Question VII: Whether it is lawful to make agreements with unbelievers about 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.