Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus

Among the unfaithful there are some who never received the faith, and these are the pagans: Others are those who rejected the faith once received, and these are heretics: Others, finally, who long worshiped the faith of the Savior under figures, but did not acknowledge it when it was manifested, and these are the Jews: Here we are to treat of unfaithfulness in general for the absence of faith, and when something is to be touched upon concerning the unbaptized unfaithful: in the following disputation, however, we shall discourse on heresy.

What sort of sin INFIDELITY is, and of what kind.

It is TO BE NOTED, from St. Bonaventura on those words Lucas 19. Non relinquent in te lapidem super lapidem: eo quod non cognoveris tempus visitationis tuae — There shall not be left in thee a stone upon a stone: because thou hast not known the time of thy visitation — that Infidelity is the ruin of the spiritual edifice; just as faith, on the contrary, is the foundation of that edifice. But this is Infidelity, not that which is opposed to Fidelity, which is a moral virtue inclining toward faith, or a promise to be kept, of which Eccles. 5. Displicet Deo infidelis promissio — An unfaithful promise displeaseth God — as the holy Doctor warns on that passage; but it is the infidelity that is opposed to the Theological virtue, as I said, disp. 1. quaest. 1., with St. Bonau. That Infidelity is a sin, I showed in disput. 1. quaest. 14. and the following, where the obligation to believe the articles of faith, and other matters, were treated of; and therefore it can be sinned against by grave omission, in not learning the things of faith that have been sufficiently proposed.

But Infidelity can be sinned against in TWO WAYS: either positively, by attacking and refusing the truth of faith once acknowledged, and this is called infidelity of contrariety; Or privatively, by lacking the due knowledge. Some add another negative lack, which is through invincible ignorance, but this the majority do not admit, with St. Bonavent. 3. dist. 21. art. 1. quaest. 3., of which I treated in Prima secundae, tract. de peccato, disp. 1. quaest 1.

Infidelity is DIVIDED, moreover, into Heresy, Judaism, and Paganism, by St. Thom. quaest. 10. art. 5. and St. Bonau. p. 1. Gentil. sect. 26. There the holy Doctor proves that infidelity is the greatest sin among sins, viz. Ioan. 16. Arguet mundum de peccato, etc. quia non crediderunt in me — He will argue the world of sin, etc. because they believed not in me. He calls this Sin antonomastically. And Ioan. 3. Qui non credit, iam iudicatus est: quia non credidit in nomine Unigeniti filii Dei — He that doth not believe is already judged: because he hath not believed in the name of the Only-begotten Son of God. And of Mark, at the end: Qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur — But he that believeth not shall be condemned — as if the supreme punishment were prepared for the unfaithful. I said, with St. Bonau., that infidelity is the greatest sin among sins, because no one on the way hates God expressly, but only interpretatively, as St. Bonau. teaches on those words Ioan. 15. Et oderunt me, et Patrem meum — And they hated me, and my Father. Interpretatively indeed they hate, insofar as they are turned away from Him through sins, or would not be punished; but formal hatred is the proper possession of the damned.

St. THOMAS compares infidelity with the hatred of God, and says that this is worse, because it is opposed to Charity, which is greater, 1 Corinth. 13. But that Infidelity is greater, he says, than Despair, as I shall say in disp. 6. quaest. un., although the latter is more perilous. See also Tannerus T. 1. quaest. 8. dub. 1.

Furthermore, the holy Doctor places infidelity in the intellect, in 3. dist. 5. quaest. 5. ad 4.; for it is opposed to faith, which is in the intellect and the will, or in free choice, as I said, disp. 1. quaest. 18. Of this treat Suarez disp. 16. sect. 3., Hurtado disp. 67., Lugo disp. 18. sect. 1. They ask especially: whether the sin of infidelity is always consummated in the intellect; whether sometimes in the Will alone.

Suarez loc. cit., Coninch. disp. 18. dub. 3., Tannerus 2. 2. disp. 1. quaest. 8. dubio secundo, Fuliens. lib. 3. cap 6. DENY it.

Valentia disp. 1. quaest. 10. p. 1., Hurtado disp. 68. sect. 2. ASSERT it, which opinion, understood Metaphysically, pleases Lugo, num. 9, although, speaking commonly, he adheres to the former. Fuliens., however, says that the objective malice is in the intellect, which fails from faith; but the formal [malice] in the will, from which the perverse act of the intellect freely goes forth.

Whether all the works of infidels are sins.

The sectaries of this time clamor that all the works of infidels are sins. So Luther, art. 36. among those condemned by Leo X; Melanchthon in Apol. confess. Augustana; Bucerus lib. de concordia communi; Calvin lib. 2. Instit. cap. 3.; Kemnitius in examine sess. 6. can. 7.

But the opinion of Gregory of Rimini was, 2. sent. dist. 41. quaest. un. art. 2., that every action of that infidel is evil who is wholly ignorant of God; but not the actions of heretics, who at least acknowledge God. Capreolus, however, in 2. dist. 41. quaest. un. art. 3., thinks that at least every commanded action, done by an infidel at the time it is commanded, is evil, because it ought to be referred to the true God, which infidels do not do, since they do not know the true God: and in this he favors Gregory.

Yet it is most true that some works of infidels are good.

It is proved first from St. Bonaventure, 3. dist. 38. dub. 2. ex 7 primo Exodi, where the midwives of Egypt are praised, because against the king's command they kept alive the Hebrew infants, to which they were bound by both Divine and natural law. Now those midwives were infidels. And of them it is said: Quia timuerunt Deum, aedificavit eis domos — Because they feared God, he built them houses. There St. Jerome says: AEdificavit eis domos spirituales: Ergo aliquam spiritualem rem adeptae sunt — He built them spiritual houses: therefore they attained some spiritual thing.

It is proved second from the Saintly Doctor, from what is said in prima secundae, tract. 5. qui de Gratia, disp. 1. quaest. 10., where it is shown that by the powers of nature one can perform a good moral work.

It is proved third from the Saintly Doctor here, because neither faith nor sanctifying grace is required for a good moral work, as the Council of Trent defines, sess. 6. cap. 7., where under anathema they condemn those who say that every action of man before justification is sin.

