¹ Opera omnia (Rome, 1882–), VIII, 91–92: Ubi considerandum est quod dominium et praelatio introducta sunt ex iure humano: distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium est ex iure divino. Ius autem divinum, quod est ex gratia, non tollit ius humanum, quod est ex naturali ratione. Et ideo distinctio fidelium et infidelium, secundum se considerata, non tollit dominium et praelationem infidelium supra fideles.

² This departure from the customary translation, “who were becoming the children of God,” will be justified farther on.

³ Potest tamen iuste per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecclesiae, auctoritatem Dei habentis, tale ius dominii vel praelationis tolli: quia infideles merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, qui transferuntur in filios Dei. Sed hoc quidem Ecclesia quandoque facit, quandoque autem non facit. (P. 92.)

⁴ Summa theologica, II–ii, q. 3, a. 2. Cf. II–i, q. 91, a. 4; Quodl. XII, a. 25, ad 1.

⁵ II–ii, q. 12, a. 2 (Opera omnia [Rome, 1882– ], VIII, 105): Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, infidelitas secundum seipsam non repugnat dominio, eo quod dominium introductum est de iure gentium, quod est ius humanum; distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium est secundum ius divinum, per quod non tollitur ius humanum.

Cf. II–ii, q. 57, a. 3 ad 2 on mastery over slaves; II–i, q. 95, a. 4, together with I, q. 96, a. 4, on political rule.

⁶ ST, I, q. 1, a. 8, ad 2.

⁷ ST, II–i, q. 95, a. 2 (note the first objection and answer) and a. 4.

A reader of this paper, who contends that, “far from being a contradictory piece of Thomistic theology, II–ii, 10, 10 is in complete harmony with Aquinas' thinking,” argues that the solution to the problem of the Article “lies in AquinaS' philosophy and theology of law (I–ii, go ff.).” He says, referring one to I–ii, q. 95, a. 2, that the human and divine laws concerned “are ‘determinations’ of the respective natural laws,” and that, as a result, the conflict of laws “lies between positive human and positive divine determinations of natural law.”

This argument, however, is in error not only in its treatment of the human law in question as a “determination” of natural law, but also in its final implication that the divine law concerned is a determination of the natural law from which the human law in question is derived. In II–ii, q. 57, a. 2, St. Thomas, accommodating his system to Aristotle's division of law into natural and legal (or positive), does make a distinction within divine law comparable to that between natural law and positive law: “Unde etiam ius divinum per haec duo distingui potest, sicut et ius humanum. Sunt enim in lege divina quaedam praecepta quia bona, et prohibita quia mala: quaedam vero bona quia praecepta, et mala quia prohibita.” But the divine law which is comparable to natural law is not to be identified with it. “Per naturalem legem participatur lex aeterna secundum proportionem capacitatis humanae naturae. Sed oportet ut altiori modo dirigatur homo in ultimum finem supernaturalem. Et ideo superadditur lex divinitus data, per quam lex aeterna participatur altiori modo (ST, I, q. 91, a. 4, ad 1).”

⁸ ST, II–i, q. 95, a. 4.

⁹ II–ii, q. 60, a. 5; cf. II–ii, q. 57, a. 2.

¹⁰ II–i, q. 95, a. 2.

¹¹ II–ii, q. 57, a. 3, ad 3.

¹² II–i, q. 91, a. 2.

¹³ II–i, q. 95, a. 4, ad 1; II–ii, q. 57, a. 3.

¹⁴ St. Thomas, Opera omnia (Rome, 1882–), VIII, 92.

¹⁵ Loc. cit., IX, 94–95.

¹⁶ Loc. cit., p. 94: Ad secundum dicendum quod intantum aliqui infideles iniuste res suas possident, inquantum eas secundum leges terrenorunt principum amittere iussi sunt. Et ideo ab eis possunt per violentiam subtrahi, non privata auctoritate, sed publica.

¹⁷ Epist. XCIII, xii, so (Patrologia latina, XXXIII, 345): Et quamvis res quaeque terrena non recte a quoquam possideri possit, nisi vel jure divino, quo cuncta justorum sunt, vel jure humano, quod in potestate regum est terrae, ideoque res vestras falso appelletis, quas nee justi possidetis, et secundum leges regum terrenorum amittere jussi estis ….

