Faith as necessary for salvation

God has destined us for a supernatural end of eternal happiness, consisting essentially of the beatific vision of himself, as we know from revelation; he wishes that we should, as rational and free beings, work consciously for the attainment of that end. We cannot do this without believing in God and without believing that he is a rewarder of those who do well and a punisher of those who do ill; faith, then, is the necessary foundation of the Christian life. ‘‘ Without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder of them that seek him.”

Faith is, then, necessary for salvation, not merely because it is of precept like the Commandments, but because it is a necessary means to attain the supernatural end to which we are destined by God. Without taking the necessary means the end cannot be attained. Those, then, who have come to the use of reason, so that they can know God and know what he has revealed, are bound to make an act of faith; otherwise they cannot be saved. The habit of faith is infused into the soul together with sanctifying grace at the reception of baptism, and this habitual faith is sufficient for such as have not the use of reason, like children or those who have always been insane.

Our act of faith must implicitly extend to everything that God has revealed; we cannot accept some articles on his authority and reject others which are vouched for by the same authority. But it is not sufficient to make an act of implicit faith comprising all that God has revealed. We are bound to know and believe certain revealed truths explicitly. Some of these truths must be believed explicitly as a necessary means to salvation; explicit belief in others is only of precept, and the want of it, if inculpable, will not be a bar to salvation. Explicit belief in the existence of God, the rewarder of them that seek him, is necessary for salvation, and probably also belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarna‘tion. Explicit belief in these mysteries is certainly of precept.¹ A Christian is bound also to know and believe the substance of what is contained in the Creed, the sacraments which are of obligation, the precepts of God and of the Church, and the Lord’s Prayer. It is sufficient to have implicit faith in other truths of revelation.

¹ Props. 22, 64, condemned by Innocent XI.

The act of faith (actual faith), as is clear, cannot be necessary except for adults. But a distinction must be made between adults not yet justified and adults justified. Now:

I. The act of faith is necessary for salvation by necessity of means for adults not yet justified. And indeed, the act of faith is necessary for obtaining justification. But justification itself is necessary for salvation by necessity of means. Therefore the same must be affirmed of the act of faith.

The major is proved: 1. From Sacred Scripture. "But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God must believe."² That St. Paul here speaks of actual faith is clear both from the word believe and from the whole context. That the Apostle speaks of supernatural faith is clear from verse 1, where he calls it "the substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things that appear not." But that the words must be understood of all men of all times is clearer than the sun from the context from chapter 10:38-39 through chapter 11:1-40 inclusive, where he is wholly concerned to prove, by examples adduced, that all the saints from the beginning of the world were justified by faith, and likewise that all still must be justified by it. 2. From Councils. The Council of Trent says thus: "Without it [faith] justification has never happened to anyone."³ That actual faith is to be understood you may deduce from the fact that the Council speaks of faith which, "conceiving from hearing, they are freely moved toward God, believing that the things divinely revealed and promised are true."⁴ The Vatican Council teaches the same.⁵ 3. It is confirmed by reason. For it is altogether fitting that, for the justification of an adult, it be required by necessity of means that he tend toward God as his supernatural ultimate end. But this cannot happen unless God is apprehended as the supernatural ultimate end; and this happens through faith.

Corollary. To the question how an adult not yet justified, who lacks a preacher, can elicit an act of faith, St. Thomas responds: "For if someone nourished in such a way⁶ followed the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and fleeing evil, it must most certainly be held that God would either reveal to him by internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the faith to him, as Peter to Cornelius" (De veritate, q. 14, a. 11, ad 1).

II. The act of faith is also in some way necessary for justified adults by necessity of means, namely to the extent that salvation cannot be obtained without supernatural prayer by which the grace necessary for fulfilling the precepts is obtained. Now for prayer of this sort an act of faith is necessarily required. Hence the act of faith is also necessary for justified adults in this sense by necessity of means, so that they may arrive at salvation.

Corollary I. For justification, the desire of faith does not suffice, but a formal act of faith is required, as is deduced from the obvious sense of the documents which we have alleged.

Corollary II. For justification an act of faith strictly so called is required; but faith broadly so called does not suffice, that is, as those few explain who think this faith to suffice,⁷ faith which does not rest on the authority of God revealing, but on knowledge acquired from creatures, yet with supernatural help. The arguments adduced prove that true faith is required, of which sort faith broadly so called is not. There is added that the attacked opinion almost falls into proposition 23 condemned by Innocent XI: "Faith broadly so called from the testimony of creatures or a similar motive suffices for justification."⁸

III. The act of faith, necessary by necessity of means, must be explicit as regards certain dogmas; namely:

1. Explicit faith in God existing and rewarding is certainly required. This is clear from Sacred Scripture: "For he who comes to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to those who seek Him."⁹ Hence Innocent XI condemned proposition 22: "Only faith in one God seems necessary by necessity of means, but not explicit faith in a rewarder."¹⁰

In addition, explicit faith in God as rewarder in the supernatural order is more probably required; and according to many, also in God existing as author of the supernatural order. On this account the dogmatic theologians should be consulted.

