St. Thomas Aquinas on Salvation by Implicit Faith

I would like to discuss St. Thomas's position in some detail, because he is often cited by proponents of the necessity of explicit faith for salvation, even though his actual position is much more nuanced than they believe.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches in I-II, Q.89, A.6 that when a child reaches the age of reason, if he orders himself toward his last end as well as he can, he immediately attains sanctifying grace (which we would call baptism of desire), and if he does not, he sins mortally. His state of knowledge is not relevant, so the child is able to attain grace even if he is completely ignorant of the Church and Christ.

"I answer that, It is impossible for venial sin to be in anyone with original sin alone, and without mortal sin. The reason for this is because before a man comes to the age of discretion, the lack of years hinders the use of reason and excuses him from mortal sin, wherefore, much more does it excuse him from venial sin, if he does anything which is such generically. But when he begins to have the use of reason, he is not entirely excused from the guilt of venial or mortal sin. Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then, is to deliberate about himself. And if he then direct himself to the due end, he will, by means of grace, receive the remission of original sin: whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for through not doing that which is in his power to do. Accordingly thenceforward there cannot be venial sin in him without mortal, until afterwards all sin shall have been remitted to him through grace. " (I-II, Q.89, A.6)

Okay. Let us see what St. Thomas's position is on implicit faith. If we look at the article that I just quoted, I-II, Q.89, A.6, we see that St. Thomas holds to the idea of sanctification by implicit faith. St. Thomas claims in this article that a child can attain sanctifying grace before baptism, and even before he attains explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation, if there is no one to teach the child at the time when he reaches the age of reason.

How do we know that this is St. Thomas's position? One of the objections is, "An age can be determined in which the child can first perform an actual sin. When he comes to this age, he can stand for at least a brief space of time, without sinning mortally, since this happens even in the most wicked men. Now in that space of time, howsoever short, the child can sin venially. Therefore venial sin can be in someone with original sin, without mortal sin." In the body St. Thomas also says, "The first thing which occurs to someone to consider, is to deliberate about himself. And if he orders himself to the due end, he attains by grace the forgiveness of original sin. But if he does not order himself to the due end, insofar as in that age he is capable of discretion, he will sin mortally, not doing what he is able to do."

Let's put these texts together. The objection is that a child can be in original sin, attain the age of reason, and then refrain for at least a short time from mortal sin. Within this time, he may happen to commit a venial sin. If this happens, then the child will have both original and venial sin, but not mortal sin. The purpose of St. Thomas's article is to prove that this cannot happen.

In the body, St. Thomas says that when someone reaches the age of reason, the first thing he does is consider his end. If he aims at his end rightly, he attains by grace the forgiveness of original sin. If he aims at his end wrongly, he commits a mortal sin. After one of these alternatives has happened, the child may commit a venial sin, and then he will either have grace together with venial sin, or mortal sin together with venial sin, depending on which alternative happened. The child will never have original sin and venial sin together without mortal sin, however, because this is excluded by each of the alternatives.

In the response to the objection, St. Thomas says that the child will commit a mortal sin of omission unless he turns to God as soon as possible. And for this reason there cannot be a space of time when the child is in original sin without mortal sin, during which he might commit a venial sin, so as to have venial sin together with original sin, but without mortal sin.

What does this tell us? St. Thomas's position is that after the age of reason, there is no period of time, however brief, during which the child is in original sin, but not mortal sin. Why not? If there is such a period of time, then the child might commit a venial sin. This was the objection. St. Thomas answers it by saying that there is no such period of time. Not five days, not five hours, not five minutes. As soon as the child has reached the age of reason, if the child is in the state of original sin, the child is also in the state of mortal sin. Otherwise there would be the interval of time that St. Thomas excludes after the age of reason, namely a time when the child is in original sin but not mortal sin.

What happens if the child reaches the age of reason and turns to God according to his ability? According to St. Thomas, the child attains by grace the remission of original sin. According to St. Thomas, then, the pagan child is born in original sin. He comes to the age of reason. If he does not commit a mortal sin, but turns to God as well as he can, “insofar he is capable of discretion”, then in that very moment he attains grace and the remission of original sin. Then, in God's own time, God will lead him to explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Nor can one say that St. Thomas is saying that at the moment when a pagan child reaches the age of reason, if he has not been instructed about the faith, there is a moral inevitability that he will commit a mortal sin in that very moment. In the first place, this position is impossible in itself, since although without grace one cannot avoid sinning for a long period of time, it is not true that without grace one cannot avoid a particular sin at a particular moment. If one could not, it would not be a sin. Second, this position is directly against the very words of St. Thomas, as will be seen below.

