in all ages. As for miſbeleeuing, or not beleeuing obſtinately, one of theſe differs a great deale from the other, and the latter of the two was needleſſe, if the former can be proued. For if miſtaking ſome point of doctrine be damnable, it is out of doubt that obſtinate refuſing to beleeue the ſame point, muſt needs make a man much more liable to damnation.
But indeed miſbeleeuing is not in all points ſo dangerous, though of it ſelfe as a ſinne, it is ſubiect to be puniſhed oRom. 6. 23.with the eternall wrath of God in hell fire. To make plaine that I ſay, A man may miſunderſtand diuers places of Scripture, and thereupon hold that to be true which is falſe, and yet be ſaued for all this error. For example, that I may giuegive inſtāce in a matter of no ſmall importance. How many Chriſtians, yea how many great Diuines hauehave bin deceiued, in the vnderſtanding of pMat. 1. 1. 2. &c. Luk. 3. 23.our Sauior Chriſts genealogie, and by their miſconceiuing of the Euangeliſts, hauehave fallen into no ſmal error, that Salomon was the father of the Meſſiah? By which opinion (to omit many other things that I may not be too long) the truth of a propheſie vttered by qIer. 17. 29. 30Ieremy, which makes Ieconiah childleſſe, hath bin ouerthrown; from whom our Sauiour muſt needs hauehave deſcended, if he had bene the ſonne of Salomon, as ſome erroneouſly gather out of Saint Mathew; and not of rLuk. 3. 31.Nathan, as it is manifeſt by S. Luke, he was. Shall I exemplifie this matter in another point? The Apoſtles themſelues for a long time, euen ſAct. 1. 6.til after the aſcenſion of our Sauiour into heauen, and t& 2. 2. 3.till the comming of the holy Ghoſt vpō them, looked for the eſtabliſhing of an earthly kingdome in this world by their Lord and maiſter. Did they not ſlip into this error by misbeleeuing the uPſal. 72. 17. Dan. 2. 44.propheſies of the old teſtament, concerning the Meſſiahs kingdome? yet were they out of danger of damnation, and in the ſtate of grace all that time, becauſe xIoan. 1. 29. & 6. 68. 69.they reſted on our Sauiour Chriſt, as the ſpirituall Sauiour of their ſoules, that ſhould tak away their ſinnes, and bring them to euerlaſting life in heauen, though they erroneouſly hoped for a temporall kingdome alſo. The other branch of this diſtribution, which concernes obſtinately not beleeuing, though it be a farre greater ſinne, then the former: yet it is not ſuch, that it doth abſolutely cut a man off from ſaluation. This obſtinate refuſall to beleeue, is either of ignorance, or of wilfulneſſe: if a Chriſtian ſtand ſtifly in ſome falſe opinion, which he certainly holdeth to be true, in his error; the fault of his iudgement may continue, without the damnation of his ſoule. If wilfully he refuſe to beleeue that truth of God, which he diſcerneth, no man can promiſe him any hope of ſaluation, without true repentance. This I ſpeake vponupon a ſuppoſition, that it is poſſible for a man not to beleeue that, which he perceiueth to be true, though indeed there is a contradiction implied herein. For to beleeue is to aſſent to the truth; which a man cannot chuſe but do, that ſees it: that is, no man can think the ſame thing, in the ſame reſpects, true and falſe. But this not beleeuing in ſuch a caſe, is a frowardneſſe of the heart, not yeelding to acknowledge that he knowes, rather then a falſe opinion in the braine, by which a man is miſled. We are further to obſerue, that there is a ſecond difference in this point, in regard of the matter, which is not beleeued. If a man in his ignorance deny to beleeue, that there is but one God, that there are three perſons, that Ieſus is the Meſſiah, that we are redeemed by him, that we are iuſtified by faith without workes, or any other fundamentall point of religion; he doth thereby ſhut himſelfe out from all poſſibilitie of ſaluation, as long as he continues in theſe errors, or any of them. But other points there are, and thoſe many more in Thomas opuſc. comp. Theol. c. 1number, which a man, by reaſon of his ignorance, may obſtinately refuſe to beleeue, and yet not be excluded out of heauen for ſuch his error. Let the former examples ſerue for breuities ſake: I hauehave bene longer then I would or meant to be; but I was deſirous to ſpeake plaine, in a matter of ſuch weight. The concluſion is, that howſoeuer it is indeed a ſinne, and ſo (in it ſelfe) damnable, to miſbeleeue, or not beleeue all and eueryevery thing which God hath reuealed; yet a man may be in the ſtate of grace and ſaluation, though he misbeleeue, or (through ignorance) obſtinately not beleeue ſomething ſo reuealed. In a word, Not right beleeuing is neuer able to depriue a man of ſaluation, but when that we beleeue amiſſe, is a maine point of ſaluation: obſtinately not beleeuing onelyonly then ſhuts vp heauen againſt vsus, when either the points we will not beleeue, are fundamentall, or our refuſing to beleeue, is againſt our owne iudgement and conſcience. If you had no further reach in this Chapter, we were of the ſame mind with you: but in propounding the reaſon of your aſſertion, you bewray a further matter, then at the firſt a man would imagine.
