Thomas Hobbes · Complete work
Religion, Chapter XVIII, 3
Religion, Chapter XVIII, 3 of 46. Read it here for reference, or continue through the entire work without leaving the reader.
Open the complete readerOriginal 17th-century English
12 Faith and obedience have divers parts in accomplishing the salvation of a Christian; for this contributes the power or capacity, that the act; and either is said to justify in its kind. For Christ forgives not the sins of all men, but of the penitent or the obedient, that is to say, the just. I say not the guiltless, but the just; for justice is a will of obeying the laws, and may be consistent with a sinner; and with Christ, the will to obey is obedience. For not every man, but the just shall live by faith. Obedience therefore justifies, because it maketh just; in the same manner as temperance maketh temperate, prudence prudent, chastity chaste; namely, essentially; and puts a man in such a state, as makes him capable of pardon. Again, Christ hath not promised forgiveness of sins to all just men; but only those of them who believe him to be the Christ. Faith therefore justifies in such a sense as a judge may be said to justify, who absolves, namely, by the sentence which actually saves a man; and in this acception of justification (for it is an equivocal term) faith alone justifies; but in the other, obedience only. But neither obedience alone, nor faith alone, do save us; but both together.
In a Christian city there is no contrariety between the command of God, and of the city.
13 By what hath been said hitherto, it will be easy to discern what the duty of Christian subjects is towards their sovereigns; who, as long as they profess themselves Christians, cannot command their subjects to deny Christ, or to offer him any contumely: for if they should command this, they would profess themselves to be no Christians. For seeing we have showed, both by natural reason and out of holy Scriptures, that subjects ought in all things to obey their princes and governors, excepting those which are contrary to the command of God; and that the commands of God, in a Christian city, concerning temporal affairs, that is to say, those which are to be discussed by human reason, are the laws and sentence of the city, delivered from those who have received authority from the city to make laws and judge of controversies; but concerning spiritual matters, that is to say, those which are to be defined by the holy Scripture, are the laws and sentences of the city, that is to say, the Church, (for a Christian city and a Church, as hath been showed in the foregoing chapter, art. 10, are the same thing), delivered by pastors lawfully ordained, and who have to that end authority given them by the city; it manifestly follows, that in a Christian commonweal obedience is due to the sovereign in all things, as well spiritual as temporal. And that the same obedience, even from a Christian subject, is due in all temporal matters to those princes who are no Christians, is without any controversy; but in matters spiritual, that is to say, those things which concern God’s worship, some Christian Church is to be followed. For it is an hypothesis of the Christian faith, that God speaks not in things supernatural but by the way of Christian interpreters of holy Scriptures. But what? Must we resist princes, when we cannot obey them? Truly, no; for this is contrary to our civil covenant. What must we do then? Go to Christ by martyrdom; which if it seem to any man to be a hard saying, most certain it is that he believes not with his whole heart, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; for he would then desire to be dissolved, and to be with Christ; but he would by a feigned Christian faith elude that obedience, which he hath contracted to yield unto the city.
The doctrines which this day are controverted about religion, do for the most part belong to the right of dominion.
