Secunda Secundae · Faith

Of Apostasy

II-II, q. 12 · Two articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de apostasia. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo, utrum apostasia ad infidelitatem pertineat. Secundo, utrum propter apostasiam a fide subditi absolvantur a dominio praesidentium apostatarum.

We must now consider apostasy: about which there are two points of inquiry:

(1) Whether apostasy pertains to unbelief?

(2) Whether, on account of apostasy from the faith, subjects are absolved from allegiance to an apostate prince?

  1. 1 Whether Apostasy Pertains to Unbelief?
  2. 2 Whether a Prince Forfeits His Dominion Over His Subjects, on Account of Apostasy from the Faith, So That They No Longer Owe Him Allegiance?

Articulus I

Whether Apostasy Pertains to Unbelief?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod apostasia non pertineat ad infidelitatem. Illud enim quod est omnis peccati principium non videtur ad infidelitatem pertinere, quia multa peccata sine infidelitate existunt. Sed apostasia videtur esse omnis peccati principium, dicitur enim Eccli. X, initium superbiae hominis apostatare a Deo; et postea subditur, initium omnis peccati superbia. Ergo apostasia non pertinet ad infidelitatem.

It would seem that apostasy does not pertain to unbelief. For that which is the origin of all sins, does not, seemingly, pertain to unbelief, since many sins there are without unbelief. Now apostasy seems to be the origin of every sin, for it is written (Ecclus. 10:14): "The beginning of the pride of man is apostasy [Douay: 'to fall off'] from God," and further on, (Ecclus. 10:15): "Pride is the beginning of all sin." Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, infidelitas in intellectu consistit. Sed apostasia magis videtur consistere in exteriori opere vel sermone, aut etiam in interiori voluntate, dicitur enim Prov. VI, homo apostata vir inutilis, gradiens ore perverso, annuit oculis, terit pede, digito loquitur, pravo corde machinatur malum, et in omni tempore iurgia seminat. Si quis etiam se circumcideret, vel sepulcrum Mahumeti adoraret, apostata reputaretur. Ergo apostasia non pertinet directe ad infidelitatem.

Further, unbelief is an act of the understanding: whereas apostasy seems rather to consist in some outward deed or utterance, or even in some inward act of the will, for it is written (Prov. 6:12-14): "A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man walketh with a perverse mouth. He winketh with the eyes, presseth with the foot, speaketh with the finger. With a wicked heart he deviseth evil, and at all times he soweth discord." Moreover if anyone were to have himself circumcised, or to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate. Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, haeresis, quia ad infidelitatem pertinet, est quaedam determinata species infidelitatis. Si ergo apostasia ad infidelitatem pertineret, sequeretur quod esset quaedam determinata species infidelitatis. Quod non videtur, secundum praedicta. Non ergo apostasia ad infidelitatem pertinet.

Further, heresy, since it pertains to unbelief, is a determinate species of unbelief. If then, apostasy pertained to unbelief, it would follow that it is a determinate species of unbelief, which does not seem to agree with what has been said (Q. 10, A. 5). Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. VI, multi ex discipulis eius abierunt retro, quod est apostatare, de quibus supra dixerat dominus, sunt quidam ex vobis qui non credunt. Ergo apostasia pertinet ad infidelitatem.

On the contrary, It is written (John 6:67): "Many of his disciples went back," i.e. apostatized, of whom Our Lord had said previously (John 6:65): "There are some of you that believe not." Therefore apostasy pertains to unbelief.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod apostasia importat retrocessionem quandam a Deo. Quae quidem diversimode fit, secundum diversos modos quibus homo Deo coniungitur. Primo namque coniungitur homo Deo per fidem; secundo, per debitam et subiectam voluntatem ad obediendum praeceptis eius; tertio, per aliqua specialia ad supererogationem pertinentia, sicut per religionem et clericaturam vel sacrum ordinem. Remoto autem posteriori remanet prius, sed non convertitur. Contingit ergo aliquem apostatare a Deo retrocedendo a religione quam professus est, vel ab ordine quem suscepit, et haec dicitur apostasia religionis seu ordinis. Contingit etiam aliquem apostatare a Deo per mentem repugnantem divinis mandatis. Quibus duabus apostasiis existentibus, adhuc potest remanere homo Deo coniunctus per fidem. Sed si a fide discedat, tunc omnino a Deo retrocedere videtur. Et ideo simpliciter et absolute est apostasia per quam aliquis discedit a fide, quae vocatur apostasia perfidiae. Et per hunc modum apostasia simpliciter dicta ad infidelitatem pertinet.