A. D. §. 2.
The reaſon of this is, becauſe eueryevery point of doctrine, yea eueryevery word that almightie God hath reuealed, and by his Church propounded vntounto vsus to be beleeued, muſt, vnderunder paine of damnation be beleeued: as we may gather out of Saint Marke; where when Mark. 16.our Sauiour had giuen charge to his Diſciples, to preach the Goſpell to eueryevery creature (the which charge he alſo gaue in Saint Mathew, ſaying: Docete omnes gentes, &c. docentes eos ſeruare omnia Math. 28.quaecunque mandaui vobis: Teach all nations, &c. teaching them to obſerue all things whatſoeuer I hauehave commaunded you,) he pronounceth indefinitely, Qui non crediderit, condemnabitur: He that ſhall not beleeue, ſhall be condemned: not excepting, or diſtinguiſhing any one point of doctrine, as needleſſe to be beleeued, or which a man might at his pleaſure miſbeleeue, or doubt of without danger.
A. W.
Your firſt reaſon lieth thus:
If eueryevery point and word reuealed by God, and propounded by his Church to be beleeued, muſt, vnderunder paine of damnation, be beleeued, then faith muſt be entire.
But eueryevery word ſo reuealed and propounded, muſt, vnderunder paine of damnation be beleeued.
Therefore faith muſt be entire.
The concluſion of this Syllogiſme is acknowledged by vsus for a certaine truth, Faith muſt be entire: but the premiſſes ſeeme liable to iuſt exception. For firſt, the antecedent and the conſequent To the Propoſition.of the propoſition are all one; and ſo the proofe, and that which is proued, differ not. What is it to ſay, eueryevery word reuealed by God, must be beleeued, but to affirme, that faith must be entire? Indeed if the queſtiō were of faith as it is a quality, then the conſequent might be inferred vponupon the antecedent: but ſince we ſpeake of the things to be beleeued, both are one. If eueryevery ſuch word muſt be beleeued, then we muſt beleeue eueryevery ſuch word. It is the ſame faith, by which all, and by which ſome is beleeued: but as the obiect or things beleeued make a difference, which reacheth not to the faith it ſelfe within the ſoule.