Quaestiones Disputatae, "De Veritate," Q. 14, art. 11: Objection: "It seems that it is not necessary to believe explicitly. For nothing should be accepted, from the acceptance of which something inappropriate would follow. But if we accept that it is necessary to salvation that something be believed explicitly, something inappropriate would follow. For someone might have been reared in the woods, or among wolves; and such a one cannot know explicitly anything of faith, so that thus there would be a man who would necessarily be damned-which is inappropriate; hence it does not seem to be necessary to believe in anything explicitly."

Response: "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)." It is very clear here that St. Thomas is saying that explicit faith is necessary for salvation, and he asserts in the body of this article that explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation. But note: necessary for "salvation," which is not the same as necessary for the state of grace. According to St. Thomas, someone raised in the woods might attain the state of grace first, by the baptism of desire, and then later God would teach him the truths of the Trinity and Incarnation. Thus St. Thomas says above that if someone were to follow natural reason, then God would respond by teaching him the faith. But this implies that there is some act by which the man follows natural reason first, and then afterwards, even if very shortly afterwards, God teaches him the faith, just as Cornelius worshipped God first, and then afterwards God sent Peter.

We have already seen that St. Thomas holds that the child attains grace in the first act in which he follows natural reason. Thus we can see that he holds that it is possible for a child to attain sanctifying grace by following natural reason, and then later, God will reveal to him the mystery of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Again, the concrete example that St. Thomas give of this is Cornelius. St. Thomas explicitly maintains that Cornelius received an implicit baptism of desire by his implicit faith in Christ, and then later God sent Peter to him to teach him the truths of the faith.

“Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.” (II-II, Q. 10, A.4, Reply to the third)

“As stated above, man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Ps. 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.”

Thus it is very clear that St. Thomas holds that Cornelius was justifed by his implicit faith and implicit desire for baptism before he knew about Christ or the Trinity. Nevertheless, it is St. Thomas's belief that, after the promulgation of the Gospel, God will bring all such people as Cornelius to an explicit knowledge of Christ and the Trinity.

Now, let us examine in what sense St. Thomas believes that explicit faith is necessary for salvation. We can investigate this question by asking, “Why does God give explicit faith to someone like Cornelius, since he is already sanctified by his implicit faith?” St. Thomas answers this question in the article where he asks, “Whether grace is necessarily given to whoever prepares himself for it, or to whoever does what he can?”(I-II, Q.112, A.3) Within the article, he distinguishes, and says that considered on the part of man's free will, there is no necessity that he be given grace, since the act of giving grace exceeds any preparation on man's part. However, on the part of God, he says that there is a certain necessity, not of coercion, but of infallibility, insofar as God's intention never fails.

This comparison is very helpful when looking at the necessity of explicit faith for salvation. Obviously St. Thomas does not believe that it is necessary by an absolute necessity, both because men before Christ were saved without it, and also because men after Christ can be justified, and made fit for heaven without it. However, he seems to hold a necessity of infallibility, insofar as God intends that after the advent of Christ, every man who dies justified also dies with explicit knowledge of Christ.

From the foregoing we can gather that when St. Thomas says explicit faith is necessary for salvation, he is using an extended sense of necessary, and not what people normally mean when they say that explicit faith is necessary for salvation.

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part V

(St. Augustine, letter 43) "That the raven sent out after forty days did not return, being either prevented by the water or attracted by some floating carcass; as men defiled by impure desire, and therefore eager for things outside in the world, are either baptized, or are led astray into the company of those to whom, as they are outside the ark, that is, outside the Church, baptism is destructive. That the dove when sent forth found no rest, and returned; as in the New Testament rest is not promised to the saints in this world. The dove was sent forth after forty days, a period denoting the length of human life. When again sent forth after seven days, denoting the sevenfold operation of the Spirit, the dove brought back a fruitful olive branch; as some even who are baptized outside of the Church, if not destitute of the fatness of charity, may come after all, as it were in the evening, and be brought into the one communion by the mouth of the dove in the kiss of peace."

St. Augustine explicitly says here that those who are outside the Church can still have Charity. Thus they are justified, and are united to the Church spiritually by that Charity. Because he says “may come after all, as it were in the evening, and be brought into the one communion by the mouth of the dove in the kiss of peace,” it is evident that he is not referring to people who at the moment are desiring to enter the Church. Thus someone can be spiritually united with the Church, even if he does not actually desire at the moment to be united.

