Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus III

(St. Thomas, qq. 2 et 3.)

It has been necessary at all times, by necessity of means for salvation, to believe with supernatural faith, determinately and explicitly, these two things: namely, that God is the author of grace and the remunerator of glory.

Proof. from the Apostle, Heb., XI, 6, who says : Without faith it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God must believe that he is, and is a remunerator to those who seek him. That the Apostle speaks of God and the remunerator in the supernatural order, namely, that he is the author of grace and the remunerator of glory, is evident : 1° because, when he says : he must believe, he speaks of supernatural faith, which he had defined shortly before, ibid., 1 : the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. For things to be hoped for surpass the grasp of human understanding, and things that appear not cannot be investigated by human reason. 2° Because afterwards, in the same chapter, 14, he says of Abraham that, together with the other holy Fathers, he desired a better country, that is, a heavenly one ; and of Moses, ibid., 26, that, despising the treasures of the Egyptians, he looked to the remunerator, namely the heavenly one.

It is urged by reason. According to the ordinary providence, it is necessary by necessity of means for salvation that man, who is governed by reason, know the ultimate end toward which he tends, and the means by which one arrives at it. The ultimate end toward which man tends is the fellowship of the glory of God ; the means by which one arrives at it are grace and the acts of the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love, elicited through grace. But man cannot know this end and these means by natural reason, but only by revelation ; for they are supernatural, nor does natural reason dictate that God wills to admit man into the fellowship of his glory, nor does it explain the means by which one arrives at it. Therefore.

I say 2° : After the Gospel has been sufficiently promulgated, explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity is necessary for all, by necessity of means, unto salvation.

This opinion is more probable and more common. Understand, however, the necessity not from the nature of the thing, otherwise it would have been the same at all times, but from a necessity arising from the institution and will of God for this state of the law of grace.

[It is said, « after the Gospel has been sufficiently promulgated, » because it is supposed that before the said promulgation implicit faith in these mysteries was commonly sufficient, from the Apostle, Gal., III, 23 : But before faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed. I said « commonly, » that is, for the lesser and the common people. For it seems that the greater, that is, priests and doctors, who offered the sacrifices prefiguring Christ and expounded the prophecies concerning Christ to come, were bound, at least by necessity of precept, to know in some way the sacred significance of these things.]

Proof of the first part. 1° From Scripture. Christ, John., III, 14 and 15, says : As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. Now the looking upon the serpent was a means necessary to bodily health. Therefore also faith in Christ unto spiritual health. But that he speaks of explicit faith is clear from what he subjoins there : He that, he says, believeth in him is not judged ; but he that doth not believe is already judged, because he doth not believe in the name of the Only-begotten Son of God. τὸ ὄνομα designates the person ; τὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος of the Only-begotten Son of God distinguishes him from the other persons. Therefore he speaks of explicit faith, and indeed of faith absolutely necessary ; because he who does not believe is already judged.

John., XIV, 1, Christ says : You believe in God ; believe also in me. Where he demands equal faith in himself as in God. Now explicit faith concerning God is necessary by necessity of means. Therefore also concerning Christ. Many other similar passages are read in the Gospel and in the Epistles of Paul.

Proof 2° from the Fathers and the Council of Trent. St. Augustine, book de Corrept. et Gratia, c. 7, n. 11 : « From this damnation, he says, they will not deliver themselves who can say they have not heard the Gospel. » Where he speaks of explicit faith, since he speaks of the faith of the Gospel, and asserts a necessity absolute and inexcusable, even from invincible ignorance, which implies necessity of means.

St. Thomas, here art. 7, c, where at the beginning he speaks of what is necessary by necessity of means, concludes thus at the end : « After the time of revealed grace, both the great and the small are held to have explicit faith concerning the mysteries of Christ. » And still more expressly in III Sentent., dist. 25, q. 2, a. 2, quaestiunc. 2 : « After the coming of Christ, he says, all, both great and small, are held to believe explicitly ; and if anyone should lack instruction, God would reveal it to him, unless he remained behind through his own fault. » Therefore he plainly holds that explicit faith is necessary by necessity of means, and not merely of precept ; otherwise, if one lacked instruction, he would be excused from its precept : which the holy Doctor does not admit, but recurs to the extraordinary means of revelation, which then would be owed.

