On the Duty to Keep Faith with Heretics

Acknowledgments

The idea of translating Becanus’s De fide haereticis servanda grew out of a series of conferences highlighting the major impact of both Catholic and Protestant theologians on Western legal, political, and economic thought in the early modern period. They were organized in 2012 and 2014 jointly with colleagues from the Research Unit of Roman Law and Legal History at the University of Leuven, the Acton Institute, and the Chair of Public and Ecclesiastical Law at the Martin-Luther-University in Halle-Wittenberg. Special thanks are owed to Jordan Ballor, Michael Germann, and Laurent Waelkens for their intellectual and material support in organizing these conferences. A first chance to explore Becanus’s seminal contribution to questions of contract law, in particular, was offered to me on the occasion of the thirty-fifth course of the International School of Ius Commune in Erice in November 2015. Without the invitation of Orazio Condorelli and Giovanni Chiodi, the directors of the course, my interest in Becanus’s De fide would not have been raised in the first place. My gratitude also goes to Thomas Duve, director of the Max-Planck-Institute for European Legal History, and John Witte Jr., director of Emory University’s Center for the Study of Law and Religion, for their continuing support of research at the crossroads of the history of juridical and theological thought. Part of the research necessary for the translation work was funded through the Heinz Maier-Leibnitz-Prize, awarded to me in 2014 while I was a research group leader at the Max-Planck-Institute in Frankfurt. It allowed me to invite Isabelle Buhre to translate the work. I also was fortunate enough to discover that Christoph Strohm and Tobias Dienst of the Chair of Church History at the University of Heidelberg were willing to write the introduction to this translation. Their expertise in the fields of controversial theology and the connections between law and theology in early modern Germany is unique. During the final stages of the editorial process, the manuscript greatly benefited from Drew McGinnis’s meticulous reading and careful remarks, as always. On a personal note, I wish to thank my wife, Aude, for patiently enduring my scholarly endeavors with faith and tolerance.

— Wim Decock

Introduction

Confessional Controversy, Coexistence, and Tolerance: Becanus’s De fide haereticis servanda in Its Literary Context

Tobias Dienst

Christoph Strohm

Introduction

Becanus’s Theses and His Early Perspective on Toleration

The Jesuit controversialist Martinus Becanus (1563–1624) was one of the most influential polemical authors of his time. Born in Hilvaren-beek, North Brabant, he joined the Society of Jesus at an early age. In 1601 he was appointed Professor of Scholastic Theology at the Jesuit college in Mainz. He soon made a name for himself as an expert in the confessional controversies, opposing primarily Reformed theologians in neighboring Heidelberg and elsewhere. He became internationally known after attacking King James I and his Anglican defenders for the introduction of the Oath of Allegiance. In the ongoing debate, Becanus’s opponents pressed him to elevate his order’s papalist positions on the competence of kings and the pope in temporal and ecclesiastical matters to such a point that he faced condemnation by the University and the Parliament of Paris. In a vain attempt to prevent this public debacle one of his books was temporarily placed on the Roman Index.¹ Despite this episode, Becanus was able to continue in his career, was promoted to a professorship in Vienna, and was appointed imperial court confessor in 1620. During his service in this prominent position, he wrote his main work, Manuale controversiarum huius temporis, a polemical handbook for the clergy published in 1623, one year before his death.

Becanus’s De fide haereticis servanda contains theses of an academic disputation defended by his student, the noble cleric Johann Ludwig von Hagen,² at the Jesuit college of Mainz in 1607. The work considers multiple questions concerning contracts and agreements with heretics. Becanus begins with an explanation of the different forms of contracts and agreements and explains the requirements that make them valid. After establishing these general explanations, the Jesuit takes on specific questions concerning vital issues deriving from the coexistence of Catholics and heretics in Europe: Are agreements with and promises to heretics morally permitted? And in case they are permitted, is there a moral obligation to fulfill them? What about matrimonial contracts between Catholics and heretics? What about princes and other Catholic authorities: Are they allowed to conclude and keep contracts with heretics concerning religious freedom, military alliances, and safe conduct?