Secondly the Aſſumption, though it be true, yet doth it containe ſomething that had need to be warily conſidered. Firſt To the Aſſumption.you ſo couple the reuealing by God, and the propounding of a thing to be beleeued by the church, as if the latter were no leſſe neceſſary then the former, to make a matter of faith: wheras al things that God hath reuealed, ought to be beleeued, whether the Church propoūd them for ſuch or no. For the reaſon why they are to be beleeued, is, that they proceed from God, who muſt needs be credited in whatſoeuer he ſhal ſay; in reſpect both of his truth in ſpeaking, and his authoritie in commaunding obedience. But yStapl. contra Whitak. de autorit. ſcript. cap. 1. ſect. 1. 2.you Papiſts make the authoritie of the Church, the very foundation of our beleefe. The Scripture (you ſay) is in it ſelfe the word of God, and ſo worthy of all credit; but to vsus it is not ſo, but by the authoritie of the Church; vponupon the credit whereof we take it for the word of God. Yea farther, you limit faith in particular points, by the determination of the Church, ſo that no man ſhall be bound to beleeue, as a point of faith, any doctrine neuer ſo certainly proued out of Scripture, vnleſſe the Church hauehave reſolued of it, that it is true: and whatſoeuer is by the Church concluded for true, muſt be acknowledged for ſuch by faith, though it be beſide or againſt the Scripture, which (as zCuſan. ad Bohem. epiſt. 2.Cardinall Cuſan is not aſhamed, nor afraid to ſay) is fitted for the time, and diuerſly vnderſtood. So that it may at one time be expounded one way, according to the generall current order of the Church, and the ſame order being changed, the Scripture alſo is changed. And why ſhould it not, if (as aSyl…est. Prierias cont. Luth.another Papiſt ſaith) the holy Scripture take ſtrength and authoritie from the doctrine of the Church and Biſhop of Rome? The Apoſtles (ſaith bPigh. Hier. lib. 1. cap. 2.Pighius) hauehave written certaine things, not that their writings ſhould be aboue our faith, but that they ſhould be vnderunder it. But what ſhould I ſtand to recite your blaſphemies in this kind, which are many and monſtrous? That which is not to day a point of faith, ſhall be one to morrow, if it pleaſe the Pope to propound it to be beleeued.
It is farther to be conſidered in your Aſſumption, that although whatſoeuer God reuealeth is to be beleeued, vpō paine of damnation: yet a man may be ſaued without beleeuing eueryevery thing ſo reuealed; alwayes prouided that he do not againſt his conſcience obſtinately refuſe to acknowledge any truth.
If our Sauiour hauehave ſaid, that he which beleeueth not all that his Apoſtles teach ſhall be condemned; then eueryevery word ſo reuealed and propounded, muſt be beleeued, vnderunder paine of damnation.
But our Sauiour hath ſaid ſo:
Therefore eueryevery word ſo propounded muſt be beleeued, vnderunder paine of damnation.
This is a proofe of your Aſſumption; wherein for the conſequence To the Propoſition.of your propoſition, I would hauehave all men vnderſtand, that although you craftily imply therein a compariſon of equalitie, betwixt the charge of beleeuing the Apoſtles, and all other Miniſters allowed by you, whom you call by the name of the Church, to deceiue ſimple people with ſo glorious a title: yet the truth of that propoſition depends not thereupon, but onelyonly vponupon the neceſſitie of beleeuing that which God hath reuealed. It is a certaine truth, that God is to be beleeued in all things he hath reuealed, by whom ſoeuer he propound it: & in this reſpect the conſequence of your propoſition is true: That if it were damnable not to beleeue the Apoſtles deliuering that which God had reuealed, it is alſo damnable not to giuegive credit to Miniſters now, when they propound that to be beleeued, which God hath reuealed; becauſe the reaſon of beleeuing is, that God hath reuealed the things that are deliuered. But yet here are two differences to be obſerued: firſt, that it is leſſe ſinne to doubt of that, which any man, beſides the Apoſtles, deliuers, though it be the word of God, then to make queſtion of the ſame matter vttered by the Apoſtles: becauſe they ſpake immediatly by the direction of the ſpirit, and therefore could not poſſibly erre in any point; whereas all other men are ſubiect to error, and their doctrine to examination, ere it need be credited. Secondly, we muſt remember, it doth not follow, that if our Sauiour ſaid, whoſoeuer beleeued not the Apoſtles, ſhould be damned; then he that beleeues not the Miniſters now, in all they propound to be beleeued, ſhould be therefore liable to condemnatiō. I hauehave ſtood the more vponupon this propoſition, becauſe the conſequence being true, may breed an error in the conceit of many, if the reaſon of it be not truly vnderſtood.