The same is proved from the Fathers: Ambrose lib. 1. de Abraham, cap. 2.; Jerome in fine lib. 2. com. in epistolam ad Galat.; Augustine lib. de spiritu, et litt. cap. 27. et 28.; Chrysostom homil. 67. ad popul. See Tanner disp. 1. q. 8. dub. 4.

They object certain passages of Scripture, Matth. 7. Non potest arbor mala bonos fructus facere — A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

The Saintly Doctor answers here, from St. Augustine lib. 1. cont. Iulianum, cap. 3. et in Enchir. cap. 15., that the bad tree is said to be the will, insofar as it wills something badly, or insofar as the will of that infidel is not perfectly good. So also Tanner and others.

Second they object that word of Ioan. 15. Sine me nihil potestis facere — Without me you can do nothing.

The Saintly Doctor answers on that passage, and in 2. dist. 28. art. 2. quaest. 3., that He speaks of meritorious works, and of those which are a disposition to salvation de congruo. Then it suffices that the help of God be present, so that one may act on account of God known as the author of nature, even if faith is absent.

They object third, Rom. 14. Omne, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est — All that is not of faith is sin.

The Saintly Doctor answers, in 3. dist. 23. dub. 2. et in 4. dist. 39. q. 3., that he there speaks of conscience in the manner of a work, so that a deed done against conscience is evil. Thus it is expounded by St. Chrysostom, homil. 26. in epistolam ad Romanos, and by others. So also Tanner loco citato.

They object fourth that word of Titus 1: Coinquinatis, et infidelibus nihil est mundum — To the defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean.

It is answered from St. Bonaventure here, and St. Chrysostom homil. 3. ibi, that all things are unclean to infidels when they superstitiously perform their actions; for an infidel can judge one thing unclean, for instance a little wine, as well as a sow. See the rest in Valencia quaest. 10. p. 2.; Tanner loco citato.

We now speak of Infidels who are without, not baptized.

The Saintly Doctor proves this power admirably, first on 14. Lucae, where the King commands: Go out into the highways and hedges: and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. There those ministers are the preachers, who are commanded by Christ to seek the gentiles outside the city, in the highways and hedges, according to the exposition of St. Gregory in the Gloss. in cap. 14. Lucae, et homil. 36. in Evang.; but by the ways, however, of the city they seek the Jews, who were known to keep the law under urban conversation. And He commands them to compel these by terrors of eternal punishments, not by the torments of war, as the Saintly Doctor notes, but by most efficacious reasons, as St. Thomas also notes, quaest. 22. de ver. art. 9. et alii.

The Saintly Doctor shows the same at the end of Lucae, on those words of Christ: Sic oportebat Christum pati, et resurgere a mortuis: et praedicari in nomine eius poenitentiam, et remissionem peccatorum in omnes gentes — Thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead: and that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all nations. And He shows this right from Genesis 22: Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes — In thy seed shall all nations be blessed. Genesis 49: Ipse erit expectatio gentium — He shall be the expectation of nations. Psalm 2: Postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes — Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations. Ego autem sum Rex ab eo constitutus, praedicans praeceptum eius — But I am a king set up by him, preaching his command. Isaiah 49: Dedi te in lucem gentium — I have given thee for a light of the nations.

The Saintly Doctor confirms this, in 3. dist. 14. dub. 4., on that word of Matthew at the end: Data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo, et in terra. Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes — All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore, teach all nations. Having premised this, he shows it from this place in 4. dist. 3. p. 2. quaest. 1. ad quintum.

And the Apostle, 2 Corinthians 5: Posuit in nobis verbum reconciliationis: Pro Christo ergo legatione fungimur — He hath placed in us the word of reconciliation: for Christ therefore we are ambassadors.

Since, therefore, with his divine power He has sent preachers as Legates to announce the Gospel, they have the right of coercing those who would wish to hinder this preaching; for such power belongs to a King for coercing those who would wish to hinder his own Legates, as is clear ex l. 2. ff. de his, quibus mandata est iurisdictio, C. Praeterea de officio delegati. Thus the Doctors commonly hold, as in Tanner 2. 2. disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 1. num. 10. et sequent.

There are, however, several questions about these.

The first is: To whom belongs the authority of sending preachers to the Infidels.

The Saintly Doctor answers, in opusculo. Quare fratres minores praedicent, that it belongs to the Pope and to the other Pastors, from Lucae 10. Hence Innocent, on that word of Rom. 10, Quomodo praedicabunt, nisi mittantur — How shall they preach unless they be sent, cited in cap. cum ex iniuncto de haereticis, says that no one ought to usurp the office of preaching for himself indiscriminately. This the Saintly Doctor proves from those words of Christ: Rogate ergo dominum messis, ut mittat operarios in messem suam — Pray therefore the lord of the harvest, that he send labourers into his harvest. Matthew 9.

But it belongs to Princes to defend the Missionaries, not directly by reason of their own jurisdiction, but as they are ministers of the Pontiff. Thus Alexander VI divided the Provinces of the Indies between the Kings of Castile and Portugal, so that they might defend the preachers and those sent into them.

That they may be accompanied by armed armies, so that they may go in safety, is taught by Maior 2. dist. 44. quaest. 2. et newly by Joannes Solorzano in Diana, 6. p. tract. 4. resol. 15.

The opposite, however, is held by Lugo disp. 19. sect. 2. §. 1., together with Suarez disp. 18. de fide.; Hurtado disp. 75.; Castro Palao Tom. 1. tract. 4. disp. 2. p. 5.

They prove it from that Matth. 10., where Christ sends the Apostles: Sicut agnos inter Lupos, sine baculo, etc. — As sheep among wolves, without staff, etc. But now our question is: Whether, if the preaching of the Gospel is offered peacefully and the Infidels refuse to hear it, they can be compelled by force of arms to hear it.

The first opinion is the affirmative one of Maior loc. cit.

The second is negative. So Valencia quaest. 10. p. 6. et, as Salmeron indicates, T. 12. tract. 38.; Coninck disp. 18. dub. 14. num. 24.; Cajetan, Bannes, Aragon 2. 2. quaest. 10. art. 8. et others commonly, as in Tanner disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 1. It seems also to be St. Bonaventure's, ad 9. Lucae, on those words: Nescitis cuius spiritus estis — You know not of what spirit you are.

