This shows that the title under discussion can not be set up against 359 the barbarians and that Christians have no just cause of war against them either on the ground that the Pope has made a gift of their lands on the footing of absolute lord or that they do not recognize the lordship of the Pope. This is the opinion maintained by Cajetan at considerable length, on Secunda Secundae, qu. 66, art. 8, on obj. 2. And the authority of the canonists to the contrary ought not to weigh much, because, as said above, these matters are to be discussed with reference to the divine law, and the majority in numbers and weight hold the contrary view, and among the latter is Joannes Andreae. Our opponents have no text in their favor. And even the weighty authority of the Archbishop of Florence is not to be admitted here, for he followed Augustinus Anconitanus, just as in other places he usually follows the canonists. What has been said demonstrates, then, that at the time of the Spaniards’ first voyages to America they took with them no right to occupy the lands of the indigenous population.
Accordingly, there is another title which can be set up, namely, by right of discovery; and no other title was originally set up, and it was in On the Indians, Sect. II.
virtue of this title alone that Columbus the Genoan first set sail. And this seems to be an adequate title because those regions which are deserted become, by the law of nations and the natural law, the property of the first 360 occupant (Inst., 2, 1, 12). Therefore, as the Spaniards were the first to discover and occupy the provinces in question, they are in lawful posses- sion thereof, just as if they had discovered some lonely and thitherto unin- habited region.
Not much, however, need be said about this third title of ours, because, as proved above, the barbarians were true owners, both from the public and from the private standpoint. Now the rule of the law of nations is that what belongs to nobody is granted to the first occupant, as is expressly laid down in the aforementioned passage of the Institutes. And so, as the object in question was not without an owner, it does not fall under the title which we are discussing. Although, then, this title, when conjoined with another, can produce some effect here (as will be said below), yet in and by itself it gives no support to a seizure of the aborigines any more than if it had been they who had discovered us.
Accordingly, a fourth title is set up, namely, that they refuse to accept the faith of Christ, although it is set before them and although they iscusse ' have been adjured and advised to accept it. This title might seem to be K;J^fulneB8 a lawful one for occupying the lands of the barbarians, firstly, on the ground Argument i. that the obligation of the aborigines to receive the faith of Christ results from the passage: “Whoso believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he who believeth not shall be damned.”1 But damnation is not visited on any one except for a mortal sin, and “There is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved” (Acts, ch. 4). Therefore, as the Pope is the 361 minister of Christ, at least in things spiritual, it would appear that at any rate by the authority of the Pope they can be compelled to receive the faith of Christ, and if they reject the demand to receive it they may be proceeded against under the law of war. Nay, it would seem that pnnces may do this on their own authority also, seeing that they are God’s minis- ters ( Romans, ch. 13), and “revengers [to execute] wrath upon them that do evil.” But those, indeed, do evil who do not accept the faith of Christ.
Therefore they can be coerced by princes.
A second argument is: If the French refused to obey their King, the Argumenta.
King of Spain could compel them to obedience. Therefore, if the Indian aborigines refuse to obey God, who is their true and supreme Lord, Christian princes can compel them to obedience; for the cause of God ought not to be in worse condition than the cause of men. And this is confirmed, as Scotus (bk. 4, dist. 4, qu. 9) argues about the baptism of the children of unbelievers, by the fact that persons ought to be compelled to obey a superior lord rather than an inferior lord. If, then, compulsion may be employed to make these aborigines obey their chiefs, much more may it be employed to make them obey Christ and God.
Franciscus de Victoria Argument 3. St. Thomas, Secunda Se¬ cundae, Confirmation.
Certain propositions in reply. Proposi- tion I.
The contrary opinion of Altissiodo- rensis, and William of Paris, and Gerson, sc, that unbelief is always a sin, quoted.
