A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI.
Detect. 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 juglings.
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 perſwade us that whatſoever is matter of faith, is of Neceſſity to ſalvation to be believed, and thoſe are damnable Hereticks that deny them, and therefore we muſt not make any ſuch difference. See Knot againſt Chillingworth. Their deſign in this is to perſwade 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 Hereticks, and therefore have no place in General Councils, and are no parts of the Catholick Church. But let us conſider how judiciouſly they proceed.
1. We muſt deſire the Papiſts to tell us whether Chriſtianity be any thing or nothing? If any thing, 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 explicite belief? If they be, then there's no difference between Fathers and Babes, Strong and Weak, Prieſt and People; and then the Jeſuites 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 varyed 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, Fryers, 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 every one that uſeth milk is unskilful 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 mans 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 ſheweth 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 Gods 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 kickt 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 then 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 duplicate page duplicate page faith? Was it not the whole faith Eſſential to Chriſtianity which they confeſt? 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 every thing delivered or defined by any General Council, be of ſuch neceſſity to ſalvation, that all muſt explicitely 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 Implicite and Explicite 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 Gods 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 explicitely) 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 explicitely believe, and the reſt. And Suarez in three parts. Thom. Diſp. 43. Sect. 4. faith of the Article of Chriſts deſcending into Hell [If by an Article of faith we underſtand a truth which all the faithfull are bound explicitely 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'l ſay, that though all that is de fide, be not neceſſary to be believed explicitely by all, yet implicitely it muſt. I Anſ. 1. that which you call Implicite 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 Implicite faith as well as you: But it is an Implicite Divine faith, and not humane: 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.
Object. 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 denyed 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 mans 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 Catholick Church Repreſentative at the Councill 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 Laterane (another Repreſentative Catholick 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 Catholick Church repreſentative was in a damnable ſtate? If the ſecond Council at Nice maintain the corpercity 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.
Object. 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 Gods veracity, and the Truth of all that he Revealeth in general, is of neceſſity: and he that Believeth that God is True (verax) cannot chuſe but believe all to be True which he knows God revealeth. He that thinketh God to be a Lyar, 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 Lyar, 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 Gods 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 your ſelves 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 wilfull refuſing the Light, becauſe men love darkneſs rather then 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 veniall 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 threatning 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 remedyed 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 veniall 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 meer ſin directly, but as ſuch a ſin as is the violation or non-performance of that condition. But it is not a belief of every thing that is preceptively de fide, which is made the condition of life.