The third, middle opinion asserts that unbaptized infidels are subjects of Christian Princes only. So Suarez disp. 18. sect. 2.; Hurtado disp. 75. sect. 3., who prove it from the Bull of Gregory XIII, compelling the Jews to hear our faith every week, only from a sermon. The same holds Scotus, 4. dist. 4. quaest. ult.; Castro lib. 2. de haeret. punit. cap. 14.

I assert this opinion with St. Bonaventure. It is proved from him. For Christ rebuked the disciples wishing to punish the Samaritans who refused to receive Christ, Lucae 9; and they are rebuked because it did not belong to the Apostles to coerce with punishments, since it had been said to them: Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos — As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. He Himself, when sent, was to announce to the gentle, anointed with the unction of love, as is said Isaie 61. et .42.: Dedi spiritum meum super eum: Calamum quassatum non conteret, et linum fumigans non extinguet — I have given my spirit upon him: the bruised reed he shall not break, and the smoking flax he shall not extinguish. Hence He answered the disciples there: Nescitis cuius spiritus estis. Filius hominis non venit animas perdere, sed salvare — You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. For this advent was not of justice, but of mercy, Ioan. 3: Non misit Deus Filium suum, ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum — God sent not his Son to judge the world, but that the world be saved by him; whence from this He took the name JESU, Matth. 1., not Alexander's, not Caesar's. And therefore whoever has the Spirit of God ought not to seek vengeance, but to show patience, as Ambrose says in the Gloss there: Perfecta virtus non habet studium ultionis. Nec ulla est iracundia charitatis, sed plenitudo — Perfect virtue has no zeal for revenge. Nor is there any anger in charity, but fullness. Therefore it is said, Rom. 12. Non vosmetipsos defendentes charissimi, etc. — Not defending yourselves, most beloved, etc. These things, St. Bonaventure, locis citatis.

From which I see that he inclines to the opinions denying that any coercion whatsoever can be inflicted upon Infidels.

Nor does the power of preaching given by Christ entail the power of compelling to the sermon; otherwise a Preacher sent by a Bishop could compel hearers to the sermon.

The common opinion, therefore, is that outside infidels cannot be compelled to hear the faith; for no power for this given by Christ is found, as Lugo notes, loco citato, num. 65.

Whether Infidels may be compelled to embrace our FAITH, when sufficiently propounded.

The first opinion is that infidels can be compelled to embrace the faith when sufficiently propounded. So Maior, 2. dist. 4., and indeed Genesius Sepúlveda, as in the Cardinal de Lugo disp. 19. sect. 2. §. 2.

The second opinion asserts this of infidels who are subjects in temporal things of a Prince coercing them to the faith; yet they assert this speaking of Divine law; for by Human law this coercion is prohibited. This Scotus teaches, 4. dist. 4. quaest. 7. at the end, and some of his School; Lorca asserts it probable, 3. disp. 36.

Others limit it to indirect coercion; but they deny it of direct. So Gabriel, dicta dist. 4. quaest. 2.; Angelus, as in Suarez disp. 18. sect. 3.

The common and true opinion altogether denies that infidels, whether they are subjects or not subjects, can be compelled to embrace the faith. So St. Thomas, quaest. 10. art. 8. and 12., where Cajetan and the other Thomists, Paludanus, Durandus, Antonius, Richardus, Sotus, Abul., Sylvester, Castro, Victoria and others, whom Suarez cites and follows above; Bannes, Aragon, Turrianus, Valencia, Azorias and others, whom Hurtado cites, disp. 75. sect. 2.; Coninck, disp. 18. dub. 14. num. 125.; Castro Palao, Tom. 1. tract. 4. disp. 2. p. 6.; Lugo, disp 19. sect. 2. §. 2.; Tannerus, disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 1., who reviews others. Add Bass., verb. Fides, 2. num. 8. And it is the opinion of St. Bonaventure, in 4. dist. 4. p. 1. art. 2. quaest. 1. arg. 4. opp., which he admits also in other places, adduced quaest. 3.

I assert with this opinion that infidels, whether subjects or not subjects, cannot be compelled to embrace the faith.

St. Gregory the Great commands this, lib. 11. epist. 15., cited in cap. Qui sincera, dist. 45., and the Fourth Council of Toledo, cap. 56. relatum eadem dist. cit. de Iudaeis. And Innocent III decrees the same in cap. Maiores, de Baptismo, where the Pontiff gives the reason: because it is against the Christian religion, which is the reason of St. Bonaventure: because the Evangelical Law is free; and it does not judge those that are outward, as the Apostle teaches, prima Corinth. 5., as St. Bonaventure notes, in 4. dist. 39. art. 2. quaest. 1.; and therefore the Saintly Doctor observes, ad 10. Lucae, the Mission of Christ: Ecce ego mitto vos, sicut Agnos inter Lupos — Behold I send you as sheep among wolves, where he says that the arms with which He wills the world to be brought to the faith are meekness, and not arms after the ancient manner; and he notes that Paul himself was thus converted, of whom it had been said, Genesi. 49. Beniamin Lupus rapax — Benjamin a ravening wolf, who, having been thrown from his horse by Christ the Monarch, yet convicted by arguments and lights, came of his own accord to the faith. Hence the adversaries bring forward this example in vain, as Lugo notes, num. 85. In this sense he expounds also that word of Lucae 14. Compelle eos intrare — Compel them to come in; that is, not by arms, but by heavenly motives; not by temporal punishments, but at most by the terror of eternal punishments, as St. Bonaventure expounds on this place: Arma enim militiae Christianae non sunt carnalia — For the arms of Christian warfare are not carnal, as is said 2. Cor. 10. St. Ambrose notes this, lib. 7. in Lucam. And he observes that the Apostles are forbidden to take up rods, which are signs of power, as the Saintly Doctor describes ad Psal. 22.; and in the commentary, cap. 22. Lucae, St. Bonaventure observes with St. Ambrose lib. 10. in Lucam, that it is commanded that for the time of the Passion alone the Apostles take up two swords for mere defense, and the Gloss adds: Donec sopita persecutorum insania, tempus euangelizandi redeat — Until the madness of the persecutors having been lulled, the time of evangelizing return. But if this coercive force did not remain in the Church, it does not appear how it could remain in Princes in regard to infidels: for to judge of the things of faith belongs to the Church.