2. It is disputed whether after the Gospel has been promulgated, explicit faith in the Most Holy Trinity and Christ the Redeemer is necessary by necessity of means. I said after the Gospel has been promulgated; for before that, that explicit faith in the aforesaid mysteries was not necessary is drawn from these passages of Sacred Scripture: "The mystery which had been hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to His saints";¹¹ "But before the faith came, we were kept enclosed under the law, unto that faith which was to be revealed."¹²

That after the Gospel has been promulgated explicit faith in those mysteries is necessary by necessity of means is taught by St. Thomas, as it seems (II-II, q. 2, aa. 7 and 8), and others. They rest first on these passages of Sacred Scripture: "But the justice of God, that is, our justification, by the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all who believe in Him; for there is no distinction."¹³ "Now this is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."¹⁴ Add the responses of the Holy Office.¹⁵ Nevertheless, the contrary opinion also is probable, because the aforesaid doctrine is not necessarily deduced either from the nature of the thing, or from Sacred Scripture, or from the testimonies of the Fathers, or from the responses of the Sacred Congregations. Not from the nature of the thing, because in order that man tend toward God as his supernatural end, explicit faith in God existing and rewarding in the supernatural order suffices. But the texts of Sacred Scripture, the testimonies of the Holy Fathers, and the contrary responses are understood by the favorers of this opinion of implicit faith, or of necessity of precept, or of necessity considered according to common and ordinary providence (St. Alphonsus, II, 2).¹⁶

Corollary I. An adult (not perpetually insane) who certainly does not know God existing or rewarding, of himself cannot be baptized even in danger of death, because he certainly lacks faith, which in an adult is required for obtaining justification (under III). Thus theoretically; since practically either ignorance can be driven out or it will not be certain.

Corollary II. An adult (not perpetually insane) who does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of Christ the Redeemer, of himself cannot be baptized or absolved, not even in extremis, unless he is first instructed.¹⁷ But if, with extreme necessity pressing, instruction cannot be undertaken, Baptism and absolution should be conferred, provided the required intention is certainly, or at least with some probability, present.¹⁸ In the former case Baptism should be administered absolutely, in the latter conditionally; but absolution should not be granted except conditionally, because even if the required intention were certainly present, nevertheless supernatural contrition probably is lacking, when knowledge of the mysteries which probably must be believed by necessity of means is lacking.¹⁹

¹ Cf. Waffelaert, Annotationes in tractatum de virtutibus theologicis; Bouquillon, De virtutibus theologicis; Van der Moeren, Tractatus de virtutibus theologicis.

² Heb. 11:6. The same is taught at Heb. 10:38; Gal. 2:16; Mark 16:15 sq.

³ Session 6, chapter 7.

⁴ Session 6, chapter 6.

⁵ Session 3, chapter 3.

⁶ That is, in forests.

⁷ Thus Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, VIII, 493 sq.

⁸ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1173.

⁹ Heb. 11:6.

¹⁰ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1172.

¹¹ Col. 1:26.

¹² Gal. 3:23.

¹³ Rom. 3:22.

¹⁴ John 17:3.

¹⁵ The response of the Holy Office, May 3, 1703 (Collectanea de Propaganda Fide, n. 254, ad 2, and n. 256, ad 2), causes the greatest difficulty. Asked whether an adult in the article of death could be baptized under a promise of learning the truths of Faith if he recovered, it responded: "That the promise does not suffice; but that the missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even one dying, who is not altogether incapable, the mysteries of Faith which are necessary by necessity of means, such as the principal mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation." This response Benedict XIV also reports in the Constitution Postremo mense, February 28, 1747, n. 41; finally the Holy Office, March 30, 1898 (Collectanea de Propaganda Fide, n. 1993), again appealed to it.

¹⁶ Cf. note [16].

¹⁷ Cf. the responses of the Holy Office cited in note [16].

¹⁸ This doctrine is not opposed to the cited responses of the Holy Office, namely those of May 3, 1703, and March 30, 1898. These establish what generally must be done; this does not prevent an exception being admitted in an urgent case of necessity.

¹⁹ Nor is proposition 64 condemned by Innocent XI an obstacle to our doctrine: "A man is capable of absolution however much he labors 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 of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1214). For here the speech concerns culpable ignorance, which certainly excludes valid absolution until the penitent grieves over it (St. Alphonsus, II, 2).

Faith in the revelation given by God is necessary for salvation (Heb., xi. 6), but in the usual providence of God faith cannot be had or safeguarded without short formulas of its principal doctrines.

(a) Faith cannot be received without such formulas, because, its doctrines being many and frequently difficult and the study of all scripture and Tradition being impossible for most persons, a list of short and clear propositions of revealed truths (Creed) is needed that the faith may be proposed and accepted.

(b) Faith cannot be retained without such formulas, because, being unchanging in itself and yet for all times and places, its doctrines would be easily corrupted if there were not an official standard (Symbol) by which both truth and error could be at once recognized (I Cor., i. 10; II Tim., i. 13).

194. • It is certain that two things are to be known and believed by necessity of means: 1º that God is: He who approaches God must believe that he is. Hebr. 11. - 2º That he is a rewarder: He must... believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those who seek him. Ibid. - But whether other things must be believed explicitly by necessity of means for salvation is controverted: hence concerning them:

195. Questions. - Q. 1º Is explicit Faith in the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation required by necessity of means?

Resp. A twofold probable opinion is given.

I. The OPINION altogether affirms. The reason is:

1º With regard to the Incarnation, because salvation is not given except through Christ; therefore that means must necessarily be explicitly known and believed.