¹⁸ Horum namque domini, quamvis infideles, legitimi domini sunt, sive regali sive politico regimine gubernentur; nee sunt propter infidelitatem a dominio suorum privati; cum dominium sit ex iure positivo et infidelitas ex divino iure, quod non tollit ius positivum, ut superius in qu. X habitum est.

¹⁹ ST, II–ii, q. 10, a. 8.

²⁰ Opera omnia (Rome, 1882–), VIII, 105: Sed aliquis per infidelitatem peccans potest sententialiter ius dominii amittere, sicut et quandoque propter alias culpas. Ad Ecclesiam autem non pertinet punire infidelitatem in illis qui numquam fidem susceperunt: secundum illud Apostoli, I ad Cor., v: Quid mihi de his gut forte sunt iudicare? Sed infidelitatem illorum qui fidem susceperunt potest sententialiter punire. Et convenienter in hoc puniuntur quod subditis fidelibus dominari non possint: hoc enim vergere posset in magnam fidei corruptionem.

²¹ Gulielmus Barclaius, De potestate pape, xxi (edition of 1609 [n. p.], p. 167).

²² Roberto Bellarmino, De potestate summi pontificis in temporalibus adversus Gulielmum Barclaium, xxi (Disputationum … tomus primus, etc. [Cologne, 1617–20], VII, 936).

²³ Pègues, Thomas, Commentaire français littéral de la Somme théologique de Saint Thomas d'Aquin (Paris, 1907–33), X, 276–77Google Scholar.

²⁴ In Epistolam I ad Corinthios, c. v, lect. 3 (Opera omnia [Parma, 1852–73], XIII, 192–93). Cf. the last paragraph of the Respondeo dicendum of ST, Il–ii, q. 10, a. 9.

²⁵ Baumann, Johann Julius, Die Staatslehre des h. Thomas von Aquino: ein Beitrag zur Frage zwischen Kirche und Staat (Leipzig, 1873), 182–84Google Scholar.

²⁶ Op. cit., X, 276.

²⁷ Antoniades, Basilius, Die Staatslehre des Thomas ab Aquino (Leipzig, 1890), p. 106Google Scholar.

²⁸ Op. cit., Praefatio (VII, 831).

²⁹ Rivière, Jean, Le problème de l'église et de l'état au temps de Philippe le Bel (Louvain, 1926), pp. 49–50Google Scholar.

³⁰ lung, Nicolas, Un Franciscain, théologien du pouvoir pontifical au xiv^e siècle, Alvaro Pelayo, évèque et pénitencier de Jean XXII (L'église et l'état au moyen âge, III) (Paris, 1931), p. 124, n. 1.Google Scholar

³¹ Goedeckemeyer, A., “Die Staatslehre des Thomas von Aquino,” Preussische Jahrbücher, CXIII (1903), 417–18Google Scholar.

³² Schilling, Otto, Die Staats- und Soziallehre des heiligen Thomas von Aquin (2d ed.; Munich, 1930), pp. 234–35Google Scholar. The interpretation appears also in the first edition (1923), p. 201.

³³ Grabmann, Martin, Studien über den Einfluss der aristotelischen Philosophic auf die mittelalterlichen Theorien über das Verhältnis von Kirche und Staat (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Abteilung, Jahrg. 1934, Heft 2) (Munich, 1934), p. 13Google Scholar.

³⁴ Glez, Gustav, “Pouvoir du pape dans l'ordre temporel,” Dictionnaire de théologie catholīque, ed. Vacant, A. and Mangenot, E. (Paris, 1909–50), XII² (1935), 2731.Google Scholar

³⁵ Tischleder, Peter, Ursprung und Träger der Staatsgewalt nach der Lehre des hl. Thomas und seiner Schule (Münster in Westphalia, 1923), p. 48.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., p. 47.

³⁷ See below, p. 116.

³⁸ Gratian, Decretum, dist. 54, cc. 13 and 15–18; Decretales Greg. IX, V, vi, cc. 1, 2, 8, 13.