Your Aſſumption or minor is thus to be limited, according To the Aſſumption.to that which I before deliuered, He that beleeues the Apoſtles ſpake immediatly by the inſpiration of the ſpirit of God, and yet doubts of the truth of ſome things they preached, cannot without reforming this error be ſaued; becauſe he holds that the holy Ghoſt may inſpire an vntruth. No more can he that doth not beleeue they ſpake by ſuch inſpiration. For of them our Sauiour hath abſolutely ſaid, cLuk. 10. 16.He that deſpiſeth you, deſpiſeth me. The ſecond limitation is about the things themſelues. The ignorance of ſome points deliuered by the Apoſtles, vtterly excludes a man out of heauen: ſome other again may be vnknowne, and a man, notwithſtanding that his ignorance, be ſaued. Therefore though our Sauiour except no point, nor diſtinguiſh betwixt matters of doctrine, yet the not beleeuing of ſome, is no farther damnable, then a man doth wilfully refuſe to beleeue that, which he confeſſeth to be truth in his heart; or at the leaſt, in which he thinkes the Apoſtles were deceiued, or which he deſpiſeth as needleſſe, and ſo condemnes the wiſedome of God, in propounding it to be beleeued.
A. D. §. 3.
And this not without reaſon: for not to beleeue any one point whatſoeuer, which God by reuealing it, doth teſtifie to bee true, and which, by his Church, he hath commaunded vsus to beleeue, must needs be damnable, as being a notable iniurie to Gods veritie, and a great diſobedience to his will. But all points of faith are thus teſtified by God, and commaunded to be beleeued; otherwiſe they be not points of faith, but of opinion, or ſome other kinde of knowledge. Therefore all points of faith muſt vnderunder paine of damnation, be beleeued; beleeued (I ſay) eyther expreſly and actually, as learned men may doe: or implicite and virtually as vnlearned Catholicks commonly doe: who beleeuing expreſly thoſe articles, which euerie one is bound particularly to know, doe not in the reſt, obſtinately doubt, or hold ſome errour againſt the Church, but hauehave a minde prepared to ſubmit themſelues in all things, to the authoritie of the Church, (which they are ſure is taught and directed by the ſpirit of God) and doe in generall hold for vndoubted truth, whatſoeuer the Catholicke or vniuerſall Church doth beleeue.
A. W.
Now followeth the ſecond proofe of your aſſumption, in this manner:
Euerie notable iniurie to Gods veritie, and diſobedience to his will, is damnable.
But miſbeleeuing, or abſolutely not beleeuing any one point reuealed by God, and propounded by his Church to be beleeued, is a notable iniurie to Gods veritie, and a great diſobedience to his will.
Therefore miſbeleeuing or obſtinately not beleeuing any one point reuealed by God, and propounded by his Church to be beleeued, is damnable.
To let paſſe this craftie conueyance, whereby you ſtill ſhuffle in the Church, whereas without it, the matter is as true, and To the aſſumption.the propoſition as perfect: I anſwer to your aſſumption; that all miſbeleeuing, or obſtinately not beleeuing is not a notable iniurie to Gods truth, nor a great diſobedience to his will: where it proceeds ſimply of ignorance, and not of wilfulneſſe; except in ſuch caſes as I ſhewed in the end of the laſt ſection: which I ſpeake, not to excuſe any man, as if he did not ſinne, in misbeleeuing, or as if there were ſome ſinne not deadly, according to your erroneous conceit: but onelyonly to diſtinguiſh notable iniuries, and great diſobedience from ſome kinde of misbeleeuing.
The concluſion is thus to be conceiued: That miſbeleeuing is in it ſelfe damnable, not, that no man can be ſaued, which miſbeleeueth.Of the concluſion.
This diſtinction of beleeuing expreſly, and implicitly, as you terme it, confirmes part of that, which I hauehave hitherto ſaid: for by your confeſſion, there are ſome points, to the beleefe whereof a general faith will not ſerue the turne, but a man muſt know the particulars, and aſſent actually to the truth of them. For example, it is not enough for a man to beleeue in groſſe, that he muſt be ſaued by ſuch meanes onelyonly, as God hath reuealed; and the Church hath propounded to be beleeued; but it is abſolutely neceſſarie to ſaluation, that he know what the Church holdeth in this caſe, concerning redemption by our Sauiour Chriſt; and in his heart acknowledge the truth thereof. Againe, there are many other points, which, ſo a man neglect not the meanes to know them, may be vnknowne, and beleeued onelyonly in generall, without danger of damnation, by reaſon of ſuch ignorance. Now this generall beleefe, is not (as you falſely ſay) to be folded vp in the faith of the Church; but to be tied to the Scripture; all things wherein I acknowledge to be moſt true, and beleeue all points whatſoeuer, as they are eyther expreſſed, or contained in Scripture: howſoeuer I be ignorant what is true, touching, (perhaps) very many particulars.