This passage leaves open the possibility that those who do not even know Christ and/or hold many heresies may have charity, since St. Augustine does not exclude the possibility of an infant being baptized outside the Church, and then being raised without knowledge of the Church.

Here is another passage which again says the same thing:

“There are some also who as yet live wickedly, or even lie in heresies or the superstitions of the Gentiles, and yet even then "the Lord knoweth them that are His." For, in that unspeakable foreknowledge of God, many who seem to be without are in reality within, and many who seem to be within yet really are without. Of all those, therefore, who, if I may so say, are inwardly and secretly within, is that "enclosed garden" composed, "the fountain sealed, a well of living water, the orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits." The divinely imparted gifts of these are partly peculiar to themselves, as in this world the charity that never faileth, and in the world to come eternal life; partly they are common with evil and perverse men, as all the other things in which consist the holy mysteries.”

Notice that he says here that those who lie in heresies or the superstitions of the Gentiles can seem to be without, yet in reality are really within, because they possess “the charity that never faileth.” Again, he implies that even those without an explicit faith in Christ may yet have charity, since presumably one kind of “superstition” of the gentiles, or heresy would be to not have faith in Christ as God.

Here is another passage of St. Augustine which is related to these, and to the doctrine of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”

“The Apostle Paul has said: 'A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself.' But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.”

St. Augustine says here that someone who holds false doctrines because he has accepted it from misguided parents, but who nevertheless are open to the truth should not be counted as heretics. In other words, such a person is implicitly a Catholic and is within the Catholic Church, even before they have given up their heresies. This has significant implications for those who hold to the strict view of EENS.

We read in the council of Florence that “It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives.” This passage is often quoted for those who hold to a rigorist interpretation of EENS. However, notice this: The council of Florence includes heretics as those who will go into the everlasting fire. As St. Augustine points out, though, not everyone who holds false doctrine is accounted a heretic. If someone is not obstinate, and is open to the truth, even though he has received false teaching from his parents, he is not a heretic. Thus, just as we make a qualification in regard to heretics, more generally we also have to qualify who is outside the catholic church.

Incidentally, those who think that there is a contradiction between the council of Florence and what St. Augustine says here, and say that St. Augustine erred in his opinion, are implicitly saying that St. Augustine was damned, since if he erred, he was to be counted a heretic, even if he was open to the truth; and thus, according to such people's reading of the council of Florence, St. Augustine departed “into the everlasting fire.”

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part IV

(Acts of the disputation with Manes) "Manes said: You are caught in the charge you yourself bring forward. For you have been speaking now against yourself, and have not perceived that, in trying to cast reproaches in my teeth, you lay yourself under the greater fault. Tell me this now, I pray you: if, as you allege, those who have died from the time of Tiberius on to the days of Probus are to say to Jesus, "Do not judge us if we have failed to do Your works, for You did not send the Paraclete to us, although You promised to send Him; " will not those much more use such an address who have departed this life from the time of Moses on to the advent of Christ Himself? And will not those with still greater right express themselves in terms like these: "Do not deliver us over to torments, seeing that we had no knowledge of You imparted to us? "And will it only he those that have died thus far previously to His advent who may be seen making such a charge with right? Will not those also do the same who have passed away from Adam's time on to Christ's advent? For none of these either obtained any knowledge of the Paraclete, or received instruction in the doctrine of Jesus. But only this latest generation of men, which has run its course from Tiberius onward, as you make it out, is to be saved: for it is Christ Himself that "has re-deemed them from the curse of the law; " as Paul, too, has given these further testimonies, that "the letter kills, and quickens no man," and that "the law is the ministration of death," and "the strength of sin." Archelaus said: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God. For many have also perished after the period of Christ's advent on to this present period, and many are still perishing—those, to wit, who have not chosen to devote themselves to works of righteousness; whereas only those who have received Him, and yet receive Him, have obtained power to become the sons of God. For the evangelist has not said all have obtained that power; neither, on the other hand, however, has he put any limit on the time. But this is his expression: As many as received Him. Moreover, from the creation of the world He has ever been with righteous men, and has never ceased to require their blood at the hands of the wicked, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias. And whence, then, did righteous Abel and all those succeeding worthies, who are enrolled among the righteous, derive their righteousness when as yet there was no law of Moses, and when as yet the prophets had not arisen and discharged the functions of prophecy? Were they not constituted righteous in virtue of their fulfilling the law, every one of them showing the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing them witness? For when a man who has not the law does naturally the things contained in the law, he, not having the law, is a law unto himself. And consider now the multitude of laws thus existing among the several righteous men who lived a life of uprightness, at one time discovering for themselves the law of God implanted in their hearts, at another learning of it from their parents, and yet again being instructed in it further by the ancients and the elders."