Trent, sess. VI, cap. 6, treating of the disposition to justification and of the things that are to be believed for it, says : « They are disposed unto that justice itself when, roused by divine grace and aided, receiving faith by hearing, they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised ; and this above all, that the impious man is justified by God through his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. » Further, if it is necessary « above all » to believe this concerning redemption through Christ, therefore nothing is more necessary. Therefore this explicit faith concerning the redemption of Christ is to be placed among the first things to be believed, and necessary before the others, consequently by necessity of means.

Proof 3° by reason. A more perfect faith of the Incarnation is required in the new law, in which this mystery has been accomplished and revealed, than in the old law, in which it was veiled. Now in the old law implicit faith of the Incarnation was necessary by necessity of means. Therefore in the new law explicit faith is necessary. — Proof of the minor, 1° from the Apostle, Gal., II, 16, who says : A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. 2° Just as the redemption of Christ is necessary, so also is faith in him ; for through faith redemption is applied, according to that, Rom., III, 22 : The justice of God, through the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all who believe in him. Now the redemption of Christ is and was necessary to all, at whatever time, by necessity of means unto salvation, as the Apostle teaches, Rom., V, 18 : As by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation ; so by the justice of one, unto all men unto the justification of life. Therefore.

The second part follows from the first. Because explicit faith of the Incarnation, namely that the Son of God was incarnate and conceived by the Holy Spirit, cannot be had without explicit faith of the Trinity. Add that the Incarnation is only a secondary object of our faith, while the Trinity is the primary object. Therefore, if in the new law explicit faith of the secondary object is required, with stronger reason that of the primary object.

Both parts are confirmed by the Symbol of St. Athanasius received by the Church, where, after the holy Doctor expounded the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, he concludes : « This is the Catholic faith, which unless each one believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. »

I said : « After the Gospel has been sufficiently promulgated ; » because, from the advent of Christ until the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, the same thing must be judged as concerning the time preceding the Incarnation, namely, that implicit faith concerning Christ sufficed ; since what has not been sufficiently promulgated ought not to be considered a means necessary to salvation. For that repugns the goodness of God and his gentle providence, as Bernard argues, epist. 77. Yet those to whom the Gospel had been promulgated in particular were bound by precept to explicit faith. When, however, the Gospel was sufficiently promulgated for all, it is uncertain. It is probable that this happened around the fortieth year after the ascension of Christ, when the temple of Jerusalem and the republic of the Jews were overthrown by the Romans.

[I say 3° : Explicit faith of each mystery is necessary by necessity of means, not only unto the second salvation, namely glorification, but also unto the first, namely justification.

This is against Cano and Bannez.

Proof. 1° from Holy Scripture. John., III, 14 and 15, cited in the proof of the first part of the second conclusion. Mark., XVI, 15 and 16 : Preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved ; but he who does not believe shall be condemned. John., III, 36, Christ not only says that he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but adds that the wrath of God abides upon him, that is, that he remains a sinner and unjust.

Proof 2° from the Tridentine passage cited there, where there is question, not only of glorification, but also and especially of justification. To this accords the response of the Congr. of the Holy Office, which, being asked : « Whether an adult who was in the article of death, and who promised that, after recovering his health, he would learn the truths of the faith, could be baptized, » replied on May 10, 1703 : « The promise does not suffice ; but the missionary is bound to explain to the adult, even though moribund, provided he is not altogether incapable, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by necessity of faith, such as above all the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. »

Proof 3° by reason. The just man is an adoptive son of God and heir of glory. Therefore, if implicit faith suffices for justification, it suffices also for glory ; which the adversaries do not admit.