To the authoritie of the Church, I willingly ſubmit my ſelfe thus farre, as that I hold it a ſinfull preſumption for me, or any man, eyther to compare my priuate opinion, with the generall iudgement of other Chriſtians, eſpecially Miniſters, or to condemne, or ſuſpect that of falſhood, which they deliuer, vnleſſe I hauehave apparent proofe for the one, and great likelihood for the other. In which caſes I ſet not my owne conceit, againſt the doctrine of the Church, but preferre the truth of God before the opinions of men. As for any infallible authoritie in the Church, vponupon ſuppoſall of ſuch a certaine direction by the ſpirit of God, I hold it neither for true, nor probable, as ſhall appeare hereafter. In the meane while, I deſire the Reader to conſider theſe few teſtimonies cōcerning the authority of men. Other writers (ſaith dAugust. ad Hieron. Epiſt. 19.Auſtin) I reade with this prouiſo, that, be their learning or holineſſe neuer ſo great, I will not thinke a matter true, becauſe they hauehave thought ſo; but becauſe they hauehave bene able to perſwade me, eyther by other Canonicall writers, or by ſome likely reaſon. In eAug. de vnit. Eccleſ. cap. 10.an other place, We may not conſent to Biſhops, though they be Catholicke, if at any time they be deceiued, ſo that they iudge contrarie to the Canonicall Scripture of God. Of neceſſitie (ſaith fOrigen. in Ier. Hom. 1.Origen) muſt we call for the teſtimonie of the Scriptures; for our ſenſes and declarations, without them, as witneſſes, hauehave no credit. And this charge gBaſil. in moral. Reg. 72.Baſil layeth vponupon vsus, that, when we heare, we examine the points that are deliuered by our teachers, and receiue thoſe that are agreeable to the Scriptures, and reiect thoſe that are diuers from them. hHieron. ad Ierem. cap. 7.Other things that men inuent of their owne head (ſaith Ierome) as it were by Apoſtolicall tradition, without the authoritie and witneſſe of the Scriptures, the word of God ſmiteth.
A. D. §. 4.
Secondly, that man which beleeuing ſome points, ſhould denie others: cannot while he doth thus, hauehave one and the ſame faith, which other Chriſtians hauehave. Sith he doth not (as Irenaeus requireth to the vnitie of faith) beleeeue the points of faith in a like; but in a different manner from other Chriſtians. That is to ſay. Neither doth he beleeue all the points which they doe: neither doth he beleeue thoſe points wherein he doth agree with them, for the ſame reaſon that they doe; that is to ſay: He doth not beleeue thoſe points which he ſeemeth to beleeue preciſely, for that God hath reuealed them, and by his Church propounded them: for if he did, ſith this reaſon is common to all points of faith, he ſhould aſſoone beleeue all, as any one. He hath not, therefore (I ſay) one and the ſame faith, which other Chriſtians hauehave, (who notwithſtanding hauehave the true faith.) And ſith as S. Leo ſaid, Niſi vna eſt, fides non eſt: If it be not one faith, it is no faith at all: It followeth that he, that beleeueth not entirely all points of faith, hath no faith at all: and conſequently, ſith one that hath no faith, can no way be ſaued: it is euident that he that beleeuing ſome articles, doth obſtinately denie others cannot be ſaued.
A. W.
Your ſecond reaſon, to prooue that faith muſt be entire, is thus to be framed.
If faith cannot be one, vnleſſe it be entire, then it muſt be entire.
But faith cannot be one, vnleſſe it be entire.
Therefore faith muſt be entire.