14 But some men perhaps will wonder, if (excepting this one article, that Jesus is the Christ, which only is necessary to salvation in relation to internal faith) all the rest belong to obedience; which may be performed, although a man do not inwardly believe, so he do but desire to believe, and make an outward profession, as oft as need requires, of whatsoever is propounded by the Church; how it comes about that there are so many tenets, which are all held so to concern our faith, that except a man do inwardly believe them, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. But if he consider that, in most controversies, the contention is about human sovereignty; in some, matter of gain and profit; in others, the glory of wits: he will surely wonder the less. The question about the propriety of the Church, is a question about the right of sovereignty. For it being known what a Church is, it is known at once to whom the rule over ChristiansChristians doth belong. For if every Christian city be that Church, which Christ himself hath commanded every Christian, subject to that city, to hear; then every subject is bound to obey his city, that is to say, him or them who have the supreme power, not only in temporal, but also in spiritual matters. But if every Christian city be not that Church, then is there some other Church more universal, which must be obeyed. All Christians therefore must obey that Church, just as they would obey Christ, if he came upon earth. It will therefore rule either by the way of monarchy, or by some assembly. This question then concerns the right of ruling. To the same end belongs the question concerning infallibility. For whosoever were truly and internally believed by all mankind, that he could not err, would be sure of all dominion, as well temporal as spiritual, over all mankind, unless himself would refuse it. For if he say that he must be obeyed in temporals, because it is supposed he cannot err, that right of dominion is immediately granted him. Hither also tends the privilege of interpreting Scriptures. For he to whom it belongs to interpret the controversies arising from the divers interpretations of Scriptures, hath authority also simply and absolutely to determine all manner of controversies whatsoever. But he who hath this, hath also the command over all men who acknowledge the Scriptures to be the word of God. To this end drive all the disputes about the power of remitting and retaining sins; or the authority of excommunication. For every man, if he be in his wits, will in all things yield that man an absolute obedience, by virtue of whose sentence he believes himself to be either saved or damned. Hither also tends the power of instituting societies. For they depend on him by whom they subsist, who hath as many subjects as monks, although living in an enemy’s city. To this end also refers the question concerning the judge of lawful matrimony. For he to whom that judicature belongs, to him also pertains the knowledge of all those cases which concern the inheritance and succession of all the goods and rights, not of private men only, but also of sovereign princes. And hither also in some respect tends the virgin life of ecclesiastical persons; for unmarried men have less coherence than others with civil society. And besides, it is an inconvenience not to be slighted, that princes must either necessarily forego the priesthood, which is a great bond of civil obedience; or have no hereditary kingdom. To this end also tends the canonization of saints, which the heathen called apotheosis. For he that can allure foreign subjects with so great a reward, may bring those who are greedy of such glory, to dare and do anything. For what was it but an honourable name with posterity, which the Decii and other Romans sought after; and a thousand others, who cast themselves upon incredible perils? The controversies about purgatory, and indulgences, are matter of gain. The questions of free-will, justification, and the manner of receiving Christ in the sacrament, are philosophical. There are also questions concerning some rites not introduced, but left in the Church not sufficiently purged from Gentilism. But we need reckon no more. All the world knows that such is the nature of men, that dissenting in questions which concern their power, or profit, or pre-eminence of wit, they slander and curse each other. It is not therefore to be wondered at, if almost all tenets, after men grew hot with disputings, are held forth by some or other to be necessary to salvation and for our entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Insomuch as they who hold them not, are not only condemned as guilty of disobedience; which in truth they are, after the Church hath once defined them; but of infidelity: which I have declared above to be wrong, out of many evident places of Scripture. To which I add this one of Saint Paul’s (Rom. xiv. 3, 5): Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
21 I say, that to a Christian.] Although I conceive this assertion to be sufficiently proved by the following reasons, yet I thought it worth my labour to make a more ample explication of it; because I perceive that being somewhat new, it may possibly be distasteful to many divines. First therefore, when I say this article, that Jesus is the Christ, is necessary to salvation; I say not that faith only is necessary, but I require justice also, or that obedience which is due to the laws of God; that is to say, a will to live righteously. Secondly, I deny not but the profession of many articles, provided that that profession be commanded by the Church, is also necessary to salvation. But seeing faith is internal, profession external, I say that the former only is properly faith; the latter a part of obedience; insomuch as that article alone sufficeth for inward belief, but is not sufficient for the outward profession of a Christian. Lastly, even as if I had said that true and inward repentance of sins was only necessary to salvation, yet were it not to be held for a paradox; because we suppose justice, obedience, and a mind reformed in all manner of virtues to be contained in it. So when I say that the faith of one article is sufficient to salvation, it may well be less wondered at; seeing that in it so many other articles are contained. For these words, Jesus is the Christ, do signify that Jesus was that person, whom God had promised by his prophets should come into the world to establish his kingdom; that is to say, that Jesus is the Son of God, the creator of heaven and earth, born of a virgin, dying for the sins of them who should believe in him; that he was Christ, that is to say, a king; that he revived (for else he were not like to reign) to judge the world, and to reward every one according to his works (for otherwise he cannot be a king); also that men shall rise again, for otherwise they are not like to come to judgment. The whole symbol of the apostles is therefore contained in this one article. Which, notwithstanding, I thought reasonable to contract thus; because I found that many men for this alone, without the rest, were admitted into the kingdom of God, both by Christ and his apostles; as the thief on the cross, the eunuch baptized by Philip, the two thousand men converted to the Church at once by St. Peter. But if any man be displeased that I do not judge all those eternally damned, who do not inwardly assent to every article defined by the Church, and yet do not contradict, but, if they be commanded, do submit: I know not what I shall say to them. For the most evident testimonies of Holy Writ, which do follow, do withhold me from altering my opinion.
