Protestant Politics Beyond Calvin (Routledge Studies in Renaissance and Early Modern Worlds of Knowledge) 9780367525088, 9780367525118, 9781003058229, 0367525089

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
PART 1
Introduction: Calvinism, warfare, and the politics of duty
Editorial note
PART 2
1 Peter Martyr Vermigli and his Commentary on Genesis
2 Lambert Daneau on ethics, politics, and the Antichrist
3 Bartholomäus Keckermann, Aristotelianism, and the Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Augsburg
4 Guillaume du Buc and the Institutiones Theologicae
5 David Pareus and his Commentary on Romans
6 Johann Heinrich Alsted on interaction with non- Christians and war against blasphemers
7 Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf on religious intervention in foreign states
8 Venceslaus Clemens’s Gustavis and the Thirty Years’ War as a religious conflict
9 Dudley Fenner, Puritanism, and Reformed resistance theory
10 Gisbertus Voetius, the Dutch Revolt, and religious toleration in the United Provinces
11 Johannes Hoornbeeck and the Reformed against Holy War
Index

Citation preview

Protestant Politics Beyond Calvin

The Reformed (or Calvinist) universities of sixteenth and seventeenthcentury Europe hosted rich, Latin-language conversations on the nature of politics, the powers of kings and magistrates, resistance, revolution, and religious warfare. Nevertheless, it is too often assumed that Reformed political thought did not develop beyond John Calvin’s Institutes of 1559. This book remedies this problem, presenting extracts from major Reformed theologians and intellectuals (including Peter Martyr Vermigli, Guillaume de Buc, David Pareus, Lambert Daneau, and Bartholomäus Keckermann) which demonstrate both continuity and change in Reformed political argument. These men taught in France, the Holy Roman Empire, the Low Countries, and England, between the 1540s and 1660s, but they were read in universities throughout the North Atlantic world into the eighteenth century. Should all political action be subject to God’s direct command? Were humans capable of using their own God-given reason to tell right from wrong? Was it ever just to resist tyrants? Was religious difference enough by itself to justify war? Their political doctrines often aroused the greatest controversy in their own time; this is generally the first time that these extracts from their works have been translated into English. These texts and translations are accompanied by an introduction placing these authors in the context of the great European religious wars, advice on further reading, and a full bibliography. Ian Campbell is Senior Lecturer in the School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics at Queen’s University Belfast. His research interests include early modern British and Irish history; political thought and intellectual history; and the history of race. Floris Verhaart is a Government of Ireland Research Fellow in the School of History at University College Cork. His research interests are the intellectual and religious history of Europe, especially the Dutch Republic, Britain, and France.

Routledge Studies in Renaissance and Early Modern Worlds of Knowledge Series Editors: Harald E. Braun (University of Liverpool, UK) and Emily Michelson (University of St Andrews, UK) SRS Board Members: Erik DeBom (KU Leuven, Belgium), Mordechai Feingold (California Institute of Technology, USA), Andrew Hadfield (Sussex), Peter Mack (University of Warwick, UK), Jennifer Richards (University of Newcastle, UK), Stefania Tutino (UCLA, USA), Richard Wistreich (Royal College of Music, UK) This series explores Renaissance and Early Modern Worlds of Knowledge (c.1400–c.1700) in Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa. The volumes published in this series study the individuals, communities and networks involved in making and communicating knowledge during the first age of globalization. Authors investigate the perceptions, practices and modes of behaviour which shaped Renaissance and Early Modern intellectual endeavour and examine the ways in which they reverberated in the political, cultural, social and economic sphere. The series is interdisciplinary, comparative and global in its outlook. We welcome submissions from new as well as existing fields of Renaissance Studies, including the history of literature (including neo-Latin, European and non-European languages), science and medicine, religion, architecture, environmental and economic history, the history of the book, art history, intellectual history and the history of music. We are particularly interested in proposals that straddle disciplines and are innovative in terms of approach and methodology. The series includes monographs, shorter works and edited collections of essays. The Society for Renaissance Studies (http://www.rensoc.org.uk) provides an expert editorial board, mentoring, extensive editing and support for contributors to the series, ensuring high standards of peer-reviewed scholarship. We welcome proposals from early career researchers as well as more established colleagues. 23 Protestant Politics beyond Calvin Reformed Theologians on War in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries Ian Campbell and Floris Verhaart For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Studies-in-Renaissance-and-Early-Modern-Worlds-of-Knowledge/ book-series/ASHSER4043

Protestant Politics Beyond Calvin Reformed Theologians on War in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries Ian Campbell and Floris Verhaart

First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Ian Campbell and Floris Verhaart The right of Ian Campbell and Floris Verhaart to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-52508-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-52511-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-05822-9 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229 Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

Contents

Acknowledgements

vii

PART 1 I A N CA M PBE L L

Introduction: Calvinism, warfare, and the politics of duty Editorial note

1 28

PART 2 F L OR I S V E R H A A RT

1 Peter Martyr Vermigli and his Commentary on Genesis

30

2 Lambert Daneau on ethics, politics, and the Antichrist

46

3 Bartholomäus Keckermann, Aristotelianism, and the Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Augsburg

110

4 Guillaume du Buc and the Institutiones Theologicae

140

5 David Pareus and his Commentary on Romans

156

6 Johann Heinrich Alsted on interaction with nonChristians and war against blasphemers

176

7 Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf on religious intervention in foreign states

200



vi Contents

9 Dudley Fenner, Puritanism, and Reformed resistance theory 236 10 Gisbertus Voetius, the Dutch Revolt, and religious toleration in the United Provinces 252 11 Johannes Hoornbeeck and the Reformed against Holy War 276 Index

303

Acknowledgements

Our first obligation is to the taxpayers of the European Union. The research underlying this volume was conducted as part of a research project called ‘War and the Supernatural in Early Modern Europe’, funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement number 677490). It was this funding that allowed Ian Campbell to assemble a research team comprising Floris Verhaart, Todd Rester, and Karie Schultz at Queen’s University Belfast between 2016 and 2021. Todd, whose thorough knowledge of Reformed theology was of great value to all of us, left Belfast to take up an associate professorship at Westminster Theological Seminary in 2019; Francesco Quatrini succeeded him. Our research project benefitted very much from the support of those scholars who served on our advisory board: Herman Selderhuis, Jason Harris, Richard Serjeantson, Richard Kirwan, Jacob Schmutz, Sarah Mortimer, Brad Gregory, Marco Forlivesi, John McCafferty, and Mordechai Feingold. Jacob, Sarah, Brad, and John in particular were especially generous with their time, travelling to multiple workshops and conferences in Belfast. We are very grateful for all your help. Sarah, Crawford Gribben, and Graeme Murdoch also kindly offered learned criticism of this volume’s introduction; but they are not responsible for its final shape.

Introduction Calvinism, warfare, and the politics of duty

The purpose of this book is to provide the reader with Latin texts and English translations of the writings of sixteenth and seventeenth-century Calvinist intellectuals, mainly theologians teaching in academies and universities, concerning that form of politics where most was at stake: warfare. This introduction will first explain the historiography of Calvinism and warfare, a historiography in which the Reformed have sometimes been depicted as harbingers of secular revolution, and sometimes as practitioners of holy war. In fact, the Reformed belong firmly in the mainstream of the Christian just war tradition. The second section will reinforce this point by laying out the basic characteristics of Protestant and Reformed writing on politics and warfare, on a trajectory from Martin Luther to Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, and Peter Martyr Vermigli. While the term Calvinist is often used to indicate those Protestant churches of the generation after Luther, mostly (but not always) governed by presbyteries and synods rather than bishops, historians have more recently preferred to label these communities Reformed in order to avoid exaggerating Calvin’s influence.1 Indeed, the problems and questions established by Melanchthon especially echoed through all the later Reformed writing on warfare included in this volume. The third section will sketch the types of institutional environments (academies and universities) in which students encountered the theology textbooks and Biblical commentaries composed by Reformed theologians. It is those institutionalized ideas and texts that had the greatest cultural impact. The final section will describe the rationale behind our selection of the authors and texts included in this volume.

1 For definitions, introductions, and bibliography, see Todd Rester, “Describing Calvinism,” in Crawford Gribben and Graeme Murdock (eds.), Cultures of Calvinism (Oxford University Press, 2020), 15–36; Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 282–287; Mack P. Holt, “Calvin and Reformed Protestantism,” in Ulinka Rublack (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Protestant Reformations (Oxford University Press, 2017), 214–232.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-1

2 Introduction

The historiography of Calvinism and warfare The fractures in Christendom that we label Reformation and Counter-­ Reformation were marked by extensive warfare.2 If one leaves the Hussite Wars (1419–1471) as a pre-Protestant phenomenon to one side, warfare connected to the Reformation began in the German-speaking lands with the Knights’ War (1522), the Peasants’ War (1524–1525), the suppression of the revolt of Lutheran Danzig (now Gdańsk) in 1526, and the Schmalkaldic Wars (1546–1547, 1552–1555). Swiss Protestants and Catholics clashed in the Wars of Kappel (1529 and 1531). Rival confessions took up arms in France during the Wars of Religion (1562–1598), and in the Low Countries during the Dutch Revolt which began in 1568. War was renewed in the Holy Roman Empire in 1618 concluding only with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Fighting began in the three Stuart kingdoms of Ireland, Scotland, and England in 1638 and did not end until 1652. War between different Christian confessions broke out in the Cévennes (1702–1710) and Hungary (1703–1711).3 Conservative estimates put casualties of the Thirty Years’ War in the Empire at between five and eight million. Peter Wilson has pointed out that this would easily account for 15% of the Empire’s population, making that war the most destructive in European history.4 These wars deeply marked European life on the cusp of modernity. Calvinists have been prominent in accounts of these often-catastrophic conflicts, and indeed the liberal historiography of the modern secular state has often depicted Calvinist theories of resistance and revolution as providing an escape path from religious conflict towards a secular doctrine of popular sovereignty.5 The New Testament commanded Christians to obey their governments: “let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13: 1). This, however, was not understood by the Reformed as an endorsement of limitless power on the part of monarchs. Many Reformed theologians understood those plural “powers” to include also the inferior magistrates in a 2 For the nature of religion, and the question of whether religion caused these wars, see William Cavanaugh, The Myth of Religious Violence (Oxford University Press, 2009); Wolfgang Palaver, Harriet Rudolph and Dietmar Regensburger (eds.), The European Wars of Religion (London: Routledge, 2016). 3 David Onnekink, “Introduction,” in idem (ed.), War and Religion after Westphalia, 1648– 1713 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 1–15; Natalia Nowakowska, King Sigismund of Poland and Martin Luther: The Reformation before Confessionalisation (Oxford University Press, 2018). 4 Peter Wilson, The Thirty Years War: Europe’s Tragedy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 787. 5 Benedict, Christ’s Churches, xvii; Noah Dauber, “Political Thought,” in C. Scott Dixon and Beat Kümin (eds.), Interpreting Early Modern Europe (Oxon: Routledge, 2020), 388–414; Mark Goldie, “The Context of the Foundations,” in Annabel Brett and James Tully (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought (Cambridge, 2006), 130–148.

Introduction  3 political community, who had their own divinely appointed duty to govern well and to protect the people from a monarch governing tyrannously. And so inferior magistrates might, in extreme circumstances, be obliged by this duty to resist tyrants. The central texts in this respect are Martin Bucer’s 1530 commentary on St Matthew’s Gospel printed at Strasbourg, the various editions of John Calvin’s Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institution of Christian Religion, but known to English-speakers as the Institutes) printed at Geneva between 1539 and 1559, and Theodore Beza’s De Haereticis a Civili Magistratu Puniendis (On the Heretics to be Punished by the Civil Magistrate) of 1554 also printed at Geneva.6 Very similar concepts were applied to England and Scotland by John Ponet, Christopher Goodman, John Knox, and George Buchanan.7 The rekindling of the civil war in France following the massacre of St Bartholomew’s eve in 1572 saw the publication of the three most famous Reformed resistance texts: François Hotman’s Francogallia of 1573, Theodore Beza’s Du Droit des Magistrats (On the Right of Magistrates) of 1574, and the anonymous Vindiciae contra Tyrannos (Vindication against Tyrants), probably by Philippe Duplessis-Mornay, of 1576.8

6 Martin Bucer, Enarrationes Perpetuae, in Sacra Quatuor Evangelia (Strasbourg: Georgius Ulricherus, 1530), fols 37r–38r; John Calvin, Christiane Religionis Institutio (Basil: Thomas Platterus & Balthasarem Lasius, 1536), 512–513; idem, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Geneva: Robertus Stephanus, 1559), book 4, Chapter 10, Section 31 (hereafter in the form 4.10.31), p. 561; Theodore Beza, De Haereticis a Civili Magistratu Puniendis Libellus (Geneva: Robertus Stephanus, 1554), 131–133; Hans Baron, “Calvinist Republicanism and Its Historical Roots,” Church History 8, no. 1 (March 1939), 30–42; Harro Höpfl, ed., Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority (Cambridge University Press, 1991); idem, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge University Press, 1982), 19–20, 49, 78, 79–80, 102–103, 126–127, 153, 171, 209–210; Robert Kingdon, “The First Expression of Theodore Beza’s Political Ideas,” in idem (ed.), Church and Society in Reformation Europe (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985), 88–99; Max Engammare, “Calvin Monarchomaque? Du Soupçon à l’Argument,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 89 (1998), 207–226. 7 [John Ponet, bishop of Winchester], A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power (Strasbourg: Heirs of W. Köpfel, 1556); Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed of Their Subjects: And Wherein They May Lawfully by Gods Worde be Disobeyed and Resisted (Geneva: John Crispin, 1558); John Knox, The Appellation of John Knoxe from the Cruell and most Unjust Sentence Pronounced against Him (Geneva: J. Poullain and A. Rebul, 1558); idem, On Rebellion, ed. Roger Mason (Cambridge University Press, 1994); George Buchanan, De Jure Regni apud Scotos Dialogus (Edinburgh: John Ross, 1579); idem, A Dialogue on the Law of Kingship among the Scots, ed. Roger Mason and Martin Smith (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004). 8 François Hotman, Francogallia ([Geneva]: Jacobus Stoerius, 1573); idem, Francogallia, ed. Ralph Giesey and John Salmon (Cambridge University Press, 1972); Theodore Beza, Du Droit des Magistrates sur leurs Subjects ([Geneva], 1574); idem, Du Droit des Magistrats, ed. Robert Kingdon (Geneva: Droz, 1971); Stephanus Junius Brutus (Philippe Duplessis-­ Mornay?), Vindiciae, contra Tyrannos (“Edinburgh” [Basle], 1579); idem, Vindiciae, contra Tyrannos, ed. George Garnett (Cambridge University Press, 1994); Julian H. Franklin (ed.), Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century: Three Treatises by Hotman, Beza and Mornay (New York: Pegasus, 1969); Ralph Giesey, “The Monarchomach Triumvirs:

4 Introduction Quentin Skinner, who advanced what remains the most influential interpretation of this liberal tradition, saw these three works of the 1570s as a departure from a conception of politics as a duty to God (a duty that might demand obedience or resistance depending on the circumstances), towards one that posited the aim of politics as the material security of the people with resistance being a right derived from this aim. This latter, secularized and somewhat democratized, conception of politics contributed to John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government of 1690 and subsequently the 1787 constitution of the United States. While Skinner represents a well-established tradition – dating back at least to the French liberal François Guizot – which held that these Calvinists contributed to early modern constitutionalism, he has more recently been criticized for imposing an anachronistic secularism on his sources.9 Whatever about the categorization of Hotman, Duplessis-­ Mornay, and the Beza of Du droit des magistrats as proto-secularizers, this volume will demonstrate that the Reformed conception of politics as a divinely imposed duty enjoyed a long life in Reformed educational institutions in the seventeenth century. In sharp contrast to this coupling of Calvinism with secularism and constitutionalism, a number of important historians have depicted Calvinists as crusaders, or practitioners of holy war. Ernst Troeltsch, a close colleague of Max Weber, published his Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen in 1911. Troeltsch tended to contrast the passive attitude of the Lutherans to social life with the activist attitude of the Calvinists – and he argued that Martin Luther’s early disapproval of wars fought in support of allies lingered on in later Lutheranism in contrast to the Calvinists “with their treaties and alliances and their Wars of Religion”.10 By wars of religion, Troeltsch meant war fought by Calvinist lesser magistrates against Catholic sovereigns in defence of their reformed religion, and wars undertaken by Calvinist governments in defence of their co-religionists in other jurisdictions. Troeltsch pointed to Calvin’s slow, reluctant, and ambivalent acceptance of the right of other powers to intervene in France in defence of the Reformed, and the more full-throated defence of this right of intervention in Beza’s Du Droit

Hotman, Beza and Mornay,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 32, no. 1 (1970), 41–56; Paul-Alexis Mellet, Les Traites Monarchomaques: Confusion des Temps, Résistance Armée et Monarchie Parfaite (vers 1560 – vers 1600) (Geneva: Droz, 2007). 9 Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 1978), 2: 189–358; John Neville Figgis, Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, 1414–1625, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1916), 151–189; François Guizot, Great Christians of France: Saint Louis and Calvin (London: Macmillan, 1890), 361–362; John Coffey, “Quentin Skinner and the Religious Dimension of Early Modern Political Thought,” in Alister Chapman, John Coffey and Brad Gregory (eds.), Seeing Things Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion (University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 46–74. 10 Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, trans Olive Wyon, 2 vols. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1931), 2: 551.

Introduction  5 11

des Magistrates. Troeltsch emphasized Calvin’s own distaste for warfare, its disharmony with his “mind and spirit,” and the fact that political circumstances forced these wars on the Reformed.12 Roland Bainton, writing in the years during and after the Second World War, pushed these arguments much further. Bainton held that there were theological tendencies in Calvinism (their “theocratic concept of the church,” and their identification of the church as a body of the elect, those predestined to eternal life) as well as the political circumstances of persecution in France and elsewhere that drove Calvinists to adopt the idea of crusade.13 In support of this argument, Bainton pointed to the resistance theories of Calvin and Beza, and of other Calvinists in Scotland and England. A crusade, according to Bainton, was a type of war with a holy cause, fought with divine assistance by holy warriors in an “unsparing” manner. The war fought by the Parliamentarians in Britain and Ireland during the 1640s offered an example, Bainton held, of the Calvinist crusade in its purest form.14 This argument was reinforced by James Turner Johnson with quotations from English Calvinist pamphleteers who had written in the 1620s and 1630s; Michael Walzer added more English examples from the 1640s.15 The manner in which Troeltsch’s arguments were developed by Bainton, Turner Johnson, and Walzer was unsound. Bainton in particular foisted theological positions on European Calvinists that almost none of them held. For Calvin and the vast majority of his fellow Reformed theologians the Christian Church was most certainly not a body just of the elect: the visible Church included both the elect and those who were clearly ungodly but had patiently to be tolerated.16 All Christians regarded Christ as the head of the Church, so in this the Calvinists were no more “theocratic” than any other variety of Christian.17 The allegation that Calvinists practiced crusade is also strange, partly because Bainton’s definition of crusade is so vague. 11 Ibid., p. 651. Marco Hofheinz, Johannes Calvins theologische Friedensethik (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2012). 12 Ibid. 13 Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes towards War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960), 143, 144–145. 14 Ibid., 148. 15 James Turner Johnson, Ideology, Reason, and the Limitation of War: Religious and Secular Concepts 1200–1740 (Princeton University Press, 1975), 117–149; Michael Walzer, The Revolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins of Radical Politics (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965), 268–299; idem, “Exodus 32 and the Theory of Holy War: The History of a Citation,” Harvard Theological Review 61, no. 1 (January 1968), 1–14. 16 Graeme Murdock, Beyond Calvin: The Intellectual, Political and Cultural World of Europe’s Reformed Churches (Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004), 8; John Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Geneva: Robertus Stephanus, 1569), 4.1.9, p. 374; idem, The Institution of Christian Religion, trans Thomas Norton (London: Reinolde Wolfe and Richard Harison, 1561), 4.1.9, fol. 5. 17 Thomas Aquinas, Opera Omnia, Iussu Impensaque Leonis XIII, 16 vols. (Rome: Typographia Polyglotta, 1882), vol. 11, 3rd Part, q. 8, a. 1, 126–127.

6 Introduction A crusade is properly defined as a war authorized by the pope, in which participants made a vow, undertook the public ceremony of taking the cross, and received a papal indulgence for their sins.18 The fact that the Reformed rejected papal power (many of them regarded the pope as the chief servant of the Devil in this world), did not take the crusader’s vow, did not take the cross, and did not receive the indulgence, means that Reformed warfare does not belong in the crusade category. The Reformed themselves never referred to their wars as crusades. Finally, all of the clear Calvinist endorsements of holy war produced by Bainton, Turner Johnson, and Walzer came from a limited number of English divines writing between the 1620s and 1640s, and they were often minor figures lacking institutional importance. Glenn Burgess noted, in his survey of wartime parliamentarian sermons, that the most important ministers were apparently “embarrassed” by the idea of holy war.19 The real problem at the heart of this interpretation of the Calvinists as holy warriors is that Bainton, Turner Johnson and Walzer took the theology of American Congregationalists of the late seventeenth century and later as their norm, and then projected those values back onto the European Calvinism of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.20 This was a highly emotional landscape for these American scholars, and emotion appears to have distorted their analysis. Walzer made his own personal investment clear when he wrote: “Calvinist saintliness … has scarred us all, leaving its mark if not on our conscious then on our clandestine minds.”21 The obvious solution to these difficulties is to attend to what the Reformed of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries actually taught and wrote about warfare themselves, and to attend also to the institutional context in which they taught and wrote, so that peripheral actors are not elevated to central positions. The work of Bainton, Turner Johnston, and Walzer is also dated by their implicit claim that Calvinism everywhere could be understood by attending first to Calvin’s Institutes and next to books and pamphlets in the English language, while excluding Latin theological writings by authors other than Calvin. These scholars belonged to a generation that saw the most important and modern intellectual activity in early modern Europe taking place 18 James A. Brundage, “A Note on the Attestation of Crusader’s Vows,” Catholic Historical Review 52, no. 2 (July 1966), 234–239; idem, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969); idem, “Holy War and the Medieval Lawyers,” in Thomas P. Murphy (ed.), The Holy War (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976), 99–140, at 118–120. 19 Glenn Burgess, “Was the English Civil War a War of Religion? The Evidence of Political Propaganda,” Huntington Library Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1998), 173–201, at 196–197. 20 Mark Noll, America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (Oxford University Press, 2002), 37–42; Perry Miller, The New England Mind, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1982), 1: 432–462. Edmund Morgan, Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea (New York University Press, 1963), 21–24. 21 Walzer, Revolution of the Saints, ix.

Introduction  7 in the vernaculars and outside the European universities. But this neglect of literature and learned practice in Latin leaves us a disastrously distorted image of early modern European intellectual life: across all of sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe Latin remained both the international language of learned prestige and convenience. All official instruction that took place inside every European university (and Reformed academy) took place in Latin, and even a harbinger of modernity like Isaac Newton wrote most of his work in Latin, owned more books in Latin than English, and annotated his Latin books in Latin.22 Against the previous consensus that Europe’s universities were merely obstacles to modernity, a movement in the history of the universities from the 1950s forward began to emphasize the universities as highly prestigious sites of cultural transmission.23 And in light of this, historians of the Reformed began to re-think the disdain with which historical theologians had previously regarded the Reformed theology taught in early modern academies and universities; a disdain that was often accompanied by an over-emphasis on the theology of Calvin at the cost of important contemporaries like Peter Martyr Vermigli.24 Scholars like David Steinmetz, Carl Trueman, and Richard Muller have all emphasized that the Reformed theology of the sixteenth and seventeenth century academies and universities deserves to be understood on its own terms.25 Making this Reformed scholasticism more accessible to the Anglophone student is the central mission of this volume. A further problem arises from the relationship between theology and political theory. Ernst Troeltsch argued in 1906 that predestination was Calvin’s central dogma: God’s eternal decree that some should be saved and some should be damned. From this elevation of a minority over a majority derived an aristocratic principle in the government of church and state which carried with it a need for the use of force to secure these hierarchies and institutions. His later Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen softened this emphasis on aristocracy and pointed to the individualistic,

22 Françoise Waquet, Latin or the Empire of a Sign, trans. John Howe (London: Verso, 2002), 88–89; Sarah Knight and Stefan Tilg, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Neo-Latin (Oxford University Press, 2015). 23 Richard Tuck, “The Institutional Setting,” in Daniel Garber and Michael Ayers (ed.), The Cambridge History of seventeenth-Century Philosophy, 2 vols. (Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1: 9–32; Hilde De Ridder-Symoens, ed., A History of the University in Europe, Volume II: Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800) (Cambridge University Press, 1996). 24 Willem J. Asselt, “Reformed Orthodoxy: A Short History of Research,” in Herman Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 11–26. 25 David Steinmetz, Calvin in Context (Oxford University Press, 1995); Carl Trueman and R. Scott Clark, eds., Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999); Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520-ca. 1725, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003).

8 Introduction bourgeois and democratic tendencies derived from Calvinism’s purported emphasis on good labour in a vocation as evidence of predestination to eternal life; but Troeltsch still derived all this from the predestination doctrine at the heart of Calvin’s theology.26 This tendency to trace Reformed political doctrines to a source in predestination is evident in Bainton’s work, and has also surfaced more recently in the study of the Irish Reformation.27 There are two problems with Troeltsch’s approach. First, historical theologians today think that it is simply a mistake to place predestination at the centre of Calvin’s theology; predestination was not the key principle from which everything else was logically derived.28 Second, the very method of selecting one doctrine of a theologian as the lens through which the rest of that theologian’s writings should be interpreted is fraught with risk and complexity. An alternative approach has been adopted by Michael Becker in his formidable study of the law of war in early modern Protestantism. Asking if Protestantism made any distinctive contribution to the development of modern international law, Becker did not look for a central theological doctrine which subsequently enlivened a series of peripheral war-related doctrines, but rather proceeded by noting the places within the structures of Protestant theology where war was habitually addressed, and then describing what it was that Protestant theologians actually wrote about warfare in those places.29 Every point in Becker’s argument can be followed quickly to a clear and institutionally important source, and there is very little room for the arbitrary privileging of one theological strand over another. Becker’s approach provides a model for what follows. To conclude this review of historiography, there are three weak points in the existing literature on Calvinist political thought available to the ­English-speaking reader. There is a preoccupation with the advent of secularism which is a distraction from what the Reformed frequently said was central to their conception of politics: the duties imposed on humanity by God. There is the identification of the Reformed as especially inclined to 26 Ernst Troeltsch, “Protestantisches Christentum und Kirche in der Neuzeit,” in Julius Wellhausen, Adolf Jülicher, and Adolf von Harnack (eds.), Die christliche Religion, 1st part (Berlin: Teubner, 1906), 253–458; idem, Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, vol. 2, 609–612, 619, 628–630; Hofheinz, Johannes Calvins theologische Friedensethik, 8–19. 27 Bainton, Christian Attitudes, 143–145; Alan Ford, The Protestant Reformation in Ireland, 1590–1641 (Dublin: Four Courts, 1997), 164–178; Mark Hutchinson, Calvinism, Reform and the Absolutist State in Elizabethan Ireland (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2015), 39–62. 28 Christoph Strohm, “Nach hundert Jahren. Ernst Troeltsch, der Protestantismus und die Entstehung der modernen Welt,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 99 (2008), 6–35; Murdock, Beyond Calvin, 22–30; Richard Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008). 29 Michael Becker, Kriegsrecht im frühneuzeitlichen Protestantismus: Eine Untersuchung zum Beitrag lutherischer und reformierter Theologen, Juristen un anderer Gelehrter zur Kriegsrechtsliteratur im 16. and 17. Jahrhundert (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017).

Introduction  9 holy war, an identification based rather on prejudice than on sound evidence. There is a temptation to identify one core Reformed doctrine (perhaps predestination, perhaps something else), and interpret all political action through that core doctrine, rather than attending to what leading Reformed intellectuals themselves wrote about politics. This volume seeks to address and repair these weaknesses.

The Reformed on politics and war in their Protestant context Warfare was of real concern to a great number of the most important Lutheran and Reformed theologians. Martin Luther treated warfare in his Von Welltlicher Uberkeit, wie weit Man ihr Gehorsam Schuldig sei (On Secular Authority, how Far does the Obedience Owed to it Extend?) of 1523 and Ob Kriegsleutte auch in seligem Stande sein künden (Whether Soldiers too can be Saved) of 1526.30 Luther’s close colleague Philip Melanchthon wrote on warfare in the later editions of his Loci Communes (Commonplaces) from 1535, a textbook organized around certain vital Biblical texts.31 Luther’s Swiss rival Huldrych Zwingli pronounced on aspects of warfare in a range of tracts printed in the 1510s and 1520s, and also in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke.32 Calvin’s crucial writings on warfare include the political section of the Institutes, and his Harmonia.33 Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Biblical commentaries were sorted into a spectacularly popular theological textbook called the Loci Communes by his friends after his death. Vermigli treated politics and war at much greater length than either Melanchthon or Calvin.34 This volume provides further concrete evidence of the interest that later Reformed theologians showed in warfare as a theological and political problem. Why was it that both Lutheran and Reformed theologians had so much to say about warfare? Catholic theologians, especially the famous Dominicans and Jesuits of the School of Salamanca, wrote on warfare because of the moral and theological challenges raised by the massive expansion of

30 Martin Luther, “Von Welltlicher Uberkeit, wie weit Man ihr Gehorsam Schuldig sei,” in J. Knaake et al. (ed.), D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1883), 11: 245–281; idem, “Temporal Authority,” in J. Pelikan et al. (ed.), Luther’s Works, 54 vols. (St Louis: Concordia, 1955–1976), 45: 75–129; idem, “Ob Kriegsleutte auch in seligem Stande sein künden,” in D. Martin Luthers Werke, 19: 623–662; Luther, “Whether Soldiers too can be Saved,” in Luther’s Works, 46: 87–137. 31 Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes Theologici (Wittenberg: Josef Klug, 1535); idem, Loci Theologici (Wittenberg: Petrus Seitz, 1543); idem, Loci Praecipui Theologici (Wittenberg: Johannes Cratus, 1559), idem, Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: Loci Communes 1555, ed. Clyde Manschreck (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965). 32 Olivier Bangerter, La Pensée Militaire de Zwingli (Bern: Peter Lang, 2003). 33 John Calvin, Mosis Libri V cum Iohannis Calvini Commentariis. Genesis seorsum: Reliqui Quatuor in Formam Harmoniae Digesti (Geneva: Henricus Stephanus, 1563). 34 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Loci Communes (London: John Kingston, 1576).

10 Introduction the Spanish and Portuguese empires during the sixteenth century.35 Did the pope or Christian princes possess authority over pagans? Were pagan governments lawful and were Christians bound to respect laws made by them? Did Christian missionaries, and their military escorts, have the right to go where they were not wanted? Catholic writings on warfare often took the form of lectures and commentaries on the great medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas, who had discussed war as one of the vices opposed to charity in the “second part of the second part” of his Summa Theologiae.36 It is true that there were some Protestants who were concerned by similar problems: Hugo Grotius wrote his De Iure Praedae (On the Law of Prize and Booty) in 1604 in order to justify the Dutch seizure of a Portuguese ship near what is now Malaysia.37 Grotius borrowed from Spanish jurists in order to make his case, and even the most orthodox and respectable among the Reformed might choose to do this: both the Dutch anti-Remonstrant Johannes Hoornbeeck (extracts from whom are included in Chapter 11 below) and the Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford borrowed extensively from Catholic writings on war and politics.38 Nevertheless, Protestant theologians faced distinctive challenges. Among many of the northern European humanists with whom the early Protestants rubbed shoulders, there was a conviction that warfare was both irrational and impious; a case made most famously by Desiderius Erasmus in his Adagiorum Chilias Quarta (Four Thousand Adages) of 1515.39 Among the most humble Protestants, calls for Christian pacifism tended to be grounded on Christ’s Sermon on the Mount: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5: 38–39)

35 Jörg Tellkamp (ed.), A Companion to Early Modern Spanish Imperial Political and Social Thought (Leiden: Brill, 2020); Juan Belda Plans, La Escuela de ­S alamanca y la Renovación de la Teología en el Siglo XVI (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 2000); Harald E. Braun, Erik De Bom, and Paolo Astorri (eds.), A Companion to the Spanish Scholastics (Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition; 102) (Brill, 2021). 36 Francisco de Vitoria, Political Writings, ed. Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrence (Cambridge University Press, 1991); Aquinas, Opera Omnia, vol. 8, Second part of the second part, q. 40, 312–317. 37 Annabel Brett, Changes of State: Nature and the Limits of the City in Early Modern Natural Law (Princeton University Press, 2011), 69–71. 38 Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex (London: John Field, 1644). 39 Desiderius Erasmus, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 35, Adages III iv 1 to IV ii 100, ed. Denis L. Drysdall and John N. Grant (University of Toronto Press, 2005), 399–440; Robert P. Davies, The Better Part of Valour: More, Erasmus, Colet, and Vives, on Humanism, War, and Peace, 1496–1535 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1962).

Introduction  11 There were also those who thought that because they knew themselves to have been chosen by God for eternal life they should rule in this world, or at least that the laws of merely worldly governments did not apply to them. Michael Sattler, major contributor to the Schleitheim Confession of 1523, advanced a pacifist position; Thomas Müntzer’s Sermon before the Princes preached at Allstedt in 1524 called for the rule of the elect.40 Arguments like these played an animating role in the German Peasants’ War of 1524–1526 and the Anabaptist uprising at Münster in 1534–1535; they demanded an urgent response from Protestants who were unwilling to dismiss all human government as illegitimate. Beyond these conflicts among themselves, Protestants in the Holy Roman Empire, France, and the Low Countries were subject to Catholic monarchs who regarded them as heretics. The papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem of 1521 declared that Luther and his followers were guilty of heresy. The Emperor Charles V announced at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 that he intended to enforce religious conformity in the Holy Roman Empire, and it was in response to this that the Schmalkaldic League of Protestant estates of the empire emerged the following year. In France, King François I and Henri II intensified the traditional effort to eradicate heresy in the 1530s and 1550s, before the outbreak of the first civil war in 1562.41 The first rebellion of the Netherlands in 1565 was directly related to the attempts of Charles V and his son Philip II of Spain to destroy heresy by the erection of new bishoprics supported by inquisition apparatus.42 Protestant theologians thus had hard and pressing questions to answer about the justice or injustice of resistance to these Catholic monarchs. Facing those practical problems, Protestant theologians understood politics as a problem of obedience, and understood warfare within the frame of this Obrigkeitslehre (teaching on obedience).43 Luther rejected the study of scholastic theology, of the canon law, and of classical philosophy. He 40 Francis Oakley, “Christian Obedience and authority, 1520–1550,” in James H. Burns (ed.), The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700 (Cambridge University Press, 1991), 159–192, at 187–191; James Stayer, The German Peasant’s War and the Anabaptist Community of Goods (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991); Han-Jürgen Goertz, Thomas Müntzer: Apocalyptic Mystic and Revolutionary, trans. Jocelyn Jacquiery (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993); Michael Baylor, ed., The Radical Reformation (Cambridge University Press, 1991). 41 William Monter, Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by ­Sixteenth-Century Parlements (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999); Mark Greengrass, The Longman Companion to the European Reformation c. 1500–1618 (Harlow: Longman, 1998), 57, 61–62, 117–127. 42 Geoffrey Parker, The Dutch Revolt (London: Allen Lane, 1977); Martin van ­G elderen, ed., The Dutch Revolt (Cambridge University Press, 1993). 43 Becker, Kriegsrecht im frühneuzeitlichen Protestantismus, 12. I have benefitted very much from conversations with Sarah Mortimer on this subject, and from reading in draft Sarah Mortimer, Reformation, Resistance, and Reason of State (1517-1625) (Oxford University Press, 2021).