Several cases are objected in which implicit faith of the Incarnation and the Trinity seems to suffice for salvation. 1° A boy nourished in the woods, or among barbarous nations, if he follows the guidance of right reason in the flight of evil and the pursuit of good, will be saved, according to St. Thomas. 2° If a boy, when he has attained the age of reason, is not instructed concerning the aforementioned mysteries, provided he converts to God, he will be justified. 3° Some are so rude and stupid that they cannot apprehend these mysteries by concept. The same must be said of the deaf and mute from birth. Yet salvation cannot be said to be impossible to them : otherwise God would not provide sufficiently for them.

I answer. to the 1st, with St. Thomas, de Verit., q. 14, a. 11, ad 1 : « If one so nourished followed the guidance of natural reason in the desire of good and the flight of evil, it is most certainly to be held that God would reveal to him, either by internal inspiration, the things necessary to be believed, or would direct to him some preacher of the faith, as he sent Peter to Cornelius, Acts., x. »

I answer. to the 2nd. The age of reason is moral, having some duration, within which the boy can be instructed, whether by God, or by an angel, or by a man. These extraordinary instructions ought not to be called miraculous, because they follow naturally from the will of God to save men.

I answer. to the 3rd. Intelligence is not required for faith, but assent, nor is anyone so stupid that, helped by the aid of grace, he could not apprehend the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity at least confusedly and as to their substance. But if you deny this, those are to be numbered among infants and the insane who, without actual faith, by habitual faith alone received in baptism, are saved.]

From what has been said you will gather that those who are ignorant of the aforesaid mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity as to their substance, even if invincibly, are incapable of absolution, and that all confessions made in this ignorance are null and to be repeated, nor does it suffice ever to have believed them, if they are now in fact unknown.

(To this tend the following propositions condemned by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679 : « Man is capable of absolution, however greatly he may labor under ignorance of the mysteries of faith, and even if, through negligence, even culpable negligence, he does not know the mystery of the most holy Trinity and the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, » n. 64. — « It suffices to have believed those mysteries once, » n. 65.]

You will ask 1° what things are to be believed by necessity of precept.

I answer. All the faithful, in this state of the evangelical law, are bound by a precept binding under mortal sin to believe explicitly, at least as to substance and principal circumstances: 1° all the articles contained in the Apostles' Creed; 2° all the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church; 3° the Lord's Prayer; 4° the sacraments necessary to be received, which are three: baptism, the eucharist and penance.

The reason of the first part is that the Apostles were bound by the precept of Christ to teach those articles explicitly, according to that saying, Marc., XVI, 15: Preach the Gospel to every creature; and therefore they composed this Creed before they began to preach. Therefore there is in the faithful the obligation of believing them. For the precept of instructing would be useless if there were not the obligation of believing. And so it is prescribed cap. Baptizandos, de consecr., dist. 4, cap. 58. Whence the Roman Catechism, p. I, c. 1, n. 2: « Those things which Christian men must first hold, says he, are those which... the holy Apostles, inspired by the divine Spirit, distinguished in twelve articles of the Creed. »

The reason of the second part is that each of the faithful is bound to keep the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church. Therefore also to know, or believe, them.

The reason of the third part is drawn from the necessity of knowing those things which we ought to ask of God. These however are contained in the Lord's Prayer.

The reason of the fourth part is that he cannot receive these sacraments rightly who is ignorant of them and of the dispositions required for them.

I said: « At least as to substance and principal circumstances; » because, as the Author says, certain persons are bound to believe more or less explicitly the subtle considerations concerning these mysteries, according as it befits the state and office of each one; more the pastors, doctors, preachers, confessors, who are deputed to instruct others, than the faithful among the people.

You will ask 2° when the precept of faith binds.

Twofold is the precept of faith: one affirmative, to assent to revealed truths; the other negative, not to deny the faith received or acknowledged. The latter binds always; not the former, but at a determined time, like the other affirmative precepts. But at what time?

I answer. 1° The affirmative precept of faith binds per se an adult possessed of reason immediately morally, as soon as the things to be believed and the motives for believing are sufficiently proposed to him; because faith is a necessary means to salvation, as we said. But an adult is bound immediately morally to employ the means necessary for his salvation, especially since, if he do not believe, there is danger lest he positively dissent from the truth acknowledged, and thus sin against the negative precept. Add that, since this precept binds per se at some time, no more convenient time can be assigned than the first instant of moral life, or of sufficient illumination.

