On the division of faith into explicit and implicit; and whether the inevidence we ascribe to faith favors the blind and implicit faith of the Papists
Article V. On the division of faith into explicit and implicit; and whether the inevidence we ascribe to faith favors the blind and implicit faith of the Papists.
1. Theologians divide faith into explicit and implicit — Lombard's distinct and veiled or confused (Tilenus, Durandus, Thomas, Estius). Explicit faith believes something distinctly in itself and in particular. Implicit faith believes something not in itself but in another, as in a universal. Simpler Christians who grasp only what is absolutely necessary to salvation — articles, Decalogue, and the like — when they sincerely hold Scripture to be God's word and worthy of faith, believe that general object explicitly, and believe particular histories and dogmas of Scripture (Noah's three sons, Abraham's two, the scepter not taken from Judah before the Messiah) implicitly and by consequence in that general. Those who believe the whole Scripture true have implicit faith of all its histories, dogmas, and prophecies whose distinct knowledge they have not yet acquired.
2. May Reformed schools admit this division? First assertion: yes, if soundly conceived. Not only laypeople but the most learned theologians believe some things implicitly under the general that Scripture is God's word — things they have not yet distinctly understood. Daily progress in knowing Scripture shows not Scripture's obscurity (as Papists claim) but our mind's weakness and the immense wealth of heavenly mysteries poured little by little into the narrow vessel of the human mind.
3. Second assertion: taken as the Papists take it, the division is crude, absurd, and contrary to faith's nature. Their "implicit faith" is laypeople believing unknown dogmas under the general that whatever the Roman Church believes is true. That is human faith, not divine — resting on men's testimony, not God's; a light conjecture on a fragile foundation, not hypostasis or elenchos.
4. Does the inevidence Orthodox doctors ascribe to faith favor that blind Papist faith? That confused assent on Rome's testimony alone is most inevident — yet inevidence does not help them. It excludes only scientific knowledge (sense or evident reason from the thing's nature), not all knowledge. Certainty, faith's second condition, presupposes firm persuasion that what we assent to is God's word, not man's. That persuasion is opposed to Papist implicit faith; certainty cannot be found in it.
Latin
ART. V. De fidei divisione in explicitam, & implicitam; & an inevidentia, quam fidei tribuimus, faciat pro caeca & implicita Pontificiorum fide. 1. Theologi dividunt fidem in explicitam et implicitam, vel ut loquitur Lombardus, lib. 3. Sent. Dist. 25. in distinctam, & velatam seu confusam: hujus distinctionis explicationem legere possumus apud clarissimum Tilenum, parte prima Syntagmatis, Disp. 38. Thes.23. & 24. item apud Durandum, lib. 3. Sent. dist. 25. quaest. 1. S. Thomam, 2.2. q. 2. Art. 7. Guilielmum Estium, lib. 3. Sent. Dist.25. ex quibus authoribus descriptiones istius divisionis bene colligi possunt: fides explicita, est qua aliquid creditur secundum se distincte, & in particulari. Implicita vero, est qua aliquid creditur non in se, sed in alio, tanquam in universali; Exempli gratia, Christiani rudes & simpliciores (ut loquuntur) qui ea sola intelligunt, quae ad salutem absolute necessaria sunt, ut articulos fidei, decalogum, & caetera, cum ex animo profitentur se credere S. Scripturam esse DEI verbum, & proinde fide dignam, habent suae fidei objectum; unum generale, quod formaliter, explicite, & per se credunt: alterum particulare, quod implicite & ex consequenti credunt: objectum generale, quod explicite credunt, est Scripturam esse DEI verbum; & proinde fidem ei adhibendam esse: objecta particularia, quae implicite in illo generali & ex consequenti credunt, sunt historiae & dogmata Scripturae, quorum cognitionem nondum assecuti sunt, ut Noachum habuisse tres filios, Abrahamum duos, non ablatum esse sceptrum a Juda ante adventum Messiae: qui enim credunt Scripturam totam esse veram, illi implicite & ex consequenti credunt omnia esse vera quae in Scriptura continentur, hoc est, habent fidem implicitam omnium historiarum, dogmatum, & praedictionum Propheticarum, quae sunt in sacrae Scripturae volumine, omnium (inquam) quorum particularem & distinctam notitiam non acquisiverunt. 