12 Introduction believed that scholastic theology encouraged the Pelagian thought that humans could exercise their free will to earn their salvation.44 Canon law falsely granted the church a coercive power which muddled, unforgivably for Luther, the Zwei Reiche, the temporal and spiritual kingdoms.45 The results of this false coercive power in spiritual matters were un-Christian aberrations like the crusades.46 Classical philosophy promoted the notion that there might be a kind of human excellence outside of God’s unearned gift. Luther had actually lectured on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics at Wittenberg in 1508, but in 1517 he labelled this book almost the “worst enemy of grace.”47 Luther believed that the central political messages of the New Testament were contained in Romans 13 (“Let every soul be subject”) and 1 Peter 2: 13 (“Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake”), which could not have enjoined obedience more clearly. God had commanded magistrates to restrain and punish evil, and commanded subjects to obey.48 Politics was thus not a zone of free choice left to humans outside the Church, as it was for Luther’s enemy Tommaso de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan: rather it was a divinely enjoined duty.49 The magistrate’s duty to protect his or her subjects ruled out complete pacifism, as did the subject’s duty to obey his or her magistrate, and neither the pope nor Thomas Müntzer was right to use force in spiritual matters. Luther’s tracts were vivid and powerful, but not systematic and teachable. It was his close colleague Philip Melanchthon who systemized Lutheranism and transmitted many of its important political features to early Reformed theologians like Peter Martyr Vermigli and John Calvin. Melanchthon transmitted this doctrine through his Loci Communes Theologici (Theological Common Places), the first edition of which was printed in 1521: this

44 Martin Luther, “Disputatio contra Scholasticam Theologiam,” in Joachim Knaake et al. (ed.), D. Martin Luthers Werke, (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1883), 1: 221–228; idem, “Disputation against Scholastic Theology,” in Luther’s Works, 31: 3–16. 45 Luther, “An den Christlichen Adel deutscher Nation,” in Joachim Knaake et al. (ed.), D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar, Hermann Böhlau, 1883), 6: 404–469, at 409–410; idem, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” in Luther’s Works, 44: 115–217, at 131–132; Luther, “Von Welltlicher Uberkeit,” 449–451; Luther, “Temporal Authority,” 88–91. 46 Luther, “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligem Stande seyn künden,” in Joachim Knaake et al. (ed.) D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar, Hermann Böhlau, 1883), 19: 623–662, at 629–630; idem, “Whether Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved,” in Luther’s Works, 46: 87–137, at 99–100; Luther, “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken,” in J. Knaake et al. (ed.), D. Martin Luthers Werke, (Weimar, Hermann Böhlau, 1883), 30.II: 107–148, at 111–115; idem, “Whether Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved,” in Luther’s Works, 46: 155–205. 47 “Tota fere Aristotelis Ethica pessima est gratiae inimica,” Luther, “Disputatio contra Scholasticam Theologiam,” 226; idem, “Disputation against Scholastic Theology,” 12. 48 Luther, “Von Welltlicher Uberkeit,” 247; Martin Luther, “Temporal Authority,” 85–86. 49 James H. Burns, Lordship. Kingship, and Empire: The Idea of Monarchy, 1400–1525 (Oxford University Press, 1992), 142–143; James H. Burns (ed.), Conciliarism and Papalism (Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Introduction  13 was a new genre of theological textbook, which would later be taken up by the Reformed.50 Following Luther’s attacks on scholastic theology, Melanchthon could no longer build a textbook out of commentary on medieval theologians, so faced with providing his former students with a handbook to feed their preaching as pastors, he turned to his expertise in Latin and Greek oratory.51 The classical rhetorician sorted his subject matter under headings or commonplaces known in Latin as loci.52 In the case of Biblical exegesis, loci were chosen scriptural passages, which functioned as an abridgement of Christian teaching and central points around which other less significant passages could be arranged and interpreted.53 The most important loci identified by Melanchthon, in accord with Luther’s preaching, were drawn from St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, dealing with Law and Gospel, sin and grace, privileging both the theology of salvation and the politics of obedience.54 How did the later editions of Melanchthon’s innovative theological textbook treat politics and warfare? Melanchthon laid out his most basic positions on human government in his exposition of the Ten Commandments or Decalogue (Exodus 20: 1–17). When commenting on the fourth commandment (“Honour thy father and thy mother”), Melanchthon explained that parents were just the first level of imperium (command or government) and that the commandment implied that all levels of government should be honoured, as Romans 13 made clear.55 God was the author of all human society (from marriage to polity) which thus demanded respect. St Paul loved the laws of the Roman Empire, but not the persons of the tyrannous emperors Caligula and Nero.56 According to Melanchthon, this fourth commandment also contained the mutual duty of superiors and inferiors. The duties of the good father were identical to the duties of the good prince; and, indeed, just as the father was obliged to look to the good religious education 50 Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes Theologicae (Wittenberg: Lotter, 1521); Idem., “Loci Communes Theologicae,” in W. Pauck (ed.) Melanchthon and Bucer (London: SCM Press, 1965), 18–150; Bernard M. G. Reardon, Religious Thought in the Reformation (2nd ed., London: Longmans, 1995), 114–119. 51 Robert Kolb, “Teaching the Text: The Commonplace Method in Sixteenth Century Lutheran Biblical Commentary,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 49, no. 3 (1987), 571–585. 52 John Monfasoni, “Humanism and Rhetoric,” in Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, ed. Albert Rabil, 3 vols. (Philadelphia, 1988), 3: 171–235; Quirinus Breen, “The Terms “Loci Communes” and “Loci” in Melanchthon,” Church History 16, no. 4 (December 1947), 197–209. 53 Dermot Fenlon, “The New Learning, the New Religion and the Law,” Historical Journal 17, no. 1 (March 1974), 185–195; Zachary S. Schiffman, On the Threshold of Modernity: Relativism in the French Renaissance (London, 1991), 11–18. 54 Breen, “Melanchthon,” p. 208; Kathy Eden, Hermeneutics and the Rhetorical Tradition: Chapters in the Ancient Legacy and Its Humanist Reception (New Haven, 1997), 79–89. 55 Melanchthon, Loci Praecipui Theologici (1559), 158. 56 Ibid., 159.

14 Introduction of his children, so the prince’s duties included care for the first table of the Decalogue – the first three commandments which dealt with the worship of God. The duties of inferiors comprised the honouring and obeying of good governors, acknowledging that the polity was the work of God.57 Even pagan governments deserved obedience, Melanchthon wrote. So the Jews had obeyed the government of Babylon, and the Jews had fought under the command of Alexander the Great just as Christians had fought under pagan Roman command: “because the purpose of military service was an honourable political government.”58 But Islam was an exception to this rule. Melanchthon believed that the “law of Mahomed” was uniquely hostile to Christianity and that it propagated its hostility by military force; Christian military service under the Turks was thus illegitimate.59 According to his method then, Melanchthon used the fourth commandment (Exodus 20: 12) as a common place in which to order all the rest of the scriptural commands on government. Christian pacifism and election to salvation was to be understood within the wider message of Scripture, which was supportive of government. Melanchthon also touched on warfare in his brief treatment of the fifth commandment, thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20: 13). He insisted that despite this commandment, “the political magistrate has a divine mandate of lawful vindication.”60 Melanchthon believed (on the basis of Daniel 2: 21 “he removeth kings and setteth up kings”) that God constituted, maintained, and changed empires and polities. Therefore, it was the magistrate’s duty to afflict thieves, adulterers, oath-breakers, and rioters with the appropriate and lawful penalties. And, Melanchthon added, “to the magistrate pertains the duty of lawful war, as when Constantine subdued by force the savagery of Licinius.”61 It has been noted above that Melanchthon believed that the Christian monarch was obliged to defend not just worldly commandments, but also those pertaining to divine worship. Melanchthon had drawn from Eusebius of Caesarea the story that the first Christian emperor, Constantine, had fought a war to prevent the persecution of Christians living (outside Constantine’s jurisdiction) under the rival Emperor Licinius: an example pregnant with possibilities for Protestants in the Holy Roman Empire.62 Melanchthon also insisted on this point in his Philosophiae Moralis Epitome (Summary of Moral Philosophy) of 1538: “concerning the duty

57 Ibid., 161–162. 58 “Quia finis militiae erat honestum regimen politicum,” Ibid., 163. 59 “Lex ipsa Mahometi est manifesta contumelia adversus Christum,” Ibid., 163. 60 “Magistratum politicum habere Mandatum divinum de legitima vindicta,” Ibid., 164. 61 “Ad magistratus officium et legitima bella pertinent, ut cum Constantinus repressit armis saevitiam Licinij,” Ibid., 164–165. 62 Eusebius, Life of Constantine, eds. Averil Cameron and S. G. Hall (Oxford University Press, 1999), 2.1–2.5.

Introduction  15 of authority and the law of war, there is no doubt but that authority ought to defend the innocent in just causes, whether those causes are civil, or pertain to religion,” without regard for existing jurisdiction.63 All of this flowed from Melanchthon’s conviction that the political magistrate was guardian of both tables of the Decalogue. Melanchthon’s defence of the place of worldly politics in Protestant school and university curricula was important to early Calvinism.64 ­Calvin’s teaching on worldly authority in his Institutio was very similar to the fundamental steps that Melanchthon had taken in the Loci Communes. Like Melanchthon, Calvin was alarmed by those who believed that the Gospel dissolved the traditional forms of European society, and alert to the problem of Protestant self-defence. By the final version of his Institutio printed at Geneva in 1559, Calvin had ordered his thinking on the proper Christian attitude to the civil magistrate and warfare into a series of logical steps. He began by speaking about those “mad and barbarous men furiously striving to overturn the divinely sanctioned order” who imagined that that Gospel meant that there should be no king or magistrate on earth.65 Rather, wrote Calvin, civilis potestas (political power) was not just a sacred calling but the most sacred and most honourable one: it was not eliminated by the Gospel.66 Romans 13 was central to this claim, and imposed a duty upon magistrates to rule well.67 Like Melanchthon, Calvin insisted that the magistrate’s duty included the care of both the first and second table of the Decalogue.68 Christians were forbidden to shed blood, but St Paul said that magistrates are the ministers of God’s wrath (Romans 13: 4); and so Calvin held that the magistrate carries out the judgement of God.69 Calvin did not distinguish strongly between the vindication of justice inside and outside the political community. “Since indeed,” he wrote, “it is sometimes necessary to kings and peoples to take up arms to exercise this 63 “De Officio potestatis et Iure belli non dubium est quin potestas debeat defendere innocentes in caussis iustis, seu civilibus, seu pertinentibus ad religionem,” Philip Melanchthon, Philosophiae Moralis Epitome (Strasbourg: Cratonus Mylius, 1538), 95. 64 Christoph Strohm, “Melanchthon-Rezeption in der Ethik des frühen Calvinismus,” in Günter Frank and Hermann Selderhuis (eds.), Melanchthon under der Calvinismus (Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog, 2005), 135–157. 65 “amentes et barbari homines ordinem hunc divinitus sancitum, furiose evertere conantur,” John Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Geneva: Robertus Stephanus, 1559), 4.20.1–2, 549. See also Höpfl (ed.), Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority, 47–84; John Calvin, The Institution of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Norton (London: Reynold Wolfe and Richard Harrison, 1561). 66 Calvin, Institutio, 4.20.4, p. 550. 67 Ibid., 4.20.7, p. 551. 68 “Extendi vero ad utranque Legis tabulam,” ibid., 4.20.9, p. 552. This remains a controversial area for the Reformed: Matthew Tuininga, Calvin’s Political Theology and the Public Engagement of the Church (Cambridge University Press, 2017). 69 Calvin, Institutio, 4.20.10, p. 553.

16 Introduction kind of public vengeance, by this rationale it is licit also to judge, that the wars which are thus undertaken are lawful.”70 Calvin then concluded: Therefore both natural equity and the rationale of duty [officium] teach this, that princes are armed not just in order to enforce private duties [officia] with judicial penalties, but they are also armed for the defence by war of those territories committed to their trust, should they be attacked by enemies. And the Holy Spirit declares by many testimonies of Scripture that wars of this kind are lawful.71 It was later in this chapter that Calvin turned to the duty of inferior magistrates to restrain the superior magistrate in extreme circumstances. Popular magistrates (populares magistratus), which included the parliaments and estates of European kingdoms, had been established to moderate the wilfulness of kings, and indeed since they had been appointed protectors (tutores) of the freedom of the people (populi libertas) by God, it would be a wicked dereliction of duty for them to connive at royal tyranny.72 These duty-bound wars of vindication and defence are very different to the divinely commanded wars against idolatry and against the peoples of Canaan in the Old Testament, and to understand Calvin’s attitude to the latter one must examine his division of the laws of the Old Testament into three: moral, ceremonial, and judicial or political. In the Institutio, Calvin explained that this distinction was important because some claimed that the only good states were those that enforced the political laws of Moses. Calvin called this notion dangerous, false, and foolish. The moral law of the Old Testament, summarized in the command to worship God and love one’s neighbour, did apply to Christians, but the ceremonial laws of the Jewish religion (on sacrifice for example) and the judicial law which ordered the Jewish state (politia) applied only to ancient Israel and not to the Europe of the sixteenth century.73 Calvin was very clear – the ceremonial and political law of Moses “had never been decreed for us.”74 Calvin explored these problems at greater length in his Biblical commentary entitled Mosis Libri Quinque Commentariis, also known as the Harmonia, first printed at Geneva in Latin in 1563. The book was a harmony in that it sorted and ordered all the ceremonial and judicial law contained in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and 70 “Quando vero Regibus populisque, ad exercendam huiusmodi publicam vindictam arma capere interdum necesse est: ex hac ratione simul aestimare licet, legitima esse quae sic suscipiuntur bella,” ibid., 4.20.11, p. 554. 71 “Hoc ergo et naturalis aequitas et officii ratio dictat, armatos esse principes non tantum ad privata officia iudiciariis poenis coercenda, sed ad ditiones quoque fidei suae commissas, bello defendendas, siquando hostiliter impetantur. Et eiusmodi bella Spiritus sanctus multis Scripturae testimoniis legitima esse declarant.” ibid., 4.20.11. p. 554. 72 Ibid., 4.20.31, p. 561. 73 Calvin, Institutio, 4.20.14–16, pp. 555–556. 74 “nobis lata numquam fuit,” Calvin, Institutio, 4.20.16, p. 556.

Introduction  17 Deuteronomy underneath the heads (or loci) of the Ten Commandments. In this way, Calvin explained the limitation of the Old Testament’s ceremonial and judicial laws to the Jews by contrast with the universal application of the moral law to all peoples. So Deuteronomy 12, which commanded war to destroy idolatry, and Deuteronomy 7, which named seven peoples of Canaan to be destroyed, Calvin treated among the “political appendices” of the second commandment against images. Just like the other political laws of the Jewish people, these laws applied in ancient Israel alone: there was no question of their relevance to the peoples of contemporary Europe or anywhere else.75 Deuteronomy 20 distinguished between the moderation which was to be used in war against far-distant peoples, and the entire destruction of the Canaanites. Calvin sorted Deuteronomy 20 among the political appendices of the sixth commandment (thou shalt not kill), pointing out that the measures enjoined in wars against far-distant peoples were identical to the universal law of war based in natural justice described by Cicero and others, and that the command to destroy the Canaanites was unique to that time and place.76 No mandate for holy war in contemporary Europe could be derived from these Biblical places.77 Calvin was not the source of all Reformed theology, and yet there was little in his treatment of war in the Institutio and the Harmonia with which other Reformed theologians could have disagreed. The Florentine reformer, known to his English colleagues as Peter Martyr Vermigli, pursued his theological career at Strasbourg (teaching alongside Martin Bucer) before becoming regius professor of divinity at Oxford in 1548. He returned to the continent at the accession of Queen Mary, and died at Zürich in 1562.78 Vermigli was an accomplished commentator on the Old Testament, and in 1576 a Huguenot minister in London, Robert Masson, published a single volume Loci Communes which he had assembled from Vermigli’s many commentaries, and which proved very popular especially in the English-speaking world.79 This textbook contained long treatments of the status, power, and duties of magistrates, and also a treatment of warfare. On magistracy, Vermigli took up positions very similar to those of Calvin. The magistrate was responsible for both tables of the Decalogue, which meant that he or she was obliged to care for religion and also punish the wicked. Vermigli denied, at length, that the command to love one’s neighbour could stand in the way of 75 Calvin, Mosis Libri V, pp. 303–306. 76 ibid., pp. 339, 343, 349–350. 77 For Calvin’s remarks on the proportional use of force in war in his sermons on 2 Samuel, see Hofheinz, Johannes Calvins theologische Friedensethik, 143–148. 78 Taplin, Mark, “Vermigli, Pietro Martire [Peter Martyr] (1499–1562), evangelical reformer,” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 23 Sept. 2004; Accessed 29 June 2020. https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128. 001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-28225. 79 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Loci Communes (London: John Kingston, 1576); idem, The Common Places, trans. Anthony Martin (London: Henry Denham et al., 1583).

18 Introduction the magistrate’s duty to punish or the executioner’s duty to kill.80 He also insisted, against the Anabaptists who affirmed on the basis of Matthew 5 that war was unlawful, that war-making was a responsibility placed on the magistrate by God: But if the prince can punish seditious citizens at home, why can he not also repel an external enemy, should the enemy make an attack, harrying and wasting the commonwealth? God often instructs princes that they should relieve the oppressed, orphans, and widows. But it happens sometimes that this cannot be done without war.81 To those who objected that God permitted wars only in the Old Testament but not in the New Testament, Vermigli replied that while there were certainly things set out in the Old Testament which Christians must not practice, those things written there about war belonged to the natural law, which is eternal, and in any case St Paul reassures us in Romans 13 that “the magistrate has the right of the sword.”82 The English translation of Vermigli’s Loci Communes printed in London in 1583 included an extra treatment of the problem of whether godly princes could live in peace with impious or non-Christian neighbours, drawn from Vermigli’s commentary on Judges.83 Vermigli thought that on the basis of St Paul’s instruction to live in peace with all as far as possible (Romans 12: 18), and the efforts of the Israelites to live in peace with everyone except the seven nations of Canaan, that peace was lawful with non-Christian, so long as one did not actively ally with these non-Christians in war. The idea of godly troops mixing with the non-godly in camp seemed to Vermigli to be too dangerous. Nor should a Christian prince seek help from non-Christian powers in conflict against enemy Christians – as St Paul told the Corinthians not to turn to non-Christian tribunals to resolve conflicts with other Christians (1 Corinthians 6). By the 1570s the basic outlines of the Reformed position on warfare were clear. For Protestant theologians like Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Vermigli, magistrates might be duty-bound to fight wars in defence of religion, but there was no mandate in Scripture for offensive religious wars. These Protestant theologians stood broadly within the Christian just war tradition, from St Augustine to Thomas Aquinas and beyond: wars were only to

80 Vermigli, Loci Communes, pp. 1014–1048. 81 “Quod si Princeps possit domi castigare cives seditiosos, cur non etiam possit externum hostem reprimere, si ille impetum faciat, et vexet ac vastest Rempublicam? Deus saepe monet Principes, ut relevent oppressos, pupillos, viduas. At accidat interdum, ut id fieri non possit sine bello,” Vermigli, Loci Communes, p. 1054. 82 “magistratum habere ius gladij,” ibid., p. 1055. 83 Vermigli, The Common Places, pp. 294–296.

Introduction  19 be fought by those in possession of the appropriate authority, and wars were to be fought for defence, not glory.84 And for most Reformed theologians, the struggle against the Antichrist was primarily framed as a spiritual and not physical struggle. We include below extracts from Lambert Daneau’s Tractatus de Antichristo of 1576, in which he insisted that Protestants were not commanded to make war on Catholic or Muslim powers. However, a minority of Reformed theologians could drift (especially in times of great political pressure) from using the Biblical account of the last things to interpret wars then being fought in Europe towards legitimating those wars; and this drift was most clear in the circles around Friedrich V, elector palatine, in the years preceding the war with the Emperor Ferdinand II.85 In the course of his commentary on Romans 13, first printed in 1608, the Heidelberg theologian David Pareus argued that kings and princes must resist the tyranny of the Antichrist even by the sword. In Revelation 17: 16, it was predicted that Christian kings would burn the whore with fire, and Pareus wrote that prediction had the force of a command that they should do this.86 Pareus’s commentary on Revelation of 1618 took a similar line. St John’s Apocalypse described the recent history of the Protestant churches in detail, and this prophecy legitimized wars fought by Protestant powers in Europe over the previous century, from the Schmalkaldic war to the Dutch Revolt. After so long fornicating with the whore, Pareus wrote, the kings of England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Bohemia, France, Poland, and Hungary, have now put down the weapons they previously wielded against Christ, and begin to desert the Roman adulteress.87 Similar arguments are to be found in the works of Johann Heinrich Alsted (one of Pareus’s star students) at the nearby academy at Herborn, extracts from which are also included below. Alsted’s unusual view that Deuteronomy 12–13 commanded Christians to wage wars on blasphemers and apostates suggests that unlike Calvin he placed this command amid the eternal moral law rather than the obsolete political law. The examples of Pareus and Alsted demonstrate that while Bainton’s wild talk of Calvinist crusade mischaracterizes Reformed thought, nevertheless the Reformed did not always regard the struggle against the Antichrist as solely spiritual. When reflecting on eschatology in times of high political pressure, this could become a physical struggle, although generally integrated into the traditional Protestant doctrine of a war fought for defence of religion.

84 Frederick H. Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages (Cambridge University Press, 1975), 259–265. 85 Becker, Kriegsrecht im frühneuzeitlichen Protestantismus, 353–361. 86 David Pareus, In Divinam ad Romanos S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolam Commentarius (Frankfurt: Johannes Lancellotus, 1608), column 1387. 87 Pareus, In Divinam Apocalypsin S. Apostoli et Evangelistae Johannis Commentarius (Heidelberg: Johannes Lancellotus, 1618), column 937.

20 Introduction In short then, war was a real problem addressed in detail by Reformed theologians in a tradition that dated back to the early days of Protestantism. We are not projecting our own secular interests on these theologians by attending to their writings on war. It was Melanchthon, rather than Calvin, who established the basic parameters of the Reformed approach to war, and those parameters were rather different to those of the great Catholic natural lawyers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Politics and warfare did not belong to a zone of freedom, but were duties established by God. The Reformed did not reject the traditional principles of the just war, grounded in natural law; but they sought to identify them with the eternal moral law recorded in detail in the Old Testament. The Reformed did not believe that the wars of ethnic and religious extermination recorded in the Old Testament provided any mandate for modern religious war, but nevertheless the sword with which the magistrate was obliged to defend true religion inside the commonwealth was the same sword that he or she was obliged to wield in defence of religion outside the commonwealth.

The institutions that taught Reformed theology, politics, and war In what kind of institutions were the collections of loci communes and Biblical commentaries that contained these doctrines on war composed, taught, and read? Three examples will be offered here. The Genevan Academy provided a model to the Reformed across Europe of how the most rapid kind of theological education might be conducted. The University of Heidelberg demonstrated how a medieval institution could become the powerhouse of Reformed education in the German-speaking lands in the first two decades of the Seventeenth Century, educating theologians to a much higher level than possible at an academy. The new University of Leiden became Europe’s foremost Reformed educational institution later in the century; but even a new foundation like Leiden was characterized by considerable confessional diversity and subject to civil constraint in the appointment of its professoriate. The Genevan Academy, where teaching began in 1558 and which was officially inaugurated in 1559, should not be taken as the central institution of Reformed intellectual life, but it did supply a large number of ministers to France in the early years of the Wars of Religion, and it did serve as a model for the education of ministers as the Huguenots began to set up their academies, the most prestigious of which were Montauban, Saumur and Sedan.88 The Genevan Academy was divided into a schola privata, which 88 Karin Maag, Seminary or University? The Genevan Academy and Reformed Higher Education, 1560–1620 (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1995); Robert M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France 1555–1563 (Geneva: Droz, 1956); Jean-Paul Pittion, “Les académies réformeés de l’Édit de Nantes, à la Révocation,” in Roger Zuber

Introduction  21 taught Latin to boys, and a schola publica, in which theology was taught through lectures which were mainly commentaries on Scripture by John Calvin and the professors of Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The lectures on the Old Testament which became Calvin’s Harmonia were delivered in this environment, but students often boarded at the homes of professors, so that dinnertime provided an informal tutorial. Theodore Beza, who had previously assisted Calvin in teaching theology teaching, became the chief theological authority in Geneva after Calvin’s death in 1564. The academy had no theology faculty, and so could not award degrees; rather students received letters of reference testifying to their competence. In the first five years students did not spend long at Geneva; many students spent just one or two years in the schola publica before taking up a position as minister to a Reformed community in France.89 And yet this was not an intellectually narrow environment, limited only to the theology of Calvin. Robert Kingdon has described the private library that Jean Chambeli, sent from the Academy to serve in Le Havre in 1558, left behind for safe keeping with his landlady: an orphaned volume from some edition of Martin Luther’s complete works, Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah in French, Desiderius Erasmus’s paraphrase of the Gospel of John, Luther’s commentary on St Paul to the Galatians, Calvin’s commentary on St Paul to the Romans, as well as works on philosophy, dialectic, and letter-writing by Petrus Ramus, Erasmus, and others.90 Perhaps someone who had heard Calvin preach in person so often had no need for a copy of the Institutes, or perhaps he took it with him to France. But even in Geneva, the Reformed read theologians besides Calvin. If Geneva was a purpose-built but basic Reformed academy, the University of Heidelberg demonstrates how much more thoroughly a medieval university (founded in 1386 and capable of granting theology degrees) might educate students in Reformed theology; an education vital to overcoming the more learned enemies of the Reformed.91 The counts palatine of the Rhine had turned towards Protestantism in the late 1540s, and in 1557 Philip Melanchthon himself had contributed to the revision of the statutes of the university’s theology faculty.92 The outcome of this reform, enforced in 1558, was that of the three theology professors, one was to lecture on the New Testament (the highest paid), one on the Old Testament, and one on loci communes (the lowest paid); lectures structured around medieval textbooks

and Laurent Theis (eds.), La Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes et la protestantisme français en 1685 (Paris: Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français, 1986), 187–207. 89 Maag, Seminary or University? 9–10, 14, 19, 21, 23, 140. 90 Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion, 16–17. 91 Laetitia Boehm and Rainer A. Müller, Universitäten und Hochschulen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweitz (Düsseldorf: Econ, 1983), 191–199. 92 Johann F. Hautz, Geschichte der Universität Heidelberg 2 vols. (Mannheim: ­Schneider, 1862–1864), 2: 7–10.

22 Introduction were now out of the question.93 Count Palatine Friedrich III enforced a Calvinist church discipline and catechism in the 1560s, during which time Reformed theologians held the three chairs, though there was another predominantly Lutheran interlude between 1576 and 1583 which saw their expulsion.94 University statutes of 1588 demanded that all employed by the university should swear to submit to the church order (Kirchenordnung) of Friedrich III.95 Howard Hotson has emphasized the difference in quality and ambition of the kind of academic work that was done at Heidelberg in comparison with typical Reformed academies modelled on Geneva: rather than teaching the fast and simple version of logic for the arts degree popularized among the Reformed by Petrus Ramus, Heidelberg preserved the kind of complex logical training that one needed if debating with J­ esuits: beyond producing vernacular translations of the scriptures or simple commentaries to aid the average minister, Heidelberg produced fundamental biblical scholarship for an international audience; and rather than merely engaging in pamphlet wars with neighbouring Lutheran colleges and universities, Heidelberg edited Greek editions of the Church Fathers in order to refute attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity.96 All this demanded the kind of library that was beyond the resources of any academy, and from 1584 Heidelberg’s library was the best in northern Europe.97 The curriculum at Heidelberg was far more lengthy and arduous than at any academy, and a 1599–1600 controversy demonstrates that it was intended to arm students for dialectical combat with the enemies of the Reformed. The preparatory arts degree at Heidelberg took three years, and then the bachelors and licentia in theology took five or six. In the course of that theology degree, students were initially taught Christian doctrine through loci communes, probably organized similarly to the 1563 Heidelberg Catechism, before being led through commentary on a number of books of the Bible in great scholarly depth.98 David Pareus’s commentary on Ro 93 Ibid., 19–20; Friedrich Paulsen, Geschichte des Gelehrten Unterrichts auf den Deutschen Schulen und Universitäten (Leipzig: Von Veit, 1885), 176. 94 Volker Press, “Die ‘Zweite Reformation’ in der Kurpfalz,” in Heinz Schilling (ed.), Die reformierte Konfessionalisierung in Deutschland: das Problem der “Zweiten Reformation” (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1986), 104–129; idem, Calvinismus und Territorialstaat: Regierung und Zentralbehörden der Kurpfalz 1559–1619 (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1970), 117–125, 221–298. 95 Hautz, Geschichte der Universität Heidelberg, 136–137. 96 Howard Hotson, Johann Heinrich Alsted 1588–1638: Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform (Oxford University Press, 2000), 28. For an alternative, but less well-grounded, view, see Notker Hammerstein, “The University of Heidelberg in the Early Modern Period: Aspects of its History as a Contribution to Its Sexcentenary,” History of Universities 6 (1986), 105–133. 97 Hautz, Geschichte der Universität Heidelberg, 2: 31–41. 98 Zacharius Ursinus et al., Catechesis Religionis Christianae, quae Traditur in Ecclesiis et Scholis Palatinatus (Heidelberg: Michael Schirat, 1563); Lyle D. Bierma, The Theology of the Heidelberg Catechism: A Reformation Synthesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2013), 92–93.

Introduction  23 mans (excerpted in Chapter 5 below) was first delivered in this environment. The theologians had to fight to defend this system: Friedrich IV wrote to the university in May 1599 complaining that the loci communes part of the course was never properly finished, and students were spending too much time on this undisputed, fundamental theology and not enough on sharply controversial topics, which would help them in their conflicts with Jesuits and Anabaptists.99 The elector’s chancery followed up on this in June 1600, proposing that the entire higher theological training be completed in four years. They thought this could be done by giving lectures on Calvin’s Institutes over two years, and then commentating on both the Old and New Testaments in the remaining two, and cutting back on the training of students in disputations on abstruse topics.100 The Faculty of Theology responded that the Institutes was an unsuitable textbook: it was difficult and obscure, better suited to French rather than German intellects, and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine’s famous Controversies had raised many points about it that would have to be refuted individually.101 Clearly, they preferred teaching in their own way using the Heidelberg Catechism as a framework. They added that trying to lecture on every book of the Bible in two years would be a waste of time: scholarly concentration on just a few books would be far more useful. They also dismissed the idea of sending students who had not received formal training in university disputation to debate with Jesuits.102 Both sides in this controversy admitted that the point of this theological education was the production of effective defenders of Reformed religion. Following the capture of Heidelberg by the forces of Emperor Ferdinand II in 1622, the University of Leiden became the foremost Reformed educational institution in Europe. Nevertheless, Leiden, in its early days, had been very theologically diverse; this should remind us that Reformed intellectual life was a distinctive tradition but not an isolated system. Founded in 1575 in order to provide Holland with a well-rounded centre of higher learning, the university was governed by three representatives of the States of Holland, and four burgomasters of the city of Leiden: the church had no say even in the appointment of theology professors. The foundation of the two theological colleges within the university, the States College in 1592 and the Walloon College in 1606, aimed to provide not just housing but also specific instruction for theology students.103 Nevertheless, Bonaventura Vulcanius,

99 Maag, Seminary or University?, 162; Eduard Winkelmann, ed., Urkundenbuch der Universität Heidelberg, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1886), 1: 329–330. I am very grateful to Scott Dixon for his assistance with this source. 100 Winkelmann, ed., Urkundenbuch, p. 333. 101 Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei, 3 vols. (Ingolstadt: David Sartorius, 1586–1589); idem, On Temporal and Spiritual Authority, trans. Stefania Tutino (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012). 102 Winkelmann (ed.), Urkundenbuch, 334–338. 103 Maag, Seminary or University?, 179–181.

24 Introduction who was appointed professor of Greek in 1578, would just as happily have worked at the Catholic university in Cologne; the great humanist Justus Lipsius, appointed to teach history in 1578, tripped blithely across Europe from one confessional zone to another, conforming where necessary; and the professor of Roman law appointed in 1584, Thomas Sosius, may have remained quietly Catholic all his life.104 The more driven Reformed theologians could find this a difficult environment to accept: Lambert Daneau left Geneva to take up a chair in Leiden in 1581, but found the views of Leiden theologians on the proper relationship of church to state totally intolerable, engaged in a public book-battle, and left after a year.105 After 1591, the environment became rather more clearly Reformed: more ambivalent members of staff like Lipsius left the university, and two incontestably orthodox Reformed theologians, Lucas Trelcatius and Franciscus Junius, were appointed to chairs in 1587 and 1592. The period of theological calm was short: the next generation of appointments to the theology faculty included Franciscus Gomarus and Jacobus Arminius. Bitter disputes about the theology of salvation ensued until the Synod of Dort in 1618, when the followers of Gomarus achieved dominance and those sympathetic to Arminius’s theology, including Hugo Grotius, were excluded from public office.106 Gisbertus Voetius, excerpted in this volume and perhaps the most important Dutch theologian of the Golden Age, was educated at Leiden in this atmosphere of theological struggle, and prepared for his doctorate under Gomarus’s supervision.107 It was from the 1620s that Leiden secured its reputation as Reformed Europe’s pre-eminent university.108 Although the confessional environment was somewhat different to Heidelberg, the structure of theological education at Leiden was quite similar. Leiden’s 1575 statutes prescribed that the Master of Arts had to be achieved before a degree could be conferred by the faculties of medicine, law, or theology.109 The university’s first professor of theology, Guillaume Feugeray, drew up a draft curriculum in June 1575 which suggested that four years

104 Jan J. Woltjer, “Introduction,” in Theodoor. H. Lunsingh Scheurleer and Guillaume H. M. Posthumus Meyjes (eds.), Leiden University in the Seventeenth Century: An Exchange of Learning (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 1–19, at 2–3. 105 Benjamin Kaplan, “‘Remnants of the Papal Yoke’: Apathy and opposition in the Dutch Reformation,” Sixteenth Century Journal 25, no. 3 (Autumn 1994), 653–669. 106 Richard Tuck, Philosophy and Government, 1572–1651 (Cambridge University Press, 1993), 180–184. 107 Arnoldus C. Duker, Gisbertus Voetius, 4 vols, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Uitgeverij J. J. Groen en Zoon, 1989), 1: 79. I could not have coped with Duker’s Dutch without the kind assistance of Floris Verhaart. 108 Antoine Voss, “Reformed Orthodoxy in the Netherlands,” in Herman Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 119–176, at 127–129. 109 Philipp C. Molhuysen, Bronnen tot de geschiedenis der Leidsche Universiteit, 7 vols. (‘S-Gravehage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1913), 1: 25–38.