³⁹ Decretales, V, vi, cc. 16, 18; cf. Decretum, dist. 54, c. 14.

⁴⁰ In II, dist. 44 of the Libri sententiarum, Lombard, referring to Rom. xiii, writes: “Sed sciendum est Apostolum ibi loqui de seculari potestate, scilicet rege, et principe, et hujusmodi (PL, CXCII, 757).” When St. Thomas comments on this portion of Lombard's work, he raises the question, “Utrum omnis praelatio sit a Deo,” and, as is evident from various allusions he makes to kings, to reigning, and to subjects, has political power primarily, if not exclusively, in mind (II Sent., dist. 44, q. 1, a. 2 [Opera omnia (Parma), VI, 784–85]). In the next Article in his commentary, “Utrum in statu innocentiae fuisset dominium,” where one must suppose him again concerned in part with political rule, he employs the terms praelatio and dominium in conjunction, as he does in the Summa Article.

⁴¹ He makes, for example, great point of the fact that the provision against new establishment of infidel dominion over Christians brings into question no existing right, but only the legal capacity for acquiring a right (p. 46).

⁴² Sabine, George H., A History of Political Theory (Rev. ed.; New York, [1950]), pp. 253–54Google Scholar. Cf. pp. 275–76, where he says that EgidiuS' doctrine was “much less enlightened than Thomas' opinion that infidelity is no bar to the exercise of political power.”

⁴³ von Aquin, Thomas, sein System und seine geistesgeschichtliche Stellung (Bonn, 1938), pp. 507–508Google Scholar (in the translation, The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas [St. Louis, 1944], p. 451).

⁴⁴ de Lagarde, Georges, La naissance de l'esprit laique au déclin du moyen âge (2d ed.; Paris, 1948), I, 176Google Scholar. Cf. p. 92, n. 10.

⁴⁵ Linhardt, Robert, Die Sozialprinzipien des heiligen Thomas von Aquin, Versuch einer Grundlegung der speziellen Soziallehren des Aquinaten aus den Quellen erarbeitet (Freiburg in Breisgau, 1932), p. 130 and n. 10.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Santonastaso, Giuseppe, “II pensiero politico di Egidio Romano,” Civiltà Moderna, XI (1939), 198Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ (Edinburgh, 1922–36), V, 34.

⁴⁸ “Some Notes on the Theories of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Relation between Church and State and on Law,” Economic Review, VI (1896), 77Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Op. cit., V, 404–405.

⁵⁰ In setting down the requirement that kings must be instituted by the Church he says twice that he is not concerned with any but Christian peoples (De ecclesiastica potestate, ed. Scholz, Richard [Weimar, 1929]Google Scholar, lib. I, c. 5, p. 55; lib. II, c. 14, p. 133).

⁵¹ E.g., Charles Jourdain, Gius. Oxilia, Ugo Mariani, Paul Janet, Gerardo Bruni, Glez, and the Carlyles.

⁵² In the Decretum, dist. 54, chapters 13, 15, and 16, concerning the slaves of Jews, and chapter 14, barring Jews from public office, are all sixth-century pronouncements. The Roman parallels on slavery are, among others, Cod. Theod., XVI, ix, 2 and 5; on office, Cod. Theod., XVI, x, 21 and especially Cod. Just., I, ix, 18.

⁵³ Thus, for example, Innocent III extended the provisions of Dist. 54, c. 14 to pagans (Decretales Greg. IX, V, vi, c. 16); and the Third Lateran Council broadened the provisions against personal service (V, vi, cc. 5 and 8).

⁵⁴ Enarrationes in psalmos; in psalm, cxxiv (PL, XXXVII, 1653–54).

⁵⁵ In Epistolam ad Romanos, xiii (PL, CXCI, 1503–4).

⁵⁶ Victorinus Doucet in the Quaracchi edition of the Summa (1924–47), IV, ccclxix.

⁵⁷ Loc. cit., cccliv-v, and Doucet, V., “Autour des ‘Prolegomena ad Summum fr. Alexandri,’” Archivum franciscanum historicum, XLIII (1950), 196–200Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Summa theologica (Quaracchi), Tome III, no. 746.