But the Saintly Doctor proves this admirably ad 9. Lucae, on that remarkable event, when Christ was going to Samaria, and because the Samaritans were unwilling to receive Him for preaching, James and John wished to punish them with fire from heaven; but Christ rebuked them. Nescitis cuius spiritus estis. Filius hominis non venit animas hominum perdere, sed salvare — You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of man came not to destroy the souls of men, but to save; which place I weighed in the preceding question with St. Bonaventure. If some had weighed this, they would not have raged with such slaughter and savagery against the wretched infidels in distant lands, under the pretext of winning them to the Christian religion; on this see the Archbishop of Valencia in the history of America,¹

It is proved by the Saintly Doctor ad 9. Lucae with reasons, because the nations ought to be moved to the faith voluntarily, in the spirit of rectitude; otherwise contentions and scandals arise, so that the nations say: Haeccine hic Christus eorum praecepit, qui se Salvatorem mundi praedicandum mandavit? — Did this Christ of theirs command, who bade himself be preached as the Savior of the world? Tanner also uses these, num. 4.

You will object, that Sisebutus King of Spain once compelled the Jews to Baptism, and he is praised by the Fourth Council of Toledo, cap. 56.; but King Ferdinand expelled the Jews from the kingdom.

It is answered, that the zeal of Sisebutus is praised, not the deed. Ferdinand indeed expelled the Jews by right, not wishing them to dwell in his kingdoms, lest they harm his subjects. So would that the bloodsuckers be driven out on every side.

You will object second, that St. Gregory Magn. lib. 3. epist. 26., cited in cap. Iam vero, 23. quaest. 6., seems to wish infidels to be compelled by exactions.

It is answered, that they are compelled indirectly and by right, by not remitting to them the tributes due, unless they be converted.

You will object third, the Laws enacted against Pagans and their rites, ut Lex prima, Lex Ne quis. Lex Nemo ea. Lex Nemo venerandi, C. de Paganis, which laws are praised by the Councils and Fathers, as in Suarez sect. 4.

It is answered, that those laws prohibit the sacrilegious cults of Demons and other things against the natural law, to which Princes have right by nature.

You will object fourth. Those baptized unwillingly are compelled to obey the Church, as is clear from the Fourth Council of Toledo, cap. 56., cited in cap. de Iudaeis, dist 45.

Lugo answers, num. 91., from St. Bonaventure, in 4. dist. 3. p. 1. art. 2. quaest. 1., that not all who are baptized unwillingly are so esteemed; but those who, driven by fear, so that they may avoid inconveniences, approach baptism; and these are said to be unwilling only in a certain respect.

Whether unbaptized Infidels may be compelled to relinquish errors or rites contrary to natural reason.

The first opinion is affirmative. So Maior, and Sepúlveda, as in Suarez disput. 18. sect. 4. They are cited by Coninck disput. 18. num. 184.; St. Antoninus 3. p. tit. 22. cap. 1. §. 6. et 8., but there he speaks according to the mind of Augustinus Anconitanus. Sylvester is also adduced, under the word Papa, quaestione 7., who speaks in the same way. Panormitanus is also cited, cap. Quod super his, de voto; and after Panormitanus, Hostiensis, and Innocent on cap. Quod super his, extra de voto.

The common opinion of Theologians grants this of subject infidels only. So Caietan. Victoria, Soto, Valentia, Aragon, and others, whom Suarez disp. 18. sect. 4. cites and follows; Turtianus disp. 52. dub. 2.; Coninck disp. 18. dub. 12. num. 187.; Hurtad. disp. 75. §. 23.; Lugo disp. 19. sect. 2.; Bassaeus v. Fides 2. 8., who cite others. Others hold the same with Tanneto disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 2., who also say it is lawful if they are burdensome and a scandal to Christians. The Saintly Doctor, de Eccl. Hierarch. p. 2. cap. 3. proves it from the deed of Iudae Machabaei lib. 1. cap. 3.

It is proved by Suarez from the example of God, who, when He wished to destroy or punish the nations dwelling in the land of promise, nevertheless willed them not to be warred down by the Israelites for the crime of Idolatry, but for the denial of peaceful passage through their lands; and it is gathered from 20. Numer., and St. August. signifies this, cited in cap. 3. d. 23. quaest. 2.

But Coninck num. 193. says this deed was done by a special concession of God, the supreme Lord.

Lugo num. 97. adds that the mere denial of passage did not bring those evils upon the Chanaanites, nor sufficiently justify all the wars of the Jews. Hence when they crossed the Jordan, they killed them, yet not on account of the denied passage. Moreover even little ones were killed, who were ignorant of that barbarity. You will find the better course with St. Bonaventure, ad 12. Sap., for the universal cause of the just war of the Israelites: because certainly those Pagans, corrupted, were unwilling to cease from works against the law of nature; and thus he speaks: O quam bonus, et suavis est Domine spiritus tuus in omnibus! Ideoque eos, qui exerrant, partibus corripis: et de quibus peccant, admones, et alloqueris: ut relicta malitia, credant in te Domine. Illos enim antiquos inhabitatores terrae sanctae tuae, quos exhorruisti, quoniam odibilia opera tibi faciebant per medicamina, et sacrificia iniusta; et filiorum suorum necatores sine misericordia, et comestores viscerum hominum, et devoratores sanguinis a medio Sacramento tuo, et auctores parentes animarum inauxiliatarum perdere voluisti per manus parentum nostrorum, ut dignam perciperent peregrinationem puerorum Dei, quae sibi omnium charior est terra — O how good and sweet is thy spirit, O Lord, in all things! And therefore thou correctest those that err by little and little: and admonishest and speakest to them of the things wherein they sin: that leaving wickedness they may believe in thee, O Lord. For those ancient inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou didst abhor, because they did odious works to thee by potions and unjust sacrifices; and murderers of their own children without mercy, and eaters of the bowels of men, and devourers of blood from the midst of thy Sacrament, and authors and parents of souls without help, thou didst will to destroy by the hands of our parents, that they might receive a pilgrimage worthy of the children of God, the land most dear to them of all.

These are the causes, as the Saintly Doctor says there, for which He willed those peoples not to dwell with the faithful people, nor to make a covenant with them; nay rather to be expelled and killed, because incorrigible they accomplished enormous works against nature, to the ruin, scandal, and damnation of the faithful. But the little ones were killed in punishment of the scandals of the adults.