2. Quaeritur hic potest, an haec divisio fidei in explicitam & implicitam, in Scholis Ecclesiarum reformatarum ferenda sit; Respond. Duabus assertionibus: prior est haec; praedicta distinctio fidei admitti potest, si sano modo concipiatur: certum enim est non solum Laicos & simpliciores, sed etiam clarissimos & doctissimos Theologos quaedam implicite credere in isto generali quod Scriptura sit DEI verbum & proinde fide dignissima; quaedam (inquam) quorum distinctam intelligentiam nondum assecuti sunt: hoc enim patet ex quotidiano nostro in cognitione Scripturae progressu, qui tamen non arguit Scripturae ipsius obscuritatem (ut nugantur Pontificii) sed ingenii nostri imbecillitatem, & mysteriorum coelestium, quae in Scriptura passim traduntur, immensam opulentiam, quae sensim angusto illi vasi mentis humanae infunditur, non autem tota simul infundi potest. 3. Secunda assertio est haec; praedicta divisio fidei Christianae, si ita accipiatur ut a Pontificiis accipi solet, rejicienda est tanquam crassa, absurda, & naturae fidei prorsus contraria: illi enim per fidem implicitam intelligunt eam fidem qua laici ignota & nondum intellecta fidei dogmata credunt implicite in illo generali, quod vera sunt omnia quae Romana Ecclesia credit & pro veris amplectitur; quae quidem fides non est divina, sed humana; id est, non nititur DEI, sed hominum testimonio: non est hypostasis aut elenchos, sed levis & fallax conjectura, quae non DEI verbo, sed hominum judicio per se infirmo, atque adeo fragili admodum & ruinoso fundamento nititur. 4. Quaeritur etiam potest; an inevidentia quam non solum Theologi Sententiarii, sed etiam Orthodoxi Doctores fidei attribuunt, faciat pro caeca illa & implicita Pontificiorum fide: maximus enim & confusus ille assensus, qui solo Ecclesiae Romanae testimonio nititur (ut id quod res est dicam) maxime est inevidens. Respond. Inevidentiam nihil pro eorum sententia facere: quia inevidentia illa non excludit omnem notitiam, sed eam solam quae nititur medio scientifico; id est, sensu aut evidente ratione a natura rei petita. Secundo, quia certitudo, quae est secunda fidei conditio, necessario praesupponit firmam notitiam & persuasionem de doctrina, cui assentimur, quod non sit hominis sed DEI verbum: talis autem notitia aut persuasio implicitae Pontificiorum fidei velut e regione adversatur, ac proinde in ea certitudo inveniri non potest.
About this text
Robert Baron — Philosophia theologiae ancillans from the 1658 Oxford Latin. Exercitatio Prima Art. I-XII On Being and Essence; Exercitatio Secunda Art. I-XV On the origin of the soul and the propagation of sin. Later Exercitationes / remainder of 213 pp remain.
English follows locked 1658 Oxford Latin. Prima Art. I-XII from IA PDF leaves ~15-53. Secunda Art. I-XV from PDF leaves 56-107 / printed pp.54-105 (tess+pdftotext+DjVu). No modern English copied. Exercitatio Tertia+ remain.
Catalogue & scope
Wing B887. IA bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_philosophia-theologi-an_baron-robert_1658. Exercitatio Prima Art. I-XII; Exercitatio Secunda Art. I-XV (De origine animae & propagatione peccati). Not whole Philosophia (213 pp). Exercitatio Tertia+ remain.
Witnesses
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. I-II tip (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF tip-page extract of Art. I-II (Latin)
- Checked print IA DjVu OCR of the 1658 volume (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. III (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. III (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. IV (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. V (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. IV PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. V PDF pages (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. VI (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. VI PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. VI (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. VII (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. VII PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. VII (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. VIII (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. VIII PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. VIII (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. IX (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. IX PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. IX (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. X (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. X PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. X (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. XI (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. XI PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. XI (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Prima Art. XII (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Art. XII PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Art. XII (Latin)
- Copy-text Locked Latin, Exercitatio Secunda Art. I (Oxford 1658) (Latin)
- Checked print Tesseract OCR of Secunda Art. I PDF pages (Latin)
- Checked print IA Text PDF page extract of Secunda Art. I (Latin)
This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.