I answer that, Apostasy denotes a backsliding from God. This may happen in various ways according to the different kinds of union between man and God. For, in the first place, man is united to God by faith; secondly, by having his will duly submissive in obeying His commandments; thirdly, by certain special things pertaining to supererogation such as the religious life, the clerical state, or Holy Orders. Now if that which follows be removed, that which precedes, remains, but the converse does not hold. Accordingly a man may apostatize from God, by withdrawing from the religious life to which he was bound by profession, or from the Holy Order which he had received: and this is called "apostasy from religious life" or "Orders." A man may also apostatize from God, by rebelling in his mind against the Divine commandments: and though man may apostatize in both the above ways, he may still remain united to God by faith.

But if he give up the faith, then he seems to turn away from God altogether: and consequently, apostasy simply and absolutely is that whereby a man withdraws from the faith, and is called "apostasy of perfidy." In this way apostasy, simply so called, pertains to unbelief.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de secunda apostasia, quae importat voluntatem a mandatis Dei resilientem, quae invenitur in omni peccato mortali.

This objection refers to the second kind of apostasy, which denotes an act of the will in rebellion against God's commandments, an act that is to be found in every mortal sin.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ad fidem pertinet non solum credulitas cordis, sed etiam protestatio interioris fidei per exteriora verba et facta, nam confessio est actus fidei. Et per hunc etiam modum quaedam exteriora verba vel opera ad infidelitatem pertinent, inquantum sunt infidelitatis signa, per modum quo signum sanitatis sanum dicitur. Auctoritas autem inducta, etsi possit intelligi de omni apostasia, verissime tamen convenit in apostasia a fide. Quia enim fides est primum fundamentum sperandarum rerum, et sine fide impossibile est placere Deo; sublata fide, nihil remanet in homine quod possit esse utile ad salutem aeternam; et propter hoc primo dicitur, homo apostata vir inutilis. Fides etiam est vita animae, secundum illud Rom. I, iustus ex fide vivit. Sicut ergo, sublata vita corporali, omnia membra et partes hominis a debita dispositione recedunt; ita, sublata vita iustitiae, quae est per fidem, apparet inordinatio in omnibus membris. Et primo quidem in ore, per quod maxime manifestatur cor; secundo, in oculis; tertio, in instrumentis motus; quarto, in voluntate, quae ad malum tendit. Et ex his sequitur quod iurgia seminet, alios intendens separare a fide, sicut et ipse recessit.

It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. In this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy. Now although the authority quoted may be understood as referring to every kind of apostate, yet it applies most truly to an apostate from the faith. For since faith is the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since, without faith it is "impossible to please God"; when once faith is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is written (Prov. 6:12): "A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man": because faith is the life of the soul, according to Rom. 1:17: "The just man liveth by faith." Therefore, just as when the life of the body is taken away, man's every member and part loses its due disposition, so when the life of justice, which is by faith, is done away, disorder appears in all his members. First, in his mouth, whereby chiefly his mind stands revealed; secondly, in his eyes; thirdly, in the instrument of movement; fourthly, in his will, which tends to evil. The result is that "he sows discord," endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod species alicuius qualitatis vel formae non diversificatur per hoc quod est terminus motus a quo vel ad quem, sed potius e converso secundum terminos motuum species attenduntur. Apostasia autem respicit infidelitatem ut terminum ad quem est motus recedentis a fide. Unde apostasia non importat determinatam speciem infidelitatis, sed quandam circumstantiam aggravantem, secundum illud II Pet. II, melius erat eis veritatem non cognoscere quam post agnitam retroire.

The species of a quality or form are not diversified by the fact of its being the term wherefrom or whereto of movement: on the contrary, it is the movement that takes its species from the terms. Now apostasy regards unbelief as the term whereto of the movement of withdrawal from the faith; wherefore apostasy does not imply a special kind of unbelief, but an aggravating circumstance thereof, according to 2 Pet. 2:21: "It had been better for them not to know the truth [Vulg.: 'the way of justice'], than after they had known it, to turn back."

Articulus II

Whether a Prince Forfeits His Dominion Over His Subjects, on Account of Apostasy from the Faith, So That They No Longer Owe Him Allegiance?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod princeps propter apostasiam a fide non amittat dominium in subditos, quin ei teneantur obedire. Dicit enim Ambrosius quod Iulianus imperator, quamvis esset apostata, habuit tamen sub se Christianos milites, quibus cum dicebat, producite aciem pro defensione reipublicae, obediebant ei. Ergo propter apostasiam principis subditi non absolvuntur ab eius dominio.

