Scotus Academicus, Tomus octavus: De Divino Gratiae Beneficio, et initium De Virtutibus Theologicis

Note 1. That the external confession of faith can be taken in two ways: First indeed commonly and broadly for all good works, which are exercised by means of faith or for its illustration; of which confession St. James says, chapter 2: Shew me thy faith without works, and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. Second, strictly and properly for the very manifestation of faith through some sensible sign, whether of voice, of writing, or of act, whereby we bear witness that we have internal faith and believe the articles of faith; which manifestation is properly called the confession of faith, and is, according to all Theologians, an external act of faith: just as, conversely, the external denial of faith is an external act of infidelity. Now this profession of faith can have an extrinsic goodness proceeding from the intrinsic ordination of some interior virtue. But the difficulty is whether it proceeds from the very internal habit of faith itself, just as the honesty of the external act of almsgiving is proper to the act of mercy; or whether it proceeds from some other virtue, for instance charity toward God, truthfulness, fortitude, etc. For the unfolding of which difficulty the opinion of Authors is chiefly threefold: The first is that of those who contend that the external confession is a true act of faith, because it proceeds from the very internal faith, inasmuch as it is connatural to man to disclose his internal conception outwardly, and faith itself urges this. The second denies that it is an act of the virtue of faith, or that it has the proper honesty thereof, since it can exist without an interior act of faith itself; indeed even the external denial of faith can exist without an interior act: for one can externally confess faith through simulation and without having an internal assent concerning the articles of faith; and one can also deny the faith externally without denying it internally, as must be believed to have happened to blessed Peter, while he protested that he had not known Christ. The third opinion finally contends that the external confession of faith is not properly an act of faith, just as the exterior act of temperance is an act of the virtue of temperance; but that it stands related as a sign manifestative of the interior act, and as it were a secondary and indirect act of the virtue of faith.

NOTANDA 2. As regards the precept of the confession of faith¹ that it is generically twofold, namely Ecclesiastical and divine. The Ecclesiastical is grounded especially in the constitutions or Canons of the Church, whereby universally, or for a certain class of persons, the issuing of a profession of faith is prescribed; as in the Council of Trent, Sess. 21. cap. 12. De reformatione, it is ordained that those provided with benefices of whatever kind having the care of souls are bound

on the day of taking possession, at least within two months, to make in the hands of the Bishop himself, or, should he be hindered, before his general Vicar or Official, a public profession of their orthodox faith, and to promise and swear that they will persevere in obedience to the Roman Church. Those, moreover, provided with Canonries and Dignities in Cathedral Churches are bound to do the same not only before the Bishop or his Official, but also before the Chapter: otherwise all the aforesaid provisi as above shall not take their fruits, nor shall possession stand them in stead.

And Sess. 25. cap. 2. De reformatione:

The holy Synod commands the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and all others who ought by law or custom to be present in a Provincial Council, that in the very first Provincial Synod, to be held after the end of the present Council, they openly receive all and singular the things defined and decreed by this holy Synod: as also that they promise and profess true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, etc.

The divine precept of making confession is expressed in most many oracles of Sacred Scripture to be adduced below. That precept, however, is twofold, one indeed affirmative, the other negative. The former commands that faith at some time be manifested through some external and sensible sign: the latter forbids that faith be denied, or anything contrary to the confession of faith be done. The latter obliges not indeed for every single moment of life, but only at some time, and for some time alone or circumstances; the former, however, obliges always and forever, or for any difference of time whatsoever, because nowhere is it lawful to deny the faith, as we shall say below.

NOTANDA 3. That certain heretics at some time, and indeed especially ⟦illegible: sect name lost in faded print⟧ asserted that it was licit to deny the faith under torments, provided it be retained in heart, as Eusebius relates, book 6. Historiae, chapter 28, and Epiphanius, heresy 19.; to whom may be reckoned the Priscillianists, who, as St. Augustine hands down, heresy 70, asserted that one could conceal his error even by perjury; which error the Anabaptists and others revived, as Valentia relates, tom. 1. disp. 1. quast. 3. Against all which errors the Church pronounces expressly that the faith is nowhere to be denied, although it agrees that it can at times be licitly concealed. It must be known, however, that it is one thing to conceal or dissimulate the true faith, another to simulate falsely by acts or words: for the dissimulation of the true faith takes place when something is done from which it is not positively gathered that he who employs such dissimulation is a Christian or Catholic, yet so that nothing contrary is thereby signified; whereas the simulation of false faith consists in acts signifying here and now that the one simulating professes another faith directly opposed to the Christian or Catholic faith.

These things premised, four points remain to be determined in this Question: first, that the external confession of faith is not properly an act of faith, elicited or commanded: second, that in certain circumstances or occasions we are bound to profess the faith by divine mandate: third, that nowhere is it licit to deny it: fourth and last, that it is sometimes licit to conceal the true faith, but nowhere to profess a false one.

Conclusio prima. — THE EXTERNAL CONFESSION OF FAITH IS NOT AN ACT ELICITED OR COMMANDED BY THE HABIT OF FAITH.