Introduction  25 of study in rhetoric, dialectic, mathematics, physics, and ethics would be necessary before the student underwent the examination for the MA. The doctorate in theology would then take a further seven years, with studies focused closely on the text of the Old and New Testaments.110 The first lecture advertisement we possess for Leiden, dated 1 October 1587, mentioned theology lectures by Hadrian Saravia on Hebrews, Trelcatius on Matthew, Carolus Gallus on Isaiah, in amongst other lectures on law, medicine, Greek, Hebrew, astronomy, Aristotle’s logic, physics, and politics, as well as Lipsius’s lectures on Roman history.111 A printed lecture advertisement dated 1 March 1599 specified that Trelcatius would lecture on loci communes related to the freedom of the will every morning at 8am, and this would be followed at 10am on Mondays and Tuesdays by Franciscus Junius lecturing on Deuteronomy, and on Thursdays and Fridays on Isaiah. Junius would give lectures on Hebrew grammar in the afternoons at 5pm (except Wednesdays).112 As in other universities, exceptionally gifted students could move through this system very quickly: Gisbertus Voetius arrived at Leiden in 1604 and received his MA in 1607; following supervision by Gomarus he received his doctorate in 1611.113 Voetius made good use of Bartholomäus Keckermann’s works while a student: he appears to have read Keckermann’s Systema disciplinae politicae (a version of which is excerpted in this volume) before his MA (though alongside Melanchthon and the Jesuit logicians of the University of Coimbra), and then later compared what he was hearing in Arminius’s theology lectures with Keckermann’s Systema sacrae theologiae.114 This was the structure of Reformed education in theology: academies attempted to provide their students with the basics in just a few years, whereas the universities trained students in logic and philosophy at BA level for three or four years, before a bachelor or doctorate in divinity which took twice as long. The universities of Britain and Ireland fit this latter pattern, though the Scottish universities (Glasgow, Edinburgh, St Andrews, the two colleges at Aberdeen) and Trinity College Dublin (similar to later colonial colleges like Harvard) were more obviously Reformed institutions than Oxford and Cambridge, which varied in confessional atmosphere college by college.115 Lectures were central to the teaching of theology, and those lectures were

110 Guillaume Feugeray, “Accuratissimae simul et expeditissimae institutionis formae in Lugdunensi Batavorum Academia posthac usurpandae Hypotyposis,” in Molhuysen, Bronnen, Bijlagen, pp. 39*–43*. 111 Molhuysen, Bronnen, Bijlagen, pp. 157*–158*. 112 Ibid., pp. 384*–385*. 113 Duker, Gisbertus Voetius, 1:36–38, pp. 75, 122. 114 Ibid., 55–57, 84–85. 115 Tuck, “The institutional setting”; Steven Reid, Humanism and Calvinism: Andrew Melville and the Universities of Scotland (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011); Robert B. McDowell and David A. Webb, Trinity College Dublin 1592–1952: An Academic History (Cambridge University Press, 1982), 3–5.

26 Introduction expositions of loci communes or commentaries on the Bible: the texts which are excerpted below were institutionalized in Europe’s Reformed academies and universities.

The texts excerpted in this volume The aim of this volume is to allow the student access to Latin texts and English translations of Reformed scholastic texts on war and politics beyond the range of what is currently available. Martin Luther’s works, Philip Melanchthon’s Loci Communes, and John Calvin’s Institutes and Harmonia are all available in various English translations. Very many of Peter Martyr Vermigli’s works are available in English, but not the important remarks on warfare from his commentary on Genesis. Vermigli, who taught at Strasbourg, Oxford, and Zurich between the 1540s and 1560s, defended the lawfulness of warfare in a manner very similar to Melanchthon and Calvin: we begin in Chapter 1 with Vermigli’s commentary on Genesis. Our remaining selections range across genre, across Reformed institutions, and from the 1570s to the 1660s. The majority of our extracts come from textbooks composed according to the loci communes style described above; but we also include theological commentaries, tracts composed on particular theological problems (such as the Antichrist) or addressed to particular political problems (the Great Assembly of 1651), and a Latin epic. Our authors worked across Reformed Europe. Lambert Daneau (Chapter 2) lectured at the Genevan Academy, the University of Leiden, and the academy at Béarn between the 1570s and 1590s. Bartholomäus Keckermann (Chapter 3) taught at the University of Heidelberg and the Gdańsk Academy between the 1590s and the first decade of the 1600s. Guillaume du Buc or Bucanus (Chapter 4) taught at the academy at Lausanne in the 1590s. David Pareus (Chapter 5) taught at the University of Heidelberg from the 1580s to his flight from the city as Spanish troops advanced in 1621. Johann Heinrich Alsted (Chapter 6) taught at the academies at Herborn, Siegen, and Gyulafehérvár (now Alba Iulia) in Transylvania from the 1600s to the 1630s. Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf (Chapter 7) taught the children of the noble Moravian Žerotín family between the 1580s and 1590s, he concluded his career at the academy at Basel where he died in 1610. Venceslaus Clemens (Chapter 8), served in Swedish court circles in the 1620s, enrolling at Leiden alongside his student, the son of the Swedish minister Axel Oxenstierna, in 1631. Dudley Fenner (Chapter 9), excluded from mainstream academic life in England, lived between Antwerp, Kent, and Middelburg between the 1570s and 1580s. Gisbertus Voetius (Chapter 10) was probably the most accomplished Reformed theologian working in the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century, teaching at the University of Utrecht from the 1630s to the 1670s. Johannes Hoornbeeck (Chapter 11) taught at Utrecht and Leiden between the 1640s and 1660s.

Introduction  27 Certain key themes can be traced through each of the authors excerpted in this volume. First, a conception of politics not as the life natural to humanity but as a duty imposed on humanity by God animates all of these Reformed writers, from Vermigli, writing in the 1570s, to Hoornbeeck, writing in the 1660s. Daneau’s Three Books on Christian Ethics of 1577 is especially explicit about this re-orientation of ethical and political life. Second, the prince was obliged to use violence to enforce justice both inside and outside his commonwealth, fulfilling his or her duty to protect subjects and neighbours. Vermigli insisted on the duty of the prince to make war in the 1570s, just as Calvin, Melanchthon, and Luther had done before, and this commitment is universal among the authors collected in this volume. Third, when treating the jus ad bellum, the law of going to war, and also the jus in bello, the law that applied during a war, these Reformed authors turn to the Old Testament for their examples of human excellence and obedience to the duties imposed by God. The Old Testament provided not just God’s law itself, but vital case studies of its application and the challenges faced by those who attempted to fulfil their duties. Alsted was especially interested in problems of the jus in bello like the predicament of the soldier who feared that he might be fighting in an unjust war, and the justice or injustice of slavery. Fourth, as Daneau stated bluntly, the Reformed prince was obliged to defend not just the second table of the Decalogue, but also the first, and so wars fought in defence of religion were just; a position hotly seconded by theologians and writers like David Pareus, Polanus von Polansdorf, Clemens, Fenner, Voetius, and Hoornbeeck. However, there are nuances. Keckermann was an important theologian of peace as well as of war: he emphasized that Christians were duty bound by God to obey also those princes who did not adhere to Reformed Protestantism. Fifth, Daneau, du Buc, Alsted, and Hoornbeeck stated explicitly that true religion could not be advanced by force. Nevertheless, Pareus held that war between the Reformed and the Catholics was inevitable due to papal tyranny, and that this war had been foretold in the Book of Revelation. This concept echoes through Clemens’s celebration of Gustavus Adolphus, and Alsted’s contention that blasphemy might justify warfare. Sixth, that God imposed a duty to protect ordinary subjects not just on superior magistrates (the supreme authority in any commonwealth) but also on inferior magistrates (which might mean imperial electors, but might extend even to individual noblemen within a commonwealth) was noted by Keckermann, and emphasized especially by du Buc and Pareus. Our excerpts from these authors have not been presented in chronological order because we wish to expose the differences between authors on these themes, as will become clear from the excerpts themselves and the introductions to each individual author at the start of each chapter. Nevertheless, it is true of all of these theologians and intellectuals that they constructed a conception of politics which included warfare, and their attitudes towards warfare generally remained within the Christian just war tradition.

Editorial note

It was possible, as part of the research project “War and the Supernatural in Early Modern Europe,” to establish a research seminar at Queen’s University Belfast between 2016 and 2020. It was at this seminar that Floris Verhaart presented drafts of his transcriptions and translations of these Reformed authors, which were then subject to comment and discussion by the other members of the project team: Ian Campbell, Todd Rester, Karie Schultz, and later Francesco Quatrini. Scott Dixon, Matthew Bingham, and Harrison Perkins also made valued contributions. There was a strong comparative aspect to this work, as each session began with Verhaart’s presentation of Reformed sources, followed by Rester’s presentation of Catholic, and specifically Franciscan scholastic transcriptions and translations (these will be published in a separate volume). Important as this process was, the transcriptions and translations that follow are pre-eminently the work of Floris Verhaart. The resulting anthology consists of both a transcription of the Latin original and an English translation. The editions used for the transcriptions are mentioned in the introductions to each chapter. Many of the works included went through several editions and care has therefore been taken to compare the texts of these different editions. Where we have decided to diverge from the text of our editions or where interesting textual differences exist, this has been pointed out in footnotes. The page numbers of the original texts have been noted in our transcriptions in square brackets. With regard to spelling conventions in the Latin texts in this volume, our general rule has been to make editorial changes for the sake of clarity in those cases where early modern writers and printers were more or less inconsistent. This has meant that the punctuation has been adapted to modern usage where the original punctuation might impede comprehension (but not otherwise) and that paragraph breaks have been introduced. Furthermore, diacritical marks have been left out and the e caudata (“tailed e,”) has been replaced with ae. However, we have also wanted to offer readers some of the distinctive peculiarities of early modern Latin spelling, when authors or at least their printers were consistent and when retaining the original spelling does not hinder comprehension. Thus, we have retained the use of the long i

Editorial note  29 (j) when preceded by another i (e.g. alijs), as well as the early modern use of v/u (e.g. vtrum). For the same reason, we have retained the consistent use of quur (cur) in the text of Venceslaus Clemens’s Gustavis. Greek and Hebrew quotations can be found in the original alphabet in the Latin text and in transcription with translation in the English version. Paragraph breaks used in the text are part of our editorial interventions to enhance the reader’s understanding of the material; some of these texts were not originally broken into paragraphs. The standard abbreviations employed in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd rev. ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) have been used in this book for references to classical authors and their works. References to patristic sources are accompanied by the volume and page numbers in the Patrologia Latina (PL, 1844–1855) and Patrologia Graeca (PG, 1857–1866) edited and published by Jacques-Paul Migne at Paris.

1 Peter Martyr Vermigli and his Commentary on Genesis

Peter Martyr Vermigli (Lat. Petrus Martyr Vermilius, Florence 1499–­Zurich 1562) was the son of a reasonably well-to-do shoemaker and entered the Augustinian monastery of San Bartolomeo at Fiesole around March 1518. After being ordained and receiving his doctorate in divinity from the University of Padua in 1525, Vermigli pursued a successful ecclesiastical career at Naples and Lucca. During his time in Naples, however, Vermigli came under the influence of the Evangelical thinker Juan de Valdés (c. 1590–1641), under whose guidance he began to embrace key Protestant tenets. The controversy surrounding his drift away from Catholicism ultimately led him to flee from Lucca in 1542 to Basel and then Strasbourg, where he succeeded Wolfgang Capito (1478–1541) as a professor in the study of the Old Testament. Due to the success of Emperor Charles V in the First Schmalkaldic War from 1546 to 1547, Vermigli’s position at the university became more precarious. It was thus fortuitous that Vermigli received an invitation from Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury, to become the regius professor of divinity at Oxford. He was forced to leave the country again in 1553, following Queen Mary’s accession in July of that year, and moved back to Strasbourg. Vermigli’s second stay in this city was marred by the fact that Lutheranism was in the ascendancy, and as a consequence, he accepted an invitation in 1556 to lecture on the Old Testament in Zurich, where he would live and work until his death in 1562. Vermigli is best known for his biblical commentaries, especially on 1–2 Samuel (1564), 1–2 Kings (1566), and Genesis (1569). These works combined close textual analysis and developments of wider topics, such as the form and functions of government, war, providence, and the nature of good and evil. In 1576, these so-called commonplaces or loci communes were published as a separate collection by Robert Masson, French Reformed minister in London. Hugely popular especially in England, the collection became the Reformed counterpart of Philip Melanchthon’s Loci communes (first published in 1521), and went through 14 editions between 1576 and 1656. The importance for Vermigli for Reformed thought in general and for this collection in particular is his role as a key systemizer of Reformed doctrine. Many of the topics and arguments he discussed were picked up and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-2

Peter Martyr Vermigli  31 elaborated by later Reformed authors, such as his insistence that Christians were permitted to wage war (in opposition to the pacifism of the Anabaptist and earlier Lutheran tradition), his observations on the correct way of declaring a war (ius ad bellum), and the fair treatment of enemies in war (ius in bello). Vermigli devoted two loci to war. The first was based on 2 Samuel 2, was translated into English as early as the sixteenth century, and can be found in Robert Kingdon’s anthology of Vermigli’s political writings. The excerpt presented here was an excursus on the basis of Genesis 14, in which Abraham fought against Kedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goyim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar who had captured his nephew Lot. The excursus was based on lectures given at the University of Strasbourg in the 1540s. Vermigli defends three propositions (that war is licit for Christians, that private persons should not start a war themselves, and that wars should have a just cause) before moving on to what he sees as further relevant aspects of violence, such as the use of ambushes and a discussion of biblical passages that seem to explicitly condemn all warfare. The Latin text of the excerpt follows the second edition of the commentary on Genesis: In Primum Librum Mosis, qui vulgo Genesis dicitur, Commentarii doctissimi D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris divinarum literarum in schola Tigurina, nunc denuo in lucem editi (Zurich: Froschauer, 1579), fols 56r-57v.

Suggestions for further reading Donnelly, J. P., Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s Doctrine of Man and Grace. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Kingdon, R. M., ed. The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli. Selected Texts and Commentary. Geneva: Droz, 1980. McNair, Ph., Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. Torrance Kirby, W. J., “Peter Marty Vermigli’s Political Theology and the Elizabethan Church.” In The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain, edited by P. Ha and P. Collinson, 83–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Torrance Kirby, W. J., E. Campi, F. A. James, eds. A Companion to Peter Martyr Vermigli. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009.

Petri Martyris Vermilii, In primum librum Mosis doctissimi commentarii (1579) [56r] De bello

Cum hoc primum nobis bellum occurrat gestum, operae pretium erit videre, utrum pio et Christiano homini bella gerere permittatur. Sit prima propositio, Bellum permittitur: nam Lucae 3 Ioannes docuit milites quo pacto se gerere deberent, ut nullos concuterent, et suis stipendiis contenti essent, neque id illis praecepit ut ab illo desisterent instituto. Deinde ad Romanos dicitur Magistratum et superiorem potestatem gladium gerere, ut Dei ministrum et vindicem illius irae. Quod si ei licet in suos animadvertere si tumultuose agant et turbent pacem publicam, ergo non minus in exteros et hostes, si contra suos indigna moliantur. Ergo ad iustititiam pertinet bellum inferre. Praeterea non semel Deus principibus mandat ut eripiant pauperes et sublevent oppressos, at istud saepe minus fieri potest sine bello, igitur a pietate non est alienum illud inferre. Neque ullus est qui negat benefacere alicui et mederi eius malis, laudabile esse, at bella miseris sunt adiumento, et medentur eorum calamitatibus, ut hoc loco patet cum Lothus est liberatus ac Sodomitae a tyrannica oppressione regum relevati. His adde, in Deuteronomio capite 20 legimus a Deo fuisse latam legem de bello, quo pacto tractari debeat, at de prohibita re quam nullo pacto attingere liceat, Deus non id ageret, ut de ratione versandi in eo aliquid sanciret, quare inter illa debet reponi quae non sunt interdicta verum legitime tractari debent. Extant adhaec patrum exempla qui bella pie gesserunt, uti hic Abramus, Moses, David et innumeri alii. Quod si dicas in novo [56v] instrumento, non leges eiusmodi exempla, facile est respondere, quia Ecclesia quando editi sunt libri Canonici novi testamenti, fuit in ipsis initiis, neque tunc habuit armatum magistratum,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-3

Peter Martyr Vermigli, Commentary on Genesis (1579) [56r] On War

Since this is the first war we have come across, it will be worthwhile to see if it is permitted to the pious and Christian man to wage wars. Let the first proposition be: war is permitted, since in Luke 3 John instructed soldiers how to behave themselves, that they should not strike fear in anyone, and should be content with their pay, and he has not taught them that to abandon this mode of life.1 Next, it is said to the Romans that the magistrate and superior authority carry the sword as God’s helper and avenger of his wrath.2 Now, if it is licit for him to discipline his own people if they create a disturbance and disturb the public peace, then therefore it is just as licit to punish outsiders and enemies, if they act shamefully against his own people. Therefore, ‘waging war’ belongs to justice. In addition, God more often than once commands princes to rescue the poor and raise the oppressed, but often that is less likely to happen without war; therefore, it is not alien to piety to wage it. Nor is there anyone who denies that it is praiseworthy to do a good deed for someone and cure his ills, but wars help the miserable and remedy their injuries, as is apparent from this passage when Lot was liberated and the people of Sodom were freed from tyrannical oppression by their kings.3 Add the following to this. In Deuteronomy Chapter 20, we read that God instituted a law on war, and on the way it should be carried out, but he would not do that in case of something forbidden that could not be engaged in under any circumstances so that he sanctions it with regard to the means of being involved in it. Therefore, war must be ranged among those things, which are not forbidden, but must be dealt with in accordance with the laws. There are prominent examples to this effect of the patriarchs who waged wars in a pious way, as Abraham here, Moses, David, and innumerable others.4 Should you argue that you will not find any such examples in the New [56v] Testament, then it is easy to respond. For when the canonical books of the New Testament were written, the Church was still in its very inception, nor did it have at the time a magistrate with armed forces under whose 1 Luk. 3: 14. 2 Rom. 13: 4. 3 I.e. Gen. 14. 4 See e.g. Num. 31 (Moses) and 1 Chron. 18 (David).

34  De bello quo duce bella posset gerere, postea vero Deo donante illum habuit: verum sub illis incunabulis quando fuit inermis, suas a Deo mirabiles habuit vires, ita ut illis non minus valeret animadvertere in noxios atque nunc legitimo et iusto bello fiat. Nam Paulus Elymam Magum excaecavit, Petrus Ananiam et Sapphiram occidit, et diabolo improbos homines tradebant vexandos. Quod si illis licuit hanc exercere potestatem, tuncque ea fuit in Ecclesia, quid mirum, si ipsa sublata, gladius magistratus eo loco successit? Postremo, cum Evangelium non abstulerit a credentibus cibum, potum, coniugia, usum divitiarum et alia quae faciunt ad nostram conservationem, non minus loco suo permisit bellum esse, sine cuius administratione respublica salva esse non potest, ut diligenter tradit Augustinus epistola 5 ad Marcellinum, et epistola 48. Secunda propositio, Non est privati hominis suscipere bellum, quia is non habet vocationem et ius congregandi aut armandi multitudinem, imo si illud faciat, seditiosus civis habebitur. Neque id officit si dicas, laesus est, vult se tueri aut ulcisci, quia is cum privatus sit, habet magistratus et superiores potestates, ad quas si non velit suis ignoscere hostibus, quemadmodum facere debet saepe qui pius est, potest pro suo iure obtinendo recurrere. Est ergo magistratus bellum decernere et administrare: qui iusta non modo debet consulere, sed illa etiam exequi. Sed obiicies, Abramus hic erat privatus, et nihilominus bellum gessit. Respondemus, Abrahamus iam dominus fuerat designatus a Deo illius regionis, adiunxit praeterea se Mamre, Escol et Aner fratribus, qui cum essent potentissimi, non est existimandum illos ibi nil ditionis habuisse. Postea etiam si quodam singulari privilegio Abramus gessisset bellum privatus, Deo id suadente ac eius spiritu illum ad id impellente, hoc non est eo trahendum, ut ex hoc exemplo τὸ ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ infringamus. Tertia propositio, In bello debet magistratus iustam habere causam, ut scilicet qui oppugnantur mereantur puniri, puta si neglexerint aliquod immane scelus a suis commissum neque ulcisci voluerint, ut inter Israelitas contigit de Beniamitis, aut si hostes per vim et iniuste ablata nolint restituere, propter quod saepe sancti reges Iuda pie bella gesserunt. Deinde ut bona promoveantur, vitia extirpentur, subleventur pii oppressi, et vicissim impii deprimantur. Sed quod in his omnibus est potissimum, ut vindicent divinum cultum ab idololatria, et purum atque incontaminatum, prout ipse Deus statuit, ampliari et dilatari curent. Sed praeter bonam et iustam causam, necesse est ut inferentes bonum habeant propositum, ac sibi scopum vel finem constituant qui bonus sit, nam absque eo, etiamsi iusta esset causa, bellum reprehensibile esse censeretur: Bonum vero illud habetur consilium si iustarum causarum solummodo intuitu, non ob alias rationes bellum suscipiatur. Unde si quis pugnaret et ad id libidine nocendi incitaretur, aut ultionis cupiditate, sive demum ambitione quadam finium

Peter Martyr Vermigli  35 leadership it could wage wars, but later it did have one through the gift of God. However, during that infancy when the Church was unarmed, it had its miraculous forces from God so that through them it could discipline the harmful just as much as happens now through legitimate and just war. For Paul blinded the sorcerer Elymas, Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira and they handed over wicked people to the devil to torture.5 Now if it was licit for them to exercise this power, and this power was part of the Church, then what is so strange if, now that this power has disappeared, the sword of the magistrate has succeeded it in its place? Finally, as the Gospel has not taken away from believers’ food, drink, marriages, the use of riches, and other things that contribute to our preservation, no less has it permitted war to be in its place, for without its aid a state cannot be safe, as Augustine writes emphatically in Epistle 5 to Marcellinus and Epistle 48.6 Second proposition: it is not the task of a private person to take up war, for he does not have the calling and right to bring together or arm a crowd. On the contrary, should he do that, then he will be considered to be a seditious citizen. Nor is it an objection if you say that he has been injured and wants to defend or avenge himself, for since he is a private citizen, he has magistrates and higher authorities, to whom he can turn to obtain his right, should he not want to forgive his enemies, as a pious man must often do. It is therefore the task of the magistrate to decide on and direct a war. He must not only have regard for what is right but also pursue it. ‘But here’, you will object, ‘Abraham was a private citizen and he nevertheless waged a war’. We respond that Abraham in this case had already been designated by God as the lord of that region. In addition, he joined the brothers Escol and Aner in Mamre, and since they were very powerful, it must not be supposed that they had no authority there.7 Furthermore, even if Abraham had waged a war as a private citizen, thanks to some particular privilege, because God urged it and His spirit aroused him to do it, it should not be assumed from this that we should break the general rule on the basis of this example. Third proposition: in a war, the magistrate must have a just cause, namely so that those who are attacked deserve to be punished, for example, if they have neglected some monstrous crime committed by their people and do not want to avenge it, as happened between the Israelites in the case of the Benjaminites, or if enemies do not want to restore goods that have been taken by force and without justice.8 The holy kings of Judah often piously waged wars for this reason. Other just causes for war include the promotion of good things, the rooting out of vices, supporting the oppressed pious, and on the other hand suppressing the impious. But what is most important among all 5 Act. 13: 6–17; Act. 5. 6 Aug. Ep. 138 and 93 respectively in modern editions. Vermigli refers to the second volume of Augustine’s Opera omnia as edited by Erasmus, possibly the edition printed by Froben in 1543. 7 Gen. 14: 13. 8 Judg. 19–20.

36  De bello dilatandorum, is proculdubio damnaretur. Abramus et bonam habuit causam, quando fratrem pium virum liberatum voluit, et sublevatos Sodomitas a regum tyrannide: et consilium sibi proposuit non improbum, quod inde videre licet, quod ubi posset ditari, non acquievit, neque passus est ob suum privatum commodum laedi gloriam Dei. Sed quidam mirantur, cum homo esset Abramus Deo dicatus, propheta, et quodammodo sacerdos, cum non semel Domino sacrificavit, qui fieri potuerit ut cum talem personam gereret, armis iudicarit sibi decernendum? Igitur hoc exemplo poterimus Ecclesiae ministris dare, ut militiam illis exercere liceat. At nos statuimus secus esse, nec ministrorum Ecclesiae consentimus esse ut externis armis pugnent, cum unicuique omnia ea sint munia evitanda quae vocationem suam impedire valeant. At militaris functio ea est quae omne hominis studium et diligentiam ita requirat ut prorsus si militent sacerdotes, illis non vacaturum sit, ut doctrinae, precibus, et disciplinae Ecclesiasticae conservandae instanter incumbant: quare illis a militia omnino temperandum est. Quod Paulus ad Timotheum 2 inquit dum Episcopum institueret, Nemo militans implicat se negotiis vitae, ac si dicat, si qui addicti sunt militari sacramento, nullam debent admittere functionem aliam, cur non magis is qui negotio divini cultus et Ecclesiae est mancipatus? Idem ad Corinthios posteriore capite 10 inquit cum de Episcopis et Ecclesiae ministris loqueretur, arma militiae eorum non esse carnalia sed spiritualia, ut captivarent Domino omnem humanum intellectum, etcetera. Non tamen ob id inficiamur posse divini verbi ministros magistratibus piis interdum suadere iusta bella, nam sacerdotes in veteri lege pugnantibus aderant, clangebant tubis et arcam gestabant. Suadet hoc et ratio efficacissima, nam qui circa aliquem versantur finem, et illa necessario tractare possunt quae ad illum consequendum finem faciunt: at ministrorum est cultum legitimum in Ecclesia Dei ampliare, et veris Dei cultoribus quantum fieri potest bene consulere: hoc vero saepenumero difficulter vel impossibile est ut succedat nisi bello, quod tunc [57r] illos debere consulere non est dubium. At ut manu pugnent id non dabitur. Abramum vero fuisse sacerdotem, non concedimus ex scripturis haberi, nec est firmum argumentum, sacrificavit, ergo sacerdos, cum in lege ipsa licuerit quibusvis hominibus certa offerre sacrificia. Sed quia illum fuisse prophetam et verbi ministrum in Ecclesia sui temporis, negandum minime est, ideo dicemus singulare hoc fuisse privilegium, ut in eo et militaris et Ecclesiastica functio coniungerentur: quod idem nobis erit dicendum si defendere velimus Machabaeorum sacerdotes, et quod a Mose factum legimus cum per se ipsum interfecerit Oggum regem Sihon, et a Samuele qui Agagum occidit regem Amalek, atque illud praeterea factum quo Moses cum Levitis tot millia hominum interfecit qui idololatriam invexerant: non sunt tamen haec facta in exemplum et in legem trahenda, quod vero nos diximus, est ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ, quod semper habet locum, ubi privata inspiratio non fuerit. Verum de forma pugnae quid afferemus, cum Abramus hic legatur non conflixisse iusto praelio, sed ex insidiis hostes invasisse cum suos distribuit

Peter Martyr Vermigli  37 these causes is that they must free divine worship from idolatry and must take care that the pure and undefiled worship as established by God is increased and spread. But apart from a good and just cause, it is necessary that when starting a war, they have a good plan and set a goal or target which is good. For without it, even if the cause were just, war would still be considered to be reprehensible. However, that plan is considered good if a war is started only with an eye to just causes, not for other reasons. Hence, should someone fight and be moved to do so out of an eagerness to harm or a desire for revenge or finally by some ambition to extend his territory, then he would without a doubt be condemned. Abraham had both a good cause, when he wanted his kinsman, a pious man, liberated and the Sodomites freed from the tyranny of their kings and he set himself an honourable plan, which can be observed in the fact that when he could have enriched himself, he did not rest nor allow God’s glory to be harmed because of his own private gain. But some wonder, since Abraham was a man consecrated to God, a prophet and in some way a priest, because he made a sacrifice to the Lord more than once, how it could happen that while he played such a role he judged that he should fight with weapons. Therefore, by this example, we will be able to permit that the ministers of the Church should be able to participate in warfare. However, we declare that it is not so and we do not agree that it is the task of the ministers of the Church to fight with external weapons since for each of them these are duties that ought to be avoided as they could impede their calling. But military duty is such that it requires a man’s every endeavour and diligence so that should priests simply serve as soldiers they will not be free to earnestly apply themselves to learning, prayers, and preserving the discipline of the Church. For this reason, they must completely refrain from warfare. This is what Paul says in his second epistle to Timothy when he instructs the bishop: ‘Nobody serving as a soldier gets entangled in the affairs of life’, and if he proclaims that if some people are bound to a military oath of allegiance, they should not admit another duty, then why not more so he who is committed to the duty of divine worship and the Church?9 He said the same thing in the second epistle to the Corinthians in chapter 10 when he wrote with regard to bishops and ministers of the Church that the weapons of war are not carnal but spiritual so that they take every human thought captive for the Lord, etc.10 Yet, I do not deny for this reason that ministers of the word of God can sometimes persuade pious magistrates to wage just wars, for priests in the Old Testament stood by those who fought, sounded the war-trumpets, and carried the ark. A very powerful reason also convinces us of this, for those who busy themselves with a particular goal can also by necessity deal with those things they do with an eye to reaching that goal. Now, it is the duty of ministers to spread the legitimate worship in God’s Church and tend carefully to the true worshippers of God as much as possible. 9 2 Tim. 2:4 10 2 Cor. 10: 3–6.

38  De bello per diversa loca? Sit ergo haec propositio, Licet in praelio iusto pugnare adversus hostes ex insidiis, quod hoc exemplo docemur, et Iosuae 8 capite ubi Dominus mandavit Iosuae ut ea ratione scilicet ex insidiis bellum committeret. Quod vero vulgo dicitur Hostibus quoque servandam fidem, interpretamur, ut hostibus non mentiamur, neque pacta aut foedera inita infringamus. Sed interim non a nobis exigitur, ut omnia nostra cum verba tum facta hostibus patefaciamus, siquidem multa licet eos celare, quo facilius succedat victoria: neque crimen si id agamus timendum, cum Deus ipse in sacris literis multa caelet impios, nam dicitur a Christo Apostolis, vobis datum est nosse regnum, caeteris vero in parabolis: sanctumque prohibetur canibus dandum, etcetera. Quod ergo Deus impiis facit, si nos agamus, minime sumus reprehendendi. Iustae autem insidiae in hoc sitae sunt, ut quod facimus aut dicimus hostes lateat, ut adoriamur illos insperato, et victoria obtineatur commodius: neque sunt huiusmodi verae fraudes, quae ad iniustitiam pertineant, cum causa sit iusta pugnandi, imo non alia ratione bellum suscipitur nisi ut suo loco iustitia restituatur. At adversus ea quae hactenus constituimus, nonnuli hoc utuntur argumento, Nobis non licet nostras ulcisci iniurias, ergo nec proximorum, quare magistratus non debet ut ulciscatur suos, bellum suscipere. At nos dicimus, qua ratione nobis non permittitur ulcisci nostras iniurias, scilicet privata authoritate, illa eadem nec magistratus movet bellum ut suos ulciscatur,

Peter Martyr Vermigli  39 It is often difficult or impossible for that to happen if not through war, and there is no doubt that [57r] they must then take this into consideration. However, it will not be conceded that they should fight with their own hands. We do not concede that Abraham is considered a priest judging from Scripture, nor is it a strong argument ‘he sacrificed therefore he was a priest’ since in the Old Testament itself it was licit for any man to offer certain sacrifices. But since it must certainly not be denied that he was a prophet and a minister of the word in the Church of his time, we will therefore assert that this was a singular privilege so that in him the military and ecclesiastical duty were combined. And this same thing we must affirm if we want to defend the priests of the Maccabees and what we read was done by Moses when he through his own doing killed King Og at Sihon, and by Samuel who killed King Agag of Amalek, and in addition that deed by which Moses together with the Levites killed so many thousands of people who had introduced idolatry.11 Yet, these deeds should not be turned into an example and a law. As we said above, the general rule always holds true unless there has been private inspiration. However, what shall we assert on the form of the fight, when we read here that Abraham did not fight in a fair battle but attacked his enemies from an ambush as he spread his men across several spots? Let this be the proposition: it is licit in a just battle to fight against enemies from an ambush, which we are taught through this example, and in Chapter 8 of Joshua where the Lord ordered Joshua to commence a war from an ambush.12 We interpret what is generally said, namely that we should keep our word even with enemies, in such a way that we do not lie to our enemies nor break agreements or treaties already entered. But in the meantime we are not required to share everything – both words and deeds – with these enemies since indeed it is licit to keep many things hidden from them in order that a victory may be facilitated. Nor is it to be feared that it is a crime if we do that since God Himself in the Scripture keeps many things hidden from the impious, for Christ says to the Apostles, ‘it has been granted to you to know my kingdom, but to others only in parables’ and it is forbidden to give a sacred thing to the dogs etcetera.13 Therefore, if we do what God does to the impious, we are certainly not to be reproached. A just ambush rests in the fact that what we do and say remains a secret for the enemies so that we may assail them unexpectedly and victory is obtained more easily. Nor is deceit of this kind, which concerns injustice, real deceit, since the cause of fighting is just. In fact, a war is not started for any other reason than for restoring justice to its proper place. However, against these things which we have proclaimed so far, some use this argument: it is not licit for us to avenge injuries done to ourselves, nor therefore to avenge those done to those close to us, for which reason a magistrate must not start a war to avenge his people. But we say, by our private authority we are not permitted to avenge our injuries, nor does the

11 Num. 21: 35; Num. 21: 23–24; 1 Sam. 15: 32–33. 12 Jos. 8: 2. 13 Matt. 13:11; Matt. 7: 6.

40  De bello quia illud non facit privata aliquorum libidine, sed suae publicae potestatis authoritate. Instatur adhuc, Qui nostros laeserunt sunt proximi nobis, ergo amandi, quare contra illos non pugnandum, cum id hostibus fiat non autem illis quos diligimus. Respondemus, Proximi sunt ut dicitis diligendi, verum in Domino, quare in eorum gratiam non debemus Domino adversari, ut aliquid contra eius mandatum et voluntatem committamus. At Dominus praecipit oppressores pauperum, turbatores religionis et publicae pacis, oppugnari et puniri, ergo non est aequum illius optimae legi resistere, praetextu dilectionis nostri proximi. Quibus adde, bellum cum aliquibus posse geri salva cum illis charitate, nam ut emendentur id facimus, ut corrigantur illorum vitia et meliores fiant. Unde misericorditer cum hostibus a piis pugnatur, ut, velint nolint, in eis voluntas Domini locum habeat. Perplexa autem res videtur, Utrum magistratui liceat bellum suscipere non quidem ut sibi subditos tueatur oppressos, verum ut suam dignitatem et locum retineat: quam ambiguitatem nos ita solvimus: Si magistratus est certus se in eum locum a Domino vocatum, ita ut iure sit creatus non vitiata electione, sive ambitu, videt praeterea alios se loco velle deturbare, ut ipsi in populum tyrannidem exerceant, aut impurum Dei cultum invehant, cumque is vere sentiat in sua functione se et publico bono et divinae gloriae studere, non modo pro suo loco tuendo potest, sed tenetur et debet acerrime pugnare, cum tunc non quaerat quae sua sunt sed suorum bonum, et Dei honorem. Neque huic sententiae officit Zedechiae damnatum consilium, quod scilicet cum obsideretur Hierusalem, noluerit se dedere Chaldaeis, qui sciebat se in regnum non iniusto verum haereditario iure successisse, hostesque animadvertebat tyrannos esse, et idolorum cultores, tamen quod non se dederit peccasse dicitur. Sed isti qui haec obiiciunt, debent animadvertere, istum regem impium fuisse: neque ei cordi erat publica utilitas, vel Dei cultus, cum fuerit idololatra. Tantummodo sua quaerebat in ea defensione: audierat praeterea a prophetis maxime a Ieremia ut habetur 38 verbum Domini ut sese dederet, nam ipse et populus iam erant puniendi pro eorum infinitis sceleribus: quare non hic eae fuerunt conditiones quas supra descripsi, cum magistratui sua propria permitteretur defensio. Dictis hoc illud videtur addendum, Omnia prius esse tentanda, nihil non experiendum pro [57v] pace obtinenda citius quam bellum suscipiatur: etiam iniquis conditionibus pax est amplectenda, dum modo pia haberi possit, qua scilicet populus commissus et Dei cultus purus salvi retineantur. Exemplum habemus praeclarum Ezechiae sanctissimi regis, qui a tyranno se invadente, rege Assyriorum, magna vi auri et argenti conatus est pacem