Becanus’s argumentation is a moral theological approach that relies on the works of his fellow Jesuit Luis de Molina (1535–1600) and other authors of early modern Spanish scholasticism and their interpretation of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa theologiae.³ Although Becanus was primarily interested in the theological implications of the topic, he showed substantial knowledge of the contemporary discussion on contract law by not only citing the sources of Roman law but also the juridical authorities such as Antonio Gómez (c. 1501–1561).⁴

The theses explicitly take on a polemical stance in response to these questions. According to Becanus himself, he not only turned against his Protestant opponents, whom he attacked on several previous occasions, but also resolutely against two specific groups of Catholic adversaries. On the one hand, he wanted to refute the "politiques of our time,"⁵ a term often used by Jesuits and other radical anti-Machiavellists to pejoratively label jurists, politicians, and senior officials who took a pragmatic stance on confessional issues. Becanus accused the politiques of considering agreements and promises no longer morally obligatory if keeping them was not expedient—certainly a vast polemical exaggeration. On the other hand, Becanus repudiated a position that does not deny the moral obligation of promises but excludes contracts and promises made to heretics.

Against these two groups he repeatedly emphasized his basic principle that, according to Catholic doctrine, every agreement and promise fulfilling the requirements of moral validity ⁶ is morally obligatory and has to be kept as if it were made to a member of the Catholic Church.⁷ Whether an agreement is between Catholics or between Catholics and heretics is not important for moral consideration.⁸ He thoroughly substantiates this basic principle with references to canon law and the Bible—for example, to the contract between Joshua and the Gibeonites (Josh. 9:19).⁹ This basic principle that Becanus develops in his theses differs—as Harro Höpfl points out—"in no way from that of any identifiable politique."¹⁰ By not giving a fair representation of the politiques’ position, Becanus masks how close his own position is to theirs. Like the politiques and his Catholic contemporaries in general, Becanus does not give a clear statement about a possible expiration of political agreements with heretics, such as the Peace of Augsburg.¹¹ He justifiably claims that his basic principle corresponds with the Catholic mainstream. Shortly after Becanus, the Antwerpian Jesuit Heribert Rosweyde (1569–1629) and the Calvinist preacher Daniel Plancius (ca. 1580–1618), from Delft, debated publicly about the issue de fide haereticis servanda. Plancius published his theses with that title in Latin and in Dutch, followed by homonymous books by Rosweyde and his fellow Jesuit Robert Sweerts (1570–1646).¹² Rosweyde and Sweerts share Becanus’s main principle: that all morally valid contracts and promises must be fulfilled. Due to the lack of explicit references, it remains unclear whether Becanus or the Dutch authors knew of each other’s works.

By emphasizing that this basic principle is rooted in Catholic doctrine and is universally taught by the church, Becanus reacts to the repeated accusations of Protestants claiming otherwise. One popular historical example Protestant polemicists cited to prove their point was that Jan Hus had been executed during the Council of Constance in 1415, despite his being guaranteed safe conduct.¹³ The common accusation among Protestant polemicists that Catholics did not honor their agreements and contracts with heretics was also made by the jurist Michael Loefenius (1550–1620). As a government official of the Palatinate, the leading territory of Reformed confession in the Empire, he wrote a widely acknowledged polemic against the highly dangerous doctrine and practise of the Pope and the Jesuits, published in 1606 in Heidelberg.¹⁴ The idea advanced by Felix Stieve, that this publication provoked the archbishop of Mainz to order a disputation de fide haereticis servanda, may be highly speculative, but it is nevertheless probable that Becanus knew of this successful publication.¹⁵

Becanus’s confrontation with his Protestant opponents did not merely contribute to his choice of the disputation’s topic. The publication of the theses triggered a long-lasting interconfessional controversy. His first opponent, Cornelis van Brederode (ca. 1559–1637), the Dutch ambassador to the German princes, wrote anonymous pamphlets against Becanus, who in return replied to his adversary, defending his position. Later, Becanus exchanged polemical treatises with the Reformed theologian David Pareus (1548–1622), who attacked his stance on agreements with heretics once again. It is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of Becanus’s theses De fide haereticis servanda to view them as embedded in this interconfessional controversy. Therefore, it will be a major point of this introduction to take the literary context of his theses into account.