I4O A third argument is: If the barbarians publicly blasphemed Christ, they could be compelled by war to cease from such blasphemies, as the doctors admit and as is true. For we could take measures of war against them, if they made a mock of the crucifix or in any other way abused Christian practices by way of insuit, as by jesting imitation of the Sacra- 362 ments of the Church or the like conduct. This is obvious; for if they outraged a Christian sovereign, even one now dead, we could avenge the outrage; much more, then, if they outrage Christ, who is the living King of Christians. This is indubitable; for if Christ were alive in the flesh and pagans wrought an outrage on Him, there is no doubt that we could avenge the outrage by war. So, therefore, in this case. But unbelief is a greater sin than blasphemy, for, as St. Thomas asserts and proves (, Secunda Seciindae, qu. 10, art. 3), unbelief is the gravest of the sins which lie in moral perversity, because it is directly opposed to faith, while blas¬ phemy is not directly opposed to faith, but to the confession of faith. Unbelief cuts at the root of turning to God, that is, at faith, while blas¬ phemy does not. Therefore, seeing that Christians can proceed by war against unbelievers for their blasphemy of Christ, so they can for their unbelief itself. And the contention that blasphemy is not so great a sin as unbelief is confirmed by the fact that unbelief, is, in a Christian, a capital crime by the civil laws, while blasphemy is not.
8. By way of answer let my first proposition be: Before the barbarians heard anything about Christianity, they did not commit the sin of unbelief 363 by not believing in Christ. This proposition is precisely that of St. Thomas in Secunda Secundae, qu. 10, art. 1, where he says that in those who have not heard of Christ unbelief does not wear the guise of sin, but rather of punish- ment, such ignorance of things divine being a consequence of the sin of our first parent. “Such unbelievers as these,” says he, “are indeed open to condemnation for other sins,...but not for the sin of unbelief.” Accord- ingly our Lord says (St. John, ch. 15): “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin.” St. Augustine, in his exposition of this passage, says it refers to the sin of unbelief in Christ. St. Thomas says the same ( Secunda Secundae, qu. 10, art. 6, and qu. 34, art. 2, on obj. 2).
This proposition is opposed to the teaching of many doctors and especially to that of Altissiodorensis, 3 p.,1 on the question, Utrum fidei possit suhesse falsum, where he says that ignorance not only of Christ, but of any article of faith is not invincible ignorance in any one, for if a man does what in him lies, God will illuminate him either through the doctor that is within him or through a doctor outside, and so it is always a mortal sin to believe anything contrary to articles of faith. He takes an illustra- tion from an old woman to whom a bishop might preach something contrary to an article of faith. And he lays down the general proposition that 364 ignorance of divine law excuseth none. William of Paris was of the same opinion and supported it by the same kind of argument. For either, says he, such an one does what in him lies and therefore will receive illumina- 1 Summa aurea sententiarum: Paris edition (1500), fol. cxxxv, coi. 4 at end.
On the Indians, Sect. II.
tion, or if he does not this, he is without excuse. And Gerson ( De spirituali vita animae, lect. 4) appears to be of the same view. “Doctors are unani- mous,” says he, “that in matters of the divine law there is no room for invincible ignorance, seeing that God will always help him who does what in him lies, and He is ready to enlighten the mind as far as will be necessary for salvation and the avoidance of error.” And Hugo de Sancto Victore (xbk. 2, pt. 6, ch. 5) says that none is excused by ignorance for breach of the command to receive baptism, for he could have heard and known, had it not been for his own fault, as was the case with Cornelius ( Acts, ch. 10).
Adrian gives precision to this doctrine, in his Quodlibeta, qu. 4. “There is,” says he, “a two-fold distinction in matters of the divine law. There are some matters to the knowledge of which God does not oblige every one universally, such as the nice problems of the divine law and difficulties with regard to this law and with regard to Holy Scripture and the Commandments; in these matters there may well be a case of invincible ignorance, even if a man does all that in him lies. There are other matters to the knowledge of which God obliges all men generally, such as the articles of faith and the universal commandments of the law; of these it is true, as 365 the doctors assert, that ignorance thereof is not excused. For if any one does what in him lies, he will be illuminated of God through either the doctor that is within him or a doctor from without.”
Nevertheless, the conclusion above stated is entirely in accord with St. Thomas’s doctrine. The proof of it is as follows: Such as have never heard anything, however much they may be sinners in other respects, are under an invincible ignorance; therefore, their ignorance is not sin. The antecedent is evident from the passage ( Romans, ch. 10): “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear with¬ out a preacher?” Therefore, if the faith has not been preached to them, their ignorance is invincible, for it was impossible for them to know. And what Paul condemns in unbelievers is not that they have not done what in them lies in order to receive illumination from God, but that they do not believe after they have heard. “Have they not heard?” says he, “Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth.” That is the ground of his condemnation, inasmuch as the Gospel has been preached over all the earth; he would not otherwise condemn them, whatever other sins they Hugo de S. Victore, of the same opinion.