Bishop Archelaus here is refuting the objection that those men before the coming of Christ were not able to receive Him, and he tells us who it is that can receive Christ. "whereas only those who have received Him, and yet receive Him, have obtained power to become the sons of God. For the evangelist has not said all have obtained that power; neither, on the other hand, however, has he put any limit on the time." Only those who have received Him (those before Christ), and yet receive Him. (those in the present time, after the coming of Christ) These people have a common account, namely that they have devoted themselves to the works of righteousness, following the law written upon their hearts.

Thus, Archelaus is making the point that everyone in all times is able to receive Christ by doing the works of righteousness, whether they explicitly know of Christ or not. It is true that he is principally speaking of those before Christ, but it is clear that he is not limiting what he says to that when he says "For many have also perished after the period of Christ's advent on to this present period, and many are still perishing—those, to wit, who have not chosen to devote themselves to works of righteousness," signifying that he is talking about the period of time after Christ. He then goes on to say what it means to do works of righteousness, namely, following the law upon one's heart, as the Fathers before Christ did.

(Clement of Alexandria) "For although you are not yet able to do the things enjoined by the Law, yet, considering that the noblest examples are set before us in it, we are able to nourish and increase the love of liberty; and so we shall profit more eagerly as far as we can, inviting some things, imitating some things, and fearing others. For thus the righteous of the olden time, who lived according to the law, "were not from a storied oak, or from a rock;" because they wish to philosophize truly, took and devoted themselves entirely to God, and were classified under faith. Zeno said well of the Indians, that he would rather have seen one Indian roasted, than have learned the whole of the arguments about bearing pain."

St. Clement clearly says here that the righteous of the olden times were classified under faith because they wished to philosophize truly, and devoted themselves entirely to God. Thus, they were classified under faith, implicitly believing in Christ through their seeking after righteousness through philosophy. This is even clearer in another passage from the same work:

"Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness. And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. "For your foot," it is said, "will not stumble, if you refer what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence." Proverbs 3:23 For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring "the Hellenic mind," as the law, the Hebrews, "to Christ." Galatians 3:24 Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ."

St. Clement says that philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness before Christ, because it brought them to Christ, as the law did to the Hebrews. Now, he says, "it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration." Notice that this is not to say that it is no longer possible to obtain righteousness by it, rather, it is no longer necessary for righteousness, for those who come to believe explicitly in Christ. Thus, "Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ." But notice that he says "philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks" But clearly no person has been called to whom the gospel has not been preached. Hence, it is clear that St. Clement is not excluding the possibility of righteousness for those who have had no possibility of hearing the Gospel, for these people philosophy would still be necessary for righteousness.

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part III

(Epistle of Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians) “Wherefore let us forsake idle and vain thoughts; and let us conform to the glorious and venerable rule which hath been handed down to us; and let us see what is good and what is pleasant and what is acceptable in the sight of Him that made us. Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation it won for the whole world the grace of repentance. Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn how from generation to generation the Master hath given a place for repentance unto them that desire to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and they that obeyed were saved. Jonah preached destruction unto the men of Nineveh; but they, repenting of their sins, obtained pardon of God by their supplications and received salvation, albeit they were aliens from God. The ministers of the grace of God through the Holy Spirit spake concerning repentance. Yea and the Master of the universe Himself spake concerning repentance with an oath: for, as I live saith the Lord, I desire not the death of the sinner, so much as his repentance . . . Seeing then that He desireth all His beloved to be partakers of repentance, He confirmed it by an act of His almighty will. Wherefore let us be obedient unto His excellent and glorious will; and presenting ourselves as suppliants of His mercy and goodness, let us fall down before Him and betake ourselves unto His compassions, forsaking the vain toil and the strife and the jealousy which leadeth unto death. Let us fix our eyes on them that ministered perfectly unto His excellent glory. Let us set before us Enoch, who being found righteous in obedience was translated, and his death was not found. Noah, being found faithful, by his ministration preached regeneration unto the world, and through him the Master saved the living creatures that entered into the ark in concord. Abraham, who was called the ‘friend,’ was found faithful in that he rendered obedience unto the words of God . . . And again He saith; God led Abraham forth and said unto him, Look up unto the heaven and count the stars, and see whether thou canst number them. So shall thy seed be. And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. For his faith and hospitality a son was given unto him in old age, and by obedience he offered him a sacrifice unto God on one of the mountains which He showed him . . . For her faith and hospitality Rahab the harlot was saved . . . and moreover they gave her a sign, that she should hang out from her house a scarlet thread, thereby showing beforehand that through the blood of the Lord there shall be redemption unto all them that believe and hope on God. Ye see, dearly beloved, not only faith, but prophecy, is found in the woman . . . for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you. With this commandment and these precepts let us confirm ourselves, that we may walk in obedience to His hallowed words, with lowliness of mind. For the holy word saith, Upon whom shall I look, save upon him that is gentle and quiet and feareth Mine oracles? Therefore it is right and proper, brethren, that we should be obedient unto God, rather than follow those who in arrogance and unruliness have set themselves up as leaders in abominable jealousy.”