Since he was overshadowed by his much-better-known contemporary and fellow Jesuit Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), Becanus has received only occasional attention from posterity.¹⁶ The Disputatio theologica de fide haereticis servanda is one of Becanus’s best-known works. This rather small publication may seem, at first glance, to be a piece of occasional academic literature like many others. Yet it has been the subject of many studies, in particular on the history of tolerance in early modern Europe. It is remarkable to see the vast differences among scholars in their evaluations of Becanus’s concept of tolerance. The traditional view of Becanus considers him to be an important milestone in the history of religious toleration in early modern Europe. While scholars holding this traditional position do not deny the flaws of Becanus’s concept in light of modern understanding, they do contrast him with the vast majority of his Catholic and Protestant contemporaries. This position is held not only by Becanus’s fellow Jesuit scholars Bernhard Duhr (1852–1930) and Joseph Lecler (1895–1988), author of the several-times translated Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme, but also by Klaus Schreiner (1931–2015).¹⁷ Other scholars consider that Becanus has put forward remarkably pragmatic notions¹⁸ on tolerance, to say the least. In contrast to this traditional view, Sascha Salatowsky argues in a recent study that Becanus’s concepts were essentially identical to those of his colleague Robert Bellarmine. They should not be seen as an expression of tolerance but rather of naked terror.¹⁹

Toleration, as reflected in an agreement with heretics, is merely a subordinate consideration among other applications of the general topic in De fide haereticis servanda. Yet apart from modern attention to the subject of toleration, Becanus’s concept of toleration deserves to be another major point of this introduction. His adversaries pushed the topic in the ongoing controversy, and Becanus interestingly put his own theses into practice. As court confessor to Emperor Ferdinand II, Becanus was in a position of political influence and responsibility. After the emperor asked his confessor for guidance on the question of whether he should grant toleration to the Lutherans in Inner Austria to ensure their loyalty in threatening times, Becanus could apply and further develop his concept.

In De fide haereticis servanda, Becanus takes on the question of religious toleration for the first time. His basic principle, that it is morally obligatory to fulfill all contracts and promises unless they are against divine law or in another way invalid, also applies to agreements granting religious tolerance to heretics. Becanus reflects on the question of whether the principle applies to agreements granting religious tolerance to heretics at all and, if so, under which conditions such an agreement could be valid. He quickly summarizes his position in five main points:

On this matter the decision must be made as follows: (1) Freedom of religion is by all means forbidden and goes against divine precept. (2) Freedom of religion is destructive to the state. (3) It must not be ordered, authorized, or introduced by any prince or magistrate, but rather be impeded and overthrown by all means that are appropriate and possible, at least if that can be done conveniently. (4) However, if this cannot be done conveniently, causing great damage or evil to the state, it can be tolerated for a while. (5) If it is being tolerated in this manner and an agreement has been made, faith must be kept.²⁰

Becanus differentiates between general freedom of religion (libertas religionis) and temporally limited and pragmatically founded toleration. The former is entirely forbidden according to Catholic doctrine. A Catholic prince cannot legitimately grant general religious liberty and is thus not obligated to observe such an agreement against divine law. To Becanus, a prince granting general religious liberty is proof of his serious lack of interest in his subjects’ salvation and is thus a sign of bad governance. He also gives plenty of historical examples to substantiate his claim that general religious liberty is destructive to society. The latter—a limited toleration of heresy—can be established by a Catholic prince. But Becanus insists on certain limitations and necessary requirements even for this extenuated form of religious liberty. The promotion of the Catholic faith as the only religion in his territory must remain the primary goal of every Catholic prince. Only if he is practically incapable of achieving this can he grant limited toleration toward subjects of different faiths to prevent a greater evil (maius malum) for the public, such as riots and invasions: If, however, he cannot do this without causing too much harm to the public good, he may tolerate it as a lesser evil to avoid a greater, which would have followed otherwise.²¹ With this terminology of the greater or lesser evil (maius vel minus malum), Becanus unites with Catholic tradition. He repeatedly refers to Augustine’s writings against the Donatists, Thomas Aquinas, and the Jesuit theologians Gregory of Valencia (1549–1603) and Luis de Molina,²² who brought forward similar arguments and terminology. Yet there are slight disparities between Becanus and his Catholic forerunners in particular on the question of toleration. In the homonymous treatise De fide haereticis servanda, published in 1584 in Cologne, the author Johannes Molanus (1533–1585), a theologian of Louvain University, also examines the question of religious toleration, but more marginally than Becanus.²³ Molanus likewise sees an opportunity to exceptionally grant limited toleration to prevent a greater evil, yet he warns more intensely than Becanus