Pope NICOLAUS, answering the questions of the Bulgarians, speaking of Idolaters as such, says: De his, qui idolis immolant, nihil aliud dicere possumus, nisi quod ratione potius, quam vi, convincendi sunt — Of those who sacrifice to idols we can say nothing else, but that they are to be convinced rather by reason than by force.

And Paul III, as in Lugo n. 102. et Coninch. 160., declared that the Indians, as infidels, are the true lords of their goods, nor can they be despoiled of them;

But Bannes quaest. 10. art. 10. dub. 2.; Suarez, above, num. 8.; Coninck num. 188.; Lugo n. 116. note that the Prince must first enact a law, prohibiting; and afterwards punish the delinquents.

Lugo adds that they ought to be punished in the mildest way possible; nevertheless, the same says, the more atrocious crimes related above are to be punished most severely. It is a wonder, however, that in the Laws of Solon and Romulus no penalty for parricides is prescribed. Certainly I think with Tullius, oratione pro Rossio Amerino, and Plutarch in vita Romuli, that the cause was that they did not believe so great a crime would ever happen. But when the case should occur, the parricide ought to be chastised with the most atrocious death, as was Francis Ravaillac of Angoulême, who stabbed Henry IV, the Great, the legitimate King of the Gauls, as Lugo Hispanus observes. For this Monarch was great, not inferior to Alexander or Caesar, as his deeds show in Matthaeus and Davila. He had been made most sincerely Catholic, but he wished first to acquire the Kingdom by the sword, lest anyone should ever induce in his mind the hope of capturing the kingdom by the flood of the Sacraments of the reconciled Church; nor indeed had he relapsed by his own judgment, because as an adolescent, with the terror of death struck into him by Charles IX, he had received the Catholic faith. Truly, however, if he had abjured before a Judge, he was not excused, as P. Cyprianus fol. 748. P. Bonagratia v. Absolutio says, even though this doctrine was declared by the Most Eminent only in the year 1068.¹

Whether the rites of Infidels are to be permitted.

The certain rule is that these rites are not to be permitted by Christians to subject infidels without a most grave cause.

The most grave causes, however, are twofold: to avoid greater evils, or lest a greater good be impeded. So the Theologians commonly with St. Thom. 2. 2. quaest. 10. art. 11. et St. Bonau. locis allegandis. So Tanner. disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 2.; Card. Lugo disp. 19. sect. 2. §. 4.; Bassaeus v. Fides, 2. num. 9.

I assert first, that for the causes adduced, subject infidels can be tolerated by Christian Princes.

It is proved from the Saintly Doctor, opusc. de sex alis Seraphim, cap. 7., from that word of Matth. 13., where the Father of the family, expostulated with about eradicating the Zizanias, answered: Non: ne forte eradicetis et triticum. Sinite utraque crescere, etc. — No: lest perhaps you root up the wheat also. Suffer both to grow, etc. For this is the general rule, observed at that time by Pontiffs and Kings, lest seditions and confusions boil up in the Church. For thus God also tolerates certain evils for these causes, as Tanner. notes after St. Bonau. in 1. dist. 47. quaest. 3., where he infers our conclusion, certainly for this reason, because our goods ought to have their exemplars in God.

I assert second, that for this cause also the Jews are tolerated, both because as it were shadows they confirm the truth of our faith, and they exhibit the sacred Books to us for convincing the Pagans. So it is had in can. Qui sincera, dist. 45. et St. August. l 8. de ciuit. cap. 46. The legitimate Books of the old testament are indeed to be received from them, but the truly Talmudic, Cabalistic, and similar ones, vomiting forth insults against Christ, are to be given to the flames, as was long ago decreed by Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Julius III, Paul IV, and recently by Clement VIII.

I assert third, that outside these cases subject infidels are not to be tolerated. So it is defined in the Fourth Council of Carthage, can. 15. Elibertino; cap. 44. et Clem. un. de Iudaeis, et Saracenis, et leg. Nemo, C. de Paganis.

It is proved from Suarez disp. 18 sect. 4.; Tannero disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 2.; Lugo disp. 19 sect. 2. §. 4.; by the argument of St. Bonau ad Psal. 118. cap. 2. vers. 11., expounding that word of Matthaei 20: Principes gentium dominantur eorum — The princes of the nations lord it over them; because they are bound to remove their subjects from the perdition of souls, from scandals, and to promote them to good. For this reason Constantine burned the Temples of the Pagans and forbade the sacrifices; and he is praised by the Saints, Ambr. epist. 30. August. epist. 48. 50. et 104., and Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 33. et de Iouiniano lib. 10. cap. 39. et Theodosio lib. 12. c. 25. relates it; thus Josias, Ezechias, Iosaphat are praised, who took away the high places, 3. et 4. Reg., and others are blamed who did not take them away, as St. August. epist. 50. notes.

Here they ask: whether a Prince can grant a safe-conduct to infidels without a faculty of the Pontiff.

Hurtadus answers, disp. 79. sect. 5., that it can be granted to unbaptized infidels; not to heretics, who are subjects of the Church.

Therefore, notwithstanding any safe-conduct of the Kings, the Church can punish heretics, as the Council of Constance defines, sess. 19.; yet if she herself has given the safe-conduct, she is bound to keep it: as the Master Joannes Marq., the Augustinian, teaches, lib. 2. de gubernatore Christiano. cap. 24., who on pagina 301. says that faith is to be kept with them, especially when confirmed by oath.

Whether it is lawful to make compacts with infidels concerning the toleration of their rites.

This is a most weighty question, and necessary in our times.

I assert first: it is not lawful for a Christian Prince to make compacts on this matter without most grave causes. The Catholics agree with D. Bonav. in the places to be cited. So D. Thom. quaest. 10. art. 11. Molanus lib 1. de fide haereticis servanda, cap. 20. Lenaeus de unica religione servanda. Becanus lib. de fide haereticis servanda, cap. 10. Iacobus Simanc. lib. Cathol. Instit. cap. 46. Conradus Brunus de haeret. lib. 3. cap. 15. Petrus Ribadeniera lib. 1. de Inst. Principis, cap. 17. and others cited by Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 3. num. 66.

