Question II: Whether all the works of unbelievers 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.