It is proved: the external confession consists in some action which as regards its substance is produced by the natural locomotive power, from which is elicited or produced speech, writing, gesture, or some other protestative work of internal faith: but none of these have internal faith as their elicitive principle; and consequently that external confession is not elicited by the internal habit of faith residing in the intellect. That, however, the external confession is also not commanded by the habit of faith is plain, because the habit or assent of faith, inasmuch as it is in the intellect, cannot command external acts, for this pertains solely to the will, which through volition can command the other powers. Therefore the external act of faith is not properly an act elicited or commanded by the habit of faith. Hence it must be established that the external confession pertains to faith to that extent wherein it is properly commanded by the will through the volition of confessing the faith outwardly; which volition indeed has a special honesty, namely that which the volition of believing has: for as it is honest to will to believe, so also to will to confess what we believe; and consequently there is in believing itself and confessing a similar objective honesty founded upon the excellence of divine veracity. For the excellence of divine veracity is that same thing whose cult the will intends by commanding the assent of faith and captivating the intellect into its service, in order to avoid the irreverence which would be offered to divine veracity by not assenting to its words. But an irreverence would be inflicted upon divine veracity if anyone should deny outwardly the faith regarding the things revealed by God: as conversely to profess openly the truth of such revealed objects redounds to the cult and reverence of the same: to the same habit of the will, therefore, both pertain: to command the act and to love it; whence the Apostle, 2. ad Corinth. 4, says: Having the same spirit of faith, as it is written: I believed, for which cause I have spoken; we also believe, for which cause we speak also. I judge, therefore, that the confession of faith can be called its act: first, on account of the similar honesty inherent in both the interior and the exterior act of faith, since each tends toward the divine veracity to be honored. Second, because each is commanded by the same pious motion of the will, which commands not only the interior act but also the exterior act of confession. Third, because the external confession is a sign of internal faith, just as the pulse of the arteries is called healthy because it is a sign of internal health. Fourth, because the external confession and the internal assent of faith rest upon the same formal reason, namely the revelation of God. By this reasoning, therefore, all the aforesaid opinions can be reconciled, namely that the external confession of faith is indeed commanded through the pious volition of believing, is directed by the internal habit and assent of faith, and is elicited truly by the locomotive power, which exhibits such a sign manifestative of faith.

Conclusio secunda. — THE DIVINE PRECEPT IS THAT THE FAITH BE AT TIMES CONFESSED OUTWARDLY, BUT NOWHERE DENIED.

Proof first from very many oracles of Sacred Scripture: thus Matth. 10. Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. The same is repeated Luke 12. Every one whosoever shall confess me before men, him the Son of man shall confess before the Angels of God: but he that shall deny me before men, shall be denied before the Angels of God. And Luke 9. it is said: For he that 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, and that of his Father, and of the holy Angels. It is signified, Rom. 10. That if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Hence St. August., lib. De Fide, et Symbolo, cap. 1. rightly said: Faith exacts from us a duty both of heart and tongue: under the duty of the tongue understanding every external confession as by a principal expressive sign. In which words a twofold precept is expressed, one affirmative, by which we are bound at times to profess the faith outwardly; the other negative, by which we may nowhere deny it. But that we are at times bound to profess the faith outwardly, it can be gathered first, because, says de Lugo d. 11. sect. 1. God did not in fact will the Church to be only invisible and mental, but visible through a sensible union and conjunction, so that indeed it should become one visible mystical body animated by one and the same visible internal spirit. But this visible conjunction cannot come about unless the members be sensibly conjoined with one another, which happens while each manifests by some sensible sign that they are members of this mystical body, by professing the same faith and religion common to the other members. Second, because this redounds most to the glory of God and the celebration of His divine majesty: for just as he would be judged unworthy who, enrolled in the household of a Prince, and receiving so ample a stipend from him, nevertheless would not wish to profess himself one of that Prince's servants, nor wish to show the Prince any sign of his service except secretly, since by acting thus he would seem to disdain his Lord and to be ashamed of the profession of his servitude: so the irreverence would become so much the greater toward God on the part of him who, signed through baptism among His servants, would not wish publicly to profess himself the servant and worshipper of the true God, since the dignity and majesty of God are infinitely greater, and His innumerable benefits and merits toward His servants demand from them an assiduous profession of their servitude and of their faith toward a Lord infinitely excellent, to whom they know themselves bound by so many titles. — Moreover, the faithful ordinarily satisfy this precept whenever they perform the works of the other precepts of the Christian law, namely when they receive the sacraments, are present at the sacrifice of the Mass, devoutly frequent the temples, and they satisfy all the commandments prescribed by the Catholic Church to each individual faithful. Nor is it required that those works be done out of a special motive of manifesting and confessing the faith; for it is not necessary, in order that one satisfy a precept, that he fulfill the work commanded out of the motive of that precept; for he who is accustomed to fast out of pious custom on each Friday truly satisfies the precept of the Church when on that Friday there occurs an Ember Wednesday, or the vigil of some feast, on which fasting is prescribed by Ecclesiastical precept, even though he does not think of the precept of fasting.