It is proved first by D. Bonav. on 12. Wisdom, in these words: Those ancient inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou didst abhor, because they did hateful works to thee by charms, and unjust sacrifices, etc. thou didst will to destroy from the midst of thy Sacrament by the hands of our forefathers.

It is proved secondly by S. Doct. there from Deuter. 7. You shall not make a covenant with them, nor show mercy to them; nor shall you join with them in marriage. You shall not give your daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for your son: for she will lead your son astray, lest he follow me, so that he may serve strange gods rather: and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled, and he will quickly destroy you. The same is commanded Exodus 34. Hence Solomon is reproved for transgressing, 3. Reg. 11. and Josaphat, otherwise pious, 2. Paral. 19. and 20. for that he had imprudently made a covenant with the infidel Kings of Israël.

It is proved thirdly by S. Doct. opusc. de sex alis Seraphim, cap. 7. from cap. 5. ad Galat. A little leaven corrupts the whole mass, etc. But he that troubles you shall bear judgment, etc. would that they were cut off who trouble you. And 1 Corinth. 5. Put away the evil from among yourselves. And Luke 13. Cut it down. Similar things are found 2. Timot. 2. Tit. 3. Ioan. epist. 2. Apocal. 2.

It is proved fourthly by S. Doct. serm. 6. Hexaemer. from the practice of the Church, especially of the supreme Pontiffs, and of Councils, condemning and separating heretics. Likewise of Emperors, especially Constantine, Charlemagne, and Theodosius. For there exists a famous Constitution of Theodosius, Gratian, and Valentinian, and it is found l. Cod. de summa Trinitate, where it is defined: We will that all peoples, whom the clemency of our empire rules, dwell in such a Religion as the divine Peter handed on to the Romans, which the Religion hitherto revealed to us by himself declares, which it is clear the Roman Pontiff follows. Similar is the rescript of the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, who impose perpetual silence on all heretics l. 2. C. de haeret. similar things are found l. 3. C. de haeret. and in Eusebius on the life of Constantine lib. 3. cap. 6. et 62.

It is also proved by the reasons brought forward quaest. 6. for these pacts bring grave harm and scandal, and are extorted by force and fraud, as is evident from the compacts with the sectaries of these times, which brought most grave wars and ruins, as Davila relates in the history of Gallia, and Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 3. Bassaeus verb. Infidelitas, 10.

I add, however, that for most grave causes it is lawful to make compacts and to tolerate. The reason is that of Tannerus num. 99. for it is lawful to pact concerning those things which it is lawful to tolerate.

I assert secondly. If at any time such pacts are entered into by Kings for grave causes, they are not to be violated. So Molanus lib. 1. cap. 25. et sequent. Becanus disp. de fide haereticis servanda, cap. 7. Letmatius de fide haereticis servanda, and others cited by Tanner. disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 4. This is the opinion of S. Bonav. in the places to be alleged.

It is proved first by S. Doct. in 3. dist. 39. art. 2. quaest. 3. where from the fact, that it is lawful to enter into treaties with infidels, S. Doct. gathers that oaths may be received from them according to their sects, as from Mahometans upon the Alcoran, as I shall show tract. de Relig. disp. de iuramento, quaest. 2.

But he proves that treaties are to be kept, and that they were at times legitimately entered into; first by the example of Iacob Genesis 31. where he made a treaty with Laban the Pagan.

Next he proves it by the example of Iudas, the holy Leader of the Machabees, who made treaties with the Romans 1. Machab. cap. 8. and is not reproved.

It is proved next by S. Doct. in the same dist. art. 3. quaest. 3. by the example of Iosuë, the most holy Leader, who kept the treaty, though imprudently made, with the Gabaonites, and in this he is praised by D. Ambr. lib. de officiis. Abulensis disputes ad 9. Iosue, from quaest. 17. to 27. Whether an oath bound to it: for he asserts that it was not obligatory, Lyranus striving for the opposite. With Tostatus is Tannerus also disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 4. num. 119.

S. Bonau. indeed supposes that foundation by which Tostatus chiefly strives: that the Hebrews were obliged simply to kill the Gabaonites, who were Chananaeans; concerning whose killing without mercy the command of God was at hand. Deuter. 20. Num. 33. Nor is any revelation of God dispensing found. From which the whole argumentation of Lyranus collapses.

He brings forward one reason, which is that of D. Ambrosii loc. cit. who says, Iosue judged that the peace which he had given was not to be recalled, because it had been confirmed by the religion of a Sacrament, lest, while he reprehended the perfidy of another, he should dissolve his own faith. Therefore by reason of scandal he seems to intimate that the oath is to be kept.

Abulensis quaest. 22. answers however that no scandal was given, because the Gabaonites, as deceivers, had extorted this oath, feigning that they were not Chananaeans.

The reason by which D. Bonau. asserts that the oath was rightly kept is, that the precept concerning the killing of the Chananaeans was laid down insofar as they were incorrigible: Therefore Iosue 11. it is said: For the sentence of the Lord was, that their hearts should be hardened, and that they should fight against Israël, and fall, and not merit any clemency, and so perish, as the Lord had commanded Moses. Therefore since the Gabaonites were not hardened, but gave themselves to the Hebrews, there was no precept to kill them.

Tostatus quaest. 21. answers first, that the sentence of the Lord was against all the Chananaeans, nor was any exception declared, except afterwards cap. 11. Iosue, which was not then known to the Israelites.

I say that clear evidence is had that this precept was so declared to Iosuë, and to the princes, because two chapters later it is described, not as laid down then only, but as manifest for the just preservation of the Gabaonites. And therefore it is said: As the Lord had commanded Moses, so Moses commanded Iosue, and he accomplished all things: there did not pass from all the mandata, not even one word, which the Lord had commanded Moses: But then he immediately subjoins the exception in the law of killing the Chananaeans: Since therefore Moses at the beginning declared it to Iosuë, and he fulfilled it to the finest point; it follows, that the precept was laid down in this form, in which it is thus related: then it is from Iosue. That certain Chananaeans were afterwards killed, is nothing against me; for they were obstinate, rebellious, just like the rest before the killing. S. Doct. adds that they were punished civilly with perpetual servitude, in which the Princes judged they acted better than by killing them, since they voluntarily subjected themselves to servitude. S. Doct. nevertheless does not accept this reason, because if the oath was valid, they ought not to be punished with the other penalty of perpetual servitude, as Tostatus argues quaest. 24. who excuses their ignorance. And in this alone he adheres to S. Doctor, that it did not tend to an evil outcome, so to receive them unto salvation.