I said: « Immediately morally; » because with children one must not act too scrupulously; for it often happens that, even when they have acquired the use of reason, the mysteries of faith are not sufficiently proposed to them, or that they do not apprehend the grave obligation of believing. Whence they rarely sin against this precept by not eliciting at once an act of faith.

2° The affirmative precept of faith binds per se in danger of death, in which the precepts of hope and charity bind, and man reaches his term.

3° Besides these cases, the affirmative precept of faith binds per se many times in life. It is clear 1° from the following propositions condemned by Innocent XI. The first: « It suffices to elicit an act of faith once in life. » It is the 17th among the condemned. Another: « It suffices to have believed those mysteries [namely of the Trinity and Incarnation] once. » It is the 65th. 2° Because, according to Scripture, Rom., I, 17, the just liveth by faith. But how would he live by faith if he elicited only one act of it in the whole of his life? 3° Because the precepts of the other virtues, hope, charity, etc., bind many times in life. Why not also that of faith?

But how often does it bind in life? It cannot be determined with certainty. Marvelously on this point authors vary. For some say on every Sunday and feast day; others, every month; others, once a year; others, on the greater solemnities.

[St. Liguori says, lib. III, n. 7: « The Salmanticenses think quite probably, together with others, that the faithful are bound at least once a year to exercise an act of faith. » And he adds that this opinion is common. The same observes that satisfaction is made sufficiently for this precept also through the exercise of the other virtues, whether through the reception of the sacraments, or from whatever other occasion acts of faith are placed.

It is expedient that the faithful be led to elicit explicit acts of faith every day, when they recite their accustomed prayers, to which the formulas of acts of faith, hope and charity are commonly added. Thus the habit of faith is confirmed, the obligation is abundantly satisfied, and the merit annexed to this virtue is multiplied.

But are we bound to elicit these acts formally, namely from the motive of God revealing? This motive indeed is very well enunciated in an explicit act, but it is sufficiently included in any act of faith, even implicit, although there be no reflex act from the proper motive. « For he who, says St. Liguori, ibid., has often placed faith as the rule of his actions, by which he wishes to tend to God, whatever good he does afterwards, directs to God exercitively by the same rule already, although he advert not. »]

I answer. 2° The affirmative precept of faith binds per accidens when a grave temptation presses, either against faith or against another virtue, which can be overcome only by an express act of faith. 2° Whenever some other precept urges which cannot be fulfilled without faith, as while one is bound to repent, to receive some sacrament, to celebrate or hear mass, etc.; because he who is bound to the end is bound to the means. In these cases however it does not seem necessary that there intervene an express act of faith in actu signato, whereby one say: « I believe that God exists whom I now implore; I believe the sacrament which I now receive; » but it suffices that he believe implicitly and in actu exercito, insofar as from knowledge of the faith, knowing that God exists, that he is the Redeemer, that this is a sacrament, etc., he intends to pray to God, love him, offer sacrifice, receive the sacrament, etc.

[It must be added: after falling into heresy, or denying the faith, because the injury offered to the first Truth must be repaired of necessity. So all.]

You will ask 3° whether a pious motion of the will is required for the assent of faith.

I answer. Affirmatively ¹.

[This the Vatican Council teaches in the constitution Dei Filius, cap. 3, in these words: « Although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind, nevertheless no one can consent to the evangelical preaching as is required for attaining salvation without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all sweetness in consenting and believing the truth ². Wherefore faith itself in itself, even though it work not through charity, is a gift of God, and its act is a work pertaining to salvation, by which man renders to God himself free obedience, consenting and cooperating with his grace, against which he could resist. »

It is proved 1° because at Rom., X, 10, it is said: With the heart we believe unto justice, that is with the will moving the intellect to believe, as the Angelic Doctor explains there, lect. 2. And it is gathered from the usage of Holy Scripture, according to which heart is wont to be taken for will. Whence Augustine, Tract. XXIV in Ioann., n. 2: « Anyone can enter the church unwilling, can approach the altar unwilling, can receive a sacrament unwilling: he cannot believe unless willing. »]

2° The intellect is determined only either by an evident object or by the will. But for the assent of faith it is not determined by the object, which is necessarily obscure and unevident. Therefore by the will.