So also in part Adrian.
Rejecting the views of these persons, the author prores his own prop- osition.
might have.
This shows that Adrian was also mistaken in another point,with regard ^srj®£fabout to the subject-matter of their ignorance; for in the same note he says, with JJJjjJctl0 °Ut regard to the subject-matter of morals, that if a man bestows all industry matter of and diligence in getting to know that which behoves him, this is not enough lgnorance- to procure him an excuse for his ignorance, unless by repentance of his sins 366 he specially prepares himself to be illuminated by God. Suppose, then, a man is in doubt about a certain business arrangement and makes inquiry of learned men and tries in other ways to find out the truth and thinks that the thing is lawful; if it really is not lawful and he does it, he is without 1De Sacramentis Christianae fidei.
Franciscus de Victoria The author’s reasoning against Adrian.
The author’s opinion what ignorance is sin, what is not. The author again confirms his proposition.
The mistake of the afore* named au- thors ex- plained.
Proposi¬ tion II.
excuse, if in another respect he is in sin, because he does not do all that in him lies to conquer his ignorance, and although it be admitted that were he to render himself amenable to grace he would not receive illumination, stili he is without excuse so long as he does not remove the hindrance in question, that is, his sin. Accordingly, if Peter and John are in doubt in the same case and business matter and bestow equal human diligence, and each thinks the thing is lawful, but Peter is in grace, while John is in sin, Peter’s igno¬ rance is invincible, but John’s is vincible, and if they both embark on the business, Peter is excused and John is not. Adrian, I say, makes a mistake here, as I have shown at length in my discussion on Prima Secundae on the topic of ignorance. For it would be strange to say that there is no topic of the divine law on which an unbeliever, aye, any one who is in mortal sin, can be invincibly ignorant. Nay, it would follow in the case of the above- named Peter, who was in grace and whose ignorance on some point about usury or simony was invincible, that his ignorance would become vincible merely by his falling into mortal sin, which is absurd.
9. I say accordingly on this point that negligence with regard to the 367 subject-matter is requisite for ignorance, even though it be vincible, to be imputed as, and to be, a sin, as, for example, that the man refused to hear or did not believe what he did hear; and on the other hand I say that for invincible ignorance it is enough that the man bestowed human diligence in trying to learn, even if in other respects he is in mortal sin. And so on this point our judgment is the same concerning one in sin and one in grace, both now and immediately after Christ’s coming or after His passion. Adrian could not deny that after our Lord’s passion the Jews in India or in Spain were invincibly ignorant of His passion, however much they were in mortal sin; nay, he himself has expressly conceded this in his first quaestio, fourth point, on the topic de observantia legalium. And it is certain that the Jews who were away from Judaea, whether they were in sin or not, had invincible ignorance about baptism and about the faith of Christ. Just as 368 there could at that time be a case of invincible ignorance on this matter, so there may also be nowadays among those who have not had baptism declared to them. But the mistake which the doctors in question make is in think- ing that when we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of the Christian faith it follows at once that a person can be saved without baptism or the Christian faith, which, however, does not follow. For the aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of unbelief, as St. Thomas ( Secunda Secundae, as above) says, namely, that if they do what in them lies, accompanied by a good life according to the law of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence and He will illuminate them regarding the name of Christ, but it does not therefore follow that if their life be bad, ignorance or unbelief in baptism and the Christian faith may be imputed to them as a sin.
10. Second proposition: The Indians in question are not bound, directly the Chriscian faith is announced to them, to believe it, in such a On the Indians, Sect. II.