Truly for our purpose it suffices that the holy man Iosue, of whom it is said that he kept the law of the Lord adamussim, entered into treaties with these men, whom he knew to be Pagans, even though from far off.

The reason of D. Bonav. from D. Ambrosio loc. cit. which Tannerus uses num. 104. is, that it is of Divine and Natural Law to keep pacts; otherwise the whole bond of human society will be broken.

The heretics object to us, as holding that no pacts are to be kept.

First the Council of Constance, which did not keep faith with Ioanni Hus, and the Pragensi.

It is answered, that the Council only declared that the safe-conduct of Kings does not avail to the prejudice of the power of the Church over Heretics. But those two were justly condemned. And indeed Hieronymus a Praga had from the Council a safe-conduct, but with the addition, salva semper iustitia. Hus however from the Emperor. Add that heretics have often been perfidious, as the Hugonotti toward Carolus IX. as Davila relates.

They object many Councils, Romanum IV. and Later. III.

These however only absolve subjects from the oath of fidelity to Kings excommunicated, and deprived of their jurisdiction by the Pontiff.

I assert thirdly, these pacts are to be kept, even if imprudently made. So D. Bonav. 3. dist. 39. art. 3. quaest. 3. whom the others commonly follow, cited by Tannerus num. 112.

It is proved by D. Bonav. with the argument of D. Ambrosii loc. cit. because it is a greater evil to break faith than to keep such pacts; for thereby the common good of human society is harmed.

It is certain that such infidel Princes, or even private persons, are capable of dominion. And indeed to have dominion over goods is defined by Paulus III. in a certain Bull cited by Coninch. disput. 1. dub. 10. num. 160. Of dominion also over persons as over slaves, it is certain that it can be with them if they hold slaves by a just title, say a just war, etc.

From many Scriptures S. Doct. shows that jurisdiction can be in infidels over the faithful. First from 1. a Petri 2. Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum: sive Regi, tanquam praecellenti. Be subject to every human creature for God's sake: whether to the King, as preeminent.

Next by that of Rom. 13. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit. Et infra: Non solum propter iram, sed etiam propter conscientiam. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. And below: Not only because of wrath, but also because of conscience. Finally from the other epistles of Paul S. Doctor gathers the same.

Thirdly from that of Matth. 22. Reddite ergo, quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari. Render therefore to Caesar what is Caesar's. The Apostles inculcated this precept to refute the calumny, as if our faith denied obedience to Princes. Whence Paul ad Titum 3: Admone illos, ut Principibus obediant. Admonish them, that they obey Princes. The same precept the PP. enjoined: Clemens P. lib. 4. constitut. cap. 12. et lib. 7. cap. 17. Tertullianus lib. ad scapulam, cap. 2. Polycarpus cited by Euseb. lib. 4. hist. cap. 14. Basil. in Moral. reg. 79. Hieron. epist. 4. Chrysostomus homil. 23. in epist. ad Rom. Origenes lib. 9. in eandem epist. Oecumenius, Nazianzenus, Epiphan. and others, whom Suarez relates de defensione fidei, lib. 3. cap. 1.

It is proved fourthly by S. Doct. by the reason of the Apostle. Omnis potestas est a Deo, atque ordinata; et qui ei resistit, Deo resistit, et damnationem incurrit: All power is from God and ordained; and he who resists it resists God and incurs damnation: but by the law of nature many are given having power of jurisdiction, by a just title, whether by war, or custom, or prescription, or translation of dominion, whether into a true person, as is a King; or a fictitious one, such as a Republic. Nor indeed is it once acquired lost on account of the infidelity of the Prince, or through the faith of subjects; for an infidel can well rule the faithful people of God, even with just laws.

It is confirmed by D. Bonav. because to serve is not an evil, but meritorious: Therefore by Baptism we are not absolved from that servitude.

Of dominion therefore even real over faithful slaves it is proved by S. Doct. from that of Ephes. 6. Servi obedite Dominis carnalibus cum timore, et tremore, in simplicitate cordis vestri, sicut Christo: non ad oculum servientes, quasi hominibus placentes, sed ut servi Christi, facientes voluntatem Dei ex animo, cum bona voluntate servientes, sicut Domino, et non hominibus: Servants, obey your carnal masters with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ: not serving to the eye, as pleasing men, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, serving with good will, as to the Lord, and not to men: The same he repeats ad Coloss. 3. ad Titum 2. But then all the princes were, nay, almost all even private masters, infidels. But Peter speaks of the slaves of infidel masters epist. 1. cap. 2. in those words: Servi subditi estote in omni timore dominis, non tantum bonis, et modestis, sed etiam discolis, Servants, be subject in all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward: as S. Bonaventura observes, and Lugo num. 133. S. Bonav. renders the reason of this fundamento 4. with D. August. in Psalm. 124. because Christ did not make free men of slaves, but of bad slaves, good slaves, which S. August. also confirms conc. 31. in Psal. 118. and the author of the qq. novi, et veteris testamenti, under the name of August: quaest. 15. and in the Council of Gangra can. 3. it is related cap. si quis servum 17. quaest. 14. that anathema is inflicted on him who, under pretext of religion, urged a slave to flee. It was however celebrated in the time of Pope Sylvester, in which Gentile masters had many Christian slaves.

The authors of the contrary opinion object first, from that of 1 Cor. 7. Nolite fieri servi hominum, pretio empti estis. Do not become the slaves of men; you were bought with a price.

Some answer with Suarez, that Paul is not there speaking of civil, or penal servitude: for of this he had said a little before: Servus vocatus es? non sit tibi curae. Were you called a slave? let it not be a care to you. And he concludes: Unusquisque in quo vocatus est fratres, in this let each remain with God. He speaks therefore of vitious servitude, by which one, in order to serve another, offends God: Nemo enim potest duobus dominis servire. For no one can serve two masters.