From this text alone we can gather several things: First, the grace of salvation has been made available to the whole world through the death of Christ. Pope Clement proves this universal availability of salvation by giving numerous examples of those who before Christ were able to be saved through their faith in God. There is not the slightest evidence here that he would limit this justification after Christ to those who explicitly know Christ. The contrary conclusion would seem to be the case, since even now men who do not know Christ, but have faith in God and turn to Him fall completely within the description of the justified men that Pope Clement lays out.

Let us look further on in the same epistle:
“Let them learn how lowliness of mind prevaileth with God, what power chaste love hath with God, how the fear of Him is good and great and saveth all them that walk therein in a pure mind with holiness. For He is the searcher out of the intents and desires; whose breath is in us, and when He listeth, He shall take it away. Now all these things the faith which is in Christ confirmeth: for He Himself through the Holy Spirit thus invite thus: Come, my children, hearken unto Me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What man is he that desireth life and loveth to see good days? Make thy tongue to cease from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. Turn aside from evil and do good. Seek peace and ensue it. The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are turned to their prayers. But the face of the Lord is upon them that do evil, to destroy their memorial from the earth. The righteous cried out, and the Lord heard him, and delivered him from all his troubles. Many are the troubles of the righteous, and the Lord shall deliver him from them all. And again Many are the stripes of the sinner, but them that set their hope on the Lord mercy shall compass about. The Father, who is pitiful in all things, and ready to do good, hath compassion on them that fear Him, and kindly and lovingly bestoweth His favors on them that draw nigh unto Him with a single mind. Let us therefore cleave unto His blessing, and let us see what are the ways of blessing. Let us study the records of the things that have happened from the beginning. Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac with confidence, as knowing the future, was led a willing sacrifice. Jacob with humility departed from his land because of his brother, and went unto Laban and served; and the twelve tribes of Israel were given unto him. If any man will consider them one by one in sincerity, he shall understand the magnificence of the gifts that are given by Him. For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honor, seeing that God promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven. They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will. And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

Here Pope St. Clement clearly says that faith in Christ “confirms” lowliness of mind, chaste love, fear of God, and walking in a pure mind with holiness. He does NOT say that these things cannot be had without an explicit faith in Christ. In fact, it is evident that this is excluded, since he again goes on to consider as examples of these kind of men those who lived before Christ. He concludes with the universal statement that God justifies all men by faith, and has done so since the beginning. Again, there is no evidence here that God has somehow changed his means of justification. Men are justified by one and the same thing in all ages, faith, whether this is implicit or explicit.

Further in the epistle Pope Clement writes:

“Who can declare the bond of the love of God? Who is sufficient to tell the majesty of its beauty? The height, where unto love exalteth, is unspeakable. Love joineth us unto God; love covereth a multitude of sins; love endureth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing coarse, nothing arrogant in love. Love hath no divisions, love maketh no seditions, love doeth all things in concord. In love were all the elect of God made perfect; without love nothing is well pleasing to God: in love the Master took us unto Himself; for the love which He had toward us, Jesus Christ our Lord hath given His blood for us by the will of God, and His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives. Ye see, dearly beloved, how great and marvelous a thing is love, and there is no declaring its perfection. Who is sufficient to be found therein, save those to whom God shall vouchsafe it? Let us therefore entreat and ask of His mercy, that we may be found blameless in love, standing apart from the factiousness of men. All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away: but they that by God’s grace were perfected in love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the Kingdom of God . . . who therefore is noble among you? Who is compassionate? Who is fulfilled with love? Let him say; If by reason of me there be faction and strife and divisions, I retire, I depart, whither ye will, and I do that which is ordered by the people: only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters. He that shall have done this, shall win for himself great renown in Christ, and every place will receive him: for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof. Thus have they done and will do, that live as citizens of that kingdom of God which bringeth no regrets. But, to bring forward examples of Gentiles also; many kings and rulers, when some season of pestilence pressed upon them, being taught by oracles have delivered themselves over to death, that they might rescue their fellow citizens through their own blood. Many have retired from their own cities, that they might have no more seditions. We know that many among ourselves have delivered themselves to bondage, that they might ransom others. Many have sold themselves to slavery, and receiving the price paid for themselves have fed others. Many women being strengthened through the grace of God have performed many manly deeds. The blessed Judith, when the city was beleaguered, asked of the elders that she might be suffered to go forth into the camp of the aliens. So she exposed herself to peril and went forth for love of her country and of her people which were beleaguered; and the Lord delivered Holophernes into the hand of a woman. To no less peril did Esther also, who was perfect in faith, expose herself, that she might deliver the twelve tribes of Israel, when they were on the point to perish. For through her fasting and her humiliation she entreated the all seeing Master, the God of the ages; and He, seeing the humility of her soul, delivered the people for whose sake she encountered the peril.”