way that they commit mortal sin by not believing it, merely because it has been declared and announced to them that Christianity is the true religion and that Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer of the world, without miracle or any other proof or persuasion. This proposition is proved by the first: For if before hearing anything of the Christain religion they were excused, they are put under no fresh obligation by a simple declaration and announce- ment of this kind, for such announcement is no proof or incentive to belief. Nay, as Cajetan says (on Secunda Secundae, qu. 1, art. 4), it would be rash 369 and imprudent for any one to believe anything, especially in matters which concern salvation, unless he knows that this is asserted by a man worthy of credence, a thing which the aboriginal Indians do not know, seeing that they do not know who or what manner of men they are who are announcing the new religion to them. And this is confirmed by what St. Thomas says {Secunda Secundae, qu. 1, art. 4, on obj. 2, and art. 5, on obj. 1), namely, that matters of faith are seen and become evident by reason of their credi- bility. For a believer would not believe unless he saw that the things were worthy of belief either because of the evidence of signs or for some other reason of this kind. Therefore, where there are no such signs nor anything else of persuasive force, the aborigines are not bound to believe. And this is confirmed by the consideration that if the Saracens were at the same time to set their creed before them in the same way and without anything more, like the Christians, they would not be bound to believe them, as is certain. Therefore they are not bound to believe the Christians either, when without any moving or persuasive accompaniments they set the faith before them, for they are unable, and are not bound, to guess which of the two is the truer religion, unless a greater weight of probability be apparent on one side. For this would be to believe hastily, which is a mark of levity of heart, as Ecclesiasticus, ch. 19, says. Further confirmation is furnished by the passage in St. John, ch. 15: “If I had not wrought signs,” etc., “they would not have had sin.” Therefore, where there are no signs, and nothing to induce belief, there will be no sin.
370 11. From this proposition it follows that, if the faith be presented to the Indians in the way named only and they do not receive it, the Spaniards can not make this a reason for waging war on them or for proceeding against them under the law of war. This is manifest, because they are innocent in this respect and have done no wrong to the Spaniards. And this corollary receives confirmation from the fact that, as St. Thomas lays it down {Secunda Secundae, qu. 40, art. 1), for a just war “there must be a just cause, namely, they who are attacked for some fault must deserve the attack.” Accord- ingly, St. Augustine says {Liber 83 Quaestionum ): “It is involved in the definition of a just war that some wrong is being avenged, as where a people or state is to be punished for neglect to exact amends from its citizens for their wrongdoing or to restore what has been wrongfully taken away.” Where, then, no wrong has previously been committed by the Indians, there is no cause of just war. This is the received opinion of all the doctors, not only of the theologians, but also of the jurists, such as Proof.
Confirma¬ tion 3.
Corollary.
Proposition proved from the common opinion of the doctors.
Franciscus de Victoria Proposi- tion III.
Proof i.
Proof 2.
Proposi¬ tiori IV.
Proposi¬ tiori V.
Proposi¬ tiori VI.
Proof i.
Hostiensis, Innocent, and others. Cajetan ( Secunda Secundae, qu. 66, art. 8) lays it down clearly and I know of no doctor whose opinion is to the contrary. Therefore this would not be a legitimate title to seize the lands of the aborigines or to despoil the former owners.
12. Third proposition: If the Indians, after being asked and admonished 371 to hear the peaceful preachers of religion, refused, they would not be excused of mortal sin. The proof lies in the supposition that they have very grave errors for which they have no probable or demonstrable reasons. There¬ fore, if any one admonishes them to hear and deliberate upon religious matters, they are bound at least to hear and to enter into consultation. Further, it is needful for their salvation that they believe in Christ and be baptized (St. Mark, last ch.), “Whoso believeth,” etc. But they can not believe unless they hear ( Romans, ch. io). Therefore they are bound to hear, otherwise if they are not bound to hear, they would, without their own fault, be outside the pale of salvation.
13. Fourth proposition: If the Christian faith be put before the aborigines with demonstration, that is, with demonstrable and reasonable arguments, and this be accompanied by an upright life, well-ordered accord- ing to the law of nature (an argument which weighs much in confirmation of the truth), and this be done not once only and perfunctorily, but diligently and zealously, the aborigines are bound to receive the faith of Christ under penalty of mortal sin. This is proved by our third proposition, for, if they are bound to hear, they are in consequence bound also to acquiesce in what they hear, if it be reasonable. This is abundantly ciear from the passage (St. Mark, last ch.): “Go ye out into all the world, preach the Gospel to every creature; whoso believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but whoso 372 believeth not shall be damned”; and by the passage (Acts, ch. 4): “No other name is given unto man whereby we can be saved.”
14. Fifth proposition: It is not sufficiently ciear to me that the Christian faith has yet been so put before the aborigines and announced to them that they are bound to believe it or commit fresh sin. I say this because (as appears from my second proposition) they are not bound to believe unless the faith be put before them with persuasive demonstration. Now, I hear of no miracles or signs or religious patterns of life; nay, on the the other hand, I hear of many scandals and cruel crimes and acts of impiety. Hence it does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to them with such sufficient propriety and piety that they are bound to acquiesce in it, although many religious and other ecclesiastics seem both by their lives and example and their diligent preaching to have bestowed sufficient pains and industry in this business, had they not been hindered therein by others who had other matters in their charge.