I denie the conſequence of your propoſition. For it is not To the propoſition.abſolutely neceſſarie to ſaluation, that faith ſhould be one, in ſuch ſort as you imagine. There is indeed an abſolute neceſſitie, that all men ſhould agree in the beleefe of certaine points, without the beleefe whereof, there can poſſibly be no ſaluation. But that there ſhould be ſuch an agreement in all points, though it be neceſſarie poſitiuely, to ſpeake as you doe, becauſe Gods truth is in eueryevery particular to be beleeued; yet it is not required as a meanes, without which a man cannot be ſaued, as I hauehave already ſhewed.
I grant the aſſumption in that ſenſe you vnderſtand being one; otherwiſe I denie it. Faith may be one in all points neceſſary to To the aſſumption.ſaluation, and yet not entire in beleeuing all things that God hath reuealed.
To your allegation out of iIrē. li. 1. ca. 3Irenaeus, I anſwered kChap. 1. ſect. 5.before: the expoſition you make of it, as I then ſignified, in regard of the latter part thereof, cannot be drawne out of Irenaeus, who ſpeakes not a word of the reaſon whereupon men beleeue, but onelyonly of the principall articles of faith eueryevery where beleeued; in regard whereof there was, as he ſaith, an vnitie of beleefe.
Neither is your proofe ſufficient, if we grant your expoſition. For a man may beleeue that which he doth beleeue, becauſe God hath reuealed it, and in that reſpect hauehave one faith with other Chriſtians, and yet doubt of, or denie ſome other points which are commonly held; becauſe he cannot perſwade himſelfe that they are reuealed by God: though it be generally ſo beleeued. I may ſay the like of matters propounded alſo by the Church, becauſe the decrees thereof are not ſo plaine, but that they may admit diuers ſenſes. But I reſpect not that clauſe, as being a point foiſted in by you, without any warrant of Scripture or reaſon.
Though it be no great matter what you build vponupon ſo ſlipperie a foundation: becauſe it cannot long ſtand: yet perhaps it is not amiſſe to puſh it downe preſently, that it may not continue to make a ſhew. Thus you build.
He, that hath no faith at all, cannot be ſaued.
But he, that beleeues not entirely all points of faith, hath no faith at all.
Therefore he that beleeuing ſome articles, doth obſtinately denie any others, cannot be ſaued.
I denie your aſſumption. A man may doubt of, and denie To the aſſumption.many points as I hauehave ſhewed, and yet both hauehave faith, and be ſaued. Your proofe to the contrarie out of Leo was anſwered lChap. 2. ſect. 3.before.
Your concluſion is not ſo large as it ſhould be. For you reſtraine Of the concluſion.it to obſtinately not beleeuing: which cannot barre a man from ſaluation, but in thoſe points alone, which are neceſſarie as meanes, to bring him to euerlaſting life.
A. D. §. 5.
Thirdly, to beleeue ſome points of faith, and to denie others, or any one, is hereſie: as to denie all, is abſolute Infidelitie. But it is ſure, euen out of Scripture, that Heretickes ſhall not be ſaued, no more then Infidels. For as it is ſaid Q…i non credit, iam indicatus eſt, he that beleeueth not, is alreadie iudged: ſo the Apoſile Saint Ioan. 3. In the Greeke text, Haireſeis Gal. 5.Paule reckoneth hereſies among the works of the fleſh; of all which he doth pronounce. Qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non conſequentur. Thoſe which doe ſuch like things, ſhall not attaine the kingdome of God.
A. W.
Hereticall faith is liable to damnation.
That faith which is not entire, is hereticall.
Therefore, that faith which is not entire, is liable to damnation.
I muſt intreate the Reader to call to minde, what I anſwered To the propoſition.mSect. 1.before in generall concerning this point, about liableneſſe to damnation. There is no hereſie nor error in matter of Religion, but it is a ſinne: and being ſo, makes the partie that doth erre, liable to damnation. But yet many errors and hereſies are of ſo ſmall moment in compariſon of other, that hee which holdeth them, may, notwithſtanding ſuch his error or hereſie, be ſaued. I gaue examples before, and will not ſtand to repeate them. So then the propoſition is thus farre true, and no farther: Hereticall faith in matters neceſſarie to ſaluation, is ſimply damnable: ſo that he which continueth in ſuch an eſtate, cannot poſſibly be ſaued.