Beyond the ordinary cases various circumstances can occur, in which the external profession of faith ought to be made from the very force of faith itself: first indeed we are bound to profess the faith publicly as often as, if questioned about the faith we were silent, that silence would give occasion either for thinking that the faith was not true, or it would be an occasion for others to be turned away from the faith. Second, when an adult receives baptism: for at that time the very reverence toward divine veracity and authority obliges to exhibiting an external sign of faith, and to professing ourselves worshippers of the same faith. Third, as often as the omission of the confession of faith would be the occasion and cause why others should be drawn away from the faith: or from thence there would be a moral danger of the faithful man himself being drawn away from the faith, unless by that contrary act and external protestation he should drive out fear and shame, professing himself publicly a Christian and Catholic. — There are also many other cases, in which the obligation of professing the faith seems to press from the precepts of other virtues. Thus e. g. we ought to profess the faith at least implicitly, when we ought to receive some sacrament, hear Mass, recite the Office, go to Temples, adore the Eucharist, venerate images of the Saints or their relics, observe fasts or feast days, and similar things. But this obligation in those cases does not arise from the force of faith, but from other precepts, which cannot be kept without an explicit or implicit confession of faith.

As regards the second part, namely that the faith must nowhere be denied, the matter is well known, namely that such denial could not take place without sin, because whoever denies the faith opposes himself to the divine authority, denying some revealed truth: but offense against God becomes grave by denying His veracity; since implicitly by that denial it is signified that God is a liar, and thereupon that denial cannot take place without sin. From these things it follows as a consequence that it is nowhere lawful to deny the faith.

This is proved by most abundant testimonies of the Fathers and ecclesiastical authors, who relate that Christians were asked by tyrants for this one thing, that they deny Christ, and openly disclaim being Christians. Which the faithful execrated as impious, choosing rather to die than to deny the faith, or feign a false religion. Wherefore Tertullian, Apologet., cap. 2. writes excellently:

And so you do not even act toward us in the manner of judging evils in that case, since to others denying you apply torments to make them confess, to Christians alone to make them deny; whereas, if it were an evil, we certainly would deny it, but you would compel yourselves by torments to confess it. The man cries out: I am a Christian. He declares what he is; you wish to hear what he is not. Presidents charged with extorting truth, from us alone do you labor to hear a lie. This am I, says he, what you ask whether I am; why do you torture me into perversity? I confess, and you torture; what would you do if I denied? Plainly to others denying you do not easily give credence; to us, if we denied, you believe at once. That perversity should be suspect to you, lest some force lie hidden in secret, which ministers against the manner, against nature of judging, even against the laws themselves. For unless I mistake, the laws command that the wicked be dug out, not concealed; they prescribe that the confessed be condemned, not absolved. The decrees of the Senate define this, the mandates of Princes, the imperium whose ministers you are. Your dominion is civil, not tyrannical. Among tyrants torments are applied also as punishments; among you they are tempered only for interrogation. Preserve to them your law only up to confession; and if they be anticipated by confession, they shall go free. Sentence is needed; the guilty by due right must be expunged, not exempted. Finally no one is eager to absolve him, it is not permitted to will this; therefore neither is anyone compelled to deny. You judge the Christian, a man guilty of all crimes, an enemy of the gods, of the emperors, of the laws, of morals, of the whole of nature, and you compel him to deny, that you may absolve him whom you cannot absolve unless he has denied. You betray the laws. Do you therefore wish him to deny himself guilty, that you may make him innocent, and indeed unwilling already, nor he guilty of the past? Whence that perversity? that you do not even reflect that more credence is to be given to one spontaneously confessing than to one denying under compulsion; or lest, having been forced to deny, he did not deny out of faith; and absolved there after your tribunal may laugh at your emulation, again a Christian.

And lib. De Idololatria, cap. 14. says that not even the festivals of the heathen can be observed by Christians without impiety. Where speaking of the institution and doctrine of the Apostle he has this:

But although he does not prohibit us from conversing with idolaters and adulterers and the other criminal sorts, saying (1. Cor., V. 10.): otherwise you would have to leave this world: yet certainly not to change those reins of conversation, such that because it is necessary both to live together and mingle with sinners, therefore we could also sin with them. There is the commerce of life, which the Apostle concedes; here to sin, which no one permits. It is permitted to dine with the heathen, it is not permitted to sojourn with them. Let us dine with all: let us rejoice in the communion of nature, not of superstition. We are equals in soul, not in discipline: co-possessors of the world, not of error.

And lib. De Paenitentia, cap. ⟦illegible: chapter numeral lost⟧:

But certain ones say > that it is enough for God if He be regarded in heart and mind, though less be done in act. And so they sin with fear and faith preserved: that is, chastity preserved, they violate marriages; piety preserved, they temper the resisting parent. And so likewise they themselves will be hurled into gehenna with pardon reserved, while they sin with fear preserved.