Pope St. Clement speaks of love as uniting us to God. Who is sufficient to have love? Only those to whom God gives it, by His grace: “All the generations from Adam unto this day have passed away. But they that by God’s grace were perfected in love dwell in the abode of the pious; and they shall be made manifest in the visitation of the Kingdom of God.” All those whom by God's grace were given love are saved. What reasonable basis could one have for saying that a gentile who knows God and serves Him, is unable to love him without an explicit knowledge of Christ? Pope Clement goes on to describe those who love God as those who do whatever is necessary for the peace of their fellow men, and gives examples of Gentiles who have done so.

(Origen: Contra Celsus) “And yet, after making such a statement, he raises a new objection, saying: After so long a period of time, then, did God now bethink himself of making men live righteous lives, but neglect to do so before? To which we answer, that there never was a time when God did not wish to make men live righteous lives; but He continually evinced His care for the improvement of the rational animal, by affording him occasions for the exercise of virtue. For in every generation the wisdom of God, passing into those souls which it ascertains to be holy, converts them into friends and prophets of God. And there may be found in the sacred book (the names of) those who in each generation were holy, and were recipients of the Divine Spirit, and who strove to convert their contemporaries so far as in their power.”

Origen is answering Celsus, who asks how is was possible for men to be saved before Christ, since all salvation is through Christ. Origen's response is to say that God's wisdom passes into those souls that are holy in every generation, and makes them into friends of God. This is similar to what we have seen above. Those men who follow the natural law written on their hearts, are given the grace to love God, and are made friends of God by that love.

Origen also has an interesting passage on pagan sacrifices, commenting on how God was present in Balaam's sacrifices.

(Homily on Numbers 16) "The thing indeed was done with profane sacrifices, and required a divination with magic art, nevertheless, God, willing for grace to abound where sin superabounded, deigned to be present, nor did He flee away from those who did not act according to the Israelite instruction, but according to the error of the gentiles. He was not present in the sacrifices, but in the one coming to meet Him, and there he gives His word."

Here he implies that God will be present even to pagans offering profane sacrifices, insofar as the pagan runs to, or meets God. Later we shall see that John Paul II made a statement almost identical to this one, concerning the salvation of those who seek God with a sincere heart in their religion. Such men can be saved in their religion, though not by it.

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part II

St. Gregory Nazianzus in a funeral oration for his father: "Even before he was of our fold, he was ours. His character made him one of us. For, as many of our own are not with us, whose life alienates them from the common body, so, many of those without are on our side, whose character anticipates their faith, and need only the name of that which indeed they possess.”

St. Gregory of Nazianzus's father was a convert to Christianity, and St. Gregory is describing him before he converted. He says that his character ANTICIPATES his faith, and he needed ONLY THE NAME of what he indeed possessed already. This implies that his father already possessed the virtue of faith. This could only be an implicit faith, since he is speaking of before the time that he explicitly believed in Christianity. Hence his father was already implicitly a christian, and was spiritually united to the Church by charity.

(St. John Chrystostom, Homily 23 on the Acts of the Apostles) “This also Paul declaring, says, For there is no respect of persons with God. What then? Is the man yonder in Persia acceptable to Him? If he be worthy, in this regard he is acceptable, that it should be granted him to be brought unto faith. The Eunuch from Ethiopia He overlooked not. What shall one say then of the religious men who have been overlooked? It is not the case, that any (such) ever was overlooked. But what he says is to this effect, that God rejects no man.”

I intentionally chose this passage, because these kinds of statements are common in the fathers, and are often used as support for those who claim that the fathers believe explicit faith is necessary for justification.