Againe, Hereticall faith in any point of Gods truth whatſoeuer, of it ſelfe deſerueth damnation: yet he that doth erre in ſome points, may be ſaued: elſe I thinke there are fewe men liuing, or euer hauehave bene, that could hauehave come, or ſhall come to heauen. As for the authoritie of the Church, it is not of force to make that ſimply damnable, which in it ſelfe is not ſo: though it much increaſe the ſinne, whenſoeuer it determineth truly of any point in queſtion. You will ſay nGal. 5. 20, 21Saint Paule reckoneth hereſie amongſt the works of the fleſh. So doth he contentions &c. yet may a man in ignorance be contentious, thinking he doth well, and oIud. verſ. 3.contends for the true faith, as he ought to do; and for all this contention, not depriue himſelfe of the intereſt he hath to the kingdome of heauen in Ieſus Chriſt. I deny your aſſumption. To the aſſumption. Chap. 1. ſect. 5.A man may be excuſed, in your iudgement, by ignorance, concerning any poſitiue commaundement of God: but out of doubt, there are many points of truth reuealed by God, onelyonly as poſitiue, not as ſuch meanes to ſaluation, that without the beleefe of them a man cannot be ſaued. Adde hereunto, that a Chriſtian may be ignorant of many points held by the Church, and that by negatiue ignorance, becauſe he could neuer come where he might heare, that the Church beleeued ſuch and ſuch things. It is therefore an vnreaſonable thing, to condemne all ignorance for hereſie: and a moſt vncharitable conceit to caſt all into hell fire that beleeue not in eueryevery point, as the Church generally doth, yea though they know what the Church mainteines, & be of a contrarie mind. Your proofe, which is a compariſon of likeneſſe or equality betwixt infidelitie in denying all Chriſtian religion, and hereſie in not beleeuing ſome points of it, is a great deale too weake. Similitudes argue indeed, but rather by way of illuſtration then proofe. And there is no equalitie betwixt denying all, and doubting of ſome. The former abſolutely ouerthrowes true religion: the latter onelyonly miſconceiues ſome points, leauing the grounds of truth vntouched and beleeuing them as moſt certaine.
A. D. § 6.
Fourthly, I may confirme the ſame, with the teſtimonie of the ancient Fathers. Firſt of S. Athanaſius in his creed, which is commonly Athanaſ. in Symb.knowne and approoued of all. Quicunque (ſaith he) vult ſaluus eſſe, ante omnia opus eſt, vt teneat Catholicam fidem: quam niſi quiſque integram, inuiolatamque ſeruauerit, abſque dubio in aeternum peribit. Whoſoeuer will be ſaued, before all things it is needfull that he hold the Catholicke faith: which vnleſſe euerie one doe keepe entire and vnviolate, without doubt he ſhall periſh euerlaſtingly.
A. W.
If the ancient writers ſhould affirme a thing ſo vnreaſonable, there were good reaſon for a man to looke for ſome proofe of it, out of the Scriptures. But (no doubt) we ſhall finde your citations of their writings as much to the purpoſe, as we hauehave done your former arguments. The firſt you alleadge is Athanaſius in his Creed; to which I anſwer, that pSee my anſwer to 12. Art part. 1. art. 4.Athanaſius ſpeaks not of all points reuealed by God, but of thoſe ſubſtantiall matters, which are there ſet downe by him, and namely, of the Trinitie of perſons, and Godhead of our Sauiour Ieſus Chriſt. This appeares by the laſt verſe of the ſame Creed, where he thus concludeth: This is the Catholicke faith, which except a man beleeue faithfully, he cannot be ſaued. But Athan…ſiu… hath not comprehended all points of religion in that Creed, (for he leaueth out the buriall of our Sauiour Chriſt, vnleſſe you will ſay he put his going downe into hell for it,) neither doth he require, in that place any other point, as neceſſary to be beleeued to ſaluation, but thoſe onelyonly, that he there reciteth, which muſt be kept entire and vnuiolate of eueryevery man that will be ſaued.
