Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

that language, to say the least, had as great a currency in the east as Latin ever had in the west. Nor do I conceive any thing a stronger evidence of an undue ascendant that one church had obtained over other churches, than that she had influence enough to make them either adopt at once a jargon they did not understand, or, which is worse, abandon their ancient versions, not for the sake of others more intelligible into the modern language of the people, but to make way for what was to them foreign, as well as unintelligible, being in the lan guage of the Romans.

[ocr errors]

I can make allowance for the prepossession, though unreasonable, that the present Armenians, Syrians, Copts, and Ethiopians, may retain, for books held venerable by their forefathers, though now no longer understood. For the same reason I can make allowance for the attachment of the people of Italy and its dependencies to the Latin vulgate and ritual, as Latin was once the language of their country. And though it arise in them all from a silly prejudice, which manifestly shows, that the form of religion has supplanted the power; yet I can easily, without recurring to authority or foreign influence, especially in the decline of all literature and science, account for it from the weakness incident to human nature. But totally different is the case of the northern regions, whose language Latin never was, and who, by the confession of Romish criticks, once had the scriptures and sacred offices in their native tongues. Their admitting this foreign dress in their re ligious service, and submitting to wear the livery, and babble the dialect of Rome, is the surest badge of their slavery, and of the triumph of Roman policy over the combined forces of reason and religion both. That the natural consequence of this practice would be to promote ignorance and superstition among the people, it would be a mispending of time to attempt to prove.

But would there not be some hazard, that those sage politi cians should overshoot the mark? Religion, the christian religion in particular, has always been understood to require faith in its principles; and faith in principles requires some degree of knowledge or apprehension of those principles. If total ignorance should prevail, how could men be said to believe that of which they knew nothing? The schoolmen have devised an excellent succedaneum to supply the place of real belief, which necessarily implies, that the thing believed is, in some sort, apprehended by the understanding. This succedaneum they have denominated implicit faith, an ingenious method of recon ciling things incompatible, to believe every thing, and to know nothing, not so much as the terms of the propositions which

[ocr errors]

we believe. When the sacred lessons of the gospel were no longer addressed to the understandings of the people; when, in all the publick service, they were put off with sound in stead of sense, when their eyes and ears were amused, but their minds left uninstructed; it was necessary that something should be substituted for faith, which always presupposes knowledge; nay, that it should be something which might still be called faith; for this name had been of so great renown, so long standing, and so universal use, that it was not judged safe entirely to dispossess it. Exactly such a something is implicit faith. The name is retained, whilst nobody is incommoded with the thing.

The terms implicit faith are used in two different senses. With us protestants, at least in this country, no more is commonly meant by them than the belief of a doctrine, into the truth of which we have made no inquiry, on the bare authority of some person or society declaring it to be true. But this always supposes, that one knows, or has some conception of the doctrine itself. All that is denoted by the term implicit in this acceptation is, that in lieu of evidence, one rests on the judgment of him or them by whom the tenet is affirmed. No ignorance is implied but of the proofs. But the implicit faith, recommended by the schoolmen is quite another thing, and is constituted thus; if you believe that all the religious principles, whatever they be, which are believed by such particular persons, are true; those persons who hold the principles are explicit believers, you are an implicit believer of all their principles. Nor is your belief the less efficacious, because you are ignorant, of the principles themselves. Perhaps you have never heard them mentioned, or have never enquired about them. For it does not hold here as in the faith whereof the apostle speaks, How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? In the presence of those profound doctors the shoolmen, the apostle would be found to be no other than an arrant novice. The transcendent excellency of implicit faith consists in this, that you have it then in the highest perfection, when, in regard to its object, you know nothing, and have even heard nothing at all. In brief, it is neither more nor less than being a believer by proxy. Scripture saith, "You "are saved through faith," and "without faith it is impossible ❝ to please God." Now implicit faith is a curious device for pleasing God, and being saved by the faith of others. It is, in fact, imputative faith, at least as extraordinary as the impu tative justice, which brought so much obloquy on some of the ireformers. It is as if I should call one an implicit mathematitian, who knows not a tittle of mathematicks, not even the de

finitions and axioms, but is convinced of the knowledge of some other person who is really, or whom he supposes to be an adept in that science.

[ocr errors]

"To believe implicitly," says Bona, "is to believe in ge "neral universally all that holy mother church believes; so as “to dissent from her in nothing, nor disbelieve any of her articles. And though it be convenient (licet opportunum sit "for all, not only to believe all the articles implicitly, but even some of them, since the coming of Christ, explicitly; yet it "is not necessary (non tamen est necessarium) for all, especial"ly the common people, to believe them all explicitly. It is • proper rather for those, who assume the office of teaching "and preaching, as they have the cure of souls." Further, to show the wonderful virtues and efficacy of such a faith, another of the doctors, Gabriel Byel, maintains, that, "if he "who implicitly believes the church, should think, misled by "natural reason, that the Father is greater than the Son, and "existed before him, or that the three persons are things lo

cally distant from one another, or the like, he is not a here"tick, nor sins, provided he do not defend this errour perti"naciously. For he believes what he does believe, because ❝he thinks that the church believes so, subjecting his opinion