— The error of the heretics is confuted by St. Augustine, lib. De Fide et Symbolo, cap. 1. saying: We cannot be saved unless, striving for the salvation of our neighbors, we profess with the mouth the faith which we bear also in heart. — The same error is refuted by the most holy discipline of the Church, by which she condemned to most severe penance those slothful Christians who had obtained libelli from heathen judges for money counted out, lest they be called into judgment on account of the profession of the Christian faith. Of whom St. Cyprian in the Treatise De Lapsis says:

Nor let those flatter themselves that they need not do penance, who although they did not contaminate their hands with slaughtering sacrifices, nevertheless polluted their conscience with libelli, and that protestation of denial is the contestation of a Christian, that he had been an apostate; he said he had been silent, whatever another committed by doing. Christ in His precepts says: he who has not been ashamed shall be confounded with the Son of man. And does he think himself a Christian, who is ashamed or fears to be a Christian? How can he be with Christ who either blushes or fears to belong to Christ? He will plainly have sinned less by not seeing the idols, nor profaning the sanctity of the faith beneath the eyes of the surrounding and insulting people, not polluting his hands with tainted sacrifices nor staining his mouth with criminal foods. By this he advances so far that the fault is lesser, not that his conscience is innocent. More easily can he arrive at pardon of the crime; nevertheless he is not immune from the crime. Nor would there be any doing of penance nor imploring the mercy of the Lord; nor does it seem that, because he is less in the quality of the delict, it is multiplied in neglected satisfaction.

— But against this error nothing is more illustrious than the testimony of Tertullian, Apologet., cap. 21:

Therefore, when summoned to sacrifice, we bar the step for the sake of faith by our conscience, whereby we are certain to whom those offices arrive under the prostitution of images and the consecration of human names. But some judge it madness, that while we could both sacrifice in the present and go away unharmed, with the purpose remaining in our mind, we offer obstinacy to our salvation. Giving us counsel of course, which we abuse toward you; but we acknowledge whence such things are suggested, who agitates this whole matter, and how now with astuteness of persuading, now with hardness of raging he works to cast down our conscience. Those spirits namely of demons and angels doomed to perdition, who are our rival because of his divorce and envious because of God's grace, battles against us from your minds.

By which words is overthrown the error of the Heretics usurped in these latter times by some, if one truly genuflects before an idol, and offers incense, provided the intention be directed to the Crucified One whom they secretly venerated. Which error, through the agency of the most illustrious and most religious bishop of Ingolstadt, John de Palatox, was condemned by Innocent XI the Supreme Pontiff. — Finally St. Augustine refuted as revived in the Priscillianists the error of those ancient heretics, lib. contra mendacium ad Consentium, cap. 2. The Priscillianists contended that even in the profession of religion truth was to be retained in heart, but that falsehood could be brought forth with the mouth toward strangers without sin, and that this was the sense of this verse,

Psalm 11: He that speaketh truth in his heart; that it would pertain to justice not to lie before neighbors, but before strangers this would be lawful. These men also twisted the words of the Apostle into so depraved a sense, Eph. 4: Detesting lies, speak ye the truth, every one with his neighbor, because we are members one of another. But this heresy St. Augustine thus refutes:

Which sentence dishonors the holy martyrs, or rather takes away holy martyrdom altogether; for according to these men they would act more justly and more wisely, if they did not confess to their persecutors that they were Christians, nor by their confession make them homicides: but rather by lying and denying what they were, they themselves would have kept safe the advantage of the flesh, and the purpose of the heart; and would not allow them to fulfill in act the crime conceived in mind. For their neighbors were not in the Christian faith, so that with them they ought to speak the truth in their mouth which they spoke in their heart, but were moreover enemies of the very truth. For if Jehu, whom prudently they seem to contemplate among others as an example of lying, lied that he was a servant of Baal, that he might kill his servants: how much more justly, according to the perversity of these men, in time of persecution should the servants of Christ lie that they were servants of demons, lest the servants of demons kill the servants of Christ; and sacrifice to idols lest men be slain, since he sacrificed to Baal that he might slay men? For what would it harm them, according to the excellent doctrine of liars, if they feigned the worship of the devil in body, when the worship of God was preserved in heart? But not so understood the true martyrs of the Apostles, the holy martyrs. For they saw and held what is written: With the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation; and: In their mouth there was no lie found.

You will object in favor of the Heretics: Jehu king of Israel feigned himself a worshipper of Baal, saying: Achab worshipped Baal little. but I will worship him more. Now therefore call to me all the prophets of Baal, and all his servants, and all his priests: let none be wanting, for I have a great sacrifice for Baal: whosoever shall be wanting shall not live. Moreover Jehu did this deceitfully that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal, says Scripture, IV Reg., cap. 10. Yet Jehu on account of this work was rewarded by God, who established the throne of Israel to his sons unto the fourth generation (as is had in the same place): therefore it was lawful outwardly to feign religion, or deny the faith, provided it be retained in heart. — I answer distinguishing the minor: Jehu on account of this work was rewarded by God, that is on account of the exterminated house of Achab according to the mandate of God, I concede; that is on account of the lie and simulation of false religion, I deny. Scripture signifies this, when it relates that the Lord addressed Jehu thus: Because thou hast diligently done what was right and pleasing in my eyes, and hast done all things that were in my heart against the house of Achab: thy sons shall sit upon the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation. Moreover the simulation of Jehu is so far from being approved by Sacred Scripture, that rather it brands him there with the note of impiety. Therefore Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel: yet from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nabat, who made Israel sin, he departed not, nor did he abandon the golden calves that were in Bethel and in Dan. And further: But Jehu walked not that he should walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with his whole heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, who had made Israel sin. This response is that of St. Augustine, lib. Contra Mendacium, cap. 2. who says:

They should not imitate that Jehu, seeking with an impious lie and sacrilegious sacrifice the impious and sacrilegious to be killed, nor even if Scripture concerning what sort he was had been silent. Whereas it has been written that he had not an upright heart with God; what did it profit him, that for some obedience which he exhibited concerning the house of Achab being utterly destroyed, for the greed of his domination, he received some transitory reward of temporal kingdom?