Peter Martyr Vermigli  41 magistrate by his private authority trigger a war to avenge his people, for he does not do so because of anyone’s private fancy but by the authority of his public power. My opponent insists that ‘those who have injured our people are our neighbours and therefore must be loved, for which reason we should not fight against them, since that happens against enemies not those who we hold dear’. I respond, neighbours, as you say, must be held dear, but in the Lord, for which reason we must not oppose the Lord for their sake, so that we would commit something against His command and will. Now the Lord teaches us that oppressors of the poor and disturbers of religion and public peace are to be fought against and punished, therefore it is not equitable to resist His excellent law under the pretext of love for our neighbour. Add to this that war can be waged with some while our love for them remains unharmed, for we do so so that they may be chastized, so that their vices may be corrected and they may become better. For this reason the pious fight with their enemies out of mercy so that – whether they like it or not – God’s will may occur in them. Moreover, it seems an intricate matter whether it is licit for the magistrate to start a war not in order to protect his oppressed subjects, but to hold on to his dignity and place. We resolve this ambiguity as follows. If a magistrate is certain that he has been called to that place by the Lord in such a way that he has been rightfully chosen not through a corrupt election or lobbying and he sees moreover that others want to deprive him of his position so that they themselves may exercise a tyranny over the people or introduce an impure worship of God, and when he truly feels that in his duty he pursues the public good and divine glory, then he is not only allowed to fight for the sake of defending his position, but he is bound and obliged to do so most vehemently, for then he does not have those things in mind that are his own, but the good of his people and the honour of God. Nor does Zedekiah’s doomed plan disprove this opinion, namely that when Jerusalem was besieged he did not want to surrender to the Chaldeans, he who knew he had succeeded to the throne through a just hereditary right and observed that the enemies were tyrants and worshippers of idols, and yet is said to have sinned, since he did not surrender. But those who bring that up must consider that that king was impious and did not have public benefit or the worship of God at heart, since he was an idolater. He only had his own interest in mind in that defence. He had heard furthermore from the prophets – in particular from Jeremiah – as it is considered in Chapter 38 to be the word of the Lord that he surrenders, for he himself and the people were already facing punishment for their infinite sins. For this reason, these were not the conditions in this case which I described above when a defence of himself is permitted to the magistrate. To what has been said, this seems necessary to add: everything must be tried first and nothing must be left untried for [57v] the sake of maintaining peace rather than starting a war. Peace is to be favoured even under unfair conditions, as long as it can be considered a pious peace in which the magistrate’s people and the pure worship of God are kept safe. We have a marvellous example in the very holy king Hezekiah who tried to buy peace

42  De bello redimere, ita ut etiam augustum illud Dei templum expoliaret ornamentis illis quae ipsemet Domino obtulerat. Cumque hac non successisset, precibus egit cum Domino ardentissimis, deinde urbem tutatus est armis, neque illi auxilium Dei defuit. Sunt etiam, ut pax habeatur aut retineatur, multoties nonnullae dissimulandae et obliviscendae iniuriae: neque id abiecto aut degeneri animo adscribetur, cum Caesar a Cicerone praesertim hoc nomine laudetur, quod nullarum rerum praeterquam iniuriarum oblivisceretur. Quod inquit Augustinus ad Marcellinum Epistola 5 vel a vero laudatore dicitur, aut ab adulatore: si a vero laudatore, in Caesare hoc habemus praeclarum exemplum: sin ab adulatore, nihilominus ex Ciceronis sententia intelligimus, qualis esse debuerit praeclarissimi animi princeps. Postremo pugnando modus est servandus, ita ut non agatur res nimia crudelitate, et statim a bello desistatur, cum victi se ad officium velle redire testati fuerint. Quid enim aliud quaeritur in bello gerendo, quam illorum qui vincuntur emendatio? qua adepta, deponendum est bellum, nisi ipsa crudelitate delectemur. Hoc Abramus hic faciundum ostendit, cum recuperata praeda et Lotho, non aliud quaesivit ab hostibus. Si qua in re opus est modo, hic videtur maxime necessarius. Vergilius dicebat: Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos hanc Romani populi laudem fuisse eximiam. Et Deus cum nos punit pro nostris malis meritis, statim a punitione desistit, ubi nos viderit ad se conversos et ex animo resipiscentes. Superest ut quaedam loca in sacris literis interpretemur, quae videntur, nisi bene intellecta fuerint, prorsus bellum interdicere. Matthaei 26 dixit Dominus Petro, Gladium tuum recondas, nam qui gladium sumunt, gladio peribunt. Ergo magistratui minime dicitur, qui non libidine gladium sumit, sed sibi commisso a Domino bene utitur, cum bellum iuste suscipit. Matthei 5 dicitur. Ne resistatis malo: at bello nil aliud conamur, quam vi malo obsistere, quare id non videtur licere. Respondemus, Illa Domini mandata quae in eo sermone legimus, requirunt ut animo simus ita affecti ac parati, ut dum inde proximorum salutem et divinum honorem putamus posse provenire, nullo pacto a nobis detrectari debent, imo promptissime fieri, non tamen exigitur ut si utrumque illud bonum mimime speratur, ut illa semper faciamus: et Christi exemplo de hoc sumus instructi, is enim dum caederetur a ministro pontificis in maxilla, non statim illi alteram

Peter Martyr Vermigli  43 with the great force of gold and silver when he was attacked by a tyrant, the king of the Assyrians, to such an extent that he even stripped that august temple of God of those ornaments he himself had offered to the Lord. When he had not succeeded in this way, he addressed very ardent prayers to the Lord, then protected the city with weapons, nor did he lack the help of God. In order to have peace or preserve it, one must very often conceal and forget some injuries and this must not be ascribed to a despondent or ignoble mind, since Caesar is praised by Cicero on this account in particular that he forgot nothing except injuries. Which, as Augustine wrote to Marcellinus in Epistle 5 [138], is said either by a eulogizer or by a flatterer. If it is said by a true eulogizer, then we have in Caesar this wonderful example; if by a flatterer, then we nevertheless understand from Cicero’s opinion what a wonderful mind the prince should have. Finally, moderation is to be observed when fighting so that the matter is conducted without too much cruelty and one desists from war as soon as the vanquished have made it known that they want to return to their duty. For what else is sought when waging a war than the improvement of those who are defeated? When this has been attained, then the war must be stopped, unless we are to be attracted to cruelty itself. Abraham demonstrates here that this is to be done, when, as soon as he had secured his booty and Lot, asked nothing else from his enemies. If in any matter moderation is needed, then it seems particularly necessary here. Vergil said that Sparing the subdued and vanquishing the proud14 had been the outstanding renown of the Roman people. And God when he punishes us for our bad offences, he immediately desists from punishment when he has seen that we have returned to our senses and repent from the bottom of our hearts. The only thing left to be done is to interpret some places in Scripture, which seem to completely forbid war, unless they have been properly understood. In Matthew 26, the Lord told Peter, ‘Put your sword back in its place, for those who draw the sword will perish by the sword’.15 This is not at all therefore directed to the magistrate who draws his sword not out of passion, but uses the sword entrusted to him by the Lord well, when he starts a war in a just manner. In Matthew 5, it is said, ‘Do not resist an evil man’.16 But in a war we try nothing but oppose evil by force and for that reason it does not seem licit. We respond, those commands of the Lord which we read in that sermon require us to be moved and prepared in our minds in such a way that when we think that the salvation of our neighbours and divine honour can result from this, then under no condition must they be obstructed. In fact, they must take place as soon as possible. Yet, it is not required that we always 14 Ver. Aen. 6. 853. 15 Matt. 26: 52. 16 Matt. 5: 39.

44  De bello exhibuit, imo repressit dicens, Si male loquutus sum, testimonium perhibe de malo, sin bene quid me caedis? Nec minus docemur ita esse a Paulo Actorum 23 cum caesus ab astantibus summo sacerdoti illius iussu, dixit, Percutiet Deus te paries dealbate. Magistratus quando emendationem aliis rationibus sperat, non debet bellum movere, nec illi malo est resistendum si sua tolerantia magis videat Dei honorem et salutem proximorum esse promovendam. Ad Romanos 13 Non vos ulciscentes, sed date locum irae, etcetera. Ibi privatis loquitur, deinde magistratus non libidine ulciscendi incitatur ut arma moveat, sed propter iustitiae conservationem. Nemini reddentes malum pro malo. Dum bellum iustum geritur, non malum pro malo redditur, sed bonum pro malo reponitur, nam illorum qui mala intulerunt salutem quaerimus, ut scilicet corrigantur et emendentur, vel saltem ut amplius peccare non possint, et maius fit illis beneficium quam sit inimicum esurientem pascere et potare sitientem. Eodem capite dicitur, Cum omnibus hominibus pacem habentes. Hanc sententiam interpretantur verba quae antea scribuntur, cum dicit Apostolus, τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν quantum in vobis est: nam supra diximus pium magistratum prius omnia tentaturum esse, quam bellum moveat. Addit praeterea, εἰ δυνατὸν, si possibile est: sed quandoque non est possibile, aut Deo aliter iubente ut tum impii puniantur, aut propter illorum infinitam improbitatem quae augetur in dies dum impunita dimittitur. Quod vero Michae[ae] 4 et Esaiae 2 legitur de Christianismo, futurum esse ut falces conflentur in vomeres et lanceae in ligones, nec gentem se commoturam adversus gentem, ut nulli iam praelium meditentur, non ita dictum intelligimus, ut prorsus e mundo tollantur bella, imo Christus dicit, se non venisse pacem mittere sed gladium. Satis est si inter se Christiani pacem habeant, qui enim vere Christum profitentur, hi inter seipsos pacati sunt. Sed persequutiones et bella gerere vel pati ab externis minime est ab illis remotum. Quod si contendas illa omnino intelligenda, ut sonant, de omnimoda pace, iam non ad priorem sed ad posteriorem Christi adventum referentur.

Peter Martyr Vermigli  45 do those things if either of those two good results is not at all expected.17 We have been instructed in this even by Christ’s example. For when his cheek was struck by the priest’s assistant, he did not immediately present his other one, but rather held back saying, ‘If I said something wrong, then give me testimony of what it was, if I spoke well, then why do you strike me?’18 No less do we learn that it is so from Paul in Acts 23 when he said after he had been struck by the high priest’s servants at his command: ‘God will strike you, you whitewashed wall’.19 When the magistrate hopes for a correction by other means, then he must not start a war, nor must he oppose that evil man if he sees that through his patience God’s honour and the salvation of our neighbours is helped to flourish. In reaction to Romans 13 ‘Avenge not yourselves, but leave room for wrath’ etcetera, there private persons are addressed, and then the magistrate is moved not by a passion for revenge to take up arms, but for the preservation of justice.20 ‘Do not render evil in exchange for evil’.21 When a just war is waged, evil is not rendered in exchange for evil, but good is put in evil’s place, for we seek the salvation of those who have inflicted evil, so that they be corrected and improved, or at least so that they may no longer sin. And this kindness is bigger than it is to feed a hungry enemy and to let him drink when he is thirsty. In the same chapter, it is said, ‘Have peace with all men’.22 The preceding words qualify this phrase, since the Apostle says, to ex humōn ‘as far as it depends on you’, for above we said that the pious magistrate would try everything else before starting a war. The Apostle adds in addition, ei dunaton, ‘if it is possible’, but sometimes it is not possible, either when God commands otherwise, namely that the impious should be punished, or because of their boundless wickedness which grows every day while it is left unpunished. However, what we read with regard to Christianity in Micah 4 and in Isaiah 2, namely that swords will be turned into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks, and that no nation will stir against another, that nobody will contemplate any longer a battle, must not be understood to have been said so that wars would be completely removed from the world.23 In fact, Christ says that he has come not to bring peace but the sword. It is enough if Christians have peace among each other, for those who truly believe in Christ are peaceful among themselves. But carrying out wars or enduring persecutions from strangers are not at all strange to them. But if you contend that those words are entirely to be understood as they sound with regard to peace in all respects, then they will no longer refer to the first but to the second coming of Christ. 17 The two good outcomes are the aforementioned salvation of our neighbours or divine honour. 18 Joh. 18: 23. 19 Act. 23: 3. 20 Rom. 12: 19. 21 Rom. 12: 17. 22 Rom. 12: 18. 23 Mic. 4: 3; Isa. 2: 4.

2 Lambert Daneau on ethics, politics, and the Antichrist

Lambert Daneau (Beaugency-sur-Loire c. 1530 – Castres c. 1590) studied law in Paris, Orléans, and Bourges. In 1560, however, he moved to Geneva and became a Reformed minister, preaching at Gien, to the east of Orléans. The St Bartholomew’s Day massacre forced him to flee France and move back to Geneva in 1572, where he taught theology at the academy. In 1581, he took up the chair of theology in Leiden but left again the following year. An important factor in Daneau’s departure from the United Provinces was what he saw as the failure of the Leiden magistracy to condemn the (too tolerant) views of Cornelis van Braeckel, the city preacher. During the final years of his life, Daneau taught at the academy of Béarn. Like Vermigli before him, Daneau played an important role in the development of a Reformed orthodoxy and the excerpts presented here serve to demonstrate his views on politics. The first excerpt is from the Ethices Christianae Libri Tres (Three Books of Christian Ethics) of 1577 and illustrates the ethical underpinning of Daneau’s political ideas. Daneau argued in this work that the Holy Spirit itself was the direct source of all human knowledge of right and wrong, even among non-Christians, and that ethical doctrines should be based directly on the Decalogue. Daneau’s political views are mostly known to Anglophone readers through the classic article by Anthony Grafton and the late Lisa Jardine, ‘“Studied for action”: How Gabriel Harvey read his Livy’, published in Past and Present in 1990. Grafton and Jardine’s seminal article portrays an English intellectual (Harvey) reading Niccolò Machiavelli, the Florentine humanist and reputed atheist, alongside Daneau, in order to instruct the nobleman Philip Sidney in political activity. The second excerpt presented here contains Daneau’s attack on Machiavelli as well as his views on war and violence. Daneau’s argumentation is first and foremost biblically inspired, but he uses plenty of historical examples, both from antiquity and from his own age. This flows from his aforementioned view that regardless of religious background all ethical knowledge and acts derived straight from the Holy Spirit.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-4

Lambert Daneau  47 The final excerpt – from the Tractatus de Antichristo (1576) – concerns what among the Reformed was a hotly debated issue and case study in the religiously inspired use of violence, namely the application of the Book of Revelation to conflict in their own age. Many Protestants were convinced the pope was the Antichrist, but some went even further and believed the kings referred to in the Book of Revelations were Protestant kings. The Book of Revelation could thus be seen as a mandate for a holy war against the papacy. Daneau argued against such a literal interpretation and believed the fight with Catholic or papal forces should be spiritual rather than physical in nature. As we will see, some of the later German thinkers – e.g. Pareus – were more inclined to accept and defend a more aggressive interpretation of Book of Revelation. The Latin text of the excerpts can be found in Lambert Daneau, Ethices christianae libri tres (Geneva: Vignon, 1579), fol. 1r–3r; 193r–194v; idem, Politices christianae libri septem (Geneva: Vignon, 1596), fol. ¶2r–¶6r; pp. 490–509; 522–530; idem, Tractatvs de Antichristo, recens editus. (Geneva: Vignon, 1576), pp. 141–147.

Suggestions for further reading Félice, P. de, Lambert Daneau (de Baugency-sur-Loire): Pasteur et professeur en théologie (1530–1595). Paris: Fischbacher, 1882; repr. Geneva: Droz, 1971. Fatio, O., Nihil pulchrius ordine. Contribution à l’étude de l’établissement de la discipline ecclésiastique aux Pays-Bas ou Lambert Daneau aux Pays-Bas (1581–1583). Leiden: Brill, 1971. Idem, Méthode et théologie: Lambert Daneau et les débuts de la scolastique réformée. Geneva, 1976. Jardine, L., and A. Grafton, “‘Studied for Action’: How Gabriel Harvey Read his Livy,” Past & Present 129 (1990), 30–78. Ch. Strohm, “Zur Eigenart der frühen calvinistischen Ethik: Beobachtungen am Beispiel des Calvin- Schülers Lambert Daneau,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 90 (1999), 230–254.

Lamberti Danaei Ethices christianae libri tres (1577) [1r] Liber primus

Capvt primum: Ethice quid sit, et vnde haurienda. Qvvm triplex sit Philosophiae pars a Platonicis primum: post autem a Stoicis constituta, vna, quae in naturae obscuritate inuestiganda versatur, quam Graeci φυσικὴν, Latini vero Naturalem apellarunt: altera, quae in moribus hominum recte instituendis, virtutumque praeceptis tradendis tota occupatur, quam ἠθικὴν homines Graeci, Latini Moralem dixerunt: tertia, quae vtrique parti subseruiens viam rationemque assequendae veritatis explicat, quam Graeci et Latini λογικὴν siue Dialecticam communiter nominarunt: illa certe homine, praesertim vero Christiano, maxime digna est, quae in honestae sanctaeque vitae norma praescribenda laborat. Quanquam enim neque naturae rerum cognitio viro Christiano et fideli spernenda est, in qua summa laus propter quam vnam celebrandam homines nati sumus et facti Christiani effulget: neque argumentandi ratiocinandiue scientia praetermitti [1v] a quoquam potest, qui velit breuiter et tuto ad veritatis agnitionem peruenire: tamen haec, quae sancte mores nostros informat, ars et cognitio, magis est quodammodo propria peculiarisue hominum christianam veramque Dei religonem profitentium, quod hi suae vocationis voluntatisque Dei finem sciunt esse vitae sanctificationem, atque puritatem. Illuxit enim gratia, ait Paul. Tit. 2, v.11, illa salutifera omnibus hominibus, erudiens nos, vt abnegata impietate, et mundanis cupiditatibus, temperanter et iuste et pie uiuamus in praesenti seculo. Neque enim ad sacrosancti sui Euangelii cognitionem vocauit nos Deus, vt immundi et moribus turpes, tanquam sues, maneremus: sed vt in vitae sanctitate et iustitia, tanquam filii lucis, incederemus. Itaque Paulus Tessaloni. 4.v.3. & 7. Haec est, ait, voluntas Dei, sanctificatio vestra. Non enim vocauit nos Deus ad impuritatem, sed ad sanctificationem. Quamobrem haec vna philosophiae pars quae ἠθικὴ vocatur, est ab hominibus Christianis maxime ediscenda: si modo sanae et sanctae illius, quam a Deo specialiter consecuti sunt, doctrinae fructum aliquem vel ipsi sentire, vel aliis proferre cupiunt. Huius autem tam salutaris institutionis praecepta neque melius, neque tutius, addo etiam, neque felicius hauriri, quam ex sacro ipsius Dei verbo possunt, imprimisque ex ea illius parte, quae lex Dei siue Decalogus vulgo nominatur, quod in eo precipue Dominus rerum agendarum et fugiendarum praecepta dedit,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-5

Lambert Daneau, Three books on Christian ethics (1577) [1r] Book one

Chapter one: What is ethics and from where should it be derived? The division of philosophy is threefold and was first established by the Platonists and next by the Stoics. The first part, which concerns the search into the secrets of nature, was called phusikē by the Greeks and ‘natural philosophy’ by the Romans. The second one, which is completely taken up with correctly establishing human conduct and the teaching of virtues, was called ēthikē by the Greeks and ‘moral philosophy’ by the Romans. A third part, which is subordinate to the other two and explains the right way to pursue the truth, was named by both the Greeks and Romans logikē or dialectic. That second part of philosophy, which strives after prescribing the norm of a good and holy life, certainly seems most worthy of man, in particular a Christian. For although knowledge of nature, in which the highest praise gleams forth and for the celebration of which alone we were born humans and became Christians, must not be spurned by the Christian and faithful man and the science of arguing and reasoning cannot be passed over [1v] either by anyone who would like to safely and quickly obtain a perception of the truth, yet this discipline – ethics – and knowledge which shapes our conduct in a saintly way is in a certain way more appropriate for and peculiar to those people who profess the Christian and true religion of God, because they know the purpose of their calling and will of God is the sanctification and purity of their lives. St Paul writes in his Epistle to Titus in chapter 2, verse 11: ‘For the grace has dawned that offers salvation to all people, teaching us to live moderately and justly and piously in this present age while rejecting ungodliness and worldly desires’. After all, God has not called us to become acquainted with his sacred gospel so that we might remain dishonourable and repulsive in our conduct like swine, but so that we might proceed in holiness and righteousness of life like children of the light. Therefore, St Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 4, verses 3 and 7: ‘This is the will of God: your sanctification. For God has not called us to impurity, but to sanctification’.

50  Lambert Daneau quemadmodum docet Christus Mat. 19.v.16. Reliquas enim artes Dominus etiam [2r] profanis philosophis liberaliter largiens, hanc vnam sibi retinere, tanquam propriam, videtur voluisse, per quam bonorum et malorum fines, iusti et iniusti discrimen, honesti et inhonesti ratio, sanctitatis et turpitudinis vera definitio et via nobis praescriberetur. Nam quemadmodum solus ipse iustus est et sanctus, solus est omnis fons sanctitatis: sic ipsius voluntas iusta est, et omnis etiam iustitiae regula: sic illius vnius viae omnes sanctae sunt et rectae Psal. 25.v.10. Psal. 14.v.17. hominum autem, quantumuis cordatorum et bene moratorum ratio siue iudicium in rebus honestis et turpibus discernendis et statuendis caecum est, atque etiam voluntas ab honestis appetendis auersa est, et aborret: voluptate, quae est esca malorum, delinita. Ex quo fit, vt neque ex humani ingenii perspicacia et iudicio: neque ex vllius hominis legislatoris, vel philosophi legibus, libris, vel praeceptis haec tam sancta, pura et nobilis scientia haberi possit. Haec enim vel praecipua laus Legi illi diuinae, quae per Mosen Iudaeis data est, passim ab ipsa scriptura tribuitur, quod illa vna quid iustum aut iniustum, quid bonum aut malum sit, vere hominibus ostendit et declarat Mich. 6.v.8. Indicauit tibi, o homo, quid sit bonum, et quid Iehouah abs te requirat. Itaque haec praecepta honorabilia dicuntur Osee. 8.v.12. ac omnium hominum sapientiae et legibus, et merito quidem, praeferuntur. Deut. 4 v.5. Videte (ait legem a Deo promulgatam repetens Moses) docui vos statuta et iudicia, quemadmodum mihi praecepit Iehouah Deus [2v] meus, vt ita faciatis in medio terrae, ad quam vos ingredimini, vt eam possideatis. Custodite ergo, et facite, quia est sapientia vestra, et intelligentia vestra in oculis populorum, qui audient omnia statuta ista, et dicent, vtique populus sapiens, et intelligens, gens magna ista. Et quae est gens ita magna, cui sint statuta et iudicia iusta, sicut est vniuersa lex ista, quam ego do coram vobis hodie? Haec eadem de moribus, et vitae sanctitate praecepta Dei lege tradita et comprehensa dicuntur perfecta, sapientiam afferentia, recta, lucida, et oculos illos quidem non tam corporis quam animi illuminantia, pura et

Lambert Daneau  51 For this reason, this particular part of philosophy which is called ēthikē must be learned most thoroughly, provided that they wish to experience for themselves or raise in others the fruit of the sound and holy teaching that they have obtained specially from God. The commands of these so salutary principles cannot be learned better, safer, or, I would even add, more fruitfully than from the sacred word of God himself, in the first place from that part of His Word, which is commonly called the law of God or the Decalogue, because the Lord prescribes what to do and what to avoid, as Christ teaches in Matthew 19: 16. For, although he freely bestowed the other arts even [2r] to pagan philosophers, he seems to have wanted to retain this one art for himself, through which the limits of good and evil, the distinction between just and unjust, the reckoning of honourable and dishonourable behaviour, the true definition of the path to holiness and infamy were prescribed. Since in the same way as He Himself alone is just and holy and he alone is the full source of holiness, in the same way His will is just and the rule of all justice and the paths of Him alone are all holy and upright according to Psalms 25: 10 and Psalms 14: 17. However, the reckoning or judgement of people, no matter how prudent and well-mannered they are, is blind with regard to distinguishing and determining honourable and dishonourable matters and even their will is averse to and abhors pursuing honourable things and is captivated by pleasure, which is the food of the wicked. It follows that this so holy, pure, and noble knowledge cannot be obtained either from the shrewdness and judgement of human intellect or the laws, books, or commands of any human legislator or philosopher. For this particular praise is bestowed everywhere by Scripture itself to that divine law which via Moses was given to the Jews, namely that that law alone truly shows and reveals what is just or unjust, what good or evil. See Micah 6: 8: ‘He has revealed to you, human, what is good and what Jehovah [2v] requires of you’. Therefore, these commands are called honourable in Hosea 8: 12 and are preferred to the wisdom and laws of all people and rightly so. See Deuteronomy 4: 5: ‘Behold’, says Moses repeating the law made known by God, I have taught you the statutes and judgments, as my God Jehovah has commanded them to me, so that you may act thus in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them therefore and put them into practice, because it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the peoples who will listen to all those decrees and will say ‘surely that great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ And what is that nation that is so great which has just statutes and judgments, such as that universal law, which I give before you today. These same commands about conduct and holiness of life, handed down and comprised in God’s law, are said to be perfect, to give wisdom, to be just and brilliant and to open the eyes not so much of the body but of the

52  Lambert Daneau ­ esiderabilia prae auro et argento Psal. 19. Quorum etiam pulcherrimae et d verissimae laudes toto Psalmo 119. a Dauide copiose concinuntur, vt tutissimam et plenissimam Ethices philosophiae cognitionem inde nobis hauriendam ac accipiendam esse dubitare iam non possimus. Quod enim de lege XII. tabularum scripsit M. Tullius, longe aequiore ratione ad diuinam legem transfertur, fremant omnes licet (dicam quod sentio) bibliothecas omnium philosophorum vnus mihi videtur decem praeceptorum Dei libellus, si quis legum fontes, et capita viderit, et authoritatis pondere, vtilitatis vbertate superare. Quanquam autem per vniuersum Dei verbum ethices Christianae doctrina latissime diffusa est, tamen in lege Dei, quae a veteribus et Graecis Christianis ἠθικὴ siue φυσικὴ dicta, et a ceremoniali (quae ἱερατικὴ ab iisdem vocatur) itemque a iudiciali (quam πολιτικὴν nominant) distinguitur, decemque tantum praeceptis constat, tota haec cognitio continetur. [3r] Est autem ethice Christiana, qualem hic querimus, qualisque Dei verbo comprehensa est, tum internae, tum externae nostrae sanctitatis id est totius vitae nostrae reformationis, qualis esse debet, plena perfectaque institutio et doctrina. Vere enim Lactant. lib. 6. cap. 5. idque partim ex Aristotele partim ex Cicerone sumens. Sicut virtus non est, ait, bonum aut malum scire, ita virtus est, bonum facere, malum non facere. Et tamen scientia sic cum virtute coniuncta est, vt scientia praecedat virtutem: virtus sequatur scientiam, quia nihil prodest cognitio nisi et actio subsequatur. Aristot. lib. 2. ἠθικ. cap. 2. eodem modo ἡ παροῦσα πραγματεία οὐ θεωρίας ἕνεκα ἐστιν, ὥσπερ αἱ ἄλλαι. Οὐ γὰρ ἵν’ εἰδῶμεν τί ἐστιν ἡ ἀρετὴ, σκεπτόμεθα, ἀλλ’ ἵν’ ἀγαθοὶ γενώμεθα. Ergo tota ad actionem refertur. Nostra igitur definitio quam sit vera tum ex Lactantio et Aristotele, tum ex sequenti disputatione luculenter apparebit. Hanc enim scientiam in affectionibus et actionibus,

Lambert Daneau  53 soul, and to be pure and more desirable than gold and silver in Psalm 19.1 Very beautiful and true praise of these commands is eloquently celebrated in song by David in the whole of Psalm 119 so that we can no longer doubt that the safest and fullest knowledge of the philosophy of ethics must be derived and accepted from these commands. What Cicero wrote about the Law of the Twelve Tables is brought to bear on God’s law in a much more equitable fashion: Though they may all roar, I will say what I feel: if anyone looks to the sources and origins of the laws, then to me God’s little book of the ten commandments on its own seems to surpass the libraries of all philosophers both in weight of authority and plenitude of usefulness.2 Moreover, although the doctrine of Christian ethics is very widely diffused across the entire word of God, all this knowledge, which was called ēthikē or phusikē by the ancient and Greek Christians and is distinguished from ceremonial learning (which they call hieratikē [sacerdotal]) as well as from judicial learning (which they name politikē) and is only comprised in the Ten Commandments, is nevertheless contained in God’s law. [3r] However, Christian ethics as considered here and comprised in God’s word, is the full and perfect instruction and doctrine of both our internal and external holiness that is of a reformation of our whole life, as it must be. For Lactantius, building partly on Aristotle and partly on Cicero says correctly in book 6, chapter 5: As the knowing of good and evil is not virtue, so the doing of that which is good and the abstaining from evil is virtue. And yet knowledge is so united with virtue, that knowledge precedes virtue, and virtue follows knowledge, because knowledge is of no avail unless action follows it.3 Likewise, Aristotle writes in book 2, chapter 2 of his Nicomachean Ethics: ‘The present branch of philosophy is not entirely theoretical, like the others. For we do not look at it in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good people’.4 Therefore, it is completely made to bear on action. Therefore, how true our definition derived from Lactantius and Aristotle is will then become splendidly apparent from the following treatise. For it is certain that this science is entirely to do with moderating our passions and

1 Ps. 19:7–10. 2 A playful adaptation of Cic. de Orat. 1.195, in which Cicero had indeed written the same about the Twelve Tables, which was one of the first Roman codes of law (450–449 BCE). 3 Lact. Div. Instit. 6.5 (PL vol. 6, col. 651). 4 Arist. Nic. Eth. 1103b26–30.

54  Lambert Daneau πάθη καὶ πράξεις1 vocat Aristoteles, nostris moderandis, id est, in finibus nostrarum actionum regendis totam versari certum est. ********************** Liber secundus Caput tertium decimum: Sexti diuinae Legis praecepti, quod est, Non occides, explicatio. [193r] Veniamus ad magistratus, de quibus quaeritur, vtrum ad eos hoc praeceptum pertineat. Iulianus Apostata putauit, vim autoritatemque magistratus prorsus per Euangelium sublatam, ex eo quod scriptum est Matth. 5. ver. 39. et in historia ecclesiastica eius dictum extat, et cauillatio sententiae Christi. Sed Paulus respondit magistratui datum esse a Domino gladii vsum ad coërcitionem improborum, Rom. 13. Sic omnes quoque interpretantur et sentiunt. Augustinus variis in locis, sed libro 1. De ciuitate Dei, cap. 22. Ruffi. in Symbo. Occidere hominem non semper criminosum est, sed malitia, non legibus occidere criminosum, sic in illo Pauli loco omnes interpretes, Rom. 13. 1. Timoth. 2. adeo vt cum magistratus potestate gladii ex legibus vtitur, Deus ipse ea vti videatur, non homo quidam mortalis. [193v] Habent autem magistratus eam gladii potestatem, vt eam exerceant et • •

domi foris • in • haereticos, qui res diuinas corrumpunt. • sceleratos, qui ciuium pacem inter priuatos turbant, quales seditiosi, homicidae, etcetera. Aduersus extraneos etiam hostes in bellis iustis et legitimis eandem habent gladii potestatem. Ac quidem in haereticos, quemadmodum facile demonstrari potest ex Deuter. 18. vers. 20. 1. Reg. 18. vers. 40. 2. Reg. 10. vers. 21. Ratio est, cum sit magistratus custos vtriusque tabulae, ad eum pertinet non modo furta et homicidia punire: sed etiam blasphemias, quarum maxima est haeresis. Et

1 1577: παθηκαὶ πράξεις.

Lambert Daneau  55 5

actions – Aristotle refers to pathē kai praxeis [passions and actions] – that is, with governing the ends of our actions.6 ********************** Book two Chapter thirteen: Explanation of the sixth commandment of God’s law, namely ‘Thou shalt not kill’ [193r] Let’s move on to the magistrates, about whom it is asked if this commandment concerns them. Julian the Apostate believed that the use of force and authority of the magistrate had been completely taken away by the Gospel, based on what is written in Matthew 5: 39 and this utterance of his is extant in the Ecclesiastical History, as well as his scoffing of Christ’s meaning.7 Paul, however, wrote that the use of the sword has been given to the magistrate by the Lord to restrain the wicked in Romans 13. This is also how all interpret and understand this place. See Augustine in various places, but particularly in The City of God book 1, chapter 22; and see Rufinus in his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed.8 To kill a human being is not always reproachful, but a deed of violence. However, not to kill in accordance with the laws is always reproachful. This is what all interpreters have said on that particular place of St Paul in Romans 13 and 1 Timothy 2 to the extent that although the magistrate uses the authority of the sword based on the laws, actually God Himself seems to make use of this authority, not some mortal human being. [193v] Moreover, magistrates have the authority of the sword to exercise it both • •

at home abroad • against • heretics who corrupt divine matters • criminals who disturb the peace among private persons, such as troublemakers, murderers, etcetera.

Against foreign enemies they also have the same authority of the sword in just and legitimate wars. Likewise, against heretics this authority may be used, as can easily be demonstrated on the basis of Deuteronomy 18: 20, 1 Kings 18: 40, and 2 Kings 10: 21. The reason is that, because the magistrate is keeper of both tables of the law, it is his task to punish not only thefts and murders, but 5 The 1577 edition reads παθηκαὶ πράξεις for πάθη καὶ πράξεις. 6 Arist. Nic. Eth. 1109b30. 7 Jul. Apost. Against the Galileans 2.12. 8 Rufinus, Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum 40.

56  Lambert Daneau Paulus ad curam magistratus refert, non modo morum et vitae σεμνότητα, id est, honestatem, sed etiam εὐσέβειαν, id est, pietatem. Sentit nobiscum Augustinus in epistola ad Bonifacium quanquam prius improbaret hanc sententiam de puniendis a magistratu haereticis, quod ea ratione viam poenitentiae praecludi existimaret, vt conquerebantur Donatistae: sed eam suam sententiam postea, vt ipse docet, retractauit fortioribus argumentis victus. Ergo ait Thomas in 2 secund. quaest. 11. Quoad sententiae mutationem semper sunt recipiendi et tolerandi: non autem quoad bona aut vitam semper. De sceleratibus ciuibus qui pacem inter priuatos violant, extant apertissima dicta scripturae. Matth. 5. versu 25. Rom. 13. et 1. Timoth. 2.1. Petr. 2. De externis hostibus, etiam extat testimonium [194r] scripturae, datum esse ius magistratui ad hostes patriae vlciscendos atque coercendos bello. Deut. 20. exemplo Mosis, Iosue, Saulis, Dauidis et aliorum regum Iudae, et dicuntur iusta bella, Domini bella 2. Chron. 20. v. 16. Nam Deus dicitur Dominus exercituum passim in scriptura, itemque Iehoua Deus militiae. Exod. 15. versu 3. Falsa enim est illa Marcionis sententia qui putat noua lege, id est, Euangelio bella damnari, neque licere Christianis hominibus militare, quia dixit Christus Petro, Reconde gladium tuum in vaginam. Ioan.18. Ad Marcionitas inclinasse videtur Tertullianus in libro de idololatria. De Lactantio etiam quidam dubitant propter libri 5 capita 19, et 22.2 De qua re extant multa patrum dicta in contrariam sententiam, veluti Heb.11.vers.33. August. lib.1.cap.22.et lib.19.cap.7. De ciuitate Dei. In quaest. In Iob. Ambros. In Luc.3. et Christiani sub Marco Antonino Philosopho aduersus Macronnanos militarunt, vt refert Euseb. histor. Eccles. lib.5.cap.5. De quo ipso argumento vide 23.quaest.2. per totum in Decretis. Thomam in 2.2ae quaest. 40.

2 ‘Ad Marcionitas… et 22.’ Added in second (1579) and subsquent editions.