2º With regard to the Most Holy Trinity, because Faith in this mystery is the foundation of our salvation; for Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Faith, must be conferred in the name of the Father, etc. Now that which is the foundation of salvation must be the primary object of Faith, and therefore believed according to itself and explicitly. - Thus Collet, Decal. c. 1. art. 1. - Antoine, c. 1. - St. Lig. says this opinion is more probable, n. 2. ¹.

¹ ** St. Alphonsus does not call this opinion absolutely more probable, but says that it seems more probable.

II. The OPINION which seems more probable denies. The reason is that before Christ implicit Faith in these mysteries sufficed; therefore even after his advent it ought to suffice. For Christ did not change the means. - Thus Suarez, disp. 12. sect. 4. - Lugo, De Fid. disp. 12. n. 91. ². Nor is there an obstacle in the proposition condemned by Innocent XI, under n. 64, which has itself thus: A man is capable of absolution however much he labors under ignorance of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ; it is not an obstacle, I say; for it could deservedly be condemned by reason of the first part, in which it is asserted that a man is capable of absolution, however much he generally labors under ignorance of the mysteries of Faith.

² Cardinal De Lugo (l. c.) calls this opinion the more probable, the common one of the more recent doctors, and, as it seems, also of St. Thomas, P. 3. q. 69. art. 4. ad 2.

** VV. (Pag. 914. n. 23.) produce the response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 28 Febr. 1703, in which it is said that a Missionary is bound, even to a dying adult who is wholly incapable, to explain the mysteries of faith which are necessary by necessity of means, as are ESPECIALLY the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Resp. Let that word Especially be noted: for it is inferred that there are therefore other mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, which nevertheless it is not necessary to propose to that dying person. Therefore in a certain broader sense mysteries of faith are here called necessary by necessity of means.

Q. 2º Can he be absolved who is ignorant of those things which are certainly of necessity of means?

Resp. Neg. Neither licitly nor validly. Thus all. The reason is that he, on account of the defect of a simply necessary means, is incapable of justification; therefore also incapable of absolution. Besides, no one can have hope of salvation unless he believes God to be a rewarder.

196. • Q. 3º Can one who is ignorant of the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation be absolved?

Resp. 1º He cannot licitly, outside a case of necessity, for example, danger of death; the reason is that a Confessor absolving such a one exposes the Sacrament to the danger of nullity, as is plain from the preceding Question 1. - Hence the Confessor must either first instruct the penitent ³, or dismiss him until he has been sufficiently instructed. - St. Lig. n. 3.

³ Before absolving a penitent, it would be enough that this one, while the Confessor proposes those mysteries, elicit an act of faith, although he cannot learn them here and now. St. Alphonsus (In Prax. Confess.) reports these words of Bl. Leonard: It is not good counsel to dismiss such ignorant persons, that these things may be taught by others, because no other fruit will be hoped for, except that in this way the ignorant remain ignorant; and therefore it is expedient briefly to teach them the aforesaid principal mysteries, likewise bringing it about that they elicit with him acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition, yet obliging them that hereafter they have themselves instructed perfectly concerning the other mysteries necessary to be known by necessity of precept.

Resp. 2º More probably he can be absolved validly, if he is in invincible ignorance. The reason is drawn from what was said in the II Opinion of the first Question ⁴.

⁴ St. Alphonsus observes (Lib. 2. n. 2.) after Tanner, that even if you hold that explicit faith in these mysteries is now necessary by necessity of means, nevertheless if there are any of such rude intellect that they can in no way conceive those mysteries under some proper notion, these with regard to this are to be compared with infants and the foolish. And indeed if they have already been baptized, and are not instructed, shall we say that sanctifying grace flies away from them because they do not do what they cannot do?

Moreover, if it is more probable that those ignorant of these mysteries are validly absolved, therefore previous confessions made in that state of ignorance are not necessarily to be repeated. It must be carefully noted (says St. Alphonsus Lib. 6. n. 505.) that penitents are not to be compelled to repeat confessions, unless it is morally certain that they were invalid. Now confessions which more probably are valid cannot be said to be morally certainly invalid.

St. Thomas, II-II, q. 2, a. 3 and 5-8; De Verit., q. 14, a. 10-12.

706. A twofold necessity: one of means, the other of precept. - It must be noted beforehand that something is said to be necessary for the end either by necessity of means, or by necessity of precept. Necessary by necessity of means is a means which positively flows into obtaining the end, and indeed in such a way that without it, even if omitted involuntarily, the end cannot be obtained. Necessary by necessity of precept is not a means to the end, but that which is imposed by precept in such a way that, when the precept is known, its observance is a condition, just as voluntary transgression is an obstacle to attaining the end; whence it flows in not positively but negatively, by not placing an obstacle. From this definition it follows that invincible ignorance excuses from necessity of precept, because it excuses from sin, which would be an obstacle to attaining the end; but no ignorance or impossibility whatever liberates from necessity of means, for this does not supply the necessary influx of the means for attaining the end.

Necessity of means is one thing from the nature of the thing, another from positive institution; likewise one is necessity of means in reality, when the means itself is always necessary, another is necessity of means in desire, when the defect of the means can be supplied by another thing together with the desire of it. Examples for salvation are sanctifying grace and Baptism.

707. Faith is necessary by necessity of means.

I. By necessity of means for salvation, both for little children and for adults, from the nature of the thing, the habit of faith is necessary, because without it charity cannot be had. Council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 7.