to the faith of the church. For though his opinion be er❝roneous, his opinion is not his faith, nay, his faith, in contradiction to his opinions, is the faith of the church. What Mis still more, this implicit faith not only defends from heresy and sin, but even constitutes merit in heterodoxy itself, and preserves in that merit one who forms a most heterodox "opinion, because he thinks the church believes so." Thus far Byel. It is then of no consequence what a man's explicit faith be; he may be an Arian, a Socinian, an Anthropomor-phite, a Polytheist, in short, any thing, he cannot err, whilst he has an implicit faith in the church. This they give as their explanation of that article of the creed, "I believe in the holy catholick church;" though, agreeably to this interpretation, there should have been no other article in the creed. This point alone supersedes every other, and is the quintessence of all. Implicit faith has been sometimes ludicrously -styled fides carbonaria, from the noted story of one who, examining an ignorant collier on his religious principles, asked him what it was that he believed. He answered, "I believe "what the church believes." The other rejoined, "What "then does the church believe?" He replied readily, "The church believes what I believe." The other desirous, if possible, to bring him to particulars, once more resumes his inquiry; Tell me then, I pray you, what it is which you

[ocr errors]

1

"and the church both believe." The only answer the collier a could give was, "Why truly, Sir, the church and I both "believe the same thing." This is implicit faith in perfec tion, and in the estimation of some celebrated doctors, the sum of necessary and saving knowledge in a christian.

.

[ocr errors]

It is curious to consider the inferences, which they them selves deduce from this wonderful doctrine. A person, on first hearing them, would take them for the absurd conse quences objected by an adversary, with a view to expose the notion of implicit faith as absolutely nonsensical. But it is quite otherwise, they are deductions made by friends, who are very serious in supporting them. One of these is, that a man may believe two propositions perfectly contradictory at the same time, one explicitly, the other implicitly. Another is, that in such a case, the implicit (which, to a common un derstanding, appears to include no belief at all) not the explicit, is to be accounted his religious faith." It may be," says Gabriel," that one may believe implicitly a certain truth, and "explicitly believe the contrary." Put the case that a man believes, that whatever the church believes is true; at the same time disbelieving this proposition, Abraham had more wives than one, and believing the contrary, as thinking it the belief of the church; such a man implicitly believes this proposition, Abraham had two wives, because the church believes so, and explicitly he disbelieves it. Now the great virtue of implicit faith in the church lies here, that it saves a man from all possible danger, in consequence of any explicit erroneous opinions, and renders it, indeed, unnecessary in him to be solicitous to know whether his opinions be right or wrong, or thodox or heterodox. No wonder, then, that the utility of this simple principle is so highly celebrated by the schoolmen. "Hæc fides implicita, qua fidelis credit quicquid ecclesia cre"dit, utilissima est fideli. Nam si fuerit in corde, defendit “ab omni hæretica pravitate, ut dicit Occam in tractata de sa"cramentis, et post eum Gerson. Non enim aliquatenus ❝hæreticari valet, qui corde credit quicquid ecclesia catholica "credit, id est, qui credit illam veritatem, quicquid ecclesia "credit est verum.' And, indeed, its efficacy must be the same, as the reason is the same, in protecting from the consequences of every errour, even in the most fundamental points, as in protecting from what might ensue on that trifling errour, that Abraham had but one wife,

We must at least confess not only the consistency, but even the humanity of the Romish system, in this amazing method of simplifying all the necessary knowledge and faith of a christian. For surely, when the means of knowledge were,

in effect, put out of the reach of the people; when in publick they were tantalized with the mere parade of teaching, by having instructions chanted to them in an unknown tongue; when it was not the understanding, but the senses solely, which were employed in religious offices; when every thing rational and edifying was excluded from the service; it would have been unconscionable, worse than even the tyranny of Egyptian taskmasters, to require of the people any thing like real faith, which always pre-supposes some information given, and some knowledge acquired, of the subject. A merely nominal faith (and such entirely is this scholastick fiction of implicit faith) suited much better a merely mechanical service. In this manner the knowledge of God, which is declared in scripture to be more valuable than burnt offerings, and faith in him, and in the doctrine of revelation, are superseded to make room for an unbounded submission to, and confidence in men, to wit, those ghostly instructors, whom the populace must inva riably regard as the mouth of the unerring church.

I would not, however, be understood as signifying by what has been now advanced on the subject of implicit faith, that in this point all Romanists are perfectly agreed. What I have adduced is supported by great names among their doctors, and mostly quoted in their words. Nor was the doctrine, though every where publickly taught in their schools and in their writ ings, ever censured by either pope or council, ecumenical or provincial. But though all the Romish doctors pay great de ference, they do not all, I acknowledge, pay equal deference to implicit faith. Some seem to think it sufficient for every thing; others are curious in distinguishing what those articles are, whereof an explicit faith is requisite, and what those are, on the other hand, whereof an implicit faith will answer. But it is not necessary here to enter into their scholastick cavils.

So much shall suffice for the first expedient employed by superstition for the suppression of her deadly foe knowledge, which is, by perverting the rational service of religion into a mere amusement of the senses.

"

« ZurückWeiter »