3° The act of faith is free both as regards exercise and as regards specification, namely in the character of assent rather than dissent. Therefore it needs the motion of the will, whereby the intellect be determined to assent rather than to dissent.

[This motion is called « pious, » because it is necessarily from the help of grace, otherwise it would not be supernatural, and the beginning of salvation would be from us; which was condemned in the semi-Pelagians. Whence the Council of Trent teaches, session VI, cap. 6, that men « are disposed to justice itself, while excited and helped by divine grace, conceiving faith from hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which divinely have been revealed and promised. »]

This pious motion moreover is a certain complacency or affection, from the help of grace, towards the supreme veracity of God, by force of which it determines the intellect to assent with that firmness which surpasses every firmness arising from any scientific or experimental act.

[You will ask 4° whether it suffices to adhere to the truths defined by the Church as to be believed of faith, neglecting or even considering as free the other doctrinal decisions which the Roman Pontiffs have published.

I answer. Negatively. So decreed Leo XIII in the Encyclical Immortale Dei, 1 November 1885: « Indeed in judging, whatever the Roman Pontiffs have handed down or shall hand down, each thing must be held grasped by stable judgment, and openly professed whenever occasion requires; and specially concerning those which in latest times have been sought under the name of liberties, it behooves one to stand by the judgment of the Apostolic See, and to hold the same as she has judged, each and all. » The reason is that the supreme Pontiff enjoys the inerrancy granted divinely to him not only when he defines something as to be believed of faith, which rarely happens, but whenever as universal doctor he pronounces upon the truth or falsity of any doctrine.

Hence it is that the Vatican Council, having condemned several errors by the constitution Dei Filius, adds: « But since it is not enough to avoid heretical pravity unless those errors also be diligently fled which more or less approach it, we admonish all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which such perverse opinions, which are not expressly enumerated there, have been proscribed and prohibited by this Holy See. »

The opposite opinion had already been exploded by the condemnation of the following proposition, which is read in the Syllabus attached to the Encyclical Quanta cura, 8 December 1864, under no. 22: « The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are absolutely bound is restricted to those things alone which are propounded by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all. » Pius IX had noted this proposition in the preceding year as erroneous and to be rejected by all, in an epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg.

Whence resolve that anyone formally embracing and pertinaciously holding doctrine proscribed by the Apostolic See as erroneous commits a sin mortal of its genus, although the contradictory proposition be not taught as to be held of faith. I say « mortal of its genus; » because, since the Church freely permits many opposite opinions to be agitated, every error positively proscribed by her ought to be judged grave.]

Twofold is the precept concerning the external act of faith, as we said concerning hell: one negative, not to deny the faith externally; the other affirmative, to confess the faith externally.

I say 1°: In no case whatsoever, even to avoid death, is it licit to deny by word or deed the faith retained in the heart, or to profess or simulate it false externally.

It is clear 1° from the words of Christ, Matt., X, 33, and Luc., XII, 9, where he says: He that shall deny me before men, I will deny him before my Father. And Apost., 2 Tim., II, 12: If we deny him, he also will deny us. It is therefore a divine negative precept not to deny the faith. Such however is the nature of a negative precept that it binds always and forever.

2° To deny the faith is to say that God revealed what is false, or did not reveal a dogma of faith. But either is a lie injurious to God. Therefore it is never licit.

I said 1°: « By word or deed; » because in both there is a lie ¹, with this sole difference, that a lie by deed is called simulation.

I said 2°: « Or profess or simulate it false externally; » because to simulate and outwardly profess a false faith or religion is just as much as to deny the true one; for he who says in word, or exhibits in deed, that he is a Calvinist denies himself to be a Catholic.