Lambert Daneau  57 also blasphemies, the biggest of which is heresy. Paul, too, ranges not just the semnotēta, that is the integrity of morals and life among the concerns of the magistrate, but also eusebeia, that is godliness. Augustine shares our sentiment in an epistle to Boniface, although earlier he rejected this way of thinking about the punishment of heretics by the magistrate, because he reckoned that it shut off the path of penitence, as the Donatists deplored.9 However, later on, he revised this view of his, as he himself writes, convinced by stronger arguments.10 Therefore, Thomas Aquinas in part 2-2, question 11 of the Summa theologiae argues that with regard to their change of views those who revert from heresy should be welcomed back and tolerated, but not always with regard to their goods and life.11 There are very explicit passages in Scripture on wicked citizens who violate the peace among private persons, namely Matthew 5: 25, Romans 13, 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Peter 2. With regard to foreign enemies there is the explicit testimony [194r] of Scripture that the magistrate is entitled to punish and restrain the enemies of the fatherland by means of war in Deuteronomy 20, following the example of Moses, Joshua, Saul, David, and other kings of Juda and just wars are called the wars of the Lord in 2 Chronicles 20: 16. God is called Lord of the armies all over the Bible and likewise Jehovah is called God of military courage in Exodus 15: 3. For false is that well-known opinion of Marcion’s, who claims that wars are condemned according to the new law, that is, the Gospel, because Christ said to Peter ‘put your sword back in its place’ in John 18.12 Tertullian seems to have an inclination to Marcionism in his book on idolatry. Some even have doubts about Lactantius because of Chapters 19 and 22 of book 5 of the Divine Institutes.13 There are many remarks of 9 A group of Christian schismatics in North Africa during the fourth and fifth centuries. 10 Aug. Epist. 185 (PL vol. 33, 792–815). 11 Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Part 2-2, question 11, article 4 (Should those who revert from heresy be welcomed back by the Church in all cases?). The distinction referred to and its consequences are as follows. Aquinas discusses the acceptance of former heretics as an act of charity or willing good for one’s neighbour. He makes a distinction between the spiritual good, i.e. the salvation of the soul, and the temporal good, which includes bodily life and worldly possessions. We are bound by charity to will the spiritual good for others, but not necessarily the temporal good. If reverting heretics were always welcomed back without facing any consequences regarding their temporal goods and life, then this might be an incentive for others to relapse into heresy and thus jeopardize their spiritual good. Aquinas therefore argues that in the interest of this greater spiritual good those who fall into heresy once and then repent should be welcomed back in the Church and that their lives should be spared. However, those who have relapsed into heresy and return to the Church afterwards should be welcomed back to repentance, but should nevertheless face the consequences of their former heresy with regard to their life and worldly goods. 12 Jhn 18:11. Marcionism, originated with Marcion of Sinope (c. 85 – c. 160), was an early Christian belief system, according to which the New Testament was incompatible with the Old Testament. According to Marcionites, any examples of wars in the Old Testament were therefore invalid in theological debates. 13 ‘Ad Marcionitas … et 22’. Added in second (1579) and subsequent editions.

58  Lambert Daneau et P. Martyr in 2. Samuel cap. 2. Ergo iusta bella concessa sunt. Sunt autem iusta, non omnia quae necessaria, vt ethnici putant, sed quae ex Dei verbo suscipiuntur, et a quibus oportet. Nam illa T. Liuii sententia non vsqueadeo vera est, iustum bellum esse quibus necessarium, nec nisi in armis spes posita: omnes autem belli actiones eadem iustitia, ait Augustinus, qua et bellum valent, probandae sunt, et teguntur quoad ipsum bellum: non autem quoad singulorum belligerantium animum. De qua re [194v] vide Augu. Lib. 22. Contra Faust. Cap. 74 75. Reum regem facit iniquitas imperandi: innocentem autem militem ostendit ordo seruiendi, ait ibidem Augustinus. ****************

Lamberti Danaei Politices christianae libri septem (1596) [¶2r] Ad lectorem benevolum Ne mireris, optime lector, quod in colligendis iis aphorismis politicis (quos ex profanis scriptoribus, velut flores suauissimos tamen decerpsimus) paucos historicos selegimus, multos autem tum Latinos, tum Graecos omisimus, et eos alioqui laudatos, velut ex Graecis Dionysium Halicarnasseum, Diodorum Siculum, Appianum: ex Latinis autem, Iulium Caesarem, Iustinum Historicum, Orosium: ex oratoribus etiam Demosthenem. Haec enim caussa fuit, quod qui aphorismi ex istis colligi videbantur posse, vel cum his nostris consentiant, vel [¶2v] peculiarem, et vnam duntaxat praelii committendi rationem explicant: vel vnius gentis oppida, et originem describunt. Quae res nostro huic proposito (quod est generalia reipublicae

Lambert Daneau  59 Church Fathers to the contrary, such as in Hebrews 11: 33, Augustine in book 1, Chapter 22, and book 19, Chapter 7 of The City of God, Questions on the Heptateuch, and Ambrose in his commentary on the gospel according to St Luke.14 Christians also served as soldiers under the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius against the Marcomanni, as Eusebius recounts in book 5, chapter 5, of his Ecclesiastical history. On this argument itself see Gratian’s Decretum, part 2, cause 23, question 2 in its entirety, Thomas Aquinas in the Summa theologiae part 2-2, question 40 and Peter Martyr on 2 Samuel 2.15 Just wars are therefore permitted. Not all necessary wars, however, are just, as the pagans believe, but those that are started in accordance with God’s word, and by those to whom it has been permitted. For Livy’s point of view that all wars are just for whom they are necessary and that there is no hope except in arms is not entirely true.16 Moreover, all actions in war must be approved by the same conformance to divine laws, says Augustine, with which they justify a war and these actions are covered with regard to the war itself, not the souls of the individual soldiers. See on this matter [194v] Augustine Against Faustus book 22, Chapters 74 and 75. The harshness of the command makes the king guilty, while the order to obey acquits the soldier, says Augustine in the same place. *****************

Lambert Daneau, Seven books on Christian politics [¶2r] To the respectful reader You must not be surprised, most excellent reader, that I have selected few historians in my collection of those aphorisms on politics that I have nevertheless gathered from the works of pagan historians like very sweet-smelling flowers. Moreover, I have omitted many Latin as well as Greek authors, including those that are otherwise highly respected, such Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Siculus, and Appian of Alexandria from among the Greeks and Julius Caesar, Justin the historian, and Orosius from among the Latin authors. I have even omitted Demosthenes from among the orators. The reason was that the aphorisms that seemingly could be gathered from these authors – for the obvious reason that they are in agreement with our 14 Aug. Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 6.10 (PL vol. 34, col 781): We tend to define those wars as just that avenge injuries, if the nation or city, which is to be attacked in war, has either failed to punish any wrongdoings by its people or to return what has been unjustly taken. Ambrose, Commentary 3.25 (PL vol. 15, col. 599). 15 Decretum Gratiani c. 5. C.23. q. 2. 16 Liv. 9.1.10.

60  Lambert Daneau bene gerendae praecepta tradere) haudquaquam satis certe quidem quadrabat. Itaque qui praecipui, et optimi istorum praeceptorum mihi autores visi sunt, habes a me excussos, et pene suis omnibus in eo opibus spoliatos, vt hoc meum opus et tibi munus ornarem et ditarem. Caeterum Machiauelli scripta omnia hic negleximus, quae tamen perplurimi ex iis, qui ad reipublicae gubernacula hodie sedent, probant, et sequuntur. Verum id nos duplici de causa fecimus. Primum, quod eaedem illae Machiauellicae regulae politicae, iampridem confutatae ab anonymo quodam, verum disertissimo [¶3r] eruditissimoque viro perpulchre videntur. Itaque quod ipsa ratio, disputatioque contraria falsum esse commonstrauit, minime pro vero fuit a nobis hic cuiquam suggerendum, ac proponendum. Deinde tristissimi et plane tragici exitus, et naufragia eorum, qui huiusmodi Machiauelli praecepta, tanquam suam in regenda republica Cynosuram sequuti sunt, illa, inquam, eorum naufragia, reddunt totam illorum praeceptorum collectionem, velut formidabilem scopulorum occursum detestandam, ac infamem. Nam vt ex infinitis eorum exemplis pauca, et quidem dicis gratia, deligam, vel vnius Caesaris Borgiae exitus foedissimus ostendit, quam sit funesta omnibus rempublicam gerentibus istius Machiauelli doctrina, et praeceptio. Et quidem minime dubium est, quin Caesar Borgia Alexandri VI. pontificis Romani filius amplexus [¶3v] fuerit, imo pro oraculis habuerit Machiauelli istius dogmata politica: quin vero ipsemet Machiauellus, quum illum principem suum eximium formaret, habuit ante oculos Borgiam ipsum, velut absolutissimam illius principis sui tabellam, ac ideam: adeo si cui bene foeliciterque vnquam Machiauellica politia cedere debuit, vnum maxime hunc Borgiam tanquam perfectissimum, et ipsissimum illius exemplar esse foelicissimum oportuerit. Verum quid accidit? Secius omnino, quam omnes fortasse mortales Machiauellicorum scriptorum amantes vellent, aut existimarent. Omnium enim hominum infoelicissimus infortunatissimusque tandem extitit Caesar ille Borgia. Quid enim? Vrbinatem ducatum, (quae est minima quaedam Italiae portio, et dignitas occupatu facillima) Borgia iste, et tamen per infinita scelera, solum inuasit, vix occupatum retinet, idque [¶4r] etiam ad paucos duntaxat annos. Tandem ex eo ipso ducato, imo ex tota Italia eiectus, inuisus generi ipsi humano, et velut hominum ἀλάστωρ ex hominum consortio exclusus, in culina regis Arragoniae miser exul, mendicus, latitans diu iure culinario3 offaque rancida, velut in foedissimo, spurcissimoque carcere, victitat: ac tandem illic inglorius, exosus, hominum omnium vocibus allatratus infoelicem animam proiicit et efflat. Hic principis Machiauellici tristissimus exitus fuit. Haec autem de

3 1596: culniario.

Lambert Daneau  61 own views presented in this volume – either [¶2v] explained a particular and just a single reason to engage in a specific battle or describe the settlements and origin of one nation. This fact does not suit our present purpose at all, which is to teach general precepts on the proper running of a state. You have here provided in print by me, therefore, those that seemed to me to be the outstanding and best authors of those precepts, stripped of almost all their riches for this work so that I could adorn and enrich this work of mine and gift to you. By the way, I have ignored all of Machiavelli’s writings, despite the fact that very many of those who hold the reins of government today approve of these works and follow them. I have done this for two reasons. First, because those same Machiavellian political rules seem to have been splendidly refuted long ago by an anonymous, but very well-spoken [¶3r] and erudite man.17 Therefore, what reason itself and a hostile disputation have shown to be false must not at all be suggested and proposed by us here to someone as true. Secondly, the very sad and most tragic end and ruin of those who followed Machiavelli’s precepts of this kind as their polar star when ruling over a state, that ruin, I say, makes the collection of those precepts detestable and infamous like a terrible reef. For to take a few examples for form’s sake the very abominable end of Cesare Borgia alone shows how pernicious the doctrine and precept of that detestable Machiavelli is for those who run a state. And there is certainly very little doubt that Cesare Borgia, son of pope Alexander VI, embraced [¶3v] the political dogmas of that detestable Machiavelli, nay even held them for divine pronouncements, and that Machiavelli, when he shaped that extraordinary prince of his, had Borgia himself in mind as the most absolute picture and idea of that prince of his, so much so that if for anyone the Machiavellian state should ever have succeeded with a good and happy outcome, then Cesare Borgia as its most perfect and exact example ought to have been very happy. But what happened? Something completely different than perhaps all mortal admirers of Machiavelli’s writings would like or reckon. For that famous Cesare Borgia stood out as the most unhappy and unfortunate in the end of all people. What occurred after all? Borgia only invaded, and yet through countless crimes, the duchy of Urbino, and once occupied only just held onto it, which is a very small part of Italy, and a very easy rank to achieve, and that [¶4r] only for a few years. Finally, after he had been thrown out of the duchy itself and from the whole of Italy, hated among the human race and excluded like an evil spirit of men from the society of men, as a miserable exile in the kitchen18 of the king of Aragon, a beggar, hiding for a long time he subsisted on rancid morsels in accordance with kitchen right, as it were in a very foul and filthy dungeon.

17 A reference to the Anti-Machiavel by Innocent Gentillet (1535–1588), first published in 1576. 18 In the Latin text, the 1596 edition reads culniario for culinario.

62  Lambert Daneau Caesare Borgia cum ego ante annos septem, et sensissem et scripsissem, repperi postea dominum Lanoyum generosum ac nobilem Gallum eadem mecum de Borgia fateri in secundo sermone seu capite politicarum ac militarium disputationum suarum. Atque hunc ipsum a Machiauello et eius praeceptis miserrime deceptum fatetur in Politicis [¶4v] Iustus Lipsius, vir mihi amicissimus. Alterum tragici4 Machiauellicorum consiliorum exitus, exemplum est in Ludouico Sforcia. Hic enim fuit in istis praeceptis apprime institutus, ac solerter ea omnia ad vnguem obseruans, tandem Mediolanensem ducatum, sed magna cum perfidia, vsurpauit, et ad tempus tenuit. Verum ex eo postea Gallorum armis depulsus vna cum uxore in arce Lochiana in Gallia diu miser et captiuus vixit, et consenuit, et in eadem cum suis illis praeceptis Machiauellicis mortuus, ac sepultus iacet. Sic nempe Deus vlciscitur, et quidem, omnes eos qui humanae mentis reliquam lucem quantum in se est extinguentes, et veritatem ipsam Dei in iniustitia detinentes, praecepta politica omnibus aequitatis, moderationis, virtutis legibus, humanitati denique ipsi contraria scribunt, et comminiscuntur. Quo [¶5r] magis recentiorum quorundam autorum iudicium requiro, qui in suis scriptis politicis Machiauellum (quem etiam Maculonum Italum vocant) eiusque consilia in principe formando probant. Mirarer magis eosque ratione aliqua

4 1596: traiici.

Lambert Daneau  63 In the end, he gave up the unhappy ghost and died there inglorious, hated, barked at by the voices of all men.19 This was the very sad end of the Machiavellian prince. Moreover, while I had both noticed and written down these observations about Cesare Borgia seven years ago, I later found that the seigneur de la Noue, the eminent and noble Frenchman has claimed the same things about Borgia in the second discourse or chapter of his political and military disputations.20 Justus Lipsius, a very good friend of mine also acknowledges that he himself [¶4v] had been most miserably deceived by Machiavelli and his precepts. Another example of a tragic21 end caused by Machiavellian judgements is Ludovico Sforza. For he was educated in those precepts to the highest degree and, while observing them all skilfully and perfectly, he finally usurped the duchy of Milan – but with much ­treachery – and controlled it for some time. However, after he had been removed from power by the French forces he lived as a miserable captive in the castle of Loches in France with his wife for a long time and grew old there and he died and lies buried in the same castle together with those Machiavellian precepts of his. Without doubt this is how God takes on all those too who, while extinguishing all the light of human conscience left inside them and detaining God’s truth itself in injustice, write down and contrive political precepts contrary to all laws of equity, moderation, virtue, and ultimately contrary to human nature itself. All the more, [¶5r] do I question the judgement of some more recent authors who approve of Machiavelli – who even they call the Italian reprobate – and his recommendations for the fashioning of a prince in their political writings.22 All the more would I wonder and

19 Borgia did indeed die in exile in Spain, but was in fact killed in a minor skirmish when he served as commander in the army of King John III of Navarre. 20 François de la Noue (1531–1591), a Huguenot captain who fought in the French Wars of Religion and Dutch Revolt. His Discours politiques et militaires were first published in Basel in 1587: Cestui-ci [i.e. Cesare Borgia] remplit l’Italie de sang et de vices, et ne trouua que trop de satellites et adherans pour lui assister. Certainement vn homme n’eust eu gueres de jugement, et encores moins de vertu, qui eust voulu aller viure das cette concorde tyrannique. (Discours, second edition (Basel: Forest, 1588), 64–65) 21 In the Latin text, the 1596 edition reads traiici for tragici. 22 Reference to a passage in the first edition of Lipsius’s Politica IV.13: ‘Ab illo facile obtinebimus, nec Maculonum Italum tam districte damnandum: (qui miser a qua non manu hodie vapulat?) et esse quamdam, ut vir sanctus ait, καλὴν καὶ ἐπαινετὴν πανουργίαν: honestam atque laudabilem calliditatem’. [‘From him [i.e. a prince who sometimes deceives] we shall easily learn that both the Italian reprobate must not be so categorically condemned (whose hand is not flogging the poor man these days?), and there is a certain, as a holy man puts it, honourable and praiseworthy cunning. [Basil. Hom. in Prov. vol. 31, 412]’. [Justus Lipsius, Politica. Six Books of Politics or Political Instruction. Edited, with translation and introduction by Jan Waszink (Assen, 2004), p. 511]. After the publication of the first edition of the Politica in 1589, Lipsius saw himself forced by church authorities to take a stricter

64  Lambert Daneau niti existimarem, nisi scriptores iidem isti mendacia, et fraudes partem esse prudentiae politicae nobis suadere conarentur, eaque principes, bona conscientia, vti posse scriberent. Verum iam pridem illud verum esse quaeuis mundi aetas experitur, quod sapientissime scriptum reliquit Aristoteles, et ex Aristotele tum Diodorus Siculus, tum noster Comminius, videlicet tyrannorum, et eorum omnium (qui saeuis in gubernanda hominum societate consiliis vtuntur) familiam totam, aut vix vnquam, aut nunquam ad annos vsque centum viginti in eo imperio permanere: sed vel a Deo deleri: vel a subditis de huiusmodi [¶5v] gradu foede deturbari. Denique quod in his nostris aphorismis nonnulli fortassis extabunt, qui animos hominum ad tyrannidem informare videbuntur, id nobis minime vitio verti debet. Nec enim illos ea mente collegimus, sed vt doceremus quomodo tyrannica ingenia, eorumque artes, et astus deprehendi possent, vt ab iis homines patriae amantes mature sibi cauerent, atque huiusmodi technis prudenter occurrerent. Sic medici de venenorum natura scribunt: sic dialectici sophistarum gryphos tradunt: non quod istas corruptelas probent illi, sed vt damnent, et quomodo a nobis euitari possint, ostendant. Porro de me ipso (siquis fortasse nobis inuidebit) nihil aliud hoc loco dicam, quam me non esse nescium quid Hannibal Phormioni philosopho de instruenda acie disputanti responderit: fateor enim ista melius a summis viris per totam aetatem in [¶6r] republica versatis potuisse colligi. Verum qui me haec scribere fortassis mirabitur, quasi prorsus reipublicae imperitum, ille hoc a me responsum sibi habeat, me, qualiscunque sim, et quacunque conditione vtar, me inquam, fortasse et plura expertum, et tractasse etiam in publicis negotiis, et prudentiores audiisse, quam ille ipse, qui nos aspernatur, et qui se fortasse magnum quendam politicum, palaephatium et istarum rerum callentem virum existimat. Nec vero si quis ista praecepta negligens malum suorum consiliorum euentum

Lambert Daneau  65 reckon that they rely on some hidden reason, unless perhaps those same writers would try to persuade us that lies and cheating are part of political prudence and would write that princes can make use of deceit in good conscience. However, every age of the world experiences that it is true what Aristotle wrote very wisely and was subsequently borrowed from Aristotle both by Diodorus Siculus and by our own Philippe de Commynes.23 They wrote that the whole family of tyrants and of those with savage intentions in the government of human society hardly ever or never remain in power for more than 120 years, but are either destroyed by God or shamefully expelled [¶5v] from their position by their subjects. Finally, we should not at all reckon it a fault that some of our aphorisms here seem to instruct the minds of men in tyranny. For we have not collected those aphorisms with that intention, but to teach how tyrannical temperaments and their stratagems and cunning can be checked so that those who love the fatherland can be on the guard against them and can oppose wiles of this kind in a sensible way. This is how medics write on the nature of poisons, how dialecticians teach the tricks of sophists, not because they approve of those villainies, but to condemn them and show how they can be evaded. Furthermore, should anyone bear a grudge against me, then I will only say here how well aware I am of what Hannibal replied to the philosopher Phormio when he discoursed on how to draw up an army in order of battle.24 For I admit that those matters could better be brought together by the greatest men who have spent their whole lives [¶6r] running a commonwealth. However, let me answer to him who will be amazed that I write these things down perhaps as though I were completely unfamiliar with the government of a commonwealth: I, no matter what kind of man I am and what my circumstances are, say that I may be perhaps have experienced more and engaged more in public matters and listened to more judicious men than he himself who disdains us and who may think of himself as some great statesman, a Palaephatus, and expert in those things.25 Nor should anyone take exception if he suffers the bad outcome of stance towards Machiavelli and the passage quoted above was removed from later editions. See, Waszink, Politica, 178–187. 23 For Aristotle’s treatment of tyranny, see Politics 5.11 (1313a18–1315a40). Daneau himself seems to be the only source for this alleged maximum length of a tyranny. The only other work found that mentions this detail quotes this very passage from Daneau as his source: Johannes Gerhard, Centuria quaestionum politicarum, quodam a B.D. Johanne Gerardo, tum temporis Philosophicae Facultatis adjunct, conscriptarum et publice disputatarum; nunc autem recognitarum, atque publicae disquisition iterum expositarum a Ioh. Fried. J.F. Gerhardo (Jena: Bauhöffer, 1663), 174–175. 2 4 Cic. De or. 2.76. Hannibal said he had seen many foolish old men, but never anyone more foolish than Phormio. 2 5 Palaephatus, who probably lived in the late fourth century BCE, wrote a rationalizing work on Greek mythology Περὶ ἀπίστων ἱστοριῶν (On incredible tales). He tried to explain myths as straightforward occurrences that had subsequently been misunderstood and embellished. His name and the adjective derived from it became proverbial for (self-­ proclaimed) experts. See e.g. Athenaeus’s Deipnosophistae 14.661b.

66  Lambert Daneau sentiat, tunc excipiat, et clamitet, perperam ex euentu sua consilia damnari (nec enim rerum euentum esse in hominum potestate:) sed potius intelligat et agnoscat idem ex tristissimo illo sui consilii exitu (qui praeuisus a nobis fuerat) aphorismos nostros nostraque haec praecepta confirmari, et merito illi, vti temere contempta, exprobari. ******************* Liber septimus seu septima pars politicae dispvtationis. Quae est de magistratibus armatis, qui in republica Christiana sunt necessarii. [490] Caput tertium: De Bello quid sit, quotuplex, et quando iustum. Sequitur iam de bello dicere, vt qui magistratus armati sint in bello necessarii, explicemus: Ac quidem nostram hanc de bello disputationem, quae politica est, ab ea distinctam esse volumus, quae propria est Christianorum theologorum. Bellum enim theologi distinguunt in carnale, et spirituale: ac proinde arma duplicis generis constituunt alia nempe carnalia, alia vero spiritualia, quemadmodum est apud Paulum Ephes. 6. et 2. Corinth. 10. vers. 4. Bellum spirituale est, quod pars illa animi nostri, quae regenerata est a Deo, gerit aduersus eam animi nostri partem, quae nondum est renata, idque Spiritu Dei duce, et vires sumministrante. Sic pii fidelesque omnes, ac singuli aduersus foedas carnis suae libidines pugnant, ne sint illae superiores in nobis, Galat. 5. ver. 17. In hoc certamine fides in Christum, pura conscientia, vera doctrina Euangelii, Iustitiae studium et zelus, caeteraeque [491] huiusmodi virtutes sunt arma nobis necessaria, verum spiritualia, sicut docet idem Paulus, Ephes. 6. ver. 13.1. Thess. 5. ver. 8. Carnale vero bellum est, quod viribus corporis fit inter vel renatos homines, vel non renatos, autoritate publica, ad huius vitae terrenae pacem, ac tranquillitatem tuendam. Quamobrem hoc genus belli eget armis carnalibus, 2. Corinth. 10. ver. 4. De hac autem postrema belli specie duntaxat nos hoc loco agimus. Porro bellum hoc carnale, quod appellatur, differt etiam a praelio carnali. Nam nobis difficilem hanc quaestionem ingredientibus est omnis verborum ambiguitas tollenda. Bellum igitur in hac disputatione, de bello, politica distinguitur a praelio seu pugna ipsa, et certamine. Nam bellum est tota ipsa dissentientium inter se populorum actio, et totum illius discordiae tempus, quantumuis diuturnum. (Saepe enim tricennalia bella, saepe diuturniora etiam fuerunt, velut inter regnum Iuda, et regnum Israël.) Praelium autem seu pugna est ipse dissidentium inter se populorum conflictus et certatio duntaxat, quae saepe breuissimo tempore durat. Nam etiam magni exercitus nonnunquam paucis horis, tribus nempe vel quattuor,

Lambert Daneau  67 his own counsels because he neglects these precepts of mine and cries out that his counsels are wrongly condemned based on their outcome, since the outcome of events is not in people’s own hands. However, let this same man rather understand and acknowledge that my aphorisms and these precepts of mine are confirmed by that very sad end to his counsel – which had been foreseen by us – and that they are deservedly made a matter of reproach to him, considering that they were rashly defied. *********************** Book seven or the seventh part of the discourse on politics, which deals with armed magistrates and their division, who are necessary to the Christian commonwealth. [490] Chapter three: On war: what it is, how many types there are, and when it is just. Next, I will speak about war to explain which armed magistrates are necessary in war. And we want our political disputation about war to be distinct from the kind of disputation that is peculiar to Christian theologians. For theologians distinguish between a physical and spiritual war and likewise establish there are weapons of two kinds, namely some carnal and others spiritual as is the case in Paul, Ephesians 6 and 2 Corinthians 10: 4. The spiritual war is the one which that part of our soul that has been brought back to life by God wages against that part of our soul that has not been reborn yet, while the spirit of God gives guidance and force. In this way each and every pious and religious individual fights against the foul desires of the flesh to prevent them from being stronger in us (Galatians 5: 17). In this fight, the faith in Christ, a pure conscience, the true doctrine of the Gospel, the eagerness and zeal for justice, and other virtues [491] of this kind are the weapons, albeit spiritual, we need, as the aforesaid St Paul teaches in Ephesians 6: 13 and 1 Thessalonians 5: 8. However, the physical war is the one that takes place with physical forces between people who are either reborn or not reborn, under public authority, in order to defend the peace and tranquillity of this earthly life. For this reason, this type of war needs physical weapons (see 2 Corinthians 10: 4). Here we only deal with this latter kind of war. Furthermore, this physical war that is addressed here also differs from a physical battle. For as we are going to deal with this difficult matter all ambiguity of terms should be avoided. A war, therefore, in this political disputation on war is distinguished from the battle or fight and struggle itself. For a war is the complete sequence of actions of peoples who are on hostile terms with each other and the whole period of time of that conflict no matter how long. (After all, there have often been wars that lasted 30 years and even longer, as between the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel.) A battle or fight, however, is only the clash and combat of the disagreeing peoples with each other, which often only lasts a very short time. For even large armies are sometimes destroyed,

68  Lambert Daneau delentur, conciduntur, profligantur, quemadmodum Philippi Macedonici exercitus a Tito Flamminio ad Cynocephalas: Pompeii magni exercitus a Iulio Caesare in Pharsalica pugna: Mithridatis regis Ponti tum a Lucullo, tum a Pompeio Magno. Ergo bellum, vt inquit Cornelius Fronto, sine praelio esse potest. Praelium autem est pars belli. Est enim praelium ipsa pugna, et armata dimicatio, quae fit ab vtraque [492] parte dissentiente, et belligerante. Sic Nonius Marcellus obseruat quoque, vnde Graeci bellum πόλεμον: praelium vero μάχην appellarunt. Inde praeliares dies dicti, quemadmodum ait Festus Pompeius, quibus fas est hostem bello, id est, pugna lacessere. Erant enim quaedam feriae publicae, quibus nefas fuit id facere. Iam igitur, quid sit bellum videamus. Est autem bellum (de quo nos in hac politica disputatione quaerimus) discordia et contentio duorum populorum, qui nulli magistratui communi parent, sed publica summi magistratus cuiusque partis bellantis autoritate suscepta, quae vi et armis, non autem forensi disceptatione, tractatur, et dirimitur. Haec definitio si non perfecte, saltem magna ex parte bellum belliue ingenium et naturam explicat. Primum enim dicitur esse discordia, vt a pace differre intelligatur, quae non nisi in concordia, consensioneque animorum esse vel solet, vel sincere potest. Pax enim et bellum inter se sic opponuntur, vt concordia et discordia. Quemadmodum enim ex concordia pax, sic ex discordia bellum oriri solet. Ex quo factum est, vt bellum, sicut tradit Festus Pompeius, a belluis dictum sit, quod sit non hominum, sed belluarum tam perniciosa dissentio. Additur autem in definitione esse duorum populorum, id est, eorum, qui nulli communi magistratui in eo subiiciuntur, de quo dissentiunt. Nam qui se, suasque controuersias ad magistratus communes referunt, et eas ab iis ex legibus iudicari, decidique volunt, bellum inter se minime suscipiunt. Iure enim, et forensi certamine: non autem [493] manu, vt veteres loquebantur, et armis conserunt inter se: id quod ii faciunt, qui inter se bella gerunt. Ergo vel nullum communem seque superiorem magistratum reipsa habeant necesse est, ii, qui bella legitima inter se suscipiunt: vel si quem habeant, tamen eum in ea discordia quam agitant, pro magistratu suo non agnoscant, oportet: uti fit in bello ciuili, dum vtraque parte dissentiente ad vim et arma decurritur. Ex quo duo colliguntur, vnum, inter duas partes saltem eam dissensionem esse, quae bellum appellatur. Nam si vna duntaxat pars fuerit, illa bellum

Lambert Daneau  69 cut down, and overthrown in a few hours, namely three or four, as was done to the army of Philippus V of Macedonia by Titus Flamininus at Cynoscephalae, to the army of Pompey the Great by Julius Caesar in the battle of Pharsalus, and to the army of king Mithridates both by Lucullus and by Pompey the Great. A war, therefore, as Cornelius Fronto wrote, can take place without a battle.26 A battle, however, is part of a war. For a battle is the fight itself and the armed encounter between both [492] hostile and fighting sides. Nonius Marcellus also observes this and hence the Greeks called a war polemos, but a battle makhē.27 For which reason Festus Pompeius says: ‘Those days are called battle days on which it is allowed to harm an enemy in war, that is, in a fight’.28 Let’s see therefore now what war is. War, on which we meditate in this political disputation, is the discord and struggle of two peoples, who do not obey any common magistrate, started under the public authority of the supreme magistrate of each fighting party, which is conducted and resolved through violence and weapons, not through a forensic dispute. This definition, if not perfect, at least largely explains war and the character and nature of war. For first, it is mentioned that it is a form of strife so that it is understood to differ from peace, which tends to exist or can sincerely exist only in concord and agreement of minds. Peace and war are, after all, opposites of each other in the same way as concord and strife. For just as peace tends to arise from concord, in the same way does war arise from strife. Hence, war, as Festus Pompeius tells us, has been named after beasts, since such a pernicious disagreement is appropriate not for humans but for beasts. In his definition is added that the struggle ‘is between two peoples’, that is, between those who are not subject to any common magistrate in that respect about which they have a disagreement. For those who refer themselves and their disputes to common magistrates and want those to be judged and decided upon by them according to the laws do not at all start a war with one another. They fight with the help of the law in a forensic battle and not by [493] hand, as the ancients would say, and with arms, which is what those do who fight wars with each other. It is therefore necessary that those who start a legitimate war against each other either do not have any common magistrate superior to themselves in reality or if they have one, then it is necessary that nevertheless they do not recognize him as their magistrate in the dispute in which they are involved, as happens in a civil war when both sides disagree and turn to violence and weapons. Two points can be gathered from this. First, that strife exists between at least two parties. If it were only one party, then that party does not wage a 26 Grammatici Latini, edited by H. Keil (Leipzig: Teubner, 1880), vol. 7, 527. 27 Nonii Marcelli De compendiosa doctrina libros XX, edited by W.M. Lindsay (Leipzig, 1903), vol. 3, 703 (book 5). 28 Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome, edited by W.M. Lindsay (Leipzig, 1913), 253 (book 15, proeliares dies).

70  Lambert Daneau non gerit. Alterum, vtramque partem quae inter se bella gerit, hostem seu perduellem sibi mutuo esse. Nam altera alterius hostis est, et altera ab altera sic nominatur. Vnde pares vltro citroque actiones fiunt, pariaque damna inferuntur, si possunt. Inde bellum duellum quoque dictum est olim, quod a duabus partibus de victoria contendentibus dimicatur. Ergo duas partes sibi mutuo aduersarias esse oportet in bello. Porro adiecimus et illud quoque, publica summi magistratus cuiusque partis autoritate armis et vi certari, vbi bellum est. Quamobrem indicenda sunt publice summi partis cuiusque bellantis magistratus iussu bella, per foeciales nempe seu patres patratos, quos nos hodie haraldos, id est publicos armorum, et belli nuntios appellamus. Nam quae bella non prius alteri parti indicta et denuntiata nihilominus ab altera geruntur, sunt mera latrocinia, non autem iusta bella. Deinde quae citra vllam publicam eius (qui summus magistratus abs se, suaque parte [494] agnoscitur) autoritatem excursiones, praedae, hostilesve actiones ab ea fiunt, eae omnes itidem sunt foedissima latrocinia, et grassationes praedonum, non autem bellicae, tolerabilesve actiones: sed eadem poena, qua latrones ii, qui ista faciunt, sunt puniendi. Denique priuatorum rixae inter se, quae citra magistratus iussum fiunt, sunt distinguendae a bellis iustis et legitimis. Et quidem quid sit politicum, seu carnale bellum in genere dictum est. Nunc explicemus, quotuplex idem sit. Nam quaerere qui primi mortalium bella gesserint, vtrumne Assyrii, vt vult Augustinus lib. 4. cap. 8. de Ciuitate Dei: an Aegyptii, quemadmodum Iustinus historicus tradit, parum ad hanc disputationem nostram et refert, et confert. Sed nec illa quaestio propria est politicae tractationis, vtrum pio, fidelive magistratui fas sit bellum gerere: verum potius theologicae explicationis est, de qua vir doctissimus P. Martyr aduersus Anabaptistas, et Marcionitas, homines haereticos, et insulsissimos praeclare multa disputauit: itemque Augustinus tum in quaestionibus in Vetus Testamentum Quaest. 44. in Num. et 10. in Iosuam: tum in libro de Ciuitate Dei primo, cap. 21, ubi haec sententia illius pulcherrima extat, Nequaquam contra hoc praeceptum fecerunt, quo dictum est, Non occides, qui Deo autore bella gesserunt: aut personam gerentes publicae potestatis secundum eius leges, id est, iustissimae rationis imperium, sceleratos morte punierunt.

Lambert Daneau  71 war. Second, both parties who wage wars against each other are each other’s enemy or foe. For one is the enemy of the other and the other is designated in this way by the other. Hence, the same actions are done on both sides and the same damage is done, if possible. For this reason a war was once also called a duel, because a fight is delivered between two sides pursuing victory. It is therefore necessary that the two sides are each other’s adversaries in a war. Moreover, we have added this point as well: they fight with weapons and force ‘under the public authority of the supreme magistrate of each party’ when there is war. For which reason wars must be declared publicly at the command of the supreme magistrate of each warring party, namely by means of emissaries or fetial priests whom we call heralds, that is public messengers of arms and war.29 For those wars which have not been declared and announced to the opposing party yet are nevertheless waged by the other party are pure villainies and not just wars. Next, all acts carried out by that party without any public authority of the person who is [494] recognized as the supreme magistrate by him and by his party, inroads, plunder, or hostile actions are all likewise abominable villainies and are riots of plunderers and not war actions or tolerable actions. Those who do those things are to face the same punishment as villains. Finally, quarrels of private citizens among themselves that take place without the command of the magistrate are to be distinguished from just and legitimate wars. And now has been said what a political or physical war in general is. Let us now explain how many kinds there are of war. For asking who among mortals first waged wars, whether it was the Assyrians, as Augustine claims in book four, Chapter 8, of The City of God, or the Egyptians, as Justin the historian teaches, has too little to do with this disputation of ours and adds too little to it. Nor is the question fitting in a political treatment if the godly or religious magistrate should be allowed to wage a war; it is more appropriate for a theological exposition and the very learned man Peter Martyr has examined many things in an excellent fashion in response to the Anabaptists and Marcionites, heretical and very foolish men.30 Likewise Augustine has treated this matter both in his Questions on the Old Testament (question 44 on Numbers and 10 on Joshua) and in the first book, chapter 21, of The City of God, where we find this very beautiful judgement: Those who have fought wars under God’s authority or have punished, in accordance with His laws, that is, the command of the most just reason, criminals with death in a position of public authority have acted not at all against this command, in which it has been said “Thou shalt not kill”. 29 The fetiales were a Roman college of priests who sanctioned treaties and presented an enemy with a formal demand for satisfaction before a war was officially declared. 30 See Chapter 1 for Vermigli’s views on the godly magistrate and whether or not he was allowed to wage war.