⁵⁹ Decretales Greg. IX, V, vi, 2.

⁶⁰ Summa theologica, Tome III, no. 745.

⁶¹ Op. cit., Tome III, no. 780.

⁶² Op. cit., Tome III, no. 608.

⁶³ von Schulte, Joh. Friedrich, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf Papst Gregor IX (Stuttgart, 1875–80), II, 93Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Apparatus super quinque libros Decretalium (Venice, 1481 [unpaged]), Quod super his (III, xxxiv, 8).

⁶⁵ Walter Ullmann evidently failed to read this passage, for he says (Medieval Papalism: the Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists [Maitland Memorial Lecture … 1948] [London, 1949], p. 126): “Innocent IV confined the papal right of interference to the countries which had at any time been ruled by Christian princes but had been wrested from them and placed under a non-Christian ruler.” Elsewhere (pp. 131–32) he says: “Something in the way of a compromise between these two theories [those of Innocent and Hostiensis] was achieved by later canonists. It was agreed that force should not be employed to subjugate these pagan countries to Christian rule, but that they should be won over by the effects of missionary activity, that is, by peaceful penetration. Only when the right of entry was refused to emissaries, should force be used.” This entire proposition is in Innocent himself.

⁶⁶ In tertium Decretalium librum commentaria, Quod super his, sections 6–26 (Venice, 1581, p. 128).

⁶⁷ Loc. cit., sections 26–28. Cf. HostiensiS' Summa aurea, De iudaeis, de sarracenis, et eorum servis (V, vi), on the final concession.

⁶⁸ In Epistolam ad Romanos, xiii, lect. 1 (Opera omnia [Parma], XIII, 128 ff.).

⁶⁹ The pertinent questions of “Alexander's” Summa draw much from writings of Raymond of Pennafort and of John of Rupella; but if one can rely on the close analysis of the dependence in the Quaracchi edition (IV¹, ccxc), St. Thomas shares with the Summist arguments not in the earlier writings — the objection that Christians are sometimes the coloni of Jews, and an argument from Gregory VII which forms the Sed contra in both discussions of obedience to apostate rulers.

⁷⁰ Die Sozialprinzipien, p. 24.

⁷¹ Thus the translation of the Summa theologica by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London, 1911–35), VII, 140; Pègues, op. cit., X, 238; R. W. Carlyle, in the Economic Review, VI (1896), 77; Goedeckemeyer, loc. cit., p. 418.

⁷² The stock examples of the usage are from Ovid and Quintilian. Cf., e.g., A Latin Dictionary Founded on AndrewS' Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary, rev…. by Lewis, C. T. and Short, C. (Oxford, [1951]), p. 1890Google Scholar.

⁷³ ST, II–ii, q. 104, a. 6: Et ideo illi qui fiunt filii Dei per gratia ….

⁷⁴ E. g., ST, II–ii, q. 78, a. 2, ad. S: “… ille qui mutuat pecuniam transfert dominium pecuniae in eum cui mutuat.” Cf., e. g., Aegidius of Lessines, De usuris in communi, c. 5 (printed as Opus. LXVI in Vol. XVII of the Parma edition of the works of St. Thomas). Cf., also, the use of the accusative with in for the transfer of the Empire: e. g., Innocent III, in Decretales Greg. IX, I, vi, c. 34; Gregory IX ipse, in Huillard-Bréholles, Hist, diplomatica Fred. II (Paris, 1852–61), IV, 922; Konrad of Megenburg, De translacione Romani imperii, in Scholz, Richard, Unbekannte Kirchenpolitischen Streitschriften aus der Zeit Ludwigs des Bayern (Rome, 1911), II, 251Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Hostiensis added to his Commentary until his death in 1271, and St. Thomas wrote the portion of the Summa containing the Article in 1271–72; but it is probable that version after version of the Commentary was circulated before 1271 (Kuhlmann, B. C., Der Gesetzesbegriff beim Hl. Thomas von Aquin im Lichte des Rechtsstudium seiner Zeit [Bonn, 1912], p. 104)Google Scholar, so that St. Thomas could long have been familiar with it at the time he wrote.