You will ask when in practice someone is judged by deed to simulate or outwardly profess a false religion.

I answer. And let it be a general rule. To make use of signs, rites, ceremonies, vestments, actions which are primarily distinctive of sect from sect, or which either of themselves, or by institution, or from circumstances are primarily significant of the profession of a false faith, is to profess that false faith externally; and therefore never licit. Those things however which distinguish not primarily sect from sect but nation from nation, or which only per accidens, indirectly and secondarily, are significant of the profession of a false faith, although they are to be avoided lest we give some occasion for believing that we denied the faith — provided nevertheless there subsist a just cause of necessity preponderating over this deception — may be used licitly; because this is not absolutely to profess a false faith. From this rule rightly understood and applied you will resolve many cases. I shall relate some.

Hence therefore you will infer 1° that it has never been licit to bend the knee before an idol, to offer incense to it, even if the intention be directed to a hidden crucifix, to wear the image of Mohammed hung about the neck, to take the supper of the Calvinists, to sing psalms in their temples, to play the organs, to contract marriage before a minister blessing the nuptials according to the rite of his sect; because these are primarily distinctive of sect from sect, and per se primarily significant of a false religion.

[By the constitution Ex quo singulari, given 11 July 1742, Benedict XIV, confirming the constitution of Clement XI Ex illa die, declared that Chinese Christians might not exhibit external signs of adoration to an idol, although the intention were directed to a cross hidden under their garments. He permitted them to keep only those usages which could be held as civil only, such as those which had been instituted in honor of Confucius, provided all rites in which religious worship was included were amended.

You will infer 2° that it is regularly not licit for Catholics to be present at the sermons, baptisms and marriages of heretics or schismatics, as was declared by the Congregation of the Holy Office on 10 May 1770. Whence conclude that undertaking the office of godfather at the baptism of heretics, and of witness at their marriages, is forbidden a fortiori by the same decree. This is elicited from the Instruction of Pius VI of 26 September 1791, and from his replies to the clergy of France of 28 May 1793. — As to mere assistance, it was said that it is regularly not licit, because if the presence be merely material, as can sometimes happen, and it be sufficiently gathered from the circumstances that it contains or supposes no communication in divine things with heretics, and moreover offers no occasion of scandal, it can be excused from sin. — But truly, as evidently appears, if any Catholic, despising the laws of the Church, contracts marriage before a minister of a dissenting cult, it is licit to no Catholic to assist at such a marriage, even though he do not inwardly assent to it. Nay, parents and those more closely joined by blood are bound positively to disapprove it. — To the question: « Is it licit for Catholics to enter the temples of heretics? » the Congregation of the Holy Office replied on 14 January 1718: « It is licit, if they enter out of mere curiosity, without any communication in sacred things. » — If funerals of heretics be in question, a distinction must be made. Things pertaining to a merely civil office, such as accompanying the body to the door of the temple or cemetery, can be permitted. Other things which have the nature or species of communion with heretics are to be prohibited. Moreover several things which could be admitted in one place cannot be tolerated in another, because from circumstances or from the customs of the region they receive a different signification. Whence one must attend to local custom, and in doubt superiors must be consulted. So Gury-Dumas, num. 192, 5°.

You will infer 3° that those gravely sin who are present at the merely civil funerals of those who abjured the Catholic faith; because funerals of this kind, from which all signs of religion are deliberately excluded, are nothing but an open profession of impiety, which not even the relatives of the deceased may cooperate in.]

You will infer 4° that on the contrary it is licit, for a just cause, to wear long Turkish dress, or even what they call a turban, to conceal the faith. For although it has never been licit to deny the faith, it is nevertheless licit sometimes to hide and dissemble it; nor is that garment primarily for the distinction of religion but of nation, nor does the Catholic assume it so that he be believed to profess the Turkish religion, but that the occasion of attending to and inquiring about his religion be taken away. Say the same of the vestments of other idolatrous nations which are not destined precisely for the uses of their religion. Say the same of their standards in war, that thus they may be deceived and conquered.