You will object 2. Eliseus conceded to Naaman prince of the army of the king of Syria, that when the king adored in the temple of Remmon, he himself also adore with him in the same place: yet this was an open simulation of false religion: therefore simulation of religion is lawful. — The major is proved from the words of Naaman to Eliseus, and from the response of the prophet: but in this only, pardon thy servant my lord: when my lord goeth into the temple of Remmon to adore there, and he leaneth upon my hand, if I bow down in the temple of Remmon, he adoring in the same place, that the Lord forgive thy servant for this thing. Who said to him: Go in peace.

I answer: I distinguish the major: and there the name of adoration is taken improperly for the bending of the body, I concede: and there the word adoration is taken for worship exhibited to the one true God alone, I deny. Naaman therefore did not ask from Eliseus the faculty of adoring the idol Remmon, but only the duty of performing his office in the temple of Remmon, as he discharged it elsewhere, namely supporting Benadad prostrate before the idol, and bending his body or prostrating when the king had prostrated himself. But this service was not a simulation of false religion, since no worship at all was given to the idol, but to the king. It would however have been a simulation, or open profession of the cult of Remmon, if Naaman had done anything proximately pertaining to a sacrifice offered to a false deity, or to the impious rites of a false religion, as if he had handed wine to the sacrificing king, had uttered some word necessary to the sacrilegious sacrifices, or had rendered some similar assistance, as is gathered from Tertullian, lib. De Idololatria, cap. 11. who says:

Moreover why do we keep silent about servants, or free faithful? likewise officials attending sacrificing lords, or patrons or presidents? But if anyone hand over pure wine to one sacrificing, or rather assist with any word whatsoever necessary to the sacrifice, he will be held a minister of idolatry. Mindful of this rule, we can render duty also to magistrates and powers after the manner of the patriarchs and other elders, who attended idolatrous kings up to the limit of idolatry itself.

Moreover there could be no suspicion concerning Naaman that he adored the idol Remmon, even if he genuflected with Benadad in the temple of Remmon, because he openly professed the religion of the Jews, as he had previously testified to Eliseus, taking away the burden of two asses from the land of Israel, that he might build an altar to the true God, and worship Him alone. Grant to thy servant, he says, that I take away a burden of two asses out of the land: for thy servant will not henceforth make holocaust or victim to strange gods, but to the Lord.

You will urge: Naaman would not have asked Eliseus that he beg pardon from God for a work which he could have exercised without any sin whatsoever: yet if that adoration in the temple of Remmon had been mere service exhibited to the king of Syria, he could have exercised it without any sin whatsoever: therefore Naaman would not have asked Eliseus that he beg pardon from God for that adoration in the temple of Remmon. — I answer, that this argument concludes that Naaman sinned, and so does not favor the Heretics. But because we vindicate him from sacrilegious simulation, it must be said to the major, that he, not yet sufficiently instructed in morals, and agitated by scruples, as easily happens to neophytes, begged pardon for a deed concerning which he feared lest it displease God. Moreover Eliseus showed that the aforesaid work could be done without sin, when he removed the scruple from him with these words: Go in peace; and certainly Eliseus, holy, learned, and studious of the divine law, if ever any one was such, the director persuades that this was lawful for Naaman; but also Tertullian, when he laid down this rule of Christian moral discipline lib. De Idololatria, cap. 16.

Wicked idolatry has beguiled the world; it will be permitted to be present in some things, wherein we are dutiful to man, not to an idol. Plainly called to the priesthood and sacrifice I will not go (for that is the proper office of an idol): but neither by counsel, nor expense, nor other work will I serve in such matters. If called on account of the sacrifice I attend, I shall be a partaker of idolatry: if another cause joins me to one sacrificing, I shall be only a spectator of the sacrifice.

Since therefore another cause joined Naaman to the king of Syria his lord sacrificing to the idol Remmon, and adoring him, he was not a partaker of idolatry, but only a spectator.

But whether it is at times lawful to dissimulate or conceal the faith is a grave difficulty, and manifold contention among Theologians. But what seems truer to us in this matter, will disclose

Third Conclusion. — IT IS LAWFUL AT TIMES TO CONCEAL THE FAITH, NOT ONLY NEGATIVELY, BY NOT MANIFESTING IT THROUGH SOME POSITIVE ACT, BUT EVEN POSITIVELY AND AFFIRMATIVELY, WHEN ELSEWHERE THERE IS NO OBLIGATION OF CONFESSING THE FAITH PRESENT. This is common as regards both parts among Theologians, especially as regards the first part, because it is permitted to flee or hide oneself in time of persecution, as Christ the Lord teaches, Matth. 10. where foretelling to the Apostles the persecutions they were to undergo, He says: But when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another.