15. Sixth proposition: Although the Christian faith may have been announced to the Indians with adequate demonstration and they have refused to receive it, yet this is not a reason which justifies making war on them and depriving them of their property. This conclusion is definitely stated by St. Thomas (Secunda Secundae, qu. 10, art. 8), where he says that On the Indians, Sect. II.
373 unbelievers who have never received the faith, like Gentiles and Jews, are in no wise to be compelled to do so. This is the received conclusion of the Proof 2- doctors alike in the canon law and the civil law. The proof lies in the fact that belief is an operation of the will. Now, fear detracts greatly from the voluntary ( Ethics, bk. 3), and it is a sacrilege to approach under the influence of servile fear as far as the mysteries and sacraments of Christ. proof Our conclusion is also proved by the canon de Judaeis (can. 5, Dist. 45), which says: “The holy synod also enjoins concerning the Jews that thence- forth force be not applied to any of them to make him believe; ‘for God has compassion on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.’”1 There is no doubt about the doctrine of the Council of Toledo, that threats and fears should not be employed against the Jews in order to make them receive the faith. And Gregory expressly says the same in the canon qui sincera (can. 3, Dist. 45): “Who with sincerity of purpose,” says he, “desires to bring into the perfect faith those who are outside the Christian religion should labor in a manner that will attract and not with severity;...for whosoever does otherwise and under cover of the latter would turn them from their accustomed worship and ritual is demonstrably furthering his own end thereby and not God’s end.”
Our proposition receives further proof from the use and custom of the Proof 4- Church. For never have Christian Emperors, who had as advisors the most holy and wise Pontiffs, made war on unbelievers for their refusal 374 to accept the Christian religion. Further, war is no argument for the truth p™°f 5. of the Christian faith. Therefore the Indians can not be induced by war to believe, but rather to feign belief and reception of the Christian faith, which is monstrous and a sacrilege. And although Scotus (Bk. \, dist. The opinion last qu.) calls it a religious act for princes to compel unbelievers by threats °fersec0°ntusset and fears to receive the faith, yet he seems to mean this to apply only to f0rth. unbelievers who in other respects are subjects of Christian princes (with whom we will deal later on). Now, the Indians are not such subjects.
Hence, I think that Scotus does not make this assertion applicable to their case. It is ciear, then, that the title which we are now discussing is not adequate and lawful for the seizure of the lands of the aborigines.
Another, and a fifth, title is seriously put forward, namely, the sins of ^*ufisfs^dUtle these Indian aborigines. For it is alleged that, though their unbelief or their rejection of the Christian faith is not a good reason for making war on them, yet they may be attacked for other mortal sins which (so it is said) they have in numbers, and those very heinous. A distinction is here drawn with regard to mortal sins, it being asserted that there are some sins, which are not against the law of nature, but only against positive divine law, and 375 for these the aborigines can not be attacked in war, while there are other sins against nature, such as cannibalism, and promiscuous intercourse with mother or sisters and with males, and for these they can be attacked in war and so compelled to desist therefrom. The principle in each case is that, in the case of sins which are against positive law, it can not be clearly Franciscus de Victoria Statement and explana- tion of the opinion of the Archbishop, Augustinus of Ancona, Sylvester and Innocent that this is a lawful title.
The author’s answer.
Proof 1.
Proof 2.
shown to the Indians that they are doing wrong, whereas in the case of the sins which are against the law of nature, it can be shown to them that they are offending God, and they may consequently be prevented from continuing to offend Him. Further they can be compelled to keep the law which they themselves profess. Now, this law is the law of nature. Therefore. This is the opinion of the Archbishop of Florence (pt. 3, tit. 22, ch. 5, § 8), following Augustinus Anconitanus, and of Sylvester (under the word Papa, § 7); and it is the opinion of Innocent in X, 3, 34, 8, where he expressly says: “I hold that if the Gentiles who have no other law than the law of nature break that law, they can be punished by the Pope. This is shown by the case of the men of Sodom, who were punished by God ( Genesis, ch. 19). Now, the judgments of God are examples unto us, and so I do not see why the Pope, who is the vicar of Christ, can not do this.” This is what Innocent said. And on the same principle the Indians can be punished by Christian princes under the authority of the Pope.