I say 2°: By the precept of Christ the faithful is bound sometimes to confess his faith externally ².

It is proved. Christ, Matt., X, 32, says: Every one that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father. Luc., IX, 26: He that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, him will the Son of man be ashamed of. And the Apostle, Rom., X, 10: With the heart we believe unto justice; but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Therefore confession is sometimes necessary to salvation.

The Author here ³ assigns two cases in which this affirmative precept of confessing the faith binds, namely: « When through omission of this confession honor due to God would be withheld, and also utility to be bestowed on neighbors: suppose that anyone questioned about the faith kept silence, and from this it were believed either that he had no faith, or that the faith was not true, or that others were turned away from the faith by his silence. » All theologians follow the Saintly Doctor. And deservedly, for the precept of confessing the faith binding sometimes being supposed, cases cannot be assigned in which its observance presses more than these two which St. Thomas assigns.

[Whence the following proposition was condemned by Innocent XI, on 2 March 1679, which is the 18th: « If anyone be questioned by the public authority, I counsel him sincerely to confess the faith, as glorious to God and the faith; I do not condemn silence as sinful. »

It must be noted however that this proposition was condemned as too general, because namely it includes also the cases in which silence would be equivalent to denial of the faith. For it is commonly admitted, with St. Liguori, lib. III, n. 13, that for a just cause it is licit to conceal the faith, or to cover truth with words or other ambiguous and indifferent signs, whenever the precept of professing the faith does not press, which, insofar as it is affirmative, binds indeed always but not forever. Hence one questioned about the faith not in juridical form may keep silence or answer obscurely. For it is not generally true that one questioned by those who exercise public authority is bound to profess the faith, unless this profession be made necessary by the circumstances, lest he seem to deny the faith before bystanders. Much more will it be lawful for anyone to refuse to satisfy the curiosity of private persons: unless questioned about the faith out of hatred of religion he would seem, by acting thus, to deny the truth; which is to be judged from the circumstances.]

I say 3°: By ecclesiastical law, under mortal sin, the following are bound to external profession of faith, from the Council of Trent, session XXIV, cap. 12 de reform.: « Those provided with benefices of whatever kind having care of souls shall be bound, from the day of acquired possession, within at least two months, in the hands of the bishop himself, or, he being hindered, before his general vicar or official, to make public profession of the orthodox faith, and to promise and swear that they will persevere in obedience to the Roman Church. Those provided moreover with canonries and dignities in cathedral churches are bound to do the same not only before the bishop or his official, but also in chapter. Otherwise let all the aforesaid provisors, as above, not receive their fruits, nor let possession avail them. » — From the tenor of this decree, those provided with canonries in merely collegiate churches, or with simple benefices, are not bound to the said profession. — The most sacred council commands moreover, session XXV, cap. 2 de reform., that patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops emit the same profession of faith in the first provincial synod in which they themselves take part; likewise that the same be done in the first diocesan synod in which all the rest who are to hold ecclesiastical benefices ought to assemble. Pius IV extends this law to all prelates of religions, even military, and Pius VI to all who are to be promoted to doctors, masters, regents and professors. De Angelis warns, Praelect. iuris canon., lib. I, tit. 1, n. 2, « that the constitution of Pius IV is not received in usage as regards those prelates who are placed over the government of religious not by the Holy See but by their superiors or by the chapter. » Sanchez truly, c. 3, n. 4, says the decree of Pius V does not bind where it was not received in usage. As regards the penalty of not receiving his fruits imposed by Trent upon those omitting the profession of faith, St. Liguori judges, lib. III, n. 11, that these are not bound to it before sentence.

It must be noted that this profession of faith is to be made according to the formula prescribed by Pius IV, into which, by order of Pius IX, express mention is to be inserted of those things « which have been handed down, defined and declared by the ecumenical Vatican Council, especially concerning the primacy and infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. »

Although it is probable that this profession can be made through a procurator, it is nevertheless more probable that the promoted person is bound personally. The reason is that otherwise it does not seem that satisfaction is sufficiently made by oath, which must be made personally. St. Lig., lib. I, n. 11.