By flight persecution can be avoided. It is proved by the example of Christ while yet an infant when He fled into Egypt, a holy Angel admonishing Joseph in dreams: Arise and take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt. He Himself also taught when grown up, John 8. chap.: The Jews therefore took stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. — He taught also by oracle, Matth. 10. chap.: But when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. The Apostles also taught following the doctrine and examples of Christ: whence it is marvelous that Tertullian was blinded in so great a light of Sacred Scriptures, especially since he himself, not yet a Montanist, unravels that error of the Montanists, lib. De Patientia, cap. 13.

Our Conclusion the Fathers teach openly, and first indeed St. Cyprian, who during the persecution himself fled, and wrote several letters in retirement, and among them the 56th, in which he writes thus to the people of Thibaris: Perhaps each one, most beloved brethren, when he sees our people fleeing through fear of persecution and scattered, is disturbed, because he does not see the brotherhood gathered together, nor hear the bishops treating. All cannot then be together at once who are not permitted to kill, but must be killed. Whoever in those days shall have been each one of the brothers separated for a time from the flock, by necessity of the time in body, not in spirit, let him not die from the horror of that flight, nor departing, nor hiding, let him be terrified by the solitude of the place chosen; he is not alone to whom Christ is a companion in flight. He is not alone who keeping the temple of God, wherever he may be, without God is not: and if a robber oppress him fleeing in solitude and mountains, a wild beast leap upon him, hunger or thirst or cold afflict him, or storms and gales submerge him hastening over seas in swift navigation, Christ beholds His soldier fighting wherever he fights, and renders to him dying on account of persecution for the honor of His name the reward which He promised He would give in persecution. And lib. De Lapsis: The first, he says, title of victory, to confess the Lord seized by the hands of the gentiles. The second step toward glory, to be reserved for the Lord, withdrawn from the fold by secession. That is public confession, this private. That one conquers the judge of the world, this one content with God his judge keeps a pure conscience with integrity of heart. Here promptitude of fortitude, here security of solicitude. That one, his own hour approaching, has already been found ripe: this one perhaps has been deferred, who having abandoned his patrimony withdrew for this reason, because he was not going to deny, he would certainly confess if he himself also had been detained. To this tends what Pontius the Deacon wrote in the Life of St. Cyprian, concerning his flight. Well, he says, well then and truly spiritually did it come about that a man so necessary, with so many and so good things, was deferred from the consummation of martyrdom. Do you wish to know that that withdrawal was not cowardice? lest I offer anything else as excuse, he himself afterwards suffered: which passion certainly he would have cited according to custom, if he had lived before. Truly that fear existed, but just fear, fear which feared to offend the Lord, fear by which he preferred to obey the precepts of God rather than thus to be crowned. For his mind consecrated to God in all things, and faith enslaved to divine admonitions, believed that unless he had obeyed the Lord then secretly commanding, he sinned even by the very passion itself.

Second, St. Athanasius in the Apologia pro fuga sua, where the Arians objecting to himself the crime of cowardice because he fled their persecution and snares, he opposes the examples of Christ and the saints. The saints, he says, as issued forth from the Lord, both in former ancient times and in subsequent times in the contest which they had with persecutors, snatched themselves away from those pressing upon them by flight, and withdrew themselves through hiding places from those seeking them; since, as men, they were ignorant of the time constituted for them by divine Providence, and therefore by no means threw themselves upon their ambushers, since they were not ignorant of what is written, that the lots of men are in the hands of God, and that the Lord kills and makes alive: and they preferred to await the same even unto the course of their time, observing meanwhile through solitude being deflected and afflicted, and lurking in caves and holes of the earth, until either the appointed time of death should supervene, or until the determiner of time, God, should Himself indicate this very thing to them, either restraining the persecutors, or delivering them to the persecutors, as seemed to Him more opportune. And further: Wherefore the saints fleeing concealed themselves, and by dispensation were reserved like physicians for the uses of the needy. But to the rest and universally to all, the law has been proposed that they flee while they are pursued in persecutions, and conceal themselves while sought, neither be headlong and rash in tempting the Lord, but await until the appointed time of dying arrive, or until that judge constitute concerning these what seems right to himself. Yet He willed us always ready, so that either the time calling, or apprehended for the Church we fight even unto death. These things the blessed martyrs observed in times of persecutions... But if certain ones of them surrendered themselves to persecutors, they were not carried thither by temerity; but everywhere before all they professed; this readiness proceeded from the Holy Spirit upon oblation. — Third: Before St. Athanasius St. Peter of Alexandria bishop had treated of this matter, Can. 9. in these words: They also who as if out of sleep rush forth to a contest which is to be brought forth by deliberation, and to be deferred by mature counsel, attract the temptation of naval battle and of many inundations of waves, or rather kindle coals of sins for the brethren; communion is also to be given to them, so that they who come to it in the name of Christ: and if they hear not his words, who teaches not to enter into temptation. And the illustrious canon proves by many arguments flight in persecution to be lawful and often necessary. To the same tends the sixtieth canon of the Council of Illiberis, which forbids martyrs to be held in place and number those who were slain breaking idols, on account of the temerity by which they offered themselves to martyrdom, and stirred up a greater persecution against the Church. If anyone, he says, shall have broken an idol, and been slain there, whereas it is not written in the Gospel, nor is found ever to have been done by the Apostles, it has pleased that he be not received into the number of martyrs. —

Fourth, St. Augustine, Epist. 180. ad Honoratum asserts our dogma expressly. Therefore whoever, he says, flees in such a way that the necessary ministry of the Church does not fail in him fleeing, does what the Lord commanded. I permitted seeing it. Read the same tract. 18. on John. — Fifth, St. Peter Chrysologus, Serm. 15. says: The martyr apprehended ought to keep constancy, not apprehended ought to flee the pursuer: that he may indulge to the persecutor time of repenting, and not take away from himself time for supplicating: he makes the persecutor who provokes: he corrects, who declines. We must pray, we must flee, that he who rages through ignorance may be healed: and that he who is thought to hold the palm of patience may not have peril from temerity. Brethren, if they had not slain Paul the martyrs, they would not have borne Paul.