II. By necessity of means for justification and in this way for salvation,1 for adults, that is, those having the use of reason, from the nature of the thing, in all times altogether, the act of faith properly so called is necessary, by which they explicitly believe, on account of divine revelation, that God, the institutor and end of the supernatural order, exists, and is a rewarder.

It is proved: 1. From Scripture, which rather often declares the absolute necessity of the voluntary reception of faith properly so called (for it recognizes no other as necessary) for attaining justification (Heb. X, 38 sq.; Rom. I, 17; III, 26; IV, 5; Gal. II, 16; Mk. XVI, 16), and professedly teaches at Heb. XI, 6, that "without faith it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God must believe (the act of faith) that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

2. From the perpetual doctrine of the Church, which is established from Trent, sess. 6, c. 6, 7, 8; from the Vatican Council, sess. 3, c. 3, can. 2; and from the condemnation of propositions 22 and 23 by Innocent XI.1

3. From reason: a) No one can order himself and tend to the supernatural end, which nevertheless is required for justification, unless he know that end. But we cannot know the supernatural end by reason, but only by revelation, to which faith responds. Therefore.

b) Likewise no one can hope for salvation and have supernatural contrition concerning sin, unless he know the supernatural end and reward. But hope and supernatural contrition are required for justification (Council of Trent, sess. 6 and 14). Therefore for justification it is required that we believe the supernatural end.

From what has been said it follows a) that some true concept of one God is required, by which namely He is distinguished from creatures, and is known at least as creator, or omnipotent, or a necessary or most perfect being; otherwise we would not tend to the true God;

b) that knowledge of God as natural end and rewarder does not suffice: for although it is not required that we know distinctly and formally as supernatural the end or reward, nevertheless we must believe the reward which in fact is supernatural;

c) that practically there is no difficulty in this: whoever by faith on account of the authority of God revealing believes that God is and rewards, by that very fact believes God revealing Himself in a supernatural mode, that is, communicating with us beyond the exigencies of nature, and believes that God will reward with the reward which He promised by His revelation.

III. Before the Gospel was promulgated, explicit faith in the Incarnation (and at the same time in the passion, death, redemption, resurrection, and glorious reign of Christ in heaven) and in the Most Holy Trinity was not necessary by necessity of means for justification, but implicit faith sufficed; but whether after the Gospel has been promulgated it is required from the positive institution of God is disputed. Although the affirmative opinion of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus is more probable and more conformable to the mode of speaking of Sacred Scripture and the Holy Fathers,¹ nevertheless it is not altogether certain, because the texts which are brought forward to prove it, and which, according to them, proclaim the necessity of faith in Christ, perhaps can also be understood either of the efficacy alone of faith in Christ; - or of the necessity of precept alone; - or of necessity of means, but of the merits and grace of Christ, or of faith by which we are united to Christ, or at least of implicit faith in Christ. Yet because in things necessary for the end, in the case for salvation, it is illicit to choose a merely probable opinion, but the safer course must be taken (cf. n. 215, 3), therefore in practice these two mysteries must be considered as to be believed by necessity of means.

¹ Cf. Martin, De Necessitate credendi et credendorum.

1. It is said thus and not simply for salvation, because if someone was baptized in infancy, and afterwards arrived at the use of reason, and it should happen that faith is not sufficiently proposed to him, and at the same time that he does not sin mortally, he will be saved without an act of faith. Here, nevertheless, for adults it will regularly be a necessary means for preserving justice, namely, for fulfilling Christian duties, so that they may persevere in justice.

1. "Only faith in one God seems necessary by necessity of means, but not explicit faith in a Rewarder." - "Faith broadly so called, from the testimony of creatures or from a similar motive, suffices for justification."

708. Practical corollaries. - 1. Since he who is ignorant of the existence of God as supernatural end and rewarder is incapable of justification and certainly indisposed, the sacraments, even of Baptism or Penance, can never be given to him. Indeed confessions made with ignorance even invincible of these truths are null (from defect of contrition) and therefore must be repeated.

2. Nor can these sacraments be administered to one who is ignorant of the mystery of the Incarnation or of the Trinity; but he must first be instructed concerning these, because it is illicit to expose a sacrament to danger of fruitlessness, or even Penance to danger of nullity (Holy Office, January 25 and May 10, 1703, renewed March 30, 1898; Innocent XI, prop. 64 and 65).² The case of extreme necessity is excepted, when the means or time of instruction is lacking; in which case the sacrament of Penance is administered under condition: if you are capable, provided that the other requisites are present, but with these given, the other sacraments absolutely.

² "A man is capable of absolution, however much he labors under ignorance of the mysteries of faith and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ." - "It suffices to have believed those mysteries once."

3. Especially let canon 752, § 2 be noted: an adult "in danger of death, if he cannot be instructed more diligently in the chief mysteries of faith, it is sufficient, for conferring Baptism, that he show in some way that he assents to the same and seriously promise that he will observe the commands of the Christian religion."

4. Since confessions made with ignorance not gravely culpable of the Incarnation or of the Most Holy Trinity by one who in good faith thought that he was rightly disposed, are not certainly invalid, although more safely they are repeated, nevertheless the faithful cannot be strictly obliged to this.

5. When it is a question of the half-witted or the very ignorant, an act of faith in God one and three, and in Christ the redeemer, is to be suggested to them before they are absolved; by which the validity of absolution becomes safer.