72  Lambert Daneau Idem ad Bonifacium in epistolis, Noli existimare neminem Deo placere posse, qui armis bellicis ministrat. In his erat Sanctus Dauid, [495] cui Dominus tam magnum praebuit testimonium. In his etiam plurimi illius temporis iusti. Idem lib. 22. aduersus Faustum cap. 73. Quid culpatur in bello, etcetera et tandem alibi idem concludit de verbis Domini Serm. 19. Militare non est delictum, sed militare propter praedam est peccatum. De hoc ipso argumento legenda quoque est tota Caussa 23. Quaest. 1. et 2. a Gratiano compilata ex variis Patrum sententiis, ne iam actum agam, si hic easdem describam. Illud modo maneat ex superioribus effectum, licere pio, et Christiano magistratui bellum iustum suscipere, et gerere, quicquid contra in libro de Idololatria scripserit, senseritque Tertullianus, sed iam ad Montanistarum haeresin delapsus. Itemque piis ciuibus fas esse sub suo magistratu (siue is fidelis fuerit, siue infidelis) bellum iustum gerente militare, vti apparet tum ex Iohannis Baptistae responso ad milites, Luc. 3. ver. 14. tum etiam ex centurionis ad fidem Christianam primi ex gentibus conuersi (qui nihilominus Caligula et Claudio imperatoribus Romanis infidelibus militauit) exemplo, Actor. 10. Denique ex Christianorum militum, qui sub Marco Aurelio ethnico imperatore militarunt, contra Marcommannos, facto, et testimonio. Sed et postea tota legio ex Thebaeis Aegyptiis Christianis composita, Maximino imperatori ethnico suo militauit sub Mauritio tribuno militum, quae in Segusianis propter Christi fidem a Maximino ipso fuit occisa. Neque vero propterea vel magistratus ipse belli cupidus esse debet, vel vllus priuatus vir vere Christianus amans tanti, tamque [496] horrendi diuini iudicii. Nam, quemadmodum praeclare scribit libr. 19. de Ciuitate Dei cap. 7. Augustinus, ne iusta quidem bella semper suscipienda sunt, si quo alio pacto res componi, et ad pacem perduci possit. Sapientem enim omnia prius, quam armis experiri decet, vt est in veteri paroemia. Nam haec pacis quarendae ratio quae bello fit, sicut est multarum calamitatum plenissima, ita debet esse extremum, ad quod decurratur, remedium. Quemadmodum igitur μαχιμώτερα et pugnae auida hominum ingenia damnanda sunt feritatis, et saeuitiae, sic minime ferendi sunt ii, qui omnino negant licere pio magistratui bellum suscipere, ac gerere, quantumuis illud sit iustum. Hi enim κατ’ ἔλλειψιν, vti Graeci loquuntur, peccant, qui omnia bella damnant: Illi vero κατ’ ἐξοχὴν, qui caedibus, bellis, et vastatione

Lambert Daneau  73 Augustine also wrote to Boniface in his letters: ‘Do not think that nobody who is in military service can please God. The saintly David [495] to whom the Lord gave such a great testimony did the same. Very many just men of that age also fought’. The same Augustine wrote in book 22 of his Against Faustus, chapter 73, about what must be condemned in war etcetera and, finally, elsewhere he concludes on the words of the Lord in sermon 19: ‘Being a soldier is not a crime, but being a soldier in order to plunder is a sin’.31 On this very same argument one should also read the whole of cause 23, questions 1 and 2, compiled by Gratian from various judgements of the Church Fathers, so that I do not repeat what has already been done if I write down those same judgements.32 Let only that point remain proven from the above that it is licit for the godly and Christian magistrate to start a just war and wage it, whatever Tertullian, who had already lapsed into the heresy of the Montanists, may have written and felt against it in his book on idolatry.33 Likewise godly cities are allowed to fight under their magistrate – whether he is a believer or not – when he wages a just war, as is apparent both from the answer of John the Baptist to the soldiers in Luke 3: 14 and also from the example in Acts 10 of the centurion who was the first pagan to be converted to the Christian faith and nonetheless fought under Caligula and Claudius, two unbelieving Roman emperors. Finally, it is apparent from the fact and testimony of the Christian soldiers who served under the pagan emperor Marcus Aurelius against the Marcomanni. However, later on, a complete legion consisting of Christian Egyptians from Thebes served under the pagan emperor Maximinus under the command of the military tribune Maurice. They were executed in Auganum by Maximinus himself because of their faith in Christ. However, neither the magistrate himself must be longing for war nor must any truly Christian private citizen be fond of such a great and [496] horrendous divine judgement. For, as Augustine writes very clearly in book 19, chapter 7, of The City of God, even just wars must not always be undertaken, if the matter can in some other way be rectified and brought to peace. For it befits the wise man to try everything before arms, as is mentioned in the old proverb.34 For this way of seeking peace through war must be the final remedy to which recourse should be taken, as it is full of many dangers. Just as the more warlike and battle-loving characters of men must be condemned for their ferociousness and cruelty, in the same way must those not at all be tolerated who completely deny that it is licit for a godly magistrate to start and wage a war no matter how just it is. These people who condemn all wars sin through lack, as the Greeks say, but those indeed sin through 31 Aug. Contra Faust. 22.73 (PL, vol. 161, col. 1316). 32 Decretum Gratiani c. 5. C.23. q. 1–2. 33 Montanism was a Christian movement in the second century CE, labelled a heresy because of its belief in new prophetic revelations. 34 Ter. Eun. 789.

74  Lambert Daneau generis humani gaudent. Et haec quidem hactenus. Ergo tanquam ex diuerticulo iam in viam redeamus, et quot sint bellorum carnalium, seu politicorum, quae vocant, genera perpendamus. Sunt autem varia, sed imprimis duo, si materia, seu ii, inter quos illa geruntur, spectantur, nimirum ciuilia, vel externa. Ciuilia, quae inter sese eiusdem ciuitatis, vrbis, vel reipublicae ciues faciunt, de quibus vere dicitur, Omnia sunt misera in bellis ciuilibus: Externa bella sunt, quae ab extraneis inferuntur, id est, iis, qui cum iis, quos hostes suos appellant, communem magistratum summum nullum habent. Haec autem externa bella ratione loci, in quo fiunt, sunt aut socialia, aut vicina, aut remota. Socialia bella sunt, quae cum sociis: [497] vicina, quae cum vicinis: remota, quae cum populis longinquis geruntur, qui remotam a nobis regionem incolunt, quales sunt nobis Turcae, olim autem Chaldaei, et Assyrii fuerunt Iudaeis. Porro alio quoque modo bellum diuiditur, videlicet ex causa, propter quam suscipitur: Tunc autem bella dicuntur iusta, vel iniusta. Quae vero sint bella iusta, et vt definienda, iam nobis explicandum est. Quid enim sunt bella iniusta, nisi magna latrocinia? Certe quidem iniustorum bellorum fuerunt, atque adeo sunt semper tristissimi suis autoribus exitus, et euentus luctuosissimi. Ergo quid et quando sit iustum bellum, exponamus. Titus Liuius probatus scriptor definit illud bellum omne esse iustum, quod est necessarium. Verum quando sit ista necessitas non explicat. Omnes autem existimant eam demum necessitatem efficere bella iusta, quum respublica ipsa, aut qui bella suscipiunt, non possunt salui et incolumes subsistere alio modo, quam armis, et bello. Inde illud Augustini epist. 207. ad Bonifacium comitem Pacem habere debet voluntas: Bellum, necessitas: Et Hostiensis Cardinalis, Male facit, ait, qui bellum ex voluntate, id est, non coactus, sed ultro suscipit. Verum idem Augustinus Quaest. 10. in Iosuam, omnium optime

Lambert Daneau  75 excess who rejoice in slaughter, wars, and the devastation of humankind. This is what I had to say on this topic. Let’s therefore now return to the road from this detour and examine how many kinds of what they call physical or political wars there are. There are various types, but two in particular if the substance and those between whom the wars take place are taken into consideration, namely civil wars and foreign wars. The civil wars are those which citizens of the same community, city, or commonwealth fight among themselves, about which it is very rightly said: ‘All things are lamentable in civil wars’.35 Foreign wars are those that are started by foreigners, that is, by those who they call their enemies and have no common supreme magistrate. Moreover, by reason of the place where they happen these foreign wars are either confederate, nearby, or remote.36 Confederate wars are those that are waged with allies, [497] nearby wars with neighbours, and remote wars, those with faraway peoples, who live in a region far removed from us, such as the Turks are to us and the Chaldeans and Assyrians were to the Jews. Furthermore, war is also divided in another way, namely depending on the cause for which it is started. In that case, wars are said to be just or unjust. I must now explain which wars are just, however, and how they should be defined. For what are unjust wars but great villainies? It has certainly been the mark of unjust wars that those responsible for them will meet a very miserable end and a very lamentable fate and this will always be the case. I must therefore expound what a just war is and when it is just. The esteemed author Livy writes that every war is just that is necessary.37 However, he does not explain when we can speak of that necessity, but everyone thinks that only then does necessity make a war just when the commonwealth itself cannot remain safe and unharmed in any other way than through arms and war. Hence, Augustine’s words to Count Boniface in epistle 207 ‘Peace must be the object of your desire, war should only be waged in case of necessity’.38 Cardinal Hostiensis said: ‘He who starts a war of his own will’, that is, without being forced, ‘but freely, is at fault’.39 However, Augustine gives the best definition

35 Cic. Fam. 4.9. 36 Bella socialia, lit. ‘social wars’. Daneau is clearly thinking here of the so-called social wars in Italy (91-88 BCE), a revolt of Rome’s allies in Italy. These peoples lived within the borders of the Roman Empire, but were not strictly speaking citizens of Rome, although the Romans eventually resolved this crisis by extending Roman citizenship to them. In Daneau’s vocabulary it therefore cannot be defined as a civil war. In the sixteenth century one could think of conflicts within a confederacy of different peoples. 37 See above in the final section of the ethics. 38 Aug. Ep. 189 in modern editions. 39 Hostiensis (Henry of Segusia) was an expert on canon law and formulated five situations when a war was unjust: (1) if a war was not waged in order to either recover stolen possessions or defend the fatherland; (2) if a war is started voluntarily and not out of necessity; (3) if a war is waged out of revenge; (4) if a war is waged without the authority of the prince; (5) if those not authorized to fight (such as Catholic clergymen) actively participate in the

76  Lambert Daneau ecquod sit iustum bellum definit. Iustum est bellum, inquit ille recteque geritur, quod Dei mandatu suscipitur. Ambros. Vincere, ait, paras, qui Christum adoras: vincere paras, qui fidem vindicas. Scholastici vero homines quinque volunt obseruanda esse, vt bellum iustum esse censeatur, Deique mandatu susceptum. Neque enim [498] qui bella iusta hodie suscipere cupiunt, extraordinariam quandam reuelationem a Deo debent expectare, qua iubeantur bella gerere: sed ex Dei verbo, eoque scripto, perpendere debebunt, vtrum ex iis caussis bella suscipiant, quae Dei verbo probentur: eoque modo fiant, id est, indicantur, et gerantur, quo iubet idem Dei verbum ea fieri, et geri: et ab iis denique personis per quas Dei verbum scriptum ea geri concedit. Illa igitur omnia scholastici ad quinque capita reuocant, nimirum vt obseruetur primum, cuius iussu bellum suscipiatur: deinde, propter quam caussam suscipiatur: tertio, qui in eo militent: quarto, quae sit intentio bellantium: quinto, tempus, quo in bello pugnatur: Nisi enim haec quinque concurrant legitima, nullum esse bellum, quod iustum, et legitimum dici possit, censent. Verum nos praecipue ex his duobus bella iusta definienda existimamus, ex persona iubentis, et ex caussa, propter quam suscipitur. Ergo spectandum imprimis est, cuius iussu suscipiatur, et ex quibus caussis. Reliqua vero tria, velut de militibus, eorumque intentione, et tempore legitime pugnandi, quanquam et ipsa a prudenti belli duce spectanda sunt, ex his tamen iustum, iniustumve bellum minime definiendum est. De his autem tribus posterioribus suo loco agemus, nunc vero de eo, cuius iussu bellum suscipi debet, et de caussis propter quas gerendum est, vt sit bellum iustum. Ac primum quidem statuendum est, idque in vniuersum, ab eo demum bellum indici, aut suscipi legitime posse, qui in ea politia, vel in [499] parte belligerante est, agnosciturve summus magistratus. Nam eum, cuius iussu bellum suscipitur (quod quidem sit iustum bellum) oportet esse

Lambert Daneau  77 of what a just war is in question ten on the Book of Joshua. He said: ‘A war is just and rightly waged when it is started at God’s command’.40 Ambrose wrote: ‘Prepare for victory, you who worship Christ, prepare for victory, you who vindicate faith’.41 The scholastics want there to be five conditions that should be observed for a war to be considered just and started at God’s command. For those who [498] nowadays want to start a war must not expect some extraordinary revelation from God through which they are ordered to wage wars, but they will have to carefully examine on the basis of the word of God – the written word of God – if they start a war for those causes that are approved by the word of God. They should also consider if wars take place – that is, are declared and waged – in the way in which the same word of God commands them to take place and waged and, finally, if they are waged by those persons by whom the written word of God allows them to be waged. The scholastics refer all these things under five heads, namely that one should take into account at whose command the war is started; next, for which cause it is started; third, who serve as soldiers in the war; fourth, what the intention of those fighting in the war is; fifth, the time at which is fought in the war. They argue that if these five heads are not all legitimate, then there is not a single war that can be called just and legitimate. We, however, reckon that wars must be defined as just based on these two heads in particular, namely the person who gives the command to start the war and the cause for which it is started.42 Therefore, it must first of all be considered on whose command it is started and for which causes. A war must not at all be defined as just or unjust on the basis of the other three, as for instance on soldiers and their intention and the moment of legitimate fighting, although they should be taken into account by a prudent leader at war. We will deal with these three latter heads later, but now we will look at the one at whose command a war must be started and to the causes because of which it must be waged for it to be a just war. First it must be established that, in all respects, the war is only declared or can be legitimately started by someone who is situated in that polity or [499] side in a conflict or is recognized as supreme magistrate. For it is necessary that he at whose command war. Daneau is here referring to the second situation. For Hostiensis’s own formulation, see Henrici Secusia Cardinalis Hostiensis Aurea summa: Nicolae Superantii adnotationibus et quibusdam excerptis ex Summa celeberrimi Iur. Vtr. Doct. F. Martini abbatis (vt ferunt) contemporanei Azonis, et Accursij, illustrate: nunc tandem ad incorruptum authoris exemplar diligentissime restituta, ab innumeris erroribus quibus scatebat hactenus, repurgata: atque typorum varietate nitidior reddita (Cologne: Zetzner, 1612), 311. 4 0 Aug. Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 6.10 (PL vol. 34, col 781). 41 Ambr. Fid. 1, prologue 3 (PL 16, col. 529). 42 Daneau deviates here from Vermigli who recognized three ‘conditions’ for a just war: (1) authority; (2) cause; (3) intention. See Vermigli’s Loci communes (­London: Denham and Middleton, 1583), 935.

78  Lambert Daneau non tantum in partibus belligerantibus magistratum: sed summum magistratum, vel pro summo legitime agnosci. Alii enim magistratus sibi, suaeque prouinciae factas iniurias coram summo magistratu suo persequi debent, et de iis apud eundem expostulare, ac conqueri, siue illae iniuriae a ciuibus regni, siue ab extraneo prorsus populo fuerint illatae. Ipsi autem propria autoritate bellum propterea suscipere, nequaquam vel debent, vel legitime possunt. Est enim haec actio summae ac supremae in republica potestatis pars potissima. Illius enim est praesertim ciues, et subditos suos ab omni vi siue interna siue externa tueri. Psal. 72. ver. 4.78. ver. 72. Augustinus contra Faustum, Ordo naturalis, ait, mortalium paci accommodatus hoc poscit, ut suscipiendi belli autoritas, atque consilium penes principem sit. Plato libro 12. de Legibus. Si quis priuatim, sine publico scito pacem, bellumque fecerit, capitale esto. Sic in Codice Iustinianeo docetur, armorum vsum, in bellis praesertim, nemini, nisi consensu imperatoris, id est, summi magistratus, esse concedendum toto Titulo, ut armorum officia nisi iussu principis, etcetera. Idem confirmatur L. Desertorem. §. De re militari, l.3.§. ad legem Iuliam maiestatis. Ergo quum erat Romae democratia, decreto populi bellum indicebatur. Quum coepit esse monarchia, principis et senatus simul autoritate bellum susceptum est, vt ex Panaegyrico Plinij ad Traianum [500] imperatorem apparet. Dauid summus Israëlis magistratus, non alius, ex Dei ipsius oraculo bella suscepit. Reliqui reges Israëlii etiam ipsi, non alii magistratus, bella indicunt, etsi ex procerum populi, id est, ordinum regni consensu, quemadmodum facile colligitur ex 1.Reg. 20. ver. 7.2. Reg. 19. ver. 2. Idem efficitur ex Can. Qui resistit, 11. Quaest. 3. Denique Paulus Roman. cap. 13. de summo praesertim magistratu loquens, illi tribuit gladium, eiusque vsum, quem caeteri magistratus summi duntaxat iussu habent, ipse vero a Deo accepit, vtpote qui sit primarius Dei minister in ea politia, et statu, in quo summus est magistratus. Et haec quidem de persona, quae bellum iustum indicere, ac gerere debet, et potest. In ciuili autem dissensione seu bello, quia pars vtraque suum ducem et autorem pro summo magistratu habet, et agnoscit: idcirco pars vtraque credit se iuste et legitime belligerari. Verum saepe vtraque, saepe alterutra fallitur

Lambert Daneau  79 the war is started (of the type that would be a just war) is not only magistrate among those who fight but is the supreme magistrate or is recognized as supreme. Other magistrates, after all, must raise injustices done to them or to their province with the highest magistrate and must express their disapproval and complaints about those injustices to him, whether those injustices have been inflicted by citizens of the kingdom or by an entirely foreign people. However, they must not at all or cannot legitimately start a war for these reasons under their own authority. For this act is the most important part of the highest and supreme authority in the commonwealth. It is his task in particular to defend his citizens and subjects against all violence either internal or external. See Psalm 72: 4 and 78: 72. Augustine wrote in his Against Faustus: ‘The natural order of mortals, being adapted as it is to peace, demands that the authority and counsel to start a war should be in the hands of the prince’.43 Plato wrote in book 12 of his Laws: ‘If anyone makes peace and war privately without a public decree, then the punishment must be death’.44 Thus it is taught in the Codex Justinianus that the use of weapons, especially in wars, must only be allowed with the consent of the emperor, that is, of the supreme magistrate in the title That the employment of weapons must not be allowed unless at the prince’s command.45 This is confirmed by the law Deserter, in the Codex in the section On military matters, law three and the Julian law concerning treason.46 Therefore, when there was democracy in Rome, a war was declared by a decree of the people. When it began to be a monarchy it was started under the joint authority of the princeps and the senate, as becomes apparent from Pliny’s Panegyric [500] to Emperor Trajan. David, the supreme magistrate of Israel, only started a war following a divine announcement from God himself. The other kings of Israel also declared wars themselves, not other magistrates, although with the consent of the leading men of the people, that is of the estates of the kingdom, as can be easily gathered from 1 Kings 20: 7 and 2 Kings 19: 2. The same is demonstrated from canon law.47 Finally, Paul, speaking about the supreme magistrate in particular in Romans 13, gave him the sword and its use, which the other magistrates only have at the command of the supreme magistrate. However, he himself has received the sword from God, inasmuch as he is the primary minister of God in that polity and state, in which he is the supreme magistrate. This is what I had to say about the person who must and can declare a just war and wage it. In a civil conflict or war, both parts have and acknowledge their commander and leader as the supreme magistrate; for this reason, both sides believe that they wage a just and legitimate war. However, often both or one of 43 4 4 45 46 47

Aug. Contra Faust. 22.75 (PL vol. 42, col. 447). Pl. Leg. 955b. C. J. Civ., Codex, 11.47. C. J. Civ., Digests, 49.16.3; C.J. Civ. Codex, 12.3; C.J. Civ., Digests, 48.4.3. C. 11 q.3 c.97.

80  Lambert Daneau grauissime quoniam nullum ea habet legitimum magistratum, quum eum duntaxat habet, qui in eo, de quo vtraque pars contendit, parere summo magistratui debuit. Ergo, ne vtraque pars in bello ciuili, vel altera misere sese in eo decipiat, etiam atque etiam, quam legitimus sit is magistratus, quo duce bellum gerit, diligenter prius perpendat. Caeterum propter quas caussas bellum suscipi debeat, vt sit iustum, etiam perpendendum est. Quae sane quaestio facillima ipsa per sese est, nisi regum, populorumve bella cupientium ambitio, et auaritia totum hunc locum confudisset, et multos [501] errores induxisset. Plerique enim fere omnes falsas caussas belli pro legitimis sumunt, dum suae libidini potius, quam iustitiae Dei in bellis suscipiendis inseruiunt. Ergo falsae atque illegitimae belli caussae sunt hae fere tres, quemadmodum docet, scribens contra Faustum, Augustinus lib. 22. Nocendi nimirum cupiditas, vlciscendi crudelitas, libido dominandi. Itaque Bernardus Clareuallensis ad Milites Templi cap. 2. eos alloquens, qui iniustis de caussis bella gerunt, Non sane inter vos, ait, aliud bella mouet, litesque suscitat, nisi irrationabilis iracundiae motus, aut inanis gloriae appetitus, aut terrenae qualiscunque possessionis cupiditas. Talibus certe ex caussis neque occidere, neque occumbere tutum est. Quis igitur finis fructusve secularis huius, id est, iniustae, non dico militiae, sed malitiae, si et occisor lethaliter peccat, et occisus aeternaliter perit? Idem in epistol. 15. Pacem, ait, contemnentes et gloriam appetentes, pacem perdunt, et gloriam. Haec vir ille quidem sanctissime scribit. Caeterum qui bella iniuste suscipit est autor et caussa omnium scelerum, latrociniorum, caedium, calamitatum, et direptionum, quae ab vtraque parte in eo bello fiunt: quarum omnium rationem Deo redditurus est. Itaque solent esse et tristissimi, vti dixi, et infoelicissimi bellorum iniuste susceptorum exitus, atque euentus iis, qui ea iniuste suscipiunt. Porro iustae belli caussae sunt vel propinquae, vel remotae. Ac quidem remotae, pax in posterum, et emendatio hostium, contra quos pugnamus, et a quibus iniuste laesi, lacessitique fuimus. Pacis enim gratia bella geri nemo est, qui non fateatur, et intelligat: [502] Emendationem etiam hostium iniustorum a nobis Christianis spectandam esse docet vis ipsa, regulaque Christianae charitatis, qui inimicos quoque ipsos a nobis diligi, et emendari

Lambert Daneau  81 the two sides are very gravely mistaken, since they do not have a legitimate magistrate, as their magistrate should obey a superior in the matter about which both sides disagree. Therefore, lest one or the other side in a civil war miserably rushes into the conflict, each side must again and again carefully consider beforehand if the magistrate under whose command a war is waged is legitimate. By the way, one must also consider due to which causes a war ought to be started so that it may be just. Admittedly, this in itself is a very easy question, if the ambition and greed of kings and peoples eager for war had not completely brought this subject into disorder and introduced many [501] errors. For many consider almost all false causes for war to be legitimate, as they serve their desire rather than God’s justice when it comes to starting wars. These three causes are therefore altogether false and illegitimate, as Augustine teaches us, since he writes in book 22 of his Against Faustus: too great a desire to inflict damage, the cruelty of taking revenge, and the desire to dominate.48 For this reason, Bernard of Clairvaux, said to the Templars, addressing those who wage wars for unjust causes: Among you, only the impulse of irrational anger or appetite for empty glory or a desire for some earthly possession starts wars and stirs up conflicts. It is not prudent to either kill or die for such causes. So, what is the end or worldly gain, of this, that is, unjust wickedness rather than military service, if he who kills commits a deadly sin and he who is killed perishes for eternity?49 The same author writes in epistle 15: ‘With your disdain for peace and desire for glory you lose both peace and glory’.50 That eminent man writes these things in a most saintly way. By the way, he who unjustly starts wars is the maker and cause of all crimes, brigandage, bloodshed, disasters, and plundering, that are perpetrated by both sides and he will be held accountable to God for them. For this reason, the outcome of wars that have been unjustly started tends to be very sad, as I said, and unhappy and likewise the end for those who started them unjustly. Furthermore, just causes for war are either close at hand or distant. The distant ones are future peace and the correction of enemies against whom we fight and by whom we had been unjustly injured and provoked. For everyone admits and understands that wars are fought for the sake of peace. [502] The power itself and rule of Christian charity, which commands us to love and correct the enemies themselves too, teaches that we Christians should

48 Aug. Contra Faust. 22.74 (PL vol. 42, col. 447). 49 Bernard of Clairvaux, De laude militiae ad milites Templi liber (PL vol. 182, cols 0921A-0929B). 50 This is Ep. 126 in modern editions (PL vol. 182, col. 276).

82  Lambert Daneau praecipit, Math. cap. 5. Propinquae vero belli legitime et iuste suscipiendi caussae sunt duae, nempe, vel res iniuste nobis ereptae: vel iniuriae seu contumeliae, sed sceleris imprimis in nos perpetrati vltio, ac vindicta. Ac quidem res ereptae sunt iustae caussae belli, si nobis non reddantur repetitae, quoniam sunt a Deo distincta rerum, et rerumpublicarum dominia. Itaque siue eae res sint publicae, quae sunt ab hostibus ereptae: siue priuatae, perinde est. Debet enim summus magistratus tueri res, et iura tum reipublicae ipsius, tum priuatorum qui sibi sunt subditi. Iniuriam vero et scelus in communem totius reipublicae contumeliam ab extraneis admissum, quanuis in vnius priuati subditi sui persona, nedum in legato, aut publica persona perpetratum, debet idem summus magistratus vindicare etiam bello, nisi satisfiat ab ea republica quae, aut cuius ciuis intulit iniuriam. Sic reliquae tribus Israëlis bellum indixerunt Beniamitis ob stuprum a Gabaonitis concubinae Leuitae oblatum. Iudic. 19. Sic Dauid iniuriam suis legatis ab Ammonitis factam vltus est, 2. Samuel. 10. Sic Romani eam, quae a Corinthiis, et a Tarentinis facta quoque fuerat ipsorum legatis. Sic Friburgenses Heluetii iniuriam vni cuidam ciui suo a quodam nobili factam in contemptum totius pagi seuerissime bello et armis vlti sunt, licet plaustrum pellium duntaxat nobilis ille praedatus esset ciui [503] Friburgiensi. August. in Iosuam quaest. 10. Ius est, ait, petere bello gentem eam, aut ciuitatem, quae neglexerit corrigere id, quod turpiter et improbe a suis admissum sit. Idem quoque ab Isidoro confirmatur, et in tota caussa 23. quaest. 2. Eodem pertinet quod in Alcibiade primo scribit Plato bella tunc a nobis iuste suscipi, quum vel decipimur, eorum, quibuscum contraximus, perfidia: vel cogimur contra ius, libertatemque pactam: vel spoliamur rebus, aut iure nostro. Eodem quoque spectat quod scribitur a Xenophonte lib. 1. de Paedia Cyri tunc bella geri iuste, quum vel iniuria nobis illata propulsatur a nobis: vel amicis, sociisve lacessitis et petentibus auxilium ferimus. Idem ex Liuio passim colligitur. Bella enim propter res ereptas nobis, et repetitas, sed non restitutas legitime geruntur a nobis. Hae vero caussae etiam bella ciuilia iusta mouent, nedum externa, si pars videlicet vna reipublicae

Lambert Daneau  83 also have the correction of unjust enemies in mind (Matthew 5).51 The two nearby causes of justly and legitimately starting a war, however, are either things that have unjustly been taken from us or revenge and punishment for an injustice or insult, but most of all a crime committed against us. Things that have been take from us are just causes for war, if they are not returned to us when asked, since the ownership of things and commonwealths has been divided by God. Therefore, whether these things that have been taken by the enemies are public or private does not make a difference. For the supreme magistrate must protect the properties and rights of the commonwealth itself and of the private persons that are his subjects. An injustice and crime committed by foreigners as a common affront to the whole commonwealth, even though it may have been perpetrated against the person of one private subject of his, not to mention against a legate or public person, must be avenged by the same supreme magistrate through war, if no satisfaction is given by the commonwealth which has – or whose citizen has – inflicted the injury. In this way, the other tribes of Israel declared a war against the tribe of Benjamin because of the dishonour committed by the Gibeonites against the concubine of a Levite (Judges 19). In this way, David avenged the injury done to his legates by the Ammonites (2 Samuel 10). In this way, the Romans avenged the injury that had been done to their legates by the Corinthians and the people of Tarente. In this way, the people of Fribourg in Switzerland very severely avenged an injury done by some nobleman in contempt of a whole canton to some single citizen through war and arms, although that nobleman had only stolen a cart filled with hides from the citizen [503] of Fribourg.52 Augustine in question ten on Joshua wrote: ‘The right exists to attack in war a nation or city, which has neglected to correct what has been reproachfully and shamelessly committed by one of their citizens’.53 The same point is also confirmed by Isidore and in the whole of cause 23, question 2.54 What Plato writes in the first book of the Alcibiades is related to this point as well, namely that we justly start wars when we are deceived by the treachery of the people with whom we have signed a treaty or are forced against our right and stipulated liberty or are stripped of our possessions or right.55 Xenophon’s words in book one of the Education of Cyrus pertains to the same topic that wars are justly fought when either we ward off an injury done to us or give aid to friends or allies that have been provoked and ask for help. The same point can be gathered from passages across Livy’s work.56 After all, wars are legitimately waged by us when they are about possessions that have been snatched from 51 52 53 54 55 56

Matt. 5: 43–48. This anecdote could not be found in any other sources. Aug. Quaestiones in heptateuchum 6.10 (PL vol. 34, col. 781). Isid. Etym. 18.1. Decretum Gratiani c. 5. C.23. q. 2. Pl. Alc. 107d–109d. See e.g. Livy 21.6–7 on the justification of the Second Punic War (218-201 BCE).

84  Lambert Daneau ab altera vel opprimatur: vel denique laedatur, neque velit pars altera, quae facit iniuriam, laesae a se parti satisfacere. Hinc, vti dixi, bella quoque ciuilia miserrima nascuntur. Caeterum quae belli primum suscipiendi caussa est, et quam iusta eadem est, et tam iusta reliquarum quoque bellum concomitantium actionum, velut praedationum, caedium, caeterarumque calamitatum, quae in bello inferuntur. Omnes enim huiusmodi particulares actiones sunt belli fructus, appendices, et effecta ipsa per se, quae eadem iustitia coram Deo teguntur, qua ipsum bellum susceptum est. [504] Est enim bellum grauissimum flagellum, quo Deus homines castigat. Ex quo fit, vt si quispiam vel miles, vel alius ad bellum proficiscatur, qui sibi causam iustitiamque belli suscepti non proponat, sed animo duntaxat praedandi, ditescendi, vel saeuiendi militet, sitve in castris, ipse quidem propter eum suum animum, et finem coram Deo reus fit: ipsum tamen bellum per sese, et ratione reipublicae belligerantis, ipsae ue actiones bellicae etiam ab eodem illo perpetratae in hostes, sunt nihilominus iustae, ob illam ipsam generalem, et primam iustitiam, legitimamque caussam, propter quam bellum primum susceptum est. Quamobrem qui militant et in exercitu sunt, debent omnes, et singuli si modo pii et Christiani viri censeri, et esse volunt, de iustitia belli suscepti moneri a summo magistratu. Alioqui non vt homines pii, sed vt pecudes, ad mortem proruunt et deducuntur: vel vt immanes et feri homines censendi sunt, qui sanguinem hominum sibi similium sitiant, eoque gaudeant, sintque alastores generis humani. Caeterum si quaeratur contra quos bellum etiam iustum sit prudenter suscipiendum, illa Thucididis sententia imprimis notanda est. lib. 6. Historiae: amentium esse eos populos adoriri, et in eos bellum gerere, quos neque victor in officio retinere possis: et ad quos postea semel ab iis victus, regredi non possis. Itaque tales sunt alia quapiam ratione, quam bello, ad officium deducendi: frustra enim et imprudenter Darius primus, ex ea causa, et Alexander Magnus Scythas aggressi sunt. Sed haec hactenus. [505] Caput quartum: De praecipuis belli actionibus. Postquam vero de bello dictum est, quid sit, et quando iustum, sequenti loco iam videamus ecquae sint bellicae actiones, quas pius magistratus in bello iusto exercere potest.

Lambert Daneau  85 us and that have not been returned when requested. However, these causes are also behind just civil wars, let alone foreign ones, namely if one part of the commonwealth is subverted by another or indeed injured and the other part, which has inflicted the injury, does not offer satisfaction to the injured part. The civil wars arising from this are also, as I said, very miserable. By the way, the justness of other actions associated with the war, such as plundering, killing, and other disasters that are inflicted in the war depends on the cause for starting a war in the first place and how just it is. For all particular actions of this kind are the fruits of war, its appendages, and the very effects in themselves, which are covered by the same justice in the face of God, by which the war itself was started. [504] War, after all, is a very grave scourge, with which God punishes humans. For this reason, if someone, either a soldier or other individual, leaves for war who does not have the cause and justice of the started war in mind, but only fights or finds himself in an army camp with the intention to plunder, grow rich, or rage, than he himself is guilty in the face of God because of his intention and goal. However, the war itself and the conduct of the commonwealth at war or the war acts themselves, even those perpetrated by that very man against the enemies, are nevertheless just, because of that general and foremost justice and legitimate cause, because of which the war was started in the first place. For this reason, those who serve and are in the army must each and everyone, if to an extent they want to be considered as and be pious and Christian men, be informed about the justice of the started war by the supreme magistrate. Otherwise, they rush forward and are led forth not as pious men, but as cattle towards their death or must be considered as monstrous and savage men, who thirst after the blood of people like them and are happy about it and are the tormentors of the human race. By the way, should one wonder against whom a just war must be prudently undertaken, then the view of Thucydides must be particularly taken into account from book 6 of his History: it is the work of madmen to attack those peoples and wage wars against them, whom as victor you cannot keep in check and from whom you cannot return once you have been defeated by them.57 Therefore, such enemies must be forced to do their duty in another way than through war. For Darius I and Alexander the Great attacked the Scythians in vain and imprudently for this reason.58 This is what I had to say about this. [505] Chapter four: About specific acts of war Now that we have spoken about war, what it is and when it is just, let’s see next what the war acts are that a pious magistrate can engage in.

57 A reference to the unsuccessful Athenian expedition against Syracuse, as discussed in book six of Thucydides’s history of the Peloponnesian War (see in particular 6.11.1). 58 The main classical source for Darius’s expedition against the Scythians is Herodotus’s Histories (book 4). Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander (book 4) discusses Alexander the Great’s campaign.