Chrysostom explicitly brings up the case of a man in a far away country who has not heard of Christ, and asks whether he is acceptable to God. He declares that if he is worthy, than God will bring him to the faith. However, this is not to make any claims upon whether the man is able to love God and (what comes to the same thing) whether the man is justified before God. Further on in the same homily, he says:

“What then? Was He a respecter of persons beforetime? God forbid! For beforetime likewise it was just the same: Every one, as he says, that fears Him, and works righteousness, would be acceptable to Him. As when Paul says, For when the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by nature the things of the Law. That one fears God and works righteousness: he assumes both doctrine and manner of life: is accepted with Him; for, if He did not overlook the Magi, nor the Ethiopian, nor the thief, nor the harlot, much more them that work righteousness, and are willing, shall He in anywise not overlook. What say you then to this, that there are likely persons, men of mild disposition, and yet they will not believe? Lo, you have yourself named the cause: they will not. But besides the likely person he here speaks of is not this sort of man, but the man that works righteousness: that is, the man who in all points is virtuous and irreproachable, when he has the fear of God as he ought to have it. But whether a person be such, God only knows. See how this man was acceptable: see how, as soon as he heard, he was persuaded.”

Chrysostom is in the middle of a discussion concerning Cornelius here, and he relates the scripture verse which says that everyone who fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to God to the verse in Romans which says that the Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the things of the law. He then applies this verse to both those before Christ, and those after Christ. Now, since those before Christ were justified by love of God with an implicit faith in Christ, this is already a sign that Chrysostom believes that those after Christ can also be justified by this same love of God and implicit faith. He merely believes that God will bring those people who are justified by this implicit faith to an explicit faith in Christ.

If this is not clear enough, let us look at a passage from his twentieth homily on first Corinthians.

“And yet not even love, you will say, without knowledge has any advantage. Well: this he did not say; but omitting it as a thing allowed by all, he signifies that knowledge stands in extreme need of love. For he who loves, inasmuch as he fulfils the commandment which is most absolute of all, even though he have some defects, will quickly be blest with knowledge because of his love; as Cornelius and many others. But he that has knowledge but has not love, not only shall gain nothing more, but shall also be cast out of that which he has, in many cases falling into arrogance. It seems then that knowledge is not productive of love, but on the contrary debars from it him that is not on his guard, puffing him up and elating him. For arrogance is wont to cause divisions: but love both draws together and leads to knowledge. And to make this plain he says, But if any man loves God, the same is known of Him. So that I forbid not this, says he, namely, your having perfect knowledge; but your having it with love, that I enjoin; else is it no gain, but rather loss.”

Here St. John Chrysostom explicitly says that Cornelius and many others have love first, but which then quickly leads to knowledge, i.e., explicit faith in Christianity. Thus it is clear the interpretation of the former text is quite accurate: Chrysostom believes that those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and his Church, yet follow the law written on their hearts, may attain to love of God, which will later lead to explicit faith in Christianity.

The Testimony of the Fathers on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part I

Now I will examine the Fathers, to see what their position is on the matter. As a whole, the Fathers are not concerned with addressing this issue in detail. Nevertheless, when they do speak of it, they generally put some qualifications on the statement that “there is no salvation outside the Church.” Sometimes it is clear what they mean, other times not so clear. In some cases it is quite clear that they allow for implicit faith, in other cases not so clear. Let us look at the texts:

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 46: "We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the reason in which all mankind partakes [John 1:9] . Those, therefore, who lived according to reason were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians.”

St. Justin clearly admits as a “Christian” anyone who lives at any time according to reason, even those outside the visible Church. The discussion comes up in the context of answering how people before the coming of Christ were still responsible for their actions, because they did not know Christ. His response is to say that those who lived according to reason were really Christians, while those who lived against reason were wicked and hostile to Christ. And notice what he says, "whereas those who lived then or WHO LIVE NOW according to reason are Christians." It is quite clear that while the argument arose in the context of salvation before Christ, he nevertheless applies precisely the same argument now: i.e., those who do not know of Christ now, but live according to reason are really Christians. Thus, since those before Christ were Christians and could be saved by an implicit faith in Christ, likewise those after Christ are Christians and can be saved by an implicit faith in Christ.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, BK IV, Ch, 22, “It was not merely for those who believed in Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His providence for the men only who are now alive, but for all men altogether, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, and practiced justice and piety towards their neighbors, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice. Wherefore He shall, at His second coming, first rouse from their sleep all persons of this description, and shall raise them up, as well as the rest who shall be judged, and give them a place in His kingdom.”