6. Hence St. Alphonsus notes, Theologia Moralis, l. 2, c. 1, n. 2: if someone were so unlearned that he could in no way perceive the aforesaid mysteries, and therefore did not explicitly believe, as to this he would be assimilated to infants and the insane; but if he cannot retain them, it will suffice that he explicitly believe the individual articles while they are proposed to him. The case, besides, is rare even in barbarous regions.

7. For justification implicit faith on the part of the act does not suffice, or faith in desire or broadly so called, but faith in reality is required, by which we explicitly believe God revealing; yet implicit faith on the part of the object suffices insofar as revealed truths are apprehended confusedly, but explicit faith is required as to truths necessary by necessity of means.

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.

IX. "Even after the promulgation of the Gospel has been made, explicit knowledge of the Trinity, or of the mystery of the Incarnation, is not necessary with the necessity of means, but only of precept; and thus salvation can befall someone without his explicitly knowing that the Son of God was incarnate and suffered for us." Castropalao, Tome I, treatise 4, disputation 1, point 9, number 7.

A TWOFOLD necessity is assigned by the Theologians, after D. Bonaventure here, and in 4. dist. 12. p. 2. art. 2. quaest. 1. and dist. 3. p. 1. articulo 1. quaest. 3.

ONE is the necessity of means; another of precept. With the necessity of means, or of the end, that thing is necessary which, from the Law of God, by ordinary institution, is necessary for salvation, so much so that neither ignorance supplies for it, nor excuses it. That is necessary from precept which must be carried out necessarily, where the faculty and the occasion are at hand; yet not in such a way that, on account of ignorance or a lack of opportunity, the attainment of salvation is impeded. But some things are necessary in both ways, such as Penance after sin, the vow of Baptism, and faith, as the holy Doctor says at dist. 3. in the place cited.

THAT faith has always been necessary for the justification of adults, and for salvation, I proved in the first part of the Summa, Tract. 5. disput. 3. quaest. 10. And it is established by that passage of Hebr. 11. Without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe, etc. And Ioan. 3. He who does not believe is already judged, as the holy Doctor discusses on cap. 3. Ioan. To this also pertains what is said in Sap. 9. Through wisdom they were healed, whosoever pleased thee, O Lord, from the beginning, as the holy Doctor indicates on that passage, for by wisdom he understands Doctrine from revelation. So also D. Ambrose on the First Epistle to Tim. 3. by Wisdom understands Faith.

THIS is the Catholic teaching. So D. Bonaventure in the places alleged, and in the prologue of the Breviloquium, and Lib. 2. of the Pharetra, cap. 23. where he brings forward many holy Fathers, and in the Diaeta, tit. 5. cap. 3. and tit. 9. cap. 5. in which places he proves it from the Scriptures testifying that faith is the foundation of salvation, as Matth. 16. Upon this rock I will build my Church, namely upon Peter's confession, and upon faith founded on Christ as base. And in Hebr. 11. it is called Substance, or Foundation. And in the Hexaëmeron, serm. 8. he compares it to the Firmament. He proves it from Rom. 10. With the heart we believe unto justice: but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Heb. 11. Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for. Act. 15. Purifying their hearts by faith. And in serm. 9. he pursues the same point, proving the firmness of faith from many headings. And in serm. 10. he compares it to heaven, which is the universal cause of living things.

THERE FOLLOW D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 2. art. 3. where the Thomists. The Master 3. dist. 23. where the Sententiarii. Cano relect. de Sacram. in genere, p. 2. quaest. 2. Peter. ad Rom. d. 17. and cap. 2. d. 8. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 1. quaest. 2. p. 2. Sanchez Lib. 2. decal. c. 2. Suarez de fide, disp. 12. sect. 1. and 2. Becan. summae p. 2. cap. 12. and it is a dogma of faith. Nor had even the heretics almost ever denied it, except the Manichaeans, and the Pelagians, as Tannerus says, quaest. 7. num. 28. Scarcely one, Zuinglius, tom. 2. art. 12. says that Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus, the Catos, the Scipios, Seneca, and others, were saved without faith, and Erasmus in the Tusculan Questions says the same of Cicero.

BUT Christ cries out against this, Matth. last chapter: He who does not believe shall be condemned. And also the Council of Trent, sess. 6. cap. 7., which same thing D. Bonaventure says, 4. dist. 3. p. 1. art. 1. quaest. 3.

IT IS PROVED by the holy Doctor in the Pharetra, from the Fathers, especially D. Augustine homil. de centum ovibus: and Lib. 5. com. Iulianum, cap. 3. de verbis Apostoli, serm. 1. serm. 18. and 38. de Tempore; de verbis Domini, serm. 61. Chrysostom homil. 62. in Ioan. Bernard epist. 77. and serm. 28. Cant. and serm. 1. Annunc. where he also assigns those things which are necessarily to be believed, saying: For it is necessary, first of all, to believe that you cannot have the remission of sins except by the indulgence of God: then, that you can have nothing at all of a good work unless he himself has given even this; finally, that you cannot merit eternal life by any works, unless it also be given gratuitously, namely, the grace by which we are enabled. See Fagundez Lib. 1. cap. 2. Caspens. disp. 3. sect. 4. Morandus quaest. 10. Tannerus quaest. 7. dub. 2. Bouer. demonst. 2. Symb. Arragon. art. 3. Cardinal Lugo disp. 12. sect. 2. who also refute Vega Lib. 6. in Trident. cap. 20. and Soto Lib. 2. de natura, et gratia, cap. 11. who say that faith regarding the supernatural object is not necessary, but only supernatural on the part of the principle: indeed Soto says, that all this is supplied by natural faith; although he retracted this in 4. dist. 1. quaest. 2. art. 3. and at the end of the question, in the recognition, frightened by D. Augustine's de natura, et gratia.