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from Hobbes’s own 1651 English version of De Cive, complete (epistle, preface, eighteen chapters with annotations; Molesworth’s 1841 text) for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity. Molesworth’s index is omitted.
12 Faith and obedience play different parts in bringing about a Christian’s salvation: obedience supplies the power or capacity, faith the act, and each is said to justify in its own way. For Christ forgives the sins not of everyone but of the penitent or obedient, that is, the just. I say not the guiltless but the just, for justice is a will to obey the laws and can coexist with sin; in Christ’s sight the will to obey is obedience. For not everyone, but the just shall live by faith. Obedience therefore justifies because it makes a person just, just as temperance makes one temperate, prudence prudent, and chastity chaste: it does so essentially, placing a person in a condition capable of receiving pardon. Yet Christ has not promised forgiveness of sins to all just people, only to those among them who believe him to be the Christ. Faith therefore justifies in the sense in which a judge who acquits may be said to justify: by a sentence that actually saves someone. In this sense of justification—for the term has two meanings—faith alone justifies; in the other sense, obedience alone does. But neither obedience alone nor faith alone saves us: both must act together.
In a Christian city there is no conflict between the command of God and that of the city.
13 From what has been said so far, it will be easy to discern the duty of Christian subjects toward their sovereigns. As long as sovereigns profess themselves Christians, they cannot command their subjects to deny Christ or insult him; if they did, they would profess themselves to be no Christians. For we have shown, both by natural reason and by holy Scripture, that subjects must obey their princes and governors in all things except those contrary to God’s command. We have also shown that, in a Christian city, God’s commands concerning temporal affairs—that is, matters to be discussed by human reason—are the laws and judgments of the city, delivered by those empowered by the city to make laws and decide controversies; and that his commands concerning spiritual matters—that is, matters to be determined by holy Scripture—are the laws and judgments of the city, that is, of the Church (for a Christian city and a Church are the same thing, as shown in the preceding chapter, art. 10), delivered by lawfully ordained pastors empowered for that purpose by the city. It follows plainly that in a Christian commonwealth obedience is owed to the sovereign in all matters, spiritual as well as temporal. It is equally beyond dispute that even a Christian subject owes the same obedience in all temporal matters to non-Christian princes. But in spiritual matters, that is, those concerning the worship of God, some Christian Church must be followed. For it is an assumption of Christian faith that God speaks on supernatural matters only through Christian interpreters of holy Scripture. What, then? Must we resist princes when we cannot obey them? Certainly not, for that would violate our civil covenant. What must we do instead? Go to Christ through martyrdom. If anyone finds that saying hard, it is quite certain that he does not believe with his whole heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. If he did, he would long to depart and be with Christ. Instead, under a feigned Christian faith, he would evade the obedience he has covenanted to render to the city.
The doctrines disputed today in religion concern, for the most part, the right of dominion.