It would seem that a prince does not so forfeit his dominion over his subjects, on account of apostasy from the faith, that they no longer owe him allegiance. For Ambrose [St. Augustine, Super Ps. 124:3] says that the Emperor Julian, though an apostate, nevertheless had under him Christian soldiers, who when he said to them, "Fall into line for the defense of the republic," were bound to obey. Therefore subjects are not absolved from their allegiance to their prince on account of his apostasy.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, apostata a fide infidelis est. Sed infidelibus dominis inveniuntur aliqui sancti viri fideliter servisse, sicut Ioseph Pharaoni, et Daniel Nabuchodonosor, et Mardochaeus Assuero. Ergo propter apostasiam a fide non est dimittendum quin principi obediatur a subditis.

Further, an apostate from the faith is an unbeliever. Now we find that certain holy men served unbelieving masters; thus Joseph served Pharaoh, Daniel served Nabuchodonosor, and Mardochai served Assuerus. Therefore apostasy from the faith does not release subjects from allegiance to their sovereign.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut per apostasiam a fide receditur a Deo, ita per quodlibet peccatum. Si ergo propter apostasiam a fide perderent principes ius imperandi subditis fidelibus, pari ratione propter alia peccata hoc amitterent. Sed hoc patet esse falsum. Non ergo propter apostasiam a fide est recedendum ab obedientia principum.

Further, just as by apostasy from the faith, a man turns away from God, so does every sin. Consequently if, on account of apostasy from the faith, princes were to lose their right to command those of their subjects who are believers, they would equally lose it on account of other sins: which is evidently not the case. Therefore we ought not to refuse allegiance to a sovereign on account of his apostatizing from the faith.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Gregorius VII dicit, nos, sanctorum praedecessorum statuta tenentes, eos qui excommunicatis fidelitate aut sacramento sunt constricti, apostolica auctoritate a sacramento absolvimus, et ne sibi fidelitatem observent omnibus modis prohibemus, quousque ad satisfactionem veniant. Sed apostatae a fide sunt excommunicati, sicut et haeretici, ut dicit decretalis ad abolendam. Ergo principibus apostatantibus a fide non est obediendum.

On the contrary, Gregory VII says (Council, Roman V): "Holding to the institutions of our holy predecessors, we, by our apostolic authority, absolve from their oath those who through loyalty or through the sacred bond of an oath owe allegiance to excommunicated persons: and we absolutely forbid them to continue their allegiance to such persons, until these shall have made amends." Now apostates from the faith, like heretics, are excommunicated, according to the Decretal [Extra, De Haereticis, cap. Ad abolendam]. Therefore princes should not be obeyed when they have apostatized from the faith.

Respondeo I answer that

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. 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 nunquam fidem susceperunt, secundum illud apostoli, I ad Cor. V, quid mihi de his qui foris 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; quia, ut dictum est, homo apostata suo corde machinatur malum et iurgia seminat, intendens homines separare a fide. Et ideo quam cito aliquis per sententiam denuntiatur excommunicatus propter apostasiam a fide, ipso facto eius subditi sunt absoluti a dominio eius et iuramento fidelitatis quo ei tenebantur.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 10, A. 10), unbelief, in itself, is not inconsistent with dominion, since dominion is a device of the law of nations which is a human law: whereas the distinction between believers and unbelievers is of Divine right, which does not annul human right. Nevertheless a man who sins by unbelief may be sentenced to the loss of his right of dominion, as also, sometimes, on account of other sins.

Now it is not within the competency of the Church to punish unbelief in those who have never received the faith, according to the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 5:12): "What have I to do to judge them that are without?" She can, however, pass sentence of punishment on the unbelief of those who have received the faith: and it is fitting that they should be punished by being deprived of the allegiance of their subjects: for this same allegiance might conduce to great corruption of the faith, since, as was stated above (A. 1, Obj. 2), "a man that is an apostate . . . with a wicked heart deviseth evil, and . . . soweth discord," in order to sever others from the faith. Consequently, as soon as sentence of excommunication is passed on a man on account of apostasy from the faith, his subjects are "ipso facto" absolved from his authority and from the oath of allegiance whereby they were bound to him.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illo tempore Ecclesia, in sui novitate, nondum habebat potestatem terrenos principes compescendi. Et ideo toleravit fideles Iuliano apostatae obedire in his quae non erant contra fidem, ut maius fidei periculum vitaretur.

At that time the Church was but recently instituted, and had not, as yet, the power of curbing earthly princes; and so she allowed the faithful to obey Julian the apostate, in matters that were not contrary to the faith, in order to avoid incurring a yet greater danger.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod alia ratio est de aliis infidelibus, qui nunquam fidem susceperunt, ut dictum est.

As stated in the article, it is not a question of those unbelievers who have never received the faith.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod apostasia a fide totaliter separat hominem a Deo, ut dictum est, quod non contingit in quibuscumque aliis peccatis.

Apostasy from the faith severs man from God altogether, as stated above (A. 1), which is not the case in any other sin.

Showing Thomas's answers only.