I ASSERT, therefore, that the acts of faith necessary for salvation are supernatural.

¶ IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure in the places alleged. From Hebr. 11. He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder. It is confirmed by the Fathers alleged and by the Council of Trent sess. 6. cap. 6. and can. 3. It is a matter de fide.

YOU WILL OBJECT first from Rom. 2. where it is said of the infidels: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God.

IT IS ANSWERED that only this is meant: that certain gentiles, by natural knowledge, with the added supernatural light, could have come to the knowledge of God; but that they were unwilling.

YOU WILL OBJECT secondly. If Baptism in voto suffices: Therefore also faith, in the same way.

IT IS ANSWERED by denying the consequence; for faith is a per se disposition necessary for the natural intrinsic mutation: not so external acts, such as Baptism and confession, as Fagundez rightly observes, number 13.

¶ IT IS ASKED, first: Whether before the Incarnation implicit faith in the Trinity, and in Christ the Lord, sufficed: And, likewise, whether it sufficed after the Incarnation up to the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel. The holy Doctor treats of this, 3. dist. 25. quaest. 2.

ALL indeed agree that faith in the Incarnation, or faith regarding Christ, was implicit, from Adam up to Christ. So the Theologians commonly, 3. dist. 25. with D. Bonaventure. Albertus art. 1. Scotus quaest. 1. Gabr. quaest. 1. art. 2. Alens. 3. part. quaest. 82. memb. 3. art. 1. Richardus art. 3. Durandus quaest. 1. and others. Valentia quaest. 1. p. 4. Soto Lib. de natura, et gratia, cap. 11. and 12. Cano Relect. de Sacram. in genere, p. 2. concl. 1. Vega Lib. 6. in Trident. cap. 20. D. Thom. 3. p. quaest. 69. art. 4. and 2 2. quaest. 2. art. 7. where the Thomists, Sanchez Lib. 2. decal. cap. 2. num. 7. Suarez de fide, disp. 12. sect. 4. Fagundez Lib. 1. cap. 2. in decal. num. 17. Caspens. disp. 3. sect. 5. Morandus quaest. 10. de fide, Lugo disp. 12. sect. 4. Tannerus quaest. 7. dub. 2. Becan. cap. 12. quaest. 2. Petrus a S. Ioseph Fuliensis lib. 3. cap. 5. Bassaeus V. Fides 1. num. 6. Bouet. loco cit. art. 1.

SOME, however, say that it was necessary explicitly, even before the promulgation of the Gospel. So Becanus, alleging D. Bonaventure and others. Others, indeed, hold that even after the promulgation of the Gospel implicit faith regarding Christ suffices: So Soto above, and in 4. dist. 5. quaest. unic. art. 2. Canus loco cit. concl. 3. Vega loco cit. and it seems D. Thom. 3. p. quaest. 69. art 4. ad 2. Richardus art. 4. quaest. 1. Medina lib. 4. de recta fide, cap. 20. Maldonat. Ioan. 5. num. 25. Arretinus 3. dist. 25. quaest. 1. art. 8. Suarez, Couninch. Lugo, Arriaga, Turtianus, Poncius in Mastrius disp. 6. quaest. 16.

OTHERS, indeed, say such faith is necessary for beatitude, but not for justification. So Caietanus relect. de Sacram. p. 2. quaest. 2. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 2. art. 8. and certain other Thomists, who are commonly rejected; for the reason is the same for both. Therefore in Act. 10. it is said: To receive the remission of sins through his name: and cap. 15. Purifying their hearts by faith, and c. 26. it is related that Paul was sent by God to preach, that they may receive the remission of sins through faith which is in Christ. But Fuliensis says that explicit faith regarding Christ is not required with the necessity of means.

THE TRUE teaching is that after the promulgation of the Gospel explicit faith regarding Christ is necessary. So the others commonly, to whom add Toletus, Summa p. p. cap. 2. Lorin. Act. 4. Molina p. p. quaest. 9. punct 4. and others in Mastrius loco cit. Tannerus num. 46. who also brings forward D. Bonaventure 3. dist. 25. quaest. 2. whom Bassaeus also alleges num. 7.

I ASSERT first, that before the Incarnation up to the promulgation of the Gospel, implicit faith regarding Christ sufficed, but explicit faith was not necessary.

NOTE with D. Bonaventure in the body. Those things are believed implicitly which are not believed expressly, and in particular, or perfectly in themselves; but only in something else, e.g. when someone believes what the Church believes; he believes also that Christ the Lord died, etc. So also it was believed implicitly in ancient times, if they believed that God would save the world, or redeem it from sins, in the manner in which it had already been revealed to the holy Church. Becanus above thinks this mode explicit, and therefore the Seraphic Doctor added it for the sake of his own teaching, while nevertheless saying that implicit faith sufficed. For this express faith in God the Liberator, D. Bonaventure is cited by Tannerus num 42. dist 25. quaest. 2. with D. Thom. art. 7. ad 3. and others.