14 Some may perhaps wonder at the claim that, apart from this one article—that Jesus is the Christ—which alone is necessary for salvation as a matter of inward faith, all the rest belong to obedience. That obedience can be performed even without inward belief, provided a person desires to believe and outwardly professes, whenever required, whatever the Church sets forth. Why, then, are there so many tenets held to be so essential to our faith that a person cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without believing them inwardly? But if one considers that most controversies concern human sovereignty, some concern gain and profit, and others the glory of intellect, one will be less surprised. The question of the Church’s proper identity is a question about the right of sovereignty. Once it is known what a Church is, it is known at once who has the right to govern Christians. If every Christian city is the Church that Christ himself commanded every Christian subject to that city to hear, then every subject must obey his city—that is, whoever holds supreme power there—in spiritual as well as temporal matters. But if not every Christian city is that Church, then some other, more universal Church exists and must be obeyed. All Christians must therefore obey that Church just as they would obey Christ if he came to earth. It will accordingly rule either as a monarchy or as an assembly. Thus the question concerns the right to rule. The question of infallibility serves the same end. Whoever was truly believed inwardly by all humankind to be incapable of error would assuredly have dominion over all humankind, temporal as well as spiritual, unless he himself declined it. For if he said that he must be obeyed in temporal matters because he is supposed incapable of error, that right of dominion would immediately be granted him. The privilege of interpreting Scripture tends the same way. Whoever has the right to settle controversies arising from differing interpretations of Scripture also has authority, simply and absolutely, to settle controversies of every kind. Whoever possesses this authority also commands everyone who acknowledges the Scriptures as God’s word. To the same end tend all disputes over the power to remit and retain sins, or the authority to excommunicate. For anyone in his right mind will give absolute obedience in all things to a person whose judgment he believes can save or damn him. The power to establish religious societies tends the same way. Their members depend on the person who sustains them, and he has as many subjects as there are monks, even if they live in an enemy city. So too does the question of who judges the lawfulness of marriages. Whoever has that jurisdiction also has knowledge of all cases concerning inheritance and succession to the goods and rights not only of private persons but of sovereign princes. The celibacy of ecclesiastical persons also tends in some measure to this end, for unmarried men have weaker ties to civil society than others. There is besides a substantial disadvantage: princes must either give up the priesthood, a great bond of civil obedience, or forgo a hereditary kingdom. The canonization of saints, which the heathen called apotheosis, tends to the same end. Whoever can entice foreign subjects with so great a reward may induce those hungry for such glory to dare and do anything. For what did the Decii and other Romans seek, along with a thousand others who exposed themselves to incredible dangers, but an honorable name among posterity? Controversies over purgatory and indulgences concern gain. Questions about free will, justification, and the manner of receiving Christ in the sacrament are philosophical. There are also questions concerning certain rites not newly introduced but left in a Church not sufficiently purged of paganism. But we need list no more. Everyone knows that such is human nature that, when people disagree over questions touching their power, profit, or intellectual preeminence, they slander and curse one another. No wonder, then, that after disputants have grown heated, someone claims almost every tenet to be necessary for salvation and entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Those who do not hold such tenets are consequently condemned not only for disobedience—which they truly are guilty of once the Church has defined them—but for lack of faith. I have shown above, from many clear passages of Scripture, that this is wrong. To these I add one passage from Saint Paul (Rom. xiv. 3, 5): “Let not the one who eats despise the one who does not eat, and let not the one who does not eat judge the one who eats, for God has received him. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
21 I say that for a Christian.] Though I believe the following reasons prove this assertion sufficiently, I thought it worth explaining more fully, since I perceive that, being somewhat new, it may displease many divines. First, when I say that this article, that Jesus is the Christ, is necessary for salvation, I do not say that faith alone is necessary. I also require justice, or that obedience owed to God’s laws: a will to live righteously. Secondly, I do not deny that the profession of many articles, provided the Church commands that profession, is also necessary for salvation. But since faith is inward and profession outward, I say that only the former is properly faith; the latter is part of obedience. Thus this one article suffices for inward belief but not for a Christian’s outward profession. Lastly, if I had said that true and inward repentance of sins alone was necessary for salvation, it would not be taken as a paradox, since we suppose that justice, obedience, and a mind reformed in every virtue are contained in repentance. It should be even less surprising when I say that faith in one article suffices for salvation, since so many other articles are contained within it. For the words “Jesus is the Christ” signify that Jesus was the person whom God had promised through his prophets would come into the world to establish his kingdom: that is, that Jesus is the Son of God, the creator of heaven and earth, born of a virgin, dying for the sins of those who would believe in him; that he was Christ, that is, a king; that he rose again (for otherwise he would not be able to reign) to judge the world and reward each person according to their works (for otherwise he cannot be a king); and that people will rise again, for otherwise they could not come to judgment. The entire Apostles’ Creed is thus contained in this one article. Nevertheless I considered it reasonable to condense it in this way, because I found that many were admitted into the kingdom of God by Christ and his apostles on the strength of this article alone, without the rest: the thief on the cross, the eunuch baptized by Philip, and the two thousand men converted to the Church at once by St. Peter. But if anyone is displeased that I do not judge eternally damned all those who do not inwardly assent to every article defined by the Church, yet do not contradict them and submit when commanded, I do not know what to say to them. For the clearest testimonies of Holy Writ, which follow, prevent me from changing my opinion.