86  Lambert Daneau Sunt autem eae varii generis, neque omnes inter se pares: sed ex iis quaedam sunt praecipuae, quaedam vero iis adiunctae, inseruientes, et adminiculariae. Ac quidem praecipuae belli iusti actiones sunt fere hae tres, praedatio ex agro hostili: obsidio locorum, et oppidorum quae ad hostes pertinent: et praelium seu pugna, qua vel totis viribus certatur vtrinque, vel velitationibus tantum, prout partes quaedam exercitus ex inspirato, vel deliberato concurrunt et occurunt inter se. Et certe quidem in bello iusto licere pio magistratui ex agro hostili praedas agere notius est, quam vt de eo quisquam dubitare possit. Quocunque enim modo, absque perfidia, hosti noceri potest, noceatur, et quaecunque vitae subsidia illis eripi possunt, eripiantur, vt facilius, citiusque, et ad pacem petendam, et ad iniuriam a se factam resarciendam hostis ille adigatur, ac compellatur. Incendia vero, et demolitiones pagorum, aut castrorum, (nisi si quae erunt valde munita hostium praesidia, et nisi sic fieri sit necesse, et ex vsu, et praeceptis belli) non probo: licet tamen et a Romanis, et ab aliis populis fuerint crebro vsurpata, quo terrorem et metum sui latius hostibus et rusticis spargerent. Verum Dei verbum Deut. 20. videtur rationem belli gerendi leniorem continere, et praescribere, [506] quam fuerit a profanis illis populis vsitata, nisi fortasse quis dixerit ea de bello gerendo praecepta (quae sunt Deut. 20.) non fuisse generalia, et in quouis bello obseruanda: sed in eo duntaxat, quod contra Chananaeos (quorum terram postea possessuri erant) Israëlitae tunc gerebant. Chananaeorum enim regioni, velut suae mox futurae, parcere tunc iussi sunt Israëlitae. Ego tamen ea belli circunferendi, et administrandi praecepta sentio fuisse generalia, et vbique ab Israëlitis, et semper obseruata, si modo Dei verbo parere studuerunt. Ergo praedas ex hostibus agere licet, pecora, ouesque abigere, eorum supellectilem conuasare, spoliare denique hostem excursionibus et direptionibus in eorum agro factis. Ex agris autem sociorum aut eorum, quorum stipendiis aleris, praedas agere est omnino nefas: imo grauiter etiam puniendum. Est enim, vt ait Plato, bonus miles, velut bonus canis, qui suum, a quo alitur, dominum, eiusque domesticos agnoscit, et tuetur: hostes autem duntaxat, aut extraneos allatrat, et mordet. Denique quum a nostris ipsorum militibus spoliamur, tunc iis stipendia persoluere non possumus: atque etiam eos odio prosequimur, et qua ratione cunque possumus, clam eos quantumuis nostros, tollimus, et trucidamus. Vnde odia, et simultates mutuae: ac proditiones aliorum in alios oriuntur. Verum obsidere quoque hostium oppida licet, atque etiam intercipere statim absque obsidione, id quod etiam est cuiuis notissimum. Nam si vitam ipsam hosti eripere in bello iusto fas est, cur non eidem et oppidum, et habitationem vel vi, vel fraude adimere nobis licet? Sic Dauid Ammonitarum vrbem obsedit. 2. Sam. 10. Sed quid probatione in re tam [507] clara opus

Lambert Daneau  87 These are of various kinds and are not equal to each other, but some of these are separate and some are connected with, subservient to, and support these. There are altogether these three separate acts of a just war: pillaging of the enemies’ fields, besieging places and towns belonging to the enemies, and a battle or fight in which either both sides fight with all their strength or only with skirmishes, as some parts of the army suddenly or after deliberation rush together and run up against each other. That the pious magistrate is allowed to carry plunder from a hostile field is too well known for anyone to be doubtful about. For let the enemy be harmed in whatever way he can be harmed without treachery and let whatever life provisions can be taken from them be taken away so that the enemy may be forced and compelled more easily and swiftly to ask for peace and to restore the injury inflicted by him. However, I do not approve of burning down and destroying villages or encampments (unless they are very well protected strongholds of the enemy and there is a necessity to do it in accordance with the practice and precepts of war), although these methods were often employed by the Romans and other peoples to spread terror and fear of themselves among the enemies and peasants. The word of God (Deuteronomy 20) seems to comprise and prescribe a more gentle way of waging war [506] than was used by those pagan peoples, unless someone might say that those commands on waging war (which are in Deuteronomy 20) do not apply in general and should not be observed in every war, but apply only to the war the Israelites waged at the time against the Canaanites, of whose land they would later take possession. For the Israelites were then commanded to spare the region of the Canaanites as it would soon be theirs. I believe that those commands to limit and control war were general and were everywhere and always observed by the Israelites, if at least they did their best to obey God’s word. It is therefore allowed to carry off booty from the enemies, to drive away cattle and sheep, to pack up their furniture, and finally to plunder the enemy through attacks and pillaging carried out on their fields. However, it is absolutely unlawful to carry off booty from the fields of allies or of those by whose payments you are fed. In fact, such behaviour must be gravely punished. After all, as Plato says a good soldier is like a good dog, who recognizes and protects his master by whom he is fed and his family and only barks at hostile outsiders and bites them. Finally, when we are plundered by our own soldiers, then we cannot pay their wages and bitterly persecute them and, in whatever way possible and as secretly for our own people as possible, destroy and kill them. Feelings of hate and mutual animosity and betrayal originate from such situations. Besieging towns of enemies is permitted, as well as taking them immediately without a siege, as is very well known to everyone. For, if it is allowed to take life itself from an enemy in a just war, then why is it not allowed to deprive that same enemy of his town and dwelling either through force or deceit? This is how David besieged the city of the Ammonites in 2 Samuel 10. But what need is there of approval in such a [507] clear case? We should rather look at

88  Lambert Daneau est? Potius illa videnda sunt, quae, dum vrbes obsidentur, fieri possunt, siue tu qui iustum bellum geris, oppidum hostis obsideas: siue ille tuum. Haec fere igitur in obsidione vel necessaria sunt, vel fieri ac contingere solent. Primum machinae bombardicae, arietes, et tragulae, quibus obsessi oppidi murus ab obsidentibus percutiatur, et perrumpatur: vel, vt hostis irruentis vis et impetus, aut machinae hostiles ab obsessis reprimantur, deiicianturve. Deinde cuniculi sunt agendi, si qui fieri possunt, ab obsidentibus quidem, vt murus oppidi subruatur: Ab obsessis autem vt hostium cuniculos agentium fraus et conatus irritus fiat. Eruptio quoque fit ab obsessis: vti oppugnatio fit ab obsidentibus hostibus. Iam in obsidione sequi solet vel solutio obsidionis, si eam capere is non potest, qui eam tentat, premit, ac obsidet: vel oppidi deditio, quae fit ab obsessis: vel eiusdem expugnatio, quae fit vi, et impetu, dum videlicet ab obsidentibus vi capitur, et armis oppidum. In deditione autem fides iis data, qui se nobis nostraeque potestati dedunt, est omnino seruanda. In expugnatis vero vi oppidis, et a sanguine ciuium captorum, postquam certa constat tibi victoria, temperandum est, quantum fieri potest: et imprimis a pudicitia mulierum captarum semper abstinendum. Nam cauendum et curandum maxime est a ducibus exercitus victoris, ne milites vxores captiuas aut captas violent. Praeclarum enim est illud Scipionis Maioris exemplum, qui cum in Hispania oppidum vi cepisset, militemque videret manum sub stolam mulieris captae mittentem, eum statim gladio confodit, adiecitque hac ratione fieri implacabiles captorum hostium animos, vt semper de se vindicandis cogitent. [508] Quam ipsam animi continentiam idem ipse Scipio, Chartagine Noua capta, suo exemplo docuerat, quemadmodum et Alexander Magnus capta vxore Darii. Ergo ne mulieres captae violentur post expugnationem oppidorum seuerissime interdicendum atque cauendum est, militesque, si id fecerint, plectendi poena militari a ducibus. Tertia denique bellica actio est praelium seu pugna, qua cum hoste vel totis viribus de summa rerum dimicatur, ac confligitur: vel pars tantum exercitus inopina, vel condicta die, et deliberato exercitus hostilis parti alicui occurit. Hic acies a ducibus commode instruenda, ordines a militibus diligenter seruandi, stratagemata, insidiae, impetus, robur animi et corporis maxime valent: denique tota militaris disciplina seruari et explicari tunc potissimum exactissime debet, et summa animi industria, prudentiaque prospici tum a ducibus, tum ab ipsis quoque militibus, vt victores euadant.

Lambert Daneau  89 the things that can happen when cities are besieged, either when you, who wage a just war, besiege the town of an enemy or when he besieges your town. These things are generally either necessary in a siege or tend to happen and take place. First of all, cannons, battering rams, and missiles are used, with which the wall of the besieged city is struck and broken down by the besiegers or so that the force and assault or hostile siege weapons of the attacking enemy may be pressed back or cut down by those besieged. Next, tunnels should be dug, if possible, by the besiegers, so that the wall of the town may be undermined, and by the besieged so that the enemy’s tunnels might be deceived and confounded. A sally is also done by the besieged as an attack is made by the besieging enemies. In a siege either a dissolution of the siege tends to follow, if he who assails, constrains, and besieges the town cannot take it, or the surrender of the town, which is done by the besieged, or the taking of the town by storm, which happens through force and assault, namely when the town is taken by the besiegers with force and weapons. In the case of a surrender, the assurance given to them who surrender themselves to us and to our authority, should definitely be kept. However, in the case of cities taken by storm and force, we should refrain as much as possible from shedding the blood of captured citizens, after it has been established that victory is yours, and in particular, we must always hold back from violating the chastity of captured women. For the captains of the victorious army must beware and take the utmost care that the soldiers do not violate the captive or captured women. After all, that famous example of the elder Scipio is wonderful. After he had taken a town by force in Spain and saw how a soldier moved his hand under the veil of a woman, he immediately killed him with his sword and added that in this way the minds of the captured enemies become unappeasable so that they always think about avenging themselves. [508] That same Scipio had shown through his example the same restraint of mind when he had captured Carthago Nova, as had Alexander the Great when he had captured the wife of Darius.59 Therefore, it must most severely be forbidden and guarded against that captured women are violated after cities have been taken by storm, and soldiers must be punished with death by their captains, if they do it. Finally, the third act of war is the battle or fight, in which struggle and clash take place with the enemy either with full force at the risk of everything or in which only a part of the army on an unexpected or an agreed day and after due consideration rushes upon some part of the enemy’s army. In this case, the commanders must draw up the battle lines according to the circumstances, orders must be diligently followed by soldiers, stratagems, ambushes, attacks, strength of mind and body prevail. In short, the whole military discipline must be very exactly followed and explained, and the

59 On Scipio’s clemency see Liv. 26.47. The example concerning Alexander can be found in Arr. Anab. 2.2.16.

90  Lambert Daneau Quanquam enim victoriae sunt ipsae quidem a Deo, ea tamen subsidia, et media, per quae possunt illae obtineri, minime sunt a sapientibus ducibus ac militibus vel negligenda, vel omnino aspernanda. Iam vero ex praelio haec sequuntur tria, alioqui nimirum vtraque ex parte captiui: in vna vero pugnantium parte Νίκη, id est victoria: in altera vero ἥττη, id est, clades, calamitas, et fuga. De die vero praelii committendi frustra disputant scholastici homines. Volunt enim ne die dominica praelium committatur, quasi hoc sit positum in vnius partis potestate, et voluntate. Nam inuiti saepe dimicare cogimur. Praeterea [509] huiusmodi diei Dominicae obseruatio, qualem ipsi praescribunt, est procul dubio plus, quam Iudaica Sabbathi sub Veteri lege seruitus, a qua nos, Dei gratia, sumus per Christum iam liberati. Verum ne tunc quidem Iudaeis interdictum fuit pugnare die Sabbathi. Itaque mera superstitio fuit, quum et ab Antiocho, et a Pompeio obsessi Iudaei Hierosolymis, pugnare die Sabbathi recusarunt, moeniaque sua propugnare noluerunt, ac proinde capti sunt. Sed et ipsimet scholastici ab ipsis pontificibus Romanis refutantur. Nam Iulius secundus pontifex Romanus ipso die paschae Rauennensem pugnam et praelium iniit: et dum Mirandulam oppidum oppugnaret ipse ocreatus, paludatusque etiam ipso die Paschae, ac festo aderat in exercitu, et arcem Mirandulanam machinis quatiebat. Ergo prudentis ducis sapienti circunspectaeque curae relinquendum est, quo die, et tempore sit cum hoste dimicandum ac confligendum. Quouis enim die, et tempore id Christianis licet, et quidem bona conscientia. ************************* [522] Caput sextum: De iure belli, victoria et pace. Postrema vero huius disputationis quaestio est, de iure belli. Praeclare enim Isidorus lib. 5. Etymologicῶν, ius militare seu belli distinguit a iure gentium, et ciuili, quod bella suas quasdam peculiares leges habeant, quae sunt obseruandae. Sic aliae sunt mercimoniorum et mercatuum habendorum leges: aliae litium dirimendarum, et fori iuridici constituendi, et habendi, praecepta constituta. Ius militare est, inquit Isidorus, belli indicendi solennitas: foederis faciendi nixus: signo dato egressio in hostem, et commissio (id est impressio:) item signo dato receptio: item flagitii militaris disciplina, (id est castigatio) si locus deseratur: stipendiorum modus: dignitatum gradus: praemiorum honor, veluti quum corona, vel torquis

Lambert Daneau  91 utmost zeal and prudence of mind must be observed by both the commanders and soldiers so that they may leave the battlefield as victors. Although victories themselves come from God, the support and means by which they can be achieved should not be neglected or completely disdained by wise commanders. These three things follow from a battle, first of all naturally captives from both sides. However, one fighting party will have the Nikē, that is, victory; the other side hēttē, that is destruction, calamity, and flight. The scholastics argue about the day to engage in battle in vain. For they want that we do not engage in battle on Sunday, as if this is entirely up to the power and will of one party. We are, after all, often forced to fight. Furthermore, [509] this kind of observance of Sunday as they prescribe is no doubt more than the Jewish subjection to the Sabbath under the Old Testament, from which we have been liberated through Christ, thanks to God. However, even then it was not forbidden to the Jews to fight on the day of the Sabbath. It was therefore pure superstition when the Jews who were besieged by Antiochus and by Pompey in Jerusalem refused to fight on the day of the Sabbath and did not want to defend their walls and were subsequently captured. But those very same scholastics are also refuted by the Roman pontiffs themselves. For Pope Julius II engaged in a fight and battle at Ravenna on Easter day itself and while the citadel of Mirandula was stormed he was with his army clad in armour and military cloak and battered the fortress of Mirandula with siege weapons. It must therefore be left to the wise and cautious care of the prudent commander on which day and at what time he should fight and clash with the enemy. For it is licit to do so for Christians on any day and with good conscience. *********************** [522] Chapter six: On the law of war, victory, and peace The final question of this disputation is on the right of war. For Isidore brilliantly distinguishes in book five of the Etymologies the military law or law of war from the law of nations and civil law, because wars have certain special laws of their own, which must be observed. Thus, there are some laws for goods and holding markets, and other established prescriptions for resolving disputes and for setting up and having a court of justice. ‘Military law’, says Isidore, is the formality of declaring war, the bond of concluding a treaty, the attack against and engaging with (that is, the assault on) the enemy at a given signal, as well as a truce at a given signal, the disciplining (that is, correction) of a military scoundrel if he deserts from his position, the measure of distributing military pay, the hierarchy of ranks, the honour of rewards, as when a crown or necklace are awarded; the distribution

92  Lambert Daneau donatur: item praedae decissio, et pro personarum qualitatibus, et [523] laboribus iusta diuisio ac principis portio. Haec illae, quae in Can. Ius militare Dist. 1. transcripta quoque sunt a Gratiano. Esse autem peculiaria quaedam iura belli apparet tum ex Genes. 14. vers. 21. Deut. 20. ver.1.2.Reg.6. ver. 22, et aliis infinitis locis, tum quoque ex praeclara illa Ambrosii disputatione in libro De Patriarcha Abrahamo cap. 3. vbi tandem vir ille et bonus episcopus, et vere militaris docet praedam, id est, manubias, et spolia in bello iure cedere victori, eiusque bono iure esse, et quidem ipso iure belli. Docet quoque hanc esse militarem disciplinam, vt regi seruentur ab exercitu omnia, quae postea ipse pro cuiusque labore inter duces et milites distribuat, partem et ipse suam sibi ex ea praeda reseruans. Id quod verum esse confirmat Abrahami exemplum Genes. 14. et Dauidis, 1. Samuel. 30. vers. 20. et Can. Dicat aliquis 23. quaest. 5. et exemplum Agamemnonis et Achillis apud Homerum lib. 1. Iliadis. Verum, vt quod sit hoc ius belli facilius intelligatur, in summa dico. Quaedam iure belli ab vtroque exercitu, qui belligerantur et sese oppugnant mutuo, et quorum alter alterius hostis est, communiter oportere obseruari, et fieri: Quaedam autem ab vna duntaxat parte pugnante in alteram partem contrariam et pugnantem: Quaedam denique seorsim in vtroque exercitu, seu in vtraque parte spectari, geri, ac fieri oportere. Ac quidem ab vtraque parte pugnante communiter fiunt, et seruanda sunt ea, quae sunt vel iuris gentium, vel iuris inter ipsosmet hostes conuenti et pacti, vel iuris [524] ipsius militaris, seu bellici. Ius gentium est, vt pacis postea consequendae et stabiliendae gratia bellum geratur, quemadmodum docet Augustinus lib. 19. De Ciuitate Dei cap. 12. Quare praeclare Tull. lib. 1. Off. Bellum, inquit, ita suscipiatur, vt nihil aliud, nisi pax quaesita videatur. Itaque paci, quae nihil habeat insidiarum, semper est consulendum. Et illa est Domini nostri Iesu Christi sententia, Beati pacifici, quoniam ipsi Regnum Dei possidebunt. Math. 5. Vnde non est eo animo bellum gerendum praesertim inter pios et Christianos, vt de vita alieni eripienda, vel de regno suo amplificando potius, quam de pace ac securitate stabilienda publice Christiani certent. Ergo

Lambert Daneau  93 of booty and its fair division in accordance with the status and [523] deeds of individuals and the prince’s share60 These are the things that have also been transcribed by Gratian in the canon Military law, distinction one.61 It becomes apparent that there are particular laws of war both from Genesis 14: 21, Deuteronomy 20: 1, 2 Kings 6: 22, and countless other places, as well as from that brilliant treatment by Ambrose in his book On the Patriarch Abraham, chapter 3, where that illustrious man and good and truly military bishop explains at length that booty, loot, and spoils in a war rightfully go to the victor and are his according to good law and according to the law of war.62 He also teaches that it is a matter of military discipline that all things are brought by the army to the king, which he then distributes among officers and soldiers according to the effort of each, keeping his part of the booty for himself. That this is proper, is confirmed by the example of Abraham in Genesis 14 and of David in 1 Samuel 30: 20 and the canon Someone may say, 23, question 5 and the example of Agamemnon and Achilles in book one of Homer’s Illiad.63 However, to make sure it is more easily understood what this law of war is, I am going to give a summary. Some things in the law of war must be observed and done together by both armies that are at war and fight against each other and are each other’s enemies. However, some matters must only be observed by one fighting party as they fight against the opposing party. Finally, some matters must be considered, acted upon, and done by each army or each party separately. Those matters that pertain to the law of nations or the rules agreed and stipulated among the enemies themselves or are part of military or war law [524] itself must be done and observed by both fighting parties together. It is the law of nations that a war is fought for the sake of pursuing and establishing peace afterwards, as Augustine teaches in book 19, chapter 12 of The City of God. Cicero therefore brilliantly says in book one of On Obligations: ‘A war is started so that nothing but peace is seen to be sought. We should therefore always strive after a peace that has nothing to do with deceit’.64 This is also the view of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will possess the kingdom of God’ (Matthew 5).65 Hence, one should not wage a war, especially not among the

60 61 62 63

Isid. Etym. 5.7. Decretum Gratiani 1, d.1, c. 10. Ambr. De Abraham 1.3.16–18 (PL vol. 14, cols 448–449). Genesis 14 contains the first description of a war in the Bible. See also Chapter 1 in this anthology on Vermigli. The canon referred to is Decretum Gratiani 2, c. 32, q. 5. The conflict between Agamemnon and Achilles arose over the girl Briseis, who had been captured in battle. 6 4 Cic. Off. 1.23; 1.11. 65 Matt. 5:9.

94  Lambert Daneau ne illud spectent ii, qui ferro inter se dimicant, et bella gerunt, nimirum vt late imperent: sed vt pacifice postea inter se viuant. Crudele vere est, si bella suscipiunt inter sese aliqui populi, vt de excidione alter alterius cogitent, et vter sit: licet huiusmodi bella Romani cum Cimbris, et Celtiberis gesserint: cum Poenis autem et Pyrrho de imperio duntaxat, non autem de vita ipsa Romani dimicabant, quemadmodum idem Tullius scribit. Denique quam fuerit veterum populorum, qui bella primi excitarunt, aequus in eo, moderatusque animus ex his Iustini historici lib. 1. verbis apparet, Fines imperii tueri potius, quam proferre, mos erat. Primi mortales longinqua, non finitima bella gerebant, contentique victoria, imperio abstinebant. Ius gentium est vt ambassiatores seu legati, qui ab hostibus ad hostes mittuntur, sint tuti apud ipsos hostes, et [525] inuiolabiles. Id quod et Dauidis propterea contra Ammonitas pugnantis bellum ostendit. 2. Samuel, et ciuitatis Corinthi a Romanis, ob legatum violatum, euersae exemplum: et M.T. Cicero docet Philip. 8. Ius gentium est, vt neque bellum, vllaue hostilis actio vnquam prius geratur, quam per Foeciales fuerit publice bellum indictum, ac denunciatum illi, quem facis ac velis hostem, et contra quem bellum suscipis. Alioquin enim est merum latrocinium, non bellum. Porro ex iure inter ipsosmet populos belligerantes pacto, et promisso illud statuendum, vt fides data seruetur sincere ab vtraque parte. Id quod et Dei verbum, Psal. 15. et M. Tullius lib. 1. de Offic. ostendunt. Nullum enim est tempus, quod vacare debeat iustitia. Est autem ea summa iustitia quum fides data vel aperte violatur, vel veteratorie circunscribitur. Ergo et induciae pactae belli tempore, et pax finito bello publice constituta, seruanda est: et quae priuatim belli tempore a militibus captis sunt hosti promissa, ea sunt omnia praestanda. Vnde et fiduciariae illae dimissiones captiuorum sunt ex fide a captiuis data seruandae. Denique fides hosti data ab vtraque parte seruanda est. Sed et ius militare, vel ipsius belli generale etiam vltro citroque quaedam fieri concedit, quatenus qui bellum inter se gerunt, sibi

Lambert Daneau  95 godly and Christians, with the intent to deprive someone else of his life or to extend one’s kingdom rather than about publicly establishing peace and security. Let those who fight with iron among each other and wage wars therefore not have in mind that they should have an extensive empire, but that they should live peacefully among each other afterwards. It is truly cruel if some peoples start wars among each other, with the thought of destroying each other, whichever of the two it may be, although the Romans waged wars of this kind with the Cimbrians and Celtiberians. With the Carthaginians and Pyrrhus, the Romans only fought about empire, not about life itself, as the same Cicero writes.66 Finally, how equitable and moderate the mindset of the ancient peoples, who were the first to stir up wars, was in war, becomes apparent from these words of book one of Justin the historian: ‘It was the custom to protect the borders of an empire rather than to extend them. The first mortals waged remote wars, not wars with their neighbours, and content with their victory they refrained from supreme rule over others’.67 It is the law of nations that ambassadors or representatives, who are sent by enemies to each other, should be safe and inviolable among the enemies [525] themselves. This is also what the example of David shows when he fought a war against the Ammonites (2 Samuel) and the example of Corinth, destroyed by the Romans due to an assaulted delegation.68 This is also what Cicero teaches us in his eight Philippic.69 It is also the law of nations that neither a war nor any hostile action must ever be carried out before the war has been publicly declared by emissaries and announced to him, whom you make or would like as enemy and against whom you are starting a war. Otherwise it is pure brigandage, not a war. Furthermore, it must be established in accordance with the rules agreed and promised among the fighting peoples themselves that a promise that has been made is sincerely respected by both parties. This is also what the word of God in Psalm 15 and Cicero show in book one of On Obligations.70 There is not a single moment that must be without justice. For when a given promise is violated or slyly restricted, then it is the highest justice that is violated and restricted. An armistice agreed in time of war and peace publicly established after a war has come to an end must be respected. The things that have been promised by the enemy in private during a war to those who have been captured by the soldiers must all be fulfilled. Hence, letting prisoners go on their word based on a promise made by the prisoners must be respected. Finally, a promise made to an enemy must be kept by both parties. Military law or the general law of war itself also concedes that some things are done on both sides, inasmuch as those who wage wars amongst them 66 67 68 69 70

Cic. Ad Att. 1.12.38; Off. 1.12. Just. Epit. 1.1. In 146 BCE. Cassius Dio 21.72 is Daneau’s most likely source. Cic. Phil. 8.7–8. Cic. Off. 1.12.

96  Lambert Daneau mutuo hostes sunt, et inimici. Itaque damnum vltro citroque sibi hostes inferunt, praelium committunt et pugnant, praedas agunt, et reliquas bellicas actiones, de quibus supra: quae tamen ex ea duntaxat parte iuste fiunt, quae iustum bellum gerit. [526] Caeterum vtrum vi aperta, an ex insidiis quoque et stratagemate ea damna mutuo sibi bona conscientia possint, ac debeant inferre ii qui sunt hostes, quaesitum est. Verum perinde est, modo fides data nunquam violetur. Vera est enim in bello illa sententia Dolus, an virtus, quis in hoste requirat? Vbi fides tamen data seruatur. Et certe quidem bonus est dolus hostem incogitantem, cui fidem datam non frangas, opprimere, et delere. Quamobrem in belllo iusto licet vt non tantum armis, et vi aperta: sed etiam insidiis, stratagemate, exploratoribus, quibus hostes fallis, vel in periculum praecipitas, vel etiam eorum consilia expiscaris. Nam et Deus ipse struere iubet insidias hostibus, et Iosua, et Dauid stratagemate hostes superant, ac vtuntur, Deo ipso praecipiente. Ios. 8. et 2. Sam. 5.ver. 23. Exploratores etiam fuerunt in exercitu Israëlitarum, et quidem viri boni, velut Chaleb, Num. 13. Ergo de his omnibus, et vt liceant in iusto bello, et a viris piis exerceri possint, copiose disputat P. Martyr in locis communibus, vbi de bello agit. Verum vtrum proditione, et proditoribus vti pio magistratui liceat, quaesitum est: Et certe quidem licet, vt breuiter dicam, pio magistratui iis vti. Nam Rahabae meretricis, et proditricis operam Israëlitae non recusant, aut renuunt, vt apparet Ios. 6. Vtrum autem vir pius suam patriam ipse prodere possit, quoniam eam agnoscit iniuste bella gerere, esseque in eo bello iniustam, quaesitum est. Et P. quidem Martyr in cap. 1. Iudicum, putat eo casu, quo vir aliquis pius partes eas, a quibus est, ac stat, agnoscit esse iniustas, eum posse prodere eas partes. Ego vero prorsus contra sentio [527] putoque, transfugere quidem ab iis illum virum pium et debere, et posse, quos scit esse iniustos: et quum stat versaturque adhuc in eorum partibus, admonere eos suae iniustae et malae caussae, et sana iis consilia debet idem vir pius suppeditare, quemadmodum fecit illa mulier Bethmahachita suis

Lambert Daneau  97 selves are enemies to each other and foes. For this reason, enemies inflict damage on each other, they start a battle and fight, carry off booty and execute other acts of war which I have discussed above. These are only done in a just way by that party, which wages a just war. [526] By the way, it has been asked whether those who are enemies can and must inflict damage in good conscience through open violence only or also from an ambush and through a stratagem. However, it is the same, as long as a promise that has been made is never violated. For in a war, that famous saying is true: ‘Courage or deceit? Who will ask about that in an enemy?’71 Yet when a promise is given, it is kept. It is definitely laudable deceit to crush and destroy a thoughtless enemy, for whom you do not break a promise. It is therefore licit in a just war to use not just weapons and open violence, but also ambushes, stratagems, spies, with whom you mislead enemies or bring them into danger or find out their plans. For God Himself also commands to set up ambushes for enemies and Joshua and David overcame enemies with stratagems and used them, while God Himself commanded it (Joshua 8 and 2 Samuel 5: 23). There were even spies in the army of the Israelites and they were good men, such as Caleb in Numbers 13. Peter Martyr abundantly deals with all these things and the fact that they are licit in a just war and can be done by godly men in his Commonplaces where he deals with war.72 However, the question has been asked if it is licit for the godly magistrate to use traitors. To put it briefly: it is definitely licit for the pious magistrate to make use of them. For the Israelites do not refuse or reject the help of Rahab, a prostitute and traitor, as becomes apparent from Joshua 6. It has been asked, moreover, whether a godly man can himself betray his fatherland, because he recognizes it unjustly wages a war and is unjust in that war. Peter Vermigli writing about 1 Judges, argues that when some godly man recognizes that the party to which he belongs and adheres is unjust, then he can betray that party.73 I, however, completely disagree [527] and believe that a godly man can and must flee from those, who he knows to be unjust and when he still belongs to and finds himself in their party then the same godly man must point out to them the unjust and bad cause and give them good counsels, as that woman from Abel-beth-maacah did to her citizens in 71 Verg. Aen. 2.390. 72 This refers to the chapter De bello or Of warre from Vermigli’s Loci communes or Commonplaces (first published in Latin in 1576; translation in 1583). The chapter can be found in a present-day edition in The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli: Selected Texts and Commentary (Geneva: Droz, 1980), 61–81. 73 Vermigli did indeed argue that treason was morally acceptable as long as particular conditions are met. For example, the ‘traitor’ must know through faith that he is promoting the cause of justice and that is only possible if he has ‘grasped the goodness of that cause through the word of God’ (bonitatem eius Dei verbo compertam habuerit), which is only possible if he is a godly man. See P. Martyr Vermigli, In librum Iudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini, Professoris diuinarum literarum in schola Tigurina, Commentarii doctissimi, cum tractatione perutili rerum et locorum (Zurich: Froschauer, 1561), fols 26v–29v.

98  Lambert Daneau ciuibus. 2. Sam. 20. Prodere autem hostibus ciuitatem, in qua est, aut partes, quas tuetur, et quibus stat et eas hostibus exponere, nemo pius, mea quidem sententia debet, aut bona conscientia potest. Fidem enim iis datam violat. Sed mecum quoque omnino sentit idem P. Martyr in lib. 2. Sam. cap. 15. ver. 34. Vbi Chusai Arcaei factum aperte damnat, qui vt inseruiret amico Dauidi, Absalonem, cui adhaerebat, prodidit. Eodem modo eademque ratione Sadoc et Abiathar sacerdotes ibidem damnandi quorum omnium finis quidem fuit bonus: sed media mala, et iniusta. Ergo haec sunt et his similia, quae communiter, et vltro, citroque seruantur, fiuntque in bello ab vtraque parte pugnante. Quae vero ab vna duntaxat parte pugnante fiunt in alteram, illa sunt, quae vel victores in victos iure belli legitime exercent: vel capientes in captiuos suos: vel acceptantes in eos, qui sese illis dedunt. De quibus omnibus vniversum illa mihi probatur Ciceronis sententia lib. 1. de Officiis. Cum iis, quos vi deuiceris, ait ille, consulendum est: tum ii, qui armis positis, ad imperatorum fidem confugient (quamuis murum aries percusserit) recipiendi. De euertendis autem, diripiendisque urbibus, valde illud considerandum est, ne quid temere, ne quid crudeliter fiat: idque est viri magni, rebus agitatis punire sontes, multitudinem conseruare, in omni fortuna, recta, et honesta retinere. [528] Denique eadem misericordia, qua sunt vsi Israëlitae aduersus Iudaeos, inter se pii omnes etiam bello ciuili certantes vtantur. Illa autem descripta est 2. Chronic. 28. ver. 8. vt humaniter, et benigne etiam victos, captosque tractemus hostes et fratres. Denique, ait ad Bonifacium, scribens Augustinus, sicut bellanti, et resistenti violentia redditur: ita a victore misericordia capto debetur, maxime in quo pacis perturbatio non timetur. vt est in Can. Noli existimare. 23. quaest. 1. In quo Canone explicando merito damnata est Hugolini canonistae sententia, qui vult et scribit iis tantum captiuis parcendum esse, a quibus non metuitur perturbatio pacis: aliis non item. Quam Hugolini sententiam,

Lambert Daneau  99 2 Samuel 20. However, no godly man, in my opinion at least, must or can in good conscience betray the city, in which he lives, or the party he defends and expose it to the enemies. For he breaks his word. Peter Martyr completely agrees with me on 2 Samuel 15: 34, where he explicitly condemns the deed of the Arkite Hushai, who in order to serve his friend David betrayed Absalon, to whose side he belonged.74 In the same way and for the same reason the priests Zadok and Abiathar must be condemned in that same part of the Bible.75 Their goal may have been good, but the means were bad and unjust. These and similar things are the matters that are observed and done together on both sides by both fighting parties in a war. The things, however, that are only done by one fighting party towards the other party are those things that either the victors legitimately practise according to the law of war towards those they have defeated or the captors towards their captives or those who receive a request for surrender towards those who surrender themselves. On all of these matters, I completely approve Cicero’s judgement in book one of On Obligations: You must deal carefully with those you have defeated with violence and must also receive those who, after they have laid down their weapons, throw themselves upon the mercy of your commanders, despite the fact the battering-ram has struck their wall. We must take very careful consideration regarding destroying cities and laying them to waste, to make sure nothing is done in a rash or cruel way. It is a great man’s duty when everything is in disarray to punish the guilty, spare the multitude and hold on to what is right and honourable under all circumstances76 [528] Finally, let all godly people who fight with each other, even in a civil war, apply the same mercy as the Israelites applied towards the Jews. That has been described in 2 Chronicles 28: 8 so that we may treat even those we have defeated and captured in a humane and kind way, both as enemies and as brothers. In short, as Augustine says writing to Boniface, just as violence is returned to him who fights and resists, in the same way is mercy owed by the victor to the captive, especially one who is not feared to be a threat to peace, as is mentioned in the canon Do not reckon, 23, question 1.77 The opinion of the canonist Ugolini in explaining this canon has rightly been condemned. He wants and writes that only those captives should be spared,

74 In duos libros Samuelis prophetae qui vulgo priores libri regum appellantur D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris divinarum literarum in schola Tigurina, Commentarii doctissimi, cum rerum et locorum plurimorum tractatione perutili (Zurich: Froschauer, 1567), fol. 269r. 75 2 Sam. 17:21. 76 Cic. Off. 1.11; 1.24. 77 Decretum Gratiani 2, C. 23, q. 1, c. 3.