EXPLICITLY are believed those things which are believed distinctly in themselves, as when you believe that the Messiah was the Son of God, incarnate, etc. But that which is believed explicitly must be known. Now that Christ was believed in that implicit manner before his coming, S. Bonaventure teaches and proves, Lib. 2. Pharetrae, cap. 23. from D. Bernard epist. 77. ad Hugonem de S. Victore, where he says: Many, before the coming of the Savior, fearing and loving God the omnipotent, with him as the most gracious promiser of their salvation, hoping in him as the most certain Redeemer, were saved in this faith and expectation, although they did not know when, and how, and in what order the promised salvation would be accomplished.

¶ IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure, first with the Master, from 4 Act. There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Similar things are found. Rom 3. 4. and 5. Galat. 2. and 3. Prima Corinth. 3.

THEN, because Christ is the Head of the whole Church, as is had in Ephes. first, and the following. Prima Corinth. 3. Coloss. 1. Therefore he flowed into the motion and vital sense of all; But he cannot infuse unless they are united to him in faith, as the Apostle discusses there: Therefore.

THIRD, No one could be saved unless he were justified, nor justified except through grace: but this was not given except through the merits of the Redeemer, who therefore is called: The Lamb slain from the beginning of the world. Apoc. 13. and who opened the closed Book, cap. 5. And Ioan. first, Grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ. Therefore Galat. 3. The Scripture concluded all under sin, that the promise might be given by the faith of Jesus Christ to those who believe, namely, grace and the other gifts were given in that faith. Next it is shown that implicit faith regarding Christ sufficed.

IT IS PROVED first, by the example of Cornelius, Act. 10. who is called just before he learned faith in Christ, as the holy Doctor intimated in the text.

IT IS PROVED secondly by the holy Doctor in the body, and on the arguments, with the reasoning that Fagundez uses. No divine thing obliges one to believe unless it be revealed; but before the preaching of the Gospel, that Law, and its articles, were not manifest to the gentiles; indeed not revealed except to very few: Therefore.

NOTE, however, with D. Bonaventure here on 5. that before the sufficient publication of the Gospel, some renowned worshippers of God knew the Mysteries of Redemption, as Iob 19. testifies, and the Sibyls in the law of Nature; and in the written law Moses, David, and others, as the holy Doctor observes on those words of Lucae 24. All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. And on Ioan. 5. on those words: For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me. And so those knew and believed Christ expressly. The Master seems to indicate the same regarding Cornelius, whom the holy Doctor points out, dist. 25. in littera. But in the question he maintains that all of them had only implicit faith until Christ was revealed, excepting the distinguished ones, among whom Cornelius is not counted, who certainly had that faith only implicitly, as S. Augustine indicates, quaest. 84. in Levit. and lib. de praedest. Sanctorum, cap. 7. Therefore the holy Doctor, dub. 4. in fine says that the things said about the faith of Cornelius are plain.

I ASSERT secondly, that after the Gospel was promulgated, explicit faith regarding Christ is necessary.

IT IS PROVED by the holy Doctor on 3. Ioan. with those words: But he who does not believe is already judged: because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. Actorum 4. For in this alone is salvation, and there is no other name under heaven given, whereby we must be saved.

IT IS PROVED secondly by the holy Doctor on that passage Ioan. 17. Now this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, where the Seraphic Doctor also notes that explicit knowledge of the Holy Trinity is already necessary; hence Rom. 3. The justice of God through the faith of Jesus Christ in all, and upon all, who believe in him. Galat. 2. Man is not justified except through the faith of Jesus Christ.

IT IS PROVED thirdly by the holy Doctor with the reasoning that he uses, and Fagundez before num. 21; this reasoning is had in dub. 2. litt. and here is its first foundation: since Christ has now been made known to be the Head of the Church, and to have redeemed us by his merits, and founded our Church, we rightly owe him confession, and consequently to believe explicitly. Therefore in Matth. last chapter it is said: Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

THE holy Doctor CONFIRMS this whole matter from other Scriptures. And first on cap. 6. Ioan. from that passage: He who believes in me has eternal life, Ioan. 14. You believe in God, believe also in me. The holy Doctor strengthens these passages with other testimonies of Scripture and of the Fathers. Now there is an outstanding discourse of Christ, Ioan. 3. which the holy Doctor solemnly runs through for the matter: And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert: so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believes in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. He infers that all who believe in his Divine Person incarnate and lifted up on the cross are saved from death, just as those were saved who, seeing the brazen Serpent distinctly, believed and hoped for salvation from the Lord. For the holy Doctor observes the parallels and notes that the humanity is signified when it is said: Son of man; death on the cross, when it is said; So must the Son of man be lifted up: the efficacy: that whosoever believes in him may not perish, etc.

IT IS PROVED by the holy Doctor also from other Scriptures. First from that passage of Lucae last chapter: Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said to them, that thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day, and that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Then the holy Doctor argues thus in his commentary: Christ was given, that he might open the way to heaven. Therefore it is said Isaïae 12. I will give the key of David upon his shoulder, and he shall open. Therefore it is said Dan. 2. He reveals deep things. But to this end he reveals, that he, being known, may be adored. Wherefore in Apoc. 5. he is introduced as the Lamb to open the sealed Book, from which the Elders, and the Animals, and the Nations confessed him expressly: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive Divinity, because, namely, he opened the Mysteries that are referred to him, as to the Head; and to the body of the Church, compared to him from the fact that it ought to acknowledge him as the principle of its salvation, which he distributed only to those willing, through penance and Baptism, that is, in a manner fitting to a free nature; But they could not consent to these things unless they acknowledged him as the principle; which Valentia also notes. And he strengthens this with accumulated testimonies of the Scriptures.

