Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus

Faith exacts from us the duty of the heart and of the tongue, as D. August. says lib. de fide, et Symb. cap. 1. I have already treated of the Acts of the heart; now of the Confession of faith.

But it is certain concerning the faith that there exists a divine precept against denying the faith. So D. Bonaventure ad 9. Lucae, which he proves from there: Whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words: of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his Majesty. There follow D. Thom. quaest. 3. art. 1., Valencia quaest. 3. p. 2., Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 3. So the Councils teach: Nicaenum can. 11. et 12., Ancyr. almost entirely, and Elibert. can. 1. et 2., where they testify that innumerable Martyrs underwent torments and deaths on account of the confession of the faith, which we are bound rather to undergo than to deny the faith. Therefore it is said Matth. 10. Whoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father. Fear not those who kill the body, as the Holy Doctor notes in 3. dist. 39. art. 3. quaest. 2. et sermone 18. de pluribus Martyribus. See Valencia quaest. 3. p. 1., Fagundez cap. 3., Tanner disp. 1. quaest. 7. dub. 5., Fuliensis lib. 3. cap. 5.

Observe that some acts of a virtue are produced by the habit itself, and are physical, and in this way only the internal acts are acts of FAITH; for they are produced by the same habit, of which this is the sign, that they reside in the same potency in which the habit is. Secondly, some are acts of the virtue only morally, because they have praise on account of the formal object of the Virtue, and are ordered to it as to their end; and in this way even the external confession of faith is an act of the virtue of faith. It is proved: for it is ordered to the same end and the same object, as is had in 2. Corinth. 4. Having the same spirit of faith, we believe, for which cause we also speak. Hence it can be said that the Confession of faith pertains to various virtues; for instance to Religion, insofar as it begets honor for God: and to fortitude, insofar as on account of imminent peril it can be arduous, as the Holy Doctor teaches de Dono fortitudinis.

The Confession of FAITH therefore binds in two cases. First, when the worship due to God would otherwise be withheld. Secondly, if a grave spiritual benefit would be withheld from the people.

It is proved by D. Thom. ad primum. The act of some Virtue is necessary then, when it is necessary for the end of charity toward God or neighbor. But in those two cases the confession of faith is necessary for the end of charity. Therefore. The major is proved, for the end of every virtue is ordered to charity. The minor is proved; for, when one can attend to the honor of God or the salvation of his neighbor, and does not wish to, he is not judged to provide for charity. Add the times assigned by the Council of Trent for the profession of faith. See Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 4., Bassaeum verb. fides 2. num. 5.

The first question therefore is: Whether in some case one can deny that he is a believer. But this can be denied in two ways. First, lest it be believed that he is a Christian or Catholic by those who understand by that name some wicked and odious nation; and in this sense it is not a sin to deny that one is a Catholic or Christian, by which someone of such a wicked nation is understood. Valencia brings examples: see him. But in the second way, to deny oneself a Christian to one who understands rightly, is not licit. So commonly all the Doctors with D. Bonaventure 3. dist. 25. et p. 6., Breuil. cap. 8., D. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 3. art. 2., where Cajetanus, Aragon. and other Thomists; Azor lib. 8. cap. 27., Suarez disp. 4. sect. 1., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 5., Becanus p. 2. cap. 9. n. 30. and others, cited by Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 3., Tanner. loc. cit.

It is proved from the Holy Doctor in the places cited, and ad 22. Lucae, et 19. Ioannis from the fault of Peter, who denied Christ out of fear of death, and sinned gravely, as the Fathers confess, especially those cited by him, Chrysost. homil. 82., August. tract. 113., Gregory homil. 21. in Evangelia.

Next it is doubted: Whether one who is questioned about the faith by a Tyrant out of hatred for it can keep silence or change the subject.

D. Thom. quaest. 2. art. 2. denies it, as often as by that silence or answer he could be judged not to have the faith. Others follow him. The foundation is taken from the chapter Nolite timere 11. quaest. 3. It seems D. Bonaventure holds it ad 12. Lucae on those words: Be not terrified by those who kill the body. And he brings 1. Machab. 2. for it: Fear not the words of a sinful man. Take courage, and act manfully in the Law.

Others say he can keep silence or change the subject. So Aragon. quaest. 3. art. 2., Roder. cap. 119. Summae.

Others bring forward that one is bound to confess clearly, if he be a grave person, such as a Bishop or Doctor. So Valencia disp. 1. quaest. 3., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 4.

Others say one is bound, if he is questioned publicly by a Tyrant. So Valencia loc. cit., Azor. cap. 27. quaestio 1., Tanner. num. 120., Aragon. quaest. 3. art. 2., Bannes q. 3. art. 2. et others cited by Fagundez cap. 5. The reason is; because then honor is detracted from God, if you do not confess. This the Holy Doctor seems to hint serm. 18. Martyrum. Accinit Fuliens.

It is asked thirdly. Whether through feigned external acts of a false religion it is licit to conceal the true faith, for instance by bending the knee to an Idol.