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from Hobbes’s own 1651 English version of De Cive, complete (epistle, preface, eighteen chapters with annotations; Molesworth’s 1841 text). Molesworth’s index is omitted.
12 Faith and obedience play different parts in bringing about a Christian’s salvation. Obedience gives someone the capacity to receive it, while faith brings salvation about. Each can be said to justify in its own way. Christ does not forgive everyone’s sins. He forgives the repentant, or the obedient—that is, the just. I do not say they are innocent, but just. Justice is a willingness to obey the laws, and a sinner can have it. For Christ, willingness to obey counts as obedience. Not everyone, but the just, shall live by faith. Obedience therefore justifies because it makes a person just, just as temperance makes someone temperate, prudence prudent, and chastity chaste. It does so by its very nature. It puts someone in a position to receive forgiveness. Christ, however, has not promised forgiveness to all just people, but only to those among them who believe he is the Christ. Faith therefore justifies in the way a judge can be said to justify by acquitting someone: through a judgment that actually saves the person. In this meaning of “justification”—the word has more than one meaning—faith alone justifies. In the other meaning, obedience alone does. But neither obedience alone nor faith alone saves us; they must go together.
In a Christian city, the commands of God and the city do not conflict.
13 What I have said makes it easy to see the duty Christian subjects owe their sovereigns. As long as sovereigns profess to be Christians, they cannot order their subjects to deny Christ or insult him. If they did, they would declare themselves non-Christians. We have shown by both natural reason and holy Scripture that subjects must obey their princes and governors in everything except what conflicts with God’s command. We have also shown what God’s commands are in a Christian city. For temporal matters, which human reason can decide, they are the city’s laws and judgments, issued by people whom the city has authorized to make laws and decide disputes. For spiritual matters, which must be decided by holy Scripture, they are the laws and judgments of the city—that is, the Church, since, as shown in art. 10 of the preceding chapter, a Christian city and a Church are the same thing. These are delivered by lawfully ordained pastors whom the city has authorized for that purpose. It clearly follows that in a Christian commonwealth, subjects owe the sovereign obedience in all matters, spiritual as well as temporal. There is also no dispute that Christian subjects owe non-Christian princes the same obedience in all temporal matters. But in spiritual matters, meaning matters of worshiping God, they must follow some Christian Church. Christian faith assumes that on supernatural matters God speaks only through Christian interpreters of holy Scripture. But must we resist princes when we cannot obey them? Certainly not. That would violate our civil covenant. What should we do instead? Go to Christ through martyrdom. If anyone finds this a hard saying, that person certainly does not believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. Such a believer would long to depart this life and be with Christ. Instead, that person uses a false Christian faith to evade the obedience promised to the city.
The doctrines debated about religion today mostly concern the right to rule.