For in him all nations were to be blessed. Genes. 22. Therefore the nations ought to acknowledge the Fountain of their blessings. So in Genes. 49. he is called: He shall be the expectation of the nations; But only a good, well known, is awaited. In Psal. 2. it is said: Ask of me, and I will give thee the gentiles for thy inheritance. Therefore the nations, from whom he was to be named, ought to acknowledge their Christ the Lord distinctly. And in Psal. 116. it is said: Praise him, all ye nations. Certainly they ought to acknowledge him, that they might praise him; for in Isa. 49. it is said: I have given thee to be the light of the gentiles. And Isa. 2. Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall come forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge the gentiles, etc. And cap. 61. For Sion's sake I will not hold my peace, until her just one go forth as brightness, and her Savior be lighted as a lamp. And the gentiles shall see thy Just One. Thou shalt no more be called Forsaken, etc. Behold the Lord hath made it to be heard in the ends of the earth, say to the daughter of Sion: Behold thy Savior cometh: Behold his reward is with him, and his work before him. And they shall call him, A holy people, redeemed by the Lord. But thou shalt be called: A sought-out city, and not Forsaken.

Christ PROCEEDS: But you are witnesses of all these things. Therefore Act. 1. You shall be witnesses to me in Judea, and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth, and therefore Peter says, Act. 10. We are witnesses of all things which he did, etc. whom they slew, hanging him on a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest to witnesses preordained, etc. And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead. Therefore our faith stands especially in the distinct acknowledgment of Christ the Lord.

The holy Doctor confirms this further on cap. 3. of John with those words: The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand, as is said in Matth. 11. All things are delivered to me by my Father. Therefore he adds: He who believes in the Son has life everlasting, because, as is said Ioan. 17. Now this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. They have (I say) life everlasting in pledge, and in root, as is said 2. Corinth. 5. There Ioan. continues: But he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him, etc. But the holy Doctor observes that John threatens more vehemently, and more intensely, than Christ did before, those who do not believe in the Son of God; for Christ only said: He who does not believe is already judged: because he does not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. But he spoke more gently, lest he might seem to speak out of love for himself. Then the holy Doctor observes that the Wrath of God remains; First sin, second punishments, third dereliction; fourth the sentence of damnation, so as to infer that he is excluded from grace and glory who does not believe in the Son of God.

S. Bonaventure PROVES it further, serm. 8. Hexaemer. from that passage of 1. Ioan. 5. There are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three who give testimony on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three are one; namely, in the Spirit the Divinity; in the Water the Humanity; in the blood the Life, poured out in redemption. These things, therefore, must be believed absolutely; for he had already said: Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. And afterwards he adds: He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself. He who does not believe the Son makes him a liar. He notes the same thing, that the Trinity and the Incarnation are set down distinctly in the Symbol.

The holy Doctor also uses a lofty argument, serm. 9. Hexaemer. which the holy Fathers used: Ambrose lib. 1. offic. cap. 29. Hieron. in cap. 1. ad Ephes. Gregory lib. 7. epist. 47. taken from the first Corinth. 3. where Christ is called the Foundation of the Church. And Isaia 28. where he is called (as also in Ephes. 1. 2. Petri 2.) the foundational, angular stone; And on Ephes. 1. and 3. where he is called the Origin of our salvation. Now S. Bonaventure thus discourses: The Testimony of Faith is to be taken from the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost, as is said in the first epistle of Ioan. 5. For by the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm. Psal. 32. namely, the heaven of the Church. For the whole new testament consists in declaring Christ. Therefore the Father also bears testimony from heaven, Matth. 3. But of this faith Christ is the Foundation, as is said in the first epistle to Corinth. 3. Another foundation no one can lay, besides that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. He is the angular stone Isa. 28. the first epistle of Petri 2. Ephes. 2. Upon this stone the whole Church leans. Therefore it was necessary that this be believed most distinctly. Therefore the Apostle in Hebr. 1. says: God, who at sundry times spoke in times past to the fathers in the prophets; last of all has spoken in his Son. And he adds: Who, being the brightness of his glory (namely, according to the deity,) making purgation of sins, through his humanity: For the faith and confession of Christ the Martyrs were slain, the Apostles toiled, etc. Who, therefore, will deny that express faith in Christ is necessary? It is confirmed from the practice of the Church, which questions those to be baptized regarding explicit faith in Christ.

YOU WILL OBJECT first against the first assertion, from Hebr. 11. it is said: He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder: Therefore faith in the Redeemer was not necessary.

Valentia ANSWERS from Marsilius 3. quaest. 14. art. 3. It would have been better to have said, from D. Bonaventure on the first, that the Apostle does not enumerate all things necessary for salvation, but only asserts that it is necessary to believe those two things: That God is, and that he is a Rewarder. But he enumerates these, because they were necessary to be believed even in the state of integral nature. But I do not know why Valentia col. 317. Assertion one says that in the state of integral nature they ought to have believed more concerning the Incarnation of Christ, and by what means he was going to redeem mankind through death; Certainly in the state of integral nature the Redeemer was not revealed; nor was he necessary, nor would the Son of God have come into the world, as he himself maintains.