You will object 1. With Tertullian, lib. De fuga in persecutione, that it is not permitted to flee what is good and sent from God: but persecution is good and sent from God: therefore it is a crime to flee persecution. Persecution, I say, is good: for then also faith is more solicitous and more disciplined in expeditions, in fasts and stations and prayers, humility in affection diligence and love, in sanctity and sobriety. Nor is it prepared except for fear or hope, and even from this very thing it is shown to us that it cannot be attributed to the devil, which makes the servants of God better, says Tertullian, cap. 2. Moreover if we deservedly define persecution good, what is good ought not to be avoided, because it is a delict to refuse what is good: still more because it has seemed good to God: indeed now neither can it be avoided, because it comes from God, whose will cannot be evaded. Therefore they who think flight necessary either reproach evil against God if they flee persecution as an evil; for no one doubts it is good: or they think themselves stronger than God who think they can escape if God should will such a thing to come, says the same Tertullian, cap. 1.

I answer: I distinguish the major: if it be good per se and absolutely, I concede. If only per accidens, I deny. For God by it proves, exercises, crowns His faithful; and aided by divine grace they endure persecutions with unshaken faith and love. But that in the same place it is good in this manner only, it is lawful to flee. Certainly temptation is good in this manner, as persecution, and happens only by God willing and permitting: nevertheless it is not illicit to flee temptation and to pray against it itself. Otherwise Christ taught us in vain to pray thus: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. But also pestilence and famine are good in this manner, yet we are not prohibited from fleeing them, nay he will be rash who will not flee these evils, when he can avoid them, the duties of Christian virtues remaining safe.

I make a second distinction within the same proposition: it is not lawful to flee what has been sent by God, unless flight itself He has forbidden; this I concede; if He has not forbidden it, I deny. But Christ taught flight in persecution both by word and by example.

You will urge: Those who invite to martyrdom do not command flight: but Christ and the Apostles exhort Christians to endure persecutions: therefore they do not command flight. What an inequality of sentiments, says Tertullian, chapter 1, between Him who commands flight and Him who invites to passion, which is contrary to flight? Whoever shall confess in me, and I also will confess in him before my Father — how shall he confess while fleeing, how shall he flee while confessing? — I answer: I distinguish the major: they do not command flight when the time appointed by God is at hand for enduring martyrdom, I concede: when it is not yet at hand, I deny. For since the crown descends from the bounty of God, says St. Cyprian in his book De Lapsis, and cannot be received unless the hour for receiving it has come, whoever meanwhile falls while remaining in Christ does not deny the faith, but awaits the time. But he who fell when he did not fall, remained intending to deny.

You will object 2. At least for prelates of the Church it is not lawful to flee in persecution: For the good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and flieth: therefore neither is it lawful for the other Christians to flee, for if the flock ought to flee, the shepherd of the flock ought not to stand, being about to stand without cause for the protection of a flock which would not desire it, namely by license of flight, says Tertullian, chapter 11.

I answer: I distinguish the antecedent: it is not lawful for prelates of the Church to flee if the persecution rages equally against all, and no one remains who could discharge the ministry necessary to the Church, I concede: if the persecution lingers only against some, and there remain as many as are necessary to the Church, I deny. This is the distinction of St. Augustine, Epistle 180, which is to Honoratus. But who would believe, he says, that the Lord willed this to be done, so that the flocks which He purchased with His own blood should be abandoned of the ministry without which they cannot live? Did He Himself do this, when as a little child He fled into Egypt carried by His parents, who had not yet gathered churches which we might say were left desolate by His departure? Or did He do so when the Apostle Paul, lest the enemy should seize him, was let down through a window in a basket, and escaped — was the Church there left desolate, when the necessary ministry was fulfilled, as was fitting, by other brethren established in the same place? For this the Apostle had done with those willing, that he might preserve himself for the Church, whom that persecutor properly sought: Therefore the servants of Christ, the ministers of His word and sacraments, do what He commanded or permitted. Let them flee altogether from city to city, when each of them is specially sought by the persecutors: lest by others who are not so required the