100  Lambert Daneau imo Clementis Romani pontificis crudele responsum, Mors Corradini, vita Caroli, sequutus Carolus Gallus primus Neapolitanorum rex Corradinum Sueuum in foro Neapolitano vna cum duce Austriae capite truncari iussit. Quod consilium tandem male cessit, eumque ex Siciliae regno eiecit. Quo in genere semper illa Agesilai, Lacedaemoniorum regis, clementia est a piis omnibus imitanda, quam in eius encomio describit Xenophon, nempe vt militibus suis belli duces persuadeant captiuos, vt iniustos occidi quidem posse: tamen, vt homines, esse seruandos. Item et puerorum, et senum, et infirmorum captiuorum summam curam esse habendam, vt alantur, neve a canibus et feris lanientur relicti, et proiecti. Nam hac ratione omnium, etiam hostium ipsorum, beneuolentiam sibi victores conciliant. Id quod Alexander ille [529] Magnus seruata matre, et vxore Darii consequutus est: et Scipio ille Maior Africanus seruata illa Hispani Reguli Cantabri sponsa: Quanto igitur magis hoc Christianos homines, et reges facere decet? Maxime igitur laudata est Ludouici Crassi Francorum regis clementia qui principibus Germanis a se victis, et captis pepercit: Pyrrhi Epirotarum regis qui etiam gratis reddidit captiuos Romanorum quos habebat. Sed omnes facile vincit Henricus 3. Borbonius Nauarrenorum rex, qui omnibus hostibus suis quos Cotraci in bello cepit, pepercit 1589. Omnium autem odio digna semper habita est ea vincentium crudelitas, per quam reges a se captos trucidarunt, praesertim Christianos. Sic immanis fuit iudicatus, vti dixi, Carolus dux Andegauensium Neapolitanus rex, quod Corradinum filium imperatoris, et ducem Austriae a se captos bello, et diu seruatos, postea publice interfecit. Laudati contra Sarraceni qui eum ipsum Carolum, et eius fratrem Ludouicum Sanctum apud Damietam Aegypti vrbem captos humaniter habuerunt, et tractauerunt, illisque pepercerunt. Misericordia igitur victor in victum, praesertim Christianum, vtatur, quantum reipublicae salus patitur. Postremo vero loco, quae a singulis exercitibus, id est, ab vnaquaque parte pugnante obseruantur seorsim in suis castris iure belli, fere haec tria sunt.

Lambert Daneau  101 from whom no disturbance of the peace is feared, but not others.78 Following this opinion of Ugolini’s and indeed the cruel reply of the Roman pontiff Clement who said ‘the death of Conradin is the life of Charles’, Charles I, king of Naples, ordered Conradin of Swabia to be beheaded on the market of Naples together with the Duke of Austria.79 This plan worked out badly in the end and got him expelled from the kingdom of Sicily. In this respect, the clemency of Agesilaus, king of Spartans, must be imitated by all godly people and is described by Xenophon in his praise of him.80 This clemency involves that officers persuade their soldiers that captives can be killed if they are unjust, yet, as people, must be spared. Likewise, the utmost care must be taken of the boys, old men, and infirm among the captives, to make sure they are fed and are not torn apart by dogs and wild beasts left alone and expelled. For in this way the victors win over the favour of all even of the enemies themselves. This is what Alexander the Great [529] managed to do by sparing the mother and wife of Darius and Scipio Africanus the Elder by sparing the betrothed of that Celtiberian chieftain in Spain.81 How much more is it therefore fitting that Christian people and kings do this? The clemency of Louis the Fat, king of the Franks, who spared the German princes defeated and captured by him, has been very much praised as well as the clemency of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who even returned the Roman captives he had for nothing.82 However, Henry IV de Bourbon, king of Navarra, surpasses them all. He spared all of his enemies whom he had captured in war at Coutras, he spared in 1589.83 The cruelty of the victors has always been considered worthy of the hatred of all, when by that cruelty they kill captured kings, in particular Christian kings. Thus, Charles, duke of Anjou and king of Naples was judged to be monstrous, because after he had captured Conradin, the son of the emperor, and the duke of Austria in war and had spared them for a long time, he then publicly executed them. The Saracens, meanwhile, have been praised, who held and treated that very same Charles and his brother Saint Louis in a very humane way as captives at the Egyptian city of Damietta and spared them. Let the victor, therefore, show mercy towards the defeated, especially a Christian one, as much as the preservation of the commonwealth allows. Finally, three things are observed by individual armies, that is, by each fighting party on its own in its camp according to the law of war. First,

78 On Hugolinus, see J. A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law (London and New York: Longman, 1995), 215. 79 On the execution of Conradin and its justification by the pope, see A. Parlato, Corradino di Svevia: L’ultimo ghibellino (Bari: Mario Adda Editore, 2002), 124. 80 Xen. Ages. 1.21. 81 For Alexander’s clemency, see e.g. Arr. Anab. 2.2.16. For the episode involving Scipio, see Livy 26.50. 82 Cic. Off. 1.12. 83 The Battle at Coutras took place on 20 October 1587 during the French Wars of Religion.

102  Lambert Daneau Primum disciplina militaris, qua et ordines seruantur a militibus, et suus cuique locus, et dignitas inter duces, salua sarta, tectaque est, et castigantur seuere poenaque militari scelera a militibus [530] perpetrata vel in Deum, vel in proximos, et praesertim in eos, quos, quorumve fines tueri debent, et a quibus aluntur, atque stipendia accipiunt. Deinde in exercitu fieri debet praedae partitio. Nam praeda ab vnaquaque parte pugnante vel ex hostibus, vel eorum agro capta diuidi iure militari debet inter duces, et milites pro more institutoque maiorum 1. Sam.30. ver.30. Imperatori quoque sua pars seponenda, seruandaque est, quemadmodum antea diximus. Denique praemiorum et laudis pronunciatio, ac collatio fiat ab vnoquoque exercitu in suos, qui se strenue in bello gerunt, gesseruntve. Plurimum enim ea res militum animos accendit ad fortiter bellandum. Contra vero, quum ignaui milites aut duces, bonis ac strenuis aequantur ab imperatore, studium rei bene gerendae extinguitur, magnamque affert toti exercitui ignauiam ea praemiorum aequalitas. Et certe cum rebus in omnibus et vitae humanae actionibus, tum praesertim in bello virtuti praemia sua, eaque amplissima tribuenda sunt. Haec sunt, quae nos de politice Christiana meditabamur Orthesii, quod est vetus Beneharnum5 vti in itinerario Antonini legitur, anno Domini 1584, mense Iulio, aetatis autem nostrae quinquagesimo medio. Faxit Dominus Deus per Vnigenitum filium suum Dominum Nostrum Iesum Christum, vt haec ipsius gloriae, Ecclesiae aedificationi, piarum rerumpublicarum negotiis et deliberationibus politicis prosint, seque illae istis scriptis nostris adiuuari sentiant, et velint. Laus Deo. Amen. *************

Lamberti Danaei Tractatvs de Antichristo (1576) [141] Caput XXIX: Vtrum Christianis et Euangelicis aduersus Papistas bellum suscipere pro extirpando Antichristi regno eiusque doctrina liceat. Neque tamen propterea censendum est armorum vsum ab euangelio prorsus damnari, quemadmodum [142] quidam sentiunt. Hoc quidem

5 1596: Benhnearnum.

Lambert Daneau  103 military discipline, through which orders are followed by soldiers and everyone knows his place, and the hierarchy among the officers is safe, restored, and protected, and crimes [530] perpetrated by soldiers either against God or their neighbours are severely punished by a military penalty, especially crimes against those whose territory they must defend and by whom they are fed and from whom they receive their wages. Next, there must be a division of booty in the army. For the booty captured by each fighting party either from the enemies or from their land must be divided among officers and soldiers according to military law and in accordance with the custom and intention of our predecessors (1 Samuel 30: 30). The share for the commander must also be separated and kept, as I have said before. Finally, the proclamation and collecting of rewards and praise must be done by each army to soldiers who make or have made a strenuous effort in war. For this very much arouses the spirits of the soldiers to fight bravely. On the other hand, however, when lazy soldiers or officers are put on a par with the good and hardworking ones by a commander, then the zeal to do things well is extinguished and that equality of rewards brings great idleness to the whole army. Certainly, in all matters and actions of human life, and especially in war, virtue must receive its very ample reward. These are the things I pondered upon about Christian politics in Orthez, which is the old Beneharnum84 as we can read in the Itinerary of Emperor Antoninus, in July 1584, in the 55th year of my life. May God our Lord make that through his only son our Lord Jesus Christ these considerations benefit His glory, the building of the Church, and the political activities and deliberations of godly commonwealths and may those commonwealths feel and be minded that they are helped by these writings of ours. Glory to God. Amen. ********************************

Lambert Daneau, Treatise on the Antichrist (1576) [141] Chapter 29: Is it licit for Christians and Evangelicals to start a war against papists in order to exterminate the kingdom of the Anti-Christ and his doctrine? However, one must not believe that for this reason85 the use of weapons is completely condemned by the gospel, as [142] some believe. This is what 84 More often identified with the town of Lescar. In the Latin text, the 1596 edition reads Benhnearnum for Beneharnum. 85 In the preceding chapter Daneau had argued that the ten kings who are mentioned in the Book of Revelation (17:16) and attack the harlot should be identified as the Vandal and Gothic kings who invaded and plundered the Roman empire and not in itself as an injunction to Protestant rulers to violently overthrow the pope.

104  Lambert Daneau Marcionitae existimauerunt et eundem hunc errorem hodie renouarunt Anabaptistae quidam: sed modo ea sit persona, quae debeat, armis vti licet. Is autem est magistratus, vti Rom. 13. Luc. 3.14. apparet. Sed differentia nunc ostenditur quae inter regnum Christi, et regna terrena futura erat. Regnum enim Christi vti natura sua spirituale est, sic armis spiritualibus vtitur, qualis est sermo Dei, spiritus efficacia, et lux veritatis. Regna vero politica et terrena, quum ad huius vitae commoditatem et rationem pertineant, sintque constituta armis terrenis et mundanis (concedente Deo, atque etiam saepe iubente) se tuentur. Atque ex eo iam incidit in hunc locum vtilis illa et nobilis quaestio, quae tam saepe vexata est, vtrum cuipiam vnquam pro tuenda Christi doctrina contra papistas (qui certe quidem sunt status et regnum Antichristi) arma sumere gladiumque distringere licuerit, atque his vti armis, quae carnalia vocantur, quod et in Germania, et in Anglia, et in Scotia, et in Flandria, et in Gallia factum legimus, fitque adhuc. Augetur sane haec dubitatio, fitque maior, quod Constantinus ille Magnus iam vere Christianus factus ex omnium Christianorum episcoporum consilio et assensu [143] bellum aduersus Licinium collegam propter religionem (id est, vt Christianos quos ille infense persequebatur tueretur et liberaret), mouerit. Illi enim cogebantur a Licinio sacrificare contra conscientiam idolis. In quo iam non ago equidem de personis ipsis: vtrum potuerit Constantinus contra Licinium imperii collegam bellum gerere. Potuisse enim nemo est, vt opinor, qui dubitet, quum et ipse esset summus magistratus, vti Licinius et par par pari subditus non sit. Sed de ipsa potius belli causa nunc disputo. Vtrum propter religionem Christianam a persequutione liberandam, et propter tollendam idololatriam bellum gerere et suscipere debuerit Constantinus. Haec autem perplexa est quaestio: turbat enim saepe maxime (propter hunc Pauli locum, destruet Dominus Antichristum spiritu oris sui) hominum conscientias, quae vt explicetur, haec primum nobis distinctio est afferenda. Causarum propter quas aliquid fit et suscipitur non est omnium idem momentum, ratio, et gradus. Aliae enim sunt propriae, aliae accidentales. Propriam causam dico eam cui praesertim et potissimum nostri consilii factique ratio innititur, quaeque a nobis vel sola spectatur, quanquam aliud nihil huic esset [144] adiunctum: veluti quum quis famelicus edit causa edendi est ipsa fames. Accidentalis autem causa est ea, quae concurrit quidem et incidit cum propria, sed non necessario. Itaque a nobis non proponitur animo praecipue. Nam si desit, faceremus tamen: veluti etsi desint lautitiae, ederet tamen famelicus. Ex hac igitur distinctione, si retinetur, facilis iam est et plana superioris quaestionis solutio.

Lambert Daneau  105 the Marcionites believed and some Anabaptists have repeated this same error in our age. It is licit to use weapons, as long as it is done by the person who should use them. That is the magistrate, as is clear from Romans 13 and Luke 3: 14. But now the difference is shown between the kingdom of Christ and his future kingdom on earth. For as the kingdom of Christ is by nature spiritual, in the same way are spiritual weapons used, such as God’s word, the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, and the light of truth. However, political and earthly kingdoms, since they concern and have been constituted for the convenience and manner of this life, are defended with earthly and worldly weapons (since God grants and also often commands it). And we therefore hit upon that useful and noble question, which has been so often debated, whether it has ever been licit for anyone to take up arms and draw one’s sword and use these weapons that are called carnal for the defence of Christ’s doctrine against the papists (who most certainly belong to the state and kingdom of the Anti-Christ). We read this has happened and is happening to this day in Germany, England, Scotland, Flanders, and France. In fact, this uncertainty increases and becomes more apparent, because Constantine the Great, when he had already become a Christian began a war in consultation with and with the approval of all Christian bishops [143] against Licinius, his colleague, because of religion, that is in order to defend and liberate the Christians detestably persecuted by Licinius. For they were forced by him to sacrifice to idols against their conscience. With regard to the persons themselves, I am not going to deal here with the question of whether Constantine could wage war against Licinius, his colleague in running the empire. For there is no one, I think, who has doubts about that, since he himself was the highest magistrate, like Licinius, and as an equal was not a subject like to like. Rather, I am concerned now with the cause itself for the war. Whether Constantine for the sake of abolishing idolatry should have waged and started a war. This is moreover an intricate question, as it very often agitates the consciences of people (because of this place in St Paul that the Lord will destroy the Anti-Christ by the spirit of his mouth). In order to settle this issue, we must first deal with a distinction. Not all causes why something is done and taken up have the same importance, reason, and degree. Some are proper causes, others accidental. I call a proper cause the one on which the reason of our plan and deed relies most heavily and which we consider by itself as though nothing had been [144] connected with it, as when a hungry person eats. In that case hunger itself is the cause for eating. An accidental cause is the one that may be in accord and coincide with the proper cause, but not necessarily. Therefore, it is not considered in particular in our mind. For should the accidental cause be absent, then we would act regardless of it. Although elegance may be lacking, the hungry person eats nonetheless. If we keep this distinction in mind, then the solution of our question above is easy and obvious on the basis of this distinction.

106  Lambert Daneau Nam qui bellum gerit aut aduersus papistas, aut alios idololatras, aut etiam Turcas vel haereticos id facit vel ipsius eorum superstitionis et erroris tollendi gratia, proprie et praecipue vel non. Sed quum aliae belli causae, et quidem iustae praecesserunt, quas ipse tanquam magistratus habet et intuetur, accidit tamen vt sint papistae idololatrae, aut Turcae, aut haeretici ii, contra quos ipse belligeratur. Non recte sane quaeritur haereseos vel erroris euersio in armis. Nec enim ex euentu belli pendere debet doctrinae Christianae certitudo. Itaque neque Christus ipse, neque apostoli arma contra eos sumenda docent, qui sunt a fide Christiana alieni, tanquam haec sit legitima erroris tollendi ratio. Nam quae armorum6 metu fit religionis susceptio vel propagatio illa Mahumetana potius, quam Christiana certe dicenda est. Sed quum aliunde [145] iustae belli causae afferuntur ab iis qui sunt fidei Christianae hostes, veluti si a papistis vel Turcis iuris publici facta fuerit violatio, tunc accidit vt religionis Christianae propugnatio et tutela, cum iuris publici defensione coniuncta aduersus papistas vel Turcas homines a fide Christi alienos sit suscipienda, non quidem quatenus illi a fide nostra dissentiunt, sed quatenus publicae pacis et tranquillitatis perturbatores sunt. Atque ea ratione fit vt tunc contra eos recte sumantur arma, qui sunt a vera fide alieni, non quidem quatenus sunt vel haeretici vel idololatrae, vel etiam papistae: sed quatenus moris maiorum, legumque publicarum sunt seditiosi infractores et publici perduelles. Atque haec verissima quidem est et distinctio et sententia. Quod autem ad Constantinum Magnum pertinet, et ad illud bellum quod ab eo cum Licinio gestum est, illud quidem est certissimum certa quaedam inter Constantinum Magnum Christianum, et Licinium hominem ethnicum primum inita pro tuenda communis imperii pace et tranquilitate foedera, eaque fuisse ex vtriusque consensu sancita et confirmata: vt docet Eusebius in vita Constantini Magni. Quae quia primus Licinius violauit, dum contra foedera persequitur Christianos, iure bellum [146] aduersus eum susceptum esse, dubitari non potest. Eorum enim foederum primum et praecipuum caput hoc erat, vt Christiani in toto Romano imperio libere religionem suam profiteri possent, pro legitimo collegio eorum caetus haberentur, et ne quam, propter Christi fidem, in eos vel Constantinus vel Licinius ipse moueret persequutionem. Hoc igitur primum foederis et communis pacis caput et pactum, quum esset a Licinio perfide postea ruptum et violatum, merito et iure mouit in eum Constantinus: non quidem in eum tanquam regem idololatram, nec ad illius de Christo errorem tollendum: sed vt foedera illa publica et publicae imperii leges et conditiones vtriusque consensu sancitae sartae tectaeque conseruarentur, quia neutri eas violare licebat.

6 1576: annorum.

Lambert Daneau  107 For he who wages war against papists or other idolaters or even the Turks or heretics, does so either properly and particularly with an eye to destroying their superstition and error or not. But when there are other causes for war, and just ones at that, that have taken precedence and that he as magistrate considers and ponders upon, then it is accidental that those against whom he fights are idolatrous papists or Turks or heretics. For the overthrow of heresy or error is not pursued through weapons, as the certainty of Christian doctrine must not depend on the outcome of a war. Therefore, neither Christ himself nor the apostles teach that we should take up weapons against those who are not Christians, as if this were a legitimate means to destroy their error. For the acceptance or propagation of faith through fear of weapons86 should definitely rather be called Islamic rather than Christian. But when just causes [145] from elsewhere are produced by those who are enemies of the Christian faith, for example if there had been a violation of public law by papists or Turks, then it so happens that the defence and protection of the Christian religion must be taken up against papists or Turks who are strangers to Christ’s faith in connection with the defence of public law, not inasmuch as they disagree with our faith, but inasmuch as they are disturbers of the public peace and tranquillity. And for this reason the weapons are taken up against those who do not adhere to the true faith, not inasmuch as they are heretics or idolaters or even papists, but inasmuch as they are seditious violators and public enemies of the public laws. This is a very true distinction and judgement. Moreover, with regard to Constantine the Great and that war he fought with Licinius, it is a settled fact that some specified agreements had first been entered into between the Christian Constantine the Great and the pagan Licinius for the protection of the peace and tranquillity of the empire they shared and that those agreements had been ratified and confirmed with the consent of both of them, as Eusebius teaches in his life of Constantine the Great. Because Licinius violated these first, when he persecuted Christians against the agreement, there can be no doubt that the war against him [146] was justly started. For this was the first and foremost point and stipulation of those agreements, namely that Christians in the whole of the Roman empire could freely profess their religion, that their assemblies would be considered to be a legitimate association, and that neither Constantine nor Licinius would persecute them because of their faith in Christ. When afterwards in these circumstances Licinius had perfidiously broken and violated this first point and stipulation of the agreement and general peace, Constantine deservedly and rightly acted against him, not because he was an idolatrous king, nor to destroy his error towards Christ, but in order to preserve those public agreements and public laws of the empire and the conditions ratified with their consent, because neither of them was allowed to violate them. 86 In the Latin text, the 1596 edition reads annorum for armorum.

108  Lambert Daneau Idem est a caeteris quoque populis, qui pro Christiana religione bellum gessisse dicuntur, factitatum. Pacta enim et leges publicae pro totius regni incolumitate et pace ipsorum populorum consensu prius intercesserunt: suntque promulgatae, per quas diserte cautum erat, vt ne Christiana religio offenderetur, arceretur, impediretur, neue quis ob eam causam quicquam damni vel iniuriae pateretur a quoquam. Quod legum et foederum caput quum a papistis postea non [147] esset obseruatum, sed populariter violatum: infoelicia illa bella, quae funestissima dicuntur et ciuilia, excitata sunt, iureque papistas armis persequi licuit. Ex iis autem omnibus intelligitur merito et iure illas papistarum, quas vocant cruciadas, quae sunt solius religionis eorum nomine bella suscepta, et damnanda et detestanda esse. Id quod etiam praeclare et sensit et scripsit M. Lutherus.

Lambert Daneau  109 The same has often been done by other peoples who are said to have waged a war for the Christian religion. First, agreements and public laws for the safety and peace of the whole kingdom came to pass and were promulgated, through which it had been clearly pointed out that the Christian religion should not be offended, contained, or hindered, nor that anyone should suffer any damage or injury from anyone else. When afterwards the papists had not [147] observed but widely violated this important point in the laws and agreements, those unhappy wars said to be civil wars and full of grief were triggered and the papists could by right be persecuted with weapons. On the basis of all of these things it is clear that those crusades of the papists, as they call them, which are wars undertaken in the name of religion only must be condemned and detested. This is also what Martin Luther brilliantly perceived and wrote.

3 Bartholomäus Keckermann, Aristotelianism, and the Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Augsburg

Bartholomäus Keckermann (Gdańsk c. 1572 – Gdańsk 1609) was born into a Reformed family in present-day Poland and educated at the Lutheran universities of Wittenberg and Leipzig and the Reformed University of Heidelberg, where David Pareus was among his teachers. In 1596, Keckermann started teaching at the Paedagogium, a preparatory school for the University of Heidelberg. In the following year, he moved to the Collegium sapientiae, followed by a position as professor of Hebrew in the philosophy faculty of the university. In 1602, Keckermann moved back to Gdańsk to teach philosophy at the local Academic Gymnasium until his death in 1609. Keckermann wrote on an impressive range of topics, including theology, logic, rhetoric, family life, and history. Examples include the Systema logicae (first published in 1600), the Systema sacrae theologiae (first published in 1602), the Systema politicae (first published in 1607), and the Systema rhetoricae (first published in 1608). The context in which Keckermann lived and worked is reflected in his views on religious politics. He was an Aristotelian in his step-by-step approach to his subject, but also in his insistence on the natural character of human states, and claim that humankind founded cities and states not merely to escape hardship and fear, but also to achieve the human flourishing that could only be found in political life. Gdańsk was a city in which three confessions (Lutheran, Reformed, and Catholic) coexisted and Keckermann was particularly concerned about how people with different beliefs could live together in peace. He therefore assigned a considerable amount of power to the worldly authorities to impose a peaceful balance between the different confessions. He praised the settlement reached by the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the relative peace it had brought to the Holy Roman Empire, which in his view compared very favourably to the religious conflicts in France, England, and the Low Countries. The excerpt presented here is from the Systema politicae, which was based on lectures Keckermann had given at Gdańsk in 1606. Many of Keckermann’s works were edited by colleagues and students and only published after his death, which makes the textual history of many of his works more complicated than most of the other works in this anthology. The starting

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-6

Bartholomäus Keckermann  111 point for our Latin text has been the edition published in Frankfurt by Johannes Stöckle in 1625. Where this edition diverges from other editions and has a clear misprint, this has been noted in a footnote: B. Keckermann, Systema disciplinae politicae, pvblicis praelectionibus anno MDCVI. propositum in Gymnasio Dantiscano, a Bartholomaeo Keckermanno Dantiscano, philosophiae Professore. Seorsim accessit Synopsis disciplinae oeconomicae, dispositionem eius breviter adumbrans, eodem auctore (Frankfurt: Stöckle, 1625), 513–530.

Suggestions for further reading Facca, D., “Bartholomäus Keckermann (1572–1609). The Theology of the Reformation and the Logic,” Odrodzenie i reformacja w Polsce. Special Issue 57 (2013), 184–204. Freedman, J. S., “The Career and Writings of Bartholomew Keckermann (d. 1609),” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 141, no. 3 (1997), 305–364. van Zuylen, W. H., Bartholomäus Keckermann. Sein Leben und Werk. Leipzig: Robert Noske, 1934.

Bartholomaei Keckermanni, Systema disciplinae politicae (1625)

Liber primus [513] Caput tricesimum secundum: De regimine monarchico relato ad finem eminentiorem; vbi simul de monarchia maiori et minori. Hactenus ergo expediuimus doctrinam de statu politico perfecto, siue de monarchia, quatenus refertur ad finem absolutum, nempe ad publicam honestatem et tranquillitatem: sequitur, vt breuiter agamus de monarchia relata ad finem eminentiorem. Finis iste eminentior est, vel humanus, vel diuinus. Humanus finis est contemplatio siue virtus theoretica, de quo fine canon est: Postquam princeps ciues suos duxit ad felicitatem et virtutem practicam, etiam ducere debet ad virtutem et felicitatem theoreticam. Sicut in ethicis ea methodo vsi sumus, vt prius considerauimus virtutem absolute spectatam (moralem sc.) postea vero considerauimus etiam virtutem cum gradu eminente, i.e. virtutem heroicam; ita in politicis eundem ordinem seruamus. Et, cum hactenus explicata sint media status politici ea, quae ducunt ad bonum ciuile absolute [514] consideratum, iam ea quoque media consideranda sunt, quae ducunt ad bonum aliquod eminentius, quod etiam princeps procurare debet in statu politico siue republica. Regere enim subditos nil aliud est, quam subditos ducere ad omne bonum ac adeo non tantum ad bonum morale, sed etiam ad bonum siue virtutem theoreticam, et ad virtutem religiosam siue veram pietatem, ex qua summum illud et perfectissimum atque adeo immutabile bonum oritur, quod dicitur vita aeterna. Caeterum de bono siue virtute theoretica, et eius procuratione in republica tractat Aristoteles lib. 2. Polit. c. 1. et 2. Et capite quidem primo haec eius sunt memorabilia verba: Huic, inquit, diuisioni nemo refragabitur, quod cum sint tria bonorum genera, externa, corporis, et animi, ista omnia felici homini adesse oportere.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-7

Bartholomäus Keckermann, System of Political Learning (1625)

Book one [513] Chapter 32: On the administration of the monarch with regard to its more elevated purpose, where we discuss both major and minor monarchy. So far, we have set out the doctrine on the perfect political state or on monarchy as far as it concerns its absolute purpose, namely public integrity and tranquillity. Next, we will briefly deal with monarchy with regard to its more elevated purpose. That higher purpose is either human or divine. The human purpose is contemplation or theoretical virtue. Regarding this purpose, the rule is: After the prince has led his citizens to practical happiness and virtue, he must also lead them to theoretical virtue and happiness. We have used the same method as we did in ethical matters, where we first looked at virtue absolutely considered (that is, moral virtue) and after that looked at virtue at a more elevated level, that is heroic virtue.1 We are likewise retaining the same order in political matters. And, since up to now we have explained the political means that lead to the civil good considered absolutely, [514] we must now also consider those means that lead to some more elevated good, which a prince must also procure in a political state or commonwealth. For reigning over subjects is just leading those subjects to every good and in fact not just to moral good, but also to theoretical good or virtue and to religious virtue or true piety, from which that highest and most perfect and so immutable good arises, which is called ‘eternal life’. Moreover, Aristotle deals with the theoretical good or virtue and its procurement in a commonwealth in chapters 1 and 2 of book two of the Politics. And in the first chapter these are his memorable words: No one will contest this division that, as there are three types of good – the first external, the second pertaining to the body, and the third pertaining to the mind – it is necessary that they are all available to a happy man.2 1 Reference to Bartholomäus Keckermann, Systema ethicae, tribus libris adornatum et publicis praelectionibus traditum in gymnasio Dantiscano a Bartholomaeo Keckermanno Dantiscano, philosophiae ibidem professore (Hanau: Antonius, 1607). 2 This distinction is in fact made in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. See Eth. Nic. 1.8 (1098b–1099b).

114  Bartholomäus Keckermann De optima republica recte quaerere volenti, necessarium est prius determinare quae vita sit maxime expetenda; nam si id ignotum sit, necesse est et optimam rempublicam ignorari. Optime enim agere consentaneum est eos, qui sub optima reipublicae disciplina reguntur. Et deinceps ipsa beata vita magis existit in iis, qui et moribus et intellectu excellenter ornati sunt etc. 2. Necessarium est illam rempublicam optimam esse, per cuius institutionem vnusquisque optime agit et beate viuit. Postea antecedens concludit, cum beata vita consistat in duobus nempe in virtute morum, et virtute mentis; ideo hanc demum esse rempublicam optimam, in qua vtraque virtus dominetur, siue in qua subditos suos magistratus ita regit, vt ad vtriusque illius virtutis possessionem et vsum deducantur. 1 Vt ergo virtus contemplatiua in republica vigeat, necesse est a magistratu siue principe scholas et academias [515] instrui, in quibus non tantum practicae istae virtutes; sed etiam theoreticae docentur, vt est physica, mathematica, metaphysica. 2 Necesse est etiam principem excellentes artifices, nempe physicos, astronomos, geometras et aliarum disciplinarum theoreticarum peritos in sua republica fouere eosque honoribus et praemiis condecorare. 3 Curabit et princeps vt libri de scientiis scripti sint etiam in existimatione et precio; et si qui libri ipsi offerantur et dedicentur, libenter acceptare eos debet. 4 Ciues etiam harum scientiarum cultores amet et magnifaciat, contemptores vero coerceat. Sequitur finis diuinus, siue cura religionis, et pietatis qua subditi a principe, vel sub principe, ad aeternam salutem ducuntur. De studio religionis in republica vide generaliter Tol. lib. 12. c.4. Regimen principis religionem et pietatem spectans, dupliciter consideratur: vel absolute et in statu pacato, vel per accidens, et in statu turbato. Status religiosus pacatus consideratur iterum vel respectu principis, vel respectu subditorum.

Bartholomäus Keckermann  115 Whoever wants to correctly think about the optimal commonwealth should first determine what kind of life must be aspired to. For if that is unknown, then by necessity the optimal commonwealth is also unknown. For it is interconnected that the ones who lead the best lives are those who are ruled under the optimal system for the commonwealth. And in turn the happy life is more manifest in those who have been eminently endowed with good character and intellect etcetera. Second, by necessity that commonwealth is optimal through whose institution everyone does best and lives happily. Next, the foregoing brings us to the conclusion that, since the happy life consists of two things, namely virtue of character and virtue of the mind, this commonwealth is therefore indeed optimal in which both virtues rule or in which the magistrate reigns over his subjects in such a way that they are enticed to the possession and use of both of those virtues. 1 To make sure that the contemplative virtue flourishes in the commonwealth, it is necessary that schools and academies [515] are founded by the magistrate or prince, in which not just those practical virtues are taught, but also the theoretical ones, in physics, mathematics, and metaphysics. 2 It is also necessary that the prince supports excellent experts, namely physicists, astronomers, geometrician, and people skilful in the other theoretical disciplines in his commonwealth, and decorates them with honours and rewards. 3 The prince will likewise make sure that books written on the sciences are held in esteem and are valued and if some books are offered and dedicated to him personally, then he must accept them willingly. 4 He should also appreciate and praise the citizens who favour these sciences and restrain those who hold them in contempt. Now follows the divine purpose or care for religion and piety through which the subjects are led to eternal salvation by the prince or under the guidance of the prince. On the zeal for religion, see in general Grégoire’s On the Commonwealth, book 12, chapter 4.3 The prince’s administration regarding religion and piety is considered in two ways: either absolutely and in a peaceful state or in its accidental character and in a state of disturbance. The peaceful religious state is in turn considered with regard to the prince or with regard to the subjects.

3 Pierre Grégoire (Petrus Tolosanus), De republica libri sex et viginti, in duos tomos distincti. Authore D. Petro Gregorio Tholosano, Iuris utriusque Doctore et publico Professore, prius in Academia Cadurcensi, deinde Tholosana, nunc Pontimussana Lotharingica, earumdemque facultatum Iuris utriusque iidem Decano (Pont-à-Mousson: Claudet, 1596), vol. 1, 700–706.

116  Bartholomäus Keckermann Status religiosus consideratus respectu principis, habet hos canones: 1 Quia is demum perfectus princeps est, qui perfecta virtute praeditus alios ad perfectam virtutem ducit, ideo principem non tantum ornatum esse oportet virtute ethica, oeconomica, politica et contemplatiua, sed etiam virtute religiosa, atque adeo vera pietate. 2 Principem religiosum iuramento religioso [516] Deo et reipublicae obligare sese oportet ad cultum diuinum et veram religionem fouendam et tuendam. Vide exempla et dicta scripturae multa ad canonem hunc probandum, c. 23. Politicae. 3 Princeps religiosus agnoscat se omnem potestatem a Deo habere, atque adeo titulo etiam suo et testimonio profiteatur. Vide Althusium ibidem varia scripturae dicta citantem, simulque et allegantem exempla principum Christianorum, qui suis titulis semper addunt ista verba, Dei gratia, siue, Von Gottes Gnaden. 4 Princeps habeat ius maiestatis ecclesiasticum, atque adeo potestatem ordinandi ea, quae ad cultum Dei et veram religionem tuendam pertinent. 5 Princeps habeat ius vocandi et constituendi ministros ecclesiarum per ditionem suam. Vide Alth. c. 23. Polit. et 2. Chron. 17. 2 Reg. 23. et Aret. prolixe id tractantem in probl. l. 63. 6 Pertinet huc etiam constitutio scholarum quatenus nempe in iis iuuentus ad pietatem et religionem instituitur. Nam quatenus in scholis iuuentus [517] informatur ad honestatem, bonos mores, ac disciplinas morales, ita de earum constitutione supra actum est. Potest autem videri de constitutione scholarum Tolos. lib. 17. c.1.2 et seqq. Et lib. 12. c.4.5. Danaeus lib. 4. Pol. Christ. cap. 3. Zepperus lib. 1. Pol. Eccles. Casman. c.25. Pol.

Bartholomäus Keckermann  117 The religious state with regard to the prince has these rules: 1 Because only he is a perfect prince who gifted with perfect virtue leads others to perfect virtue, it is therefore becoming that the prince is not only endowed with ethical, economic, political, and contemplative virtue, but also with religious virtue and thus with true piety. 2 It is becoming that the religious prince binds himself with a religious oath [516] to God and the commonwealth to support and protect divine worship and the true religion. See the many examples and statements from scripture that prove this rule in chapter 23 of Althusius’s Politics.4 3 The religious prince should acknowledge that he receives all authority from God and he should also profess that through his title and testimony. See Althusius on the same place, citing various statements from scripture, and at the same time adducing examples of Christian princes, who always add these words to their titles, ‘by God’s grace’ or Von Gottes Gnaden. 4 The prince should have a sovereign right regarding ecclesiastical matters and indeed the authority to ordain those matters that pertain to the worship of God and the protection of the true religion. 5 The prince should have the right to call upon and put in place ministers of the churches throughout his realm. See Althusius, chapter 23 of the Politics, and 2 Chronicles 17, 2 Kings 23, and Aretius who deals with it at length in the Theological Problems, commonplace 63.5 6 The founding of schools also pertains to this to the extent that youth is instructed in piety and religion in them. For inasmuch as youth [517] is instructed in the schools in integrity, good character, and the moral disciplines, we have dealt with their establishment above. One can read about the establishment of schools in Grégoire’s On the Commonwealth, book 17, chapters 1 and 2, and following and in book 12, chapters 4 and 5; Daneau, book four of the Christian Politics, chapter 3; Zepper, book one of the Ecclesiastical Politics; Casmann, chapter 25 of the Brief System of Politics.6

4 Johannes Althusius, Politica, methodice digesta et exemplis sacris et profanis illustrata; cui in fine adjuncta est Oratio panegyrica de utilitate, necessitate et antiquitate scholarum (Herborn: Corvinus, 1603), 302. 5 Althusius, Politica, p. 303. Benedictus Aretius, Problemata theologica continentia praecipuos nostrae locos, breui et dilucida ratione explicatos. Opus recens. Benedicto Aretio Bernensi Theologo Authore (Lausanne: François le Preux, 1573), 766–773. 6 Grégoire, De republica, vol. 2, 89–103; vol. 1, 700–721; Daneau, Politices libri, 301–304; Wilhelm Zepper, De politica ecclesiastica, sive Forma, ac Ratio administrandi, et gubernandi regni Christi, quod est ecclesia in his terris. Demonstrata ex forma et facie primitivae ecclesiae, per Apostolos fundatae: et illustrata ex decretis conciliorum, historiis ecclesiasticis, monumentis patrum ecclesiasticorum, et imperatorum constitutionibus. Opera et studio Wilhelmi Zepperi, verbi divini in ecclesia Herbornaea ministri (Herborn: Corvinus, 1595), 23–47; Otto Casmann, Doctrinae et vitae politicae methodicum ac