⁷⁶ Contra literas Petiliani, ii, c. 43, § 102; in Gratian's Decretum, C. 23, q. 7, c. 2 (Corpus iuris canonicus, ed. E. Friedburg [Leipzig, 1879], I, 951): Si de rebus vel locis ecclesiasticis, que non tenetis, querimini, possunt et Iudei se iustos dicere, et iniquitatem nobis obicere, quia locum, in quo inpii regnaverunt, modo Christiani possident. Quid ergo indignum, si ea, que tenebant heretici, secundum parem Domini voluntatem catholici tenent? Ad omnes iniquos et inpios illa vox Domini valet: “Auferetur a vobis regnum Dei, et dabitur genti facienti iusticiam.” An frustra scriptum est: Labores inpiorum pii edent?[“] Quapropter magis mirari debetis, quod adhuc tenetis aliquid, quam quod aliquid amisistis …. Si qua jam praecisi possidere coepistis, quia vobis ablata nobis Dominus dedit, non ideo concupiscimus aliena, quia illius imperio, cujus sunt omnia, facta sunt nostra, et juste nostra sunt ….

That Hostiensis was using St. Augustine appears not only from the parallel quotation, but also from the relation of his argument to the commentary of the Glossa ordinaria on the passage. The gloss reads: “Because of this some say that we can lawfully take away the possession of Jews and Saracens, and they understand the words of c. dispar. q. 8 of the same Causa to concern the persons of Jews and not things; but I hold differently, because Jews pay tribute and hold what they have by our will (Gratian, Decretum, ed. Bartholomaeus Brixiensis [Strassburg, 1484], unpaged).” (C. dispar. — an eleventh-century papal letter to the bishops of Spain — says that although Jews, who everywhere “are ready to serve,” are not to be attacked, war against Saracens, who persecute Christians and drive them from their cities and lands, is just.” It is to be noted, too, that in the paragraph from which Hostiensis departs, Innocent was using the preceding chapter in the Decretum, one in which St. Augustine says that heretics shall lose their goods and that only the true Church properly possesses the goods of the poor and the basilicas of the congregations.

⁷⁷ H.-X. Arquilliére, Le plus ancien traité de l'église: Jacques de Viterbe, De regimine christiano, 1301–1302, Étude des sources et édition critique (Études de théologie historique publicées sous la direction des professeurs de théologie à l'lnstitut Catholique de Paris) (Paris, 1926), p. 241 (lib. II, c. 7).

⁷⁸ Loc. cit., pp. 231–32.

⁷⁹ De ecclesiastica potestate, ed. Scholz, Richard (Weimar, 1929), lib. II, c. 7 (P. 74)Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Lib. II, c. 10 (p. 286).

⁸¹ Cf., e. g., his allusion to the theory of Egidius Romanus above.

⁸² De potestate Christi vicarii sive summi pontifici magis in speciali, lib. II, c. 9 (Bibliotheca maxima pontifica, ed. de Roccaberti, Ioannus Thoma [Rome, 1679–99], II. 26Google Scholar).

⁸³ De planctu ecclesiae, lib. I, c. 56 (Venice, 1560, p. 55^r).

⁸⁴ De translacione Romani imperii, c. 21 (Richard Scholz, Unbekannte kirchenpolitische Streitschriften aus der Zeit Ludwigs des Bayern [1327–1354], Analysen und Texte [Bibliothek des kg. Preuss. historischen Instituts in Rom, IX-X] [Rome, 1911], II, 315–16).

⁸⁵ Reprobatio errorum, ad 2 (Scholz, Unbekannte …, II, 18).

⁸⁶ De origine iurisdictionum, seu de duabus potestatibus temporali, scilicet, ac spirituali, quibus universis Christianitatis populus regitur …, q. 4 (Tractatus universi iuris [Venice, 1584–86], II, 32^v).

⁸⁷ Ullmann, Walter, Medieval Papalism: the Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists (London, 1949), p. 136Google Scholar. See also pp. 134–35.

⁸⁸ Ibid., p. 47.