St. Irenaeus says that all will be saved who have feared and loved God, practiced justice and piety towards their neighbors, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice. Notice this: All those who have done this “according to their capacity,” will be saved. Now, those who have not heard of Christ only have the capacity to have an implicit faith in him; hence that is sufficient for their salvation. If someone were to object that this is not the intention of St. Irenaeus, contra this is the fact that he explicitly applies this text to those before Christ, who were not able to believe in Christ explicitly, but only implicitly. At the same time, it is clear that he is not limiting this application to those before Christ, since he says that when Christ comes again, he will grant salvation to “all men together, who from the beginning, etc.”

The Testimony of Holy Scripture on Justification by Implicit Faith: Part IV

I will conclude the discussion on the evidence for implicit faith from Scripture with a consideration of the relationship between those before Christ, and those after Christ.

Before the coming of Christ, men were able to be justified by making an act of perfect love of God, through the grace of God. As the council of Trent states, this kind of perfect act of love of God reconciles one with God, bestowing sanctifying grace upon the one making it. Not all of the men before Christ had an explicit knowledge of Him; in fact, very few of them did. Their justification came about through an implicit faith in Christ, which was included in their act of love of God, in the sense that no one can truly love God without being willing to accept everything that he chooses to reveal to them.

After the coming of Christ, how does it come about that one cannot be justified without explicit faith in Him? We know that if someone has a perfect act of love of God, his sins are forgiven him, and he is made a child of God. Therefore, on the supposition that explicit faith in Christ is needed for justification, nobody in the world after the coming of Christ is able to make an act of perfect love of God without an explicit knowledge of Christ.

So, we have two alternatives.

1) We could say that all those just pagans who formerly were able to love God cannot elicit a perfect act of love for Him anymore. God withholds that grace from them. Why? Because now that His son has been crucified for THEM, they have to explicitly believe in Him, even if they have the misfortune of living and dying without ever hearing of the Gospel. Tough luck. Hmmm. I think you can judge for yourselves whether this position is consistent with the crucifixion as the greatest manifestation of God's love for us.

2) Alternatively, we could say that all these pagans or Jews CAN make an act of perfect love of God still, but an explicit revelation of Christ comes along with it. This seems to be extremely unlikely, because we just don't see this happening. In fact, it is even excluded by the New testament narrative, as I will make clear.

Just in case this isn't convincing enough, let's talk about the time at which all are bound to have explicit faith in Christ, still proceeding under this supposition.

First let us suppose that there was a definitive moment at which all men, without exception, are bound to have explicit faith in Christ for justification. Okay. What happens to all those men, both Jews and Gentiles, who right up until that moment had perfect love of God? On the supposition that explicit faith in Christ is necessary for justification, we again have two options.

1) All these men who are in the state of justification without explicit faith in Christ spontaneously commit mortal sins, and turn away from God.

2) All these men who are in the state of justification without explicit faith in Christ spontaneously have a Divine revelation of Christ, and thus are able to remain in their state of justification.

Number 1 is definitely a no no. Number 2 is contradicted in the New Testament by the example of Cornelius, who was a faithful Jew who was acceptable in God's eyes. It is true that he had a revelation by an angel, but it was not a sudden revelation of Christ, rather the angel was instructing him to send for Peter, who then instructed Cornelius in the faith and baptized him. Hence we must say that Cornelius, who was “acceptable to God”, and a just man, was already justified and in the state of sanctifying grace by his love of God and implicit faith in Christ. Later, still in the state of justification God brought him to an explicit knowledge of Christ.

Hence, this position would be consistent with the position of some theologians that implicit faith is sufficient for justification, but God always grants such people an explicit knowledge of Christ before they die. However, one must hold even here that IF God were to allow such people to die before coming to an explicit knowledge of Christ, they would be saved. It is clearly and constantly taught by the Church that if a man dies after being justified, he is saved.

Now, we could get around some of these difficulties by saying that the necessity of explicit faith in Christ did not bind all men all at once, but only those are heard the preaching of the apostles. Under this account, those who died before having a chance to hear the Gospel could still be saved by implicit faith in Christ. This seems consistent with the statement of Lumen Gentium, that, “In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. ”

If we do say this, then it is clear that the necessity of explicit faith for justification does not bind those who do not know of the Church, and not through their own fault.

In conclusion of our examination of the Scriptures, let us restate our major conclusions:

1. The Holy Scripture affirms the necessity of salvation through Christ.

2. Nevertheless, it also seems to hold out the possibility of salvation for those who do not know Christ, and not through their own fault.

3. This is abundantly confirmed by a consideration of the change in situation of the men before Christ, and those after.