Church be deserted, but let them furnish food to their fellow servants, whom they know cannot otherwise live. But when the peril is common to all, that is, to bishops and clerics, those who have need must not be deserted by those of whom they have need. And further below: Why do they think that the precept is to be obeyed indifferently on their part, where they read that one must flee from city to city, and yet do not shrink from the hireling who seeth the wolf coming and fleeth, because he hath no care for the sheep? Why do they not strive to understand these two sayings of the Lord, and both true, one namely where flight is allowed or commanded, the other where it is reproved and blamed, in such wise that they are found not to be contrary to one another, as indeed they are not? And this is found to be the case then, when under the pressure of persecution Christ's ministers must flee from places where we are, either when there is no Christian people there to be ministered to, or even if there is, the necessary ministry can be fulfilled by others who have not the same cause for fleeing. By these examples of Saints Paul and Athanasius he proves it, and then subjoins: But when the people remain and the ministers flee, and the ministry is withdrawn, what will it be but that damnable flight of the hirelings, who have no care for the sheep? — Therefore Tertullian reasoned badly in concluding that the Christian people ought not to flee in persecution because bishops and priests ought not to flee, since they alone ought to remain on account of the people, though elsewhere they would lawfully take to flight if the people as a whole changed its seat, or their ministry were not necessary to it, because other ministers are at hand, and they reserve themselves for another time, being about to profit the Church equally by their flight as others by their presence. Certainly how necessary is the work of the ministers of the Church, and how shameful and impious the flight when the Christian people cannot flee the persecution, St. Augustine elegantly expounds in the same place: Do we not consider, he says, when the extreme of these perils is reached, and there is no power of fleeing, how great a concourse is wont to arise in the Church of both sexes and every age, some demanding baptism, others reconciliation,

rightly is this done by some, when others are not lacking through whom the ecclesiastical ministry may be supplied, lest it be deserted by all, as we said above Athanasius had done. For how necessary he was to the Church, and how profitable it was that that man ⟦illegible: "munsit"; fortasse "defunctus"⟧ in the flesh, the Catholic faith knew, which by his mouth and love was defended against the Arian heretics. But when the peril is common, it is rather to be feared lest anyone be believed to do this, not with the will of providing counsel but with the fear of dying, and rather let the example of fleeing be absent than the office of going about profit; it must by no means be done.

But the difficulty concerns the second part of the Conclusion, namely by what means it is sometimes lawful to conceal the faith, whether it is lawful to use the garments and rites of infidels in order to conceal one's faith.

As for garments, by which infidels can be distinguished from the faithful, it can be said that these are of fourfold difference: First, there are garments by which infidels are wont to be distinguished materially from the faithful, not indeed formally, or precisely as they are infidels, but only inasmuch as they belong to such a nation, such are the garments of the Turks, which pertain more to the nation or province than to the sect of Religion; whence it comes about that, even if all were converted to the Christian faith, they would not on that account lay aside the ancient custom of using garments of this kind. Moreover the Catholic Doctors agree that a believer may use garments of this kind when some necessity compels him to pass through the region of those infidels: for that garment contains neither explicitly nor implicitly a denial of the faith or a profession of another sect. Nor does it stand in the way that others, judging him to be of the infidel nation, be deceived, thinking him to be of the same sect of the nation; for that deception occurs per accidens, and from the ignorance of the deceived, which he who uses garments of this kind does not intend per se. I said, while necessity urges; for since without sufficient cause we cannot intend our neighbor's deception, especially in a grave matter, such as it would be were he judged a worshipper of a false sect, it is certain that it would not be lawful even without necessity to use garments of this kind, nor to supply such a foundation for deception.

The second kind of garments is that which are worn for discerning infidels formally, as they are infidels, as the Jews at Rome by ordination of the Supreme Pontiff must wear a hat of red color; and their women must cover the head with a red veil. The third kind of garments is that which are assumed for professing and signifying a false religion, such as would be the garments which the Priests of a false religion are wont to use in common use. Finally the fourth kind of garments is that which not only in any way contain and signify the profession of a false sect, but moreover denote the actual worship of such false religion, such as those which either the Mahometan Priests or the petty sacrificers use in their sacrifices and superstitious rites. But whether the use of this triple kind of garments be lawful for believers, the Doctors do not agree, as may be seen in Lugo, d. 14. sect. ⟦illegible: "ă"; fortasse "2"⟧ who reports their opinions, and partly approves, partly disapproves them, and confesses ib., num. 42, that from the opinions of so many different Authors this general rule can be formed, in which perhaps all would agree, or differ but little; namely, that the use of the aforesaid garments is not lawful, when by institution or circumstances it is determined to the signification of a false worship, that is, of a perverse religion. But it does not conflict, he says, that the circumstances be such in which the garment can have a signification as determinate as words have; suppose, for instance, that an infidel prince should command a Christian subject to deny the faith, and, as a sign of the faith denied, to wear the image of an idol, or something of the sort. For in this case it is not doubtful that the wearing of that garment would be a sign of the faith denied, and therefore that it would be altogether illicit.

Since, however, not every use of such garments is always thus determined, it is inferred that then, for a most grave cause, it would be lawful to use garments of the first and second kind, namely when he who sees a Christian man using them is not thereby determined to judge that he has deserted the faith, but can doubt or judge that he uses such a garment for some other purpose. Whoever desires the fuller controversy on this matter, let him consult Lugo himself in the cited section, Suares, d. 11. sect. ⟦illegible: "»"; fortasse "2"⟧, and other Authors of moral or practical Theology: for the matter amassed in this volume, now hastening to its end, does not admit of a fuller discussion of this question. Wherefore, setting these aside, some things concerning Christian Hope are to be tasted.