Question IV: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to embrace our faith, when it has been sufficiently set forth

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 1} Editor's note: the print reads 'vide Archiepiscopum Valentiz in historia Americz'; terminal 'z' is the OCR's garbling of the 'æ' ligature; rendered as 'Valentiæ in historiâ Americæ'.

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.