Cornelius there, Lugo n. 136. and others affirm that the exposition of D. Bonau. in the body of the text is BETTER, that those words are to be understood of civil servitude also, namely, that those compelled indeed into servitude ought patiently to bear it; yet if they are not compelled, and can be free, they ought not to reduce themselves into the servitude of infidels, for thus they will be able more promptly, more readily, and more freely to attend to religion, and the preceding words intimate this, as S. Doct. relates Servus vocatus es? non sit tibi curae: sed et si potes fieri liber, magis utere, that is, if it is in your power not to be a slave, use it: but if you have been compelled, bear it patiently.

Yet it SEEMS that by fundamento 4. he does not reject the exposition of others on these words, namely, that even if one could go out from servitude, it is meritorious to remain in it; and therefore on this occasion it is to be used for the merit of humility. Indeed S. Doct. shows that they can sell themselves, 4. dist. 36. dub. 3. Simply however, that servants ought to obey their Princes, and Masters, the Apostle enjoins also 1 Timot. VI. Quicumque sunt sub iugo servitutis, dominos suos omni honore dignos arbitrentur, ne nomen Domini, et doctrina blasphemetur. Si quis aliter docet, et non acquiescit sanis sermonibus Domini nostri Iesu Christi: superbus est, et nihil sciens. Whoever are under the yoke of servitude, let them judge their masters worthy of all honor, lest the name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed. If anyone teaches otherwise, and does not assent to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ: he is proud, and knowing nothing. And he proves this earnestly ad Rom. 13.

They OBJECT secondly, that the Evangelical Law carries liberty with it: For therefore, when Matth. 17. the tribute was demanded from the Apostles, the Lord asked Peter: Reges terrae a quibus accipiunt tributum, vel censum? a filiis suis, an ab alienis? The Kings of the earth, from whom do they receive tribute, or custom? from their own sons, or from strangers? Christ concluded: Ergo liberi sunt filii. Therefore the sons are free. In which place, under the name of sons, he seems to have understood all the faithful, as Lyra and Hieronymus indicate.

Suarez relates the VARIOUS expositions of that passage, lib. 1. cit. cap. 4. and lib. 4. cap. 5. and cap. 8.

S. Doct. ANSWERS that Christ ascribes this immunity to himself, as being the son of God by nature. Therefore from this passage the Fathers prove the natural filiation of God, because by it he declares himself not to be subject to the paying of tribute. So Chrysost. and Hilar. cited by Suarez cap. 5. num. 5. But they say he could have extended this exemption to his family, the Apostles, and others, who left all things and followed him, and Hieronymus speaks in this sense: but he communicated it especially to Peter, and his successors, as those words signified: Ut autem non scandalizemuseos, solve pro me, et te, But that we may not scandalize them, pay for me and you; for with the scandal removed, Peter could have not paid, the immunity having been communicated to him by Christ, as Lugo notes n. 138. with D. Bonau. prima parte Centil. sect. 31. Tannerus subscribes disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 2. num. 44.

They OBJECT thirdly from the first of Iacobi: Qui autem perspexerit in lege perfecta libertatis, But he that has looked into the perfect law of liberty, where the Gloss: Lex libertatis est lex Evangelica. The law of liberty is the Evangelical law.

S. Doct. ANSWERS that the Evangelical Law makes us free from the servitude of sin, and the servitude of the old law, as is said Rom. 8. Non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed accepistis Spiritum adoptionis filiorum, in quo clamamus: Abba, (Pater.) You have not received again the spirit of servitude in fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption of sons, in which we cry: Abba, (Father.)

They OBJECT fourthly. The law of charity, composing all into one, makes all things common; whence 1 Cor. 3. Omnia vestra sunt, sive mors, sive vita. All things are yours, whether death, or life. And ad Ephes. et Coloss. Omnes sumus in Christo, etc. We are all in Christ, etc.

S. Doct. ANSWERS that charity makes us one by a certain communication of graces, and affections; but not of temporal dominion; otherwise it would be forbidden that even some Christians be unequal, say one a King: another a prisoner in the Ergastulum.

They OBJECT fifthly. The bond of the Divine law is greater than that of the human; but the Evangelical law absolves from the obligation of the old divine law: Therefore.

S. Doct. ANSWERS that it is not alike; for the new Law evacuates the old law, as truth the figure; but it is not thus with human Law, which aids the Divine to be observed: Whence the Apostle 1. Timot. 2. commands that prayer be made for Princes, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life under them.

They OBJECT sixthly. Christ willed to redeem us by himself, that he might restore us to our pristine liberty, and that man might be subject to himself, as S. Anselmus says Lib. Cur Deus homo, cap. 5. since therefore we have been bought with the great price of the blood of Christ the Lord; we are his alone: Therefore it seems that a Christian, who has been reborn in Christ, is not bound to any servitude.

S. Doct. ANSWERS that we do not attain the liberty bought for us by Christ, unless translated into glory. Whence here liberty is begun from guilt; but there it is consummated, liberty from misery, and from every human power; Whence it does not follow that, if we are bought by Christ, we are not the servants of any man: The dominion indeed of the devil, or of sin, is excluded, according to that Matth. 6. Non potestis Deo servire, et Mammonae. You cannot serve God and Mammon.

But there is still a controversy: whether the Church can deprive infidel Princes of the temporal dominion which they exercise over the faithful.

INDIRECTLY indeed the Church has this power, by the right of defense, and the right of governance, because the Church can rule her faithful everywhere. So D. Thom. quaest. 10. art. 1. and Bannes, Aragon there, Valentia quaest. 10. p. 8. and Tanner. says it probable disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 2. num. 53.

COMMONLY however the Doctors hold that the Church does not have this indirect power over infidel Princes, precisely as they are infidels, unless it redound to the prejudice of the faith. So Bellarm. Tom. 1. lib. 5. de Romano Pontifice, cap. 7. Lorca, Caietanus, and others cited by Hurtadum diff. 77. sect. 2. Coninch. disp. 18. dub. 10. num. 160. Turrianus diff. 52. dub. 1. Castro Palao T. 1. tract. 4. disp. 2. p. 8. num. 6. who adduces others; and Tannerus judges it probable in the place cited.

There is REQUIRED therefore, that the Church be compelled by a persecuting infidel Prince, or that a moral danger of persecution be imminent, as Suarez notes sect. 5. Lugo sect. 1. num. 148. See also D. Bonau. serm. 16. in Hexaëmerone, indicating some things.