Question VIII: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can retain power over the faithful, and whether they can be deprived of it

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 disp. 77. sect. 2. Coninch. disp. 18. dub. 10. num. 160. Turrianus disp. 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.