14 Some people may wonder about the following claim. Apart from the one article that Jesus is the Christ, the only article necessary for salvation as a matter of inward faith, everything else belongs to obedience. Obedience can be given without inward belief, provided someone wants to believe and outwardly professes whatever the Church proposes whenever required. Why, then, are there so many doctrines thought so essential to faith that someone who does not inwardly believe them is said to be unable to enter the kingdom of heaven? The answer will be less surprising if they consider that most disputes concern human sovereignty, some concern gain and profit, and others concern the prestige of being clever. The question of who properly constitutes the Church is a question about the right to rule. Once we know what a Church is, we immediately know who has authority over Christians. If every Christian city is the Church that Christ himself commanded each Christian subject of that city to hear, then every subject must obey the city—that is, whoever holds supreme power—in spiritual matters as well as temporal ones. But if a Christian city is not that Church, some other, more universal Church must be obeyed. All Christians must then obey that Church just as they would obey Christ if he came to earth. It will rule either as a monarchy or through an assembly. So this question is about who has the right to rule. The question of infallibility has the same purpose. If everyone truly believed in their hearts that someone could not make mistakes, that person would certainly have complete rule over everyone, temporal and spiritual, unless the person declined it. If the person said they must be obeyed in temporal matters because they supposedly cannot err, people would immediately grant that authority. The privilege of interpreting Scripture also leads to this result. Whoever has the right to settle disputes arising from different interpretations of Scripture also has the authority to settle absolutely every kind of dispute. Whoever has that authority also commands all who recognize Scripture as God’s word. Disputes over the power to forgive or retain sins, or the authority to excommunicate, aim at the same result. Everyone in their right mind will obey absolutely the person whose judgment they believe will save or damn them. The power to establish societies has the same aim. Their members depend on the person who sustains them, who thus has as many subjects as there are monks, even monks living in a hostile city. The question of who judges the validity of marriage also concerns this aim. Whoever has that jurisdiction also decides every case concerning inheritance and succession to the property and rights not only of private individuals but of sovereign princes. The celibacy of clergy also has something to do with this, since unmarried people have weaker ties to civil society. There is another serious difficulty: princes must either give up the priesthood, a strong support for civil obedience, or give up hereditary kingship. Canonizing saints, which the pagans called apotheosis, serves the same aim. Someone who can attract the subjects of foreign rulers with such a great reward can persuade those eager for that honor to dare and do anything. What did the Decii and other Romans seek, along with a thousand others who faced incredible dangers, if not an honored name among later generations? Disputes about purgatory and indulgences concern profit. Questions about free will, justification, and how Christ is received in the sacrament are philosophical. There are also questions about certain rites that were not newly introduced but remained in a Church not thoroughly cleansed of pagan practices. We need not list any more. Everyone knows what people are like. When they disagree over power, profit, or intellectual prestige, they slander and curse each other. It is no surprise, then, that once disputes became heated, someone or other presented almost every doctrine as necessary for salvation and entry into heaven’s kingdom. Those who do not hold such doctrines are condemned not only for disobedience—which they really are guilty of once the Church has defined the doctrines—but also for lack of faith. As I showed above from many clear passages of Scripture, that second charge is wrong. I add this passage from Saint Paul (Rom. xiv. 3, 5): “Let the person who eats not despise the one who does not eat, and let the person who does not eat not judge the one who eats, for God has accepted that person. One person considers one day more important than another; another considers every day alike. Each person should be fully convinced in their own mind.”
21 I say, “a Christian.” Although I believe the following reasons prove this claim well enough, I thought it worthwhile to explain it more fully. I realize it is somewhat new and may trouble many theologians. First, when I say that the article “Jesus is the Christ” is necessary for salvation, I do not say that faith alone is necessary. I require justice too: the obedience owed to God’s laws, meaning the will to live rightly. Second, I do not deny that professing many articles may also be necessary for salvation if the Church commands that profession. But faith is inward and profession outward. I say only the former is properly faith. The latter is part of obedience. Thus the single article is enough for inward belief but not enough for a Christian’s outward profession. Finally, suppose I had said that genuine inward repentance of sins was all that salvation required. This would not be considered strange, because we assume repentance includes justice, obedience, and a mind reformed in every virtue. It should be less surprising, then, when I say that faith in one article suffices for salvation, since it includes so many other articles. The words “Jesus is the Christ” mean that Jesus is the person God promised through his prophets would come into the world to establish his kingdom. In other words, Jesus is the Son of God, the creator of heaven and earth; he was born of a virgin and died for the sins of those who would believe in him. He was the Christ, meaning a king. He rose again (otherwise he could not reign) to judge the world and reward each person according to their works (otherwise he could not be a king). People will also rise again, since otherwise they could not come before him for judgment. Thus the whole apostles’ creed is included in this one article. Still, I thought it reasonable to state it so briefly, because I found that Christ and his apostles admitted many people to God’s kingdom on the basis of this article alone, without the rest: the thief on the cross, the eunuch Philip baptized, and the two thousand people St. Peter converted to the Church at once. If anyone is unhappy that I do not consider all people eternally damned who fail to assent inwardly to every article defined by the Church, although they do not contradict them and submit when commanded, I do not know what to say to them. The very clear testimony of holy Scripture that follows prevents me from changing my view.