ADRIANUS in 4. Tract. de Baptismo, quaest. 1. art. 1. ad 5. says it is licit when a most grave cause urges. He brings D. Hieronymum 2. ad Galat. et epist. 89. ad August., where he teaches that the Apostles by cautious simulation exercised the ceremonies of the Law, now deadly.

It is PROVED first from 1. Reg. 5., where Naaman petitioned Eliseus: But this only is that for which you shall beseech the Lord for your servant, when my master goes into the temple of Remmon to adore, and he leans upon my hand: if I adore in the temple of Remmon, when he adores in the same place, that the Lord may forgive your servant for this thing, to which Eliseus answered: Go in peace, signifying that it was licit.

SECONDLY from 4. Reg. 10. the example of Jehu, who feigned that he wished to sacrifice to Baal, that he might draw the priests of Baal into the snare, and he seems to be praised by God: Diligently you did what was right, and pleased in my eyes. This example D. Bonaventure brought 3. dist. 38. quaest. 1. ad 3., where he says that the simulation of Jehu, feigning that he wished to adore Baal, is not a lie, but a simulation of prudence. On account of these words some draw the Seraphic Doctor to the opinion of Adrian. But the Holy Doctor does not exempt Jehu from sin against faith.

The true opinion therefore is, that it is not licit: So it seems to D. Bonaventure 4. dist. 33. dub. 8. litt. et loc. cit. Brevil. and D. Thom. quaest. 3. art. 2., where Cajetanus, Valencia quaest. 3. p. 2. dub. 4. and other Interpreters, Ales. 3. p. quaest. 183. membr. 2., D. Antonin. 2. p. tit. 22. cap. 6., Sylvest. verb. fides, quaest. 5., Armil. ibi num. 9., Ang. verbo Infidelitas, num. 8, Nauar. cap. 11. num. 23., Toletus lib. 4. summae, cap. 2., Vasquez disp. 182. cap. 5., Suarez de fide disp 14. sect. 4. et lib. 9. de leg. cap. 17. et in defensione fidei, lib. 6. cap. 9., Becanus 2. p. summae, cap. 9. quaest. 5., and others commonly, Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 6., Caspens. disp. 3. sect. 7. num. 61., Tanner. quaest. 7. disp. 5., Morand. quest. 11., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 4. num. 14., who condemn the opposing opinion as error. And because they involve the Seraphic Doctor in it, I shall bring other passages in which he holds this second opinion absolutely. The first is prima parte Centil. sect. 26., where he wills that idolatry is committed absolutely by genuflecting, or evaporating incense to an Idol. The same he teaches ad caput 15. Sap. on these words: They are worthy of death who hope in such things.

It is proved first from that 1. Cor. 10. I would not have you become partakers of demons: you cannot drink the chalice of the Lord and the chalice of demons. The same is gathered from chapter 10.

It is proved by the reasoning of D. Bonaventure, because external worship contains superstitious worship intrinsically, because it was instituted for religious use.

To D. Hieronymus it is answered, that those ceremonies were for the worship of the true God, and were not yet declared harmful. See Tract. de Legibus, disput. penultima.

To the example of Jehu it is answered with D. Bonaventure loc. cit., D. August. lib. cont. Mendacium, and D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 3. art. 1., that Jehu is not excused from lying, or from the simulation of religion. Therefore he is not praised thus: Diligently you spoke. But: you did it, by killing the sons of Achab. See Vasquez num. 70., Tanner. 104, Fulsensem loc. cit.

Therefore he is excused only with respect to the prudence directed to the worship and obedience of God, not with respect to the sheer falsehood and simulation.

As to Naaman it is answered, that he asked only that he might show political deference to his lord, as Abul. quaest. 20. explains it, Cajetanus, Lyra, and Burgen. ibi. Then, even supposing he had asked to worship the Idol with external worship. Valencia and Fagundez answered: Eliseus did not consent, but only said: Go in peace, which could also have the sense of one reproving.

I answer more easily, that he asked that Eliseus should pray for him on account of the sin of entering the temple of Remmon, for which he ought to have been rebuked by Eliseus, and he did not improve. Therefore he says: Go in peace, as if to say: Since there is no hope of amendment, I shall pray for you: Go. Certainly Eliseus had admonished him as an idolater about this superstitious worship; for why else would his stricken conscience say to him that he should pray for him on account of this sin? Therefore the prophet does not retract, but only dismisses him; just as a poor man is dismissed to whom you do not wish to give alms: Go in peace: For prayer is a spiritual alms.

From what has been said it is gathered that neither can garments expressing superstitious worship be used, which are the sign of a Sect (although Fulsens. hints otherwise). As to garments signifying only politically a false sect, such as the yellow cap of the Hebrews, there are various opinions: some affirm; others deny. See Fagundez cap. 7., where he cites ten authors for the affirmative, namely that it is licit; and the same number for the negative. But garments which signify only the usage of a people are not forbidden. It is licit even to go to the temples of heretics, to confute their sermons. See Valencia quaest. 3. p. 2., Azor. cap. 27. quaestio 5., Tanner. num. 123. Not, however, where worship is presumed, as in England, by the Decree of Paul V.