A. D. §. 7.
Qui ſunt in ſacris literis eruditi, (ſaith Saint Baſil) ne vnam Teſte Theodoreto lib. 4. Eccleſ. hiſtor. cap. 17.quidem ſillabam diuinorum dogmatum prodi ſinunt: ſed pro iſtius defenſione, ſi opus eſt, nullum non mortis genus libenter amplectuntur. Thoſe that are well inſtructed in holy Writ, doe not ſuffer one ſillable of diuine doctrine to be betraied or yeelded vp: but for the defence thereof, if need be, doe willingly embrace any kinde of death.
A. W.
That of rBaſil apud Theodoret. hiſt. lib. 4. cap. 17.Baſil is leſſe to the purpoſe. For firſt, he ſaith nothing of any doctrine propounded by the Church, or of your vnwritten traditiōs, but only of the Scriptures. And how makes this for the beleeuing whatſoeuer the Church wil deliuer, without which, in your iudgement, faith cannot be one, or entire? Secondly, he ſpeakes not of all ignorant men, whoſe faith, vponupon paine of damnation, you will hauehave entire, concerning eueryevery point; but of thoſe onelyonly that are learned in the holy Scriptures, or at the moſt, ſo farre as they are learned in them. I aſtly, what ſaith he of theſe, but that which we alwaies require, that a chriſtian ſhould not ſuffer any ſillable of true doctrine to be betraied? This makes againſt you, who reſt wholly vponupon Popes and Councils, and by that meanes oftentimes betray the truth of God manifeſted in the Scripture; yea ſo farre are you from mainteining eueryevery ſillable of it, with hazard of your liues, that you doe what you can for ſhame, to deſtroy it all. ſAzorius Moral. inſtit. lib. 8 cap 26. § Quaeres.You Papiſts depriue the people of them altogether, at leaſt for their priuate reading; howſoeuer your Pope Pius 4. makes a ſhew of permitting it. You hauehave thruſt out the tConcil. Trid. ſeſſ 4. de edit. & vſu ſac. liter.Authenticall copies of Hebrew and Greeke, and, in ſteed of them authoriſed a corrupt Latine tranſlation, which no man may refuſe, vponupon any pretence; though it hauehave 8000 places (as uIſidorus Clarius praef. in Biblia.Iſidorus Clarius a great learned man of your owne affirmeth) in which, the ſenſe of the holy Ghoſt is changed: yea Cardinal xHoſius contr. Brent. prolegomHoſius bluſheth not to write: That it were better for the Church, if there were no written Goſpell extant. I omit your blaſphemies againſt the Scriptures, whereof I hauehave ſpoken otherwhere.
A. D. §. 8.
Nihil periculoſius (ſaith Nazianzen) his haereticis eſſe poteſt, qui cum integrè per omnia decurrant; vno tamen verbo, quaſi Greg. Nazian. tract. de Fid.veneni gutta, veram illam ac ſimplicem fidem dominicam inficiunt. Nothing can be more perilous then theſe heretickes, who, when they runne vprightly through all the reſt, yet with one word, as with a drop of poyſon, doe infect that true and ſincere faith of our Lord.
A. W.
What if yNazianzen. de Fide.Gregorie Nazianzen complaine, that heretickes which held moſt points ſoundly, according to truth, as Arius, Eutyches, Macedonius, Neſtorius, and diuers other did, were very pernitious to the Church, becauſe they did more eaſily and ſecretly poyſon the truth of doctrine by their hereſies? Will it follow hereupon, that therefore a man cannot be ſaued, vnleſſe he beleeue euerie point of truth reuealed by God? or that a man hath no faith, becauſe his beleefe agrees not in eueryevery ſmall matter with other Chriſtians? Remember I pray you, we denie not that faith ſhould be entire, but that it cannot be auaileable to ſaluation, if in any one point it misbeleeue. Thus hauehave I examined the firſt part of this your Treatiſe of Faith, which I know not how I ſhould apply to your maine ſyllogiſme, implied in your preface: when you ſhew the vſe of it in any part thereof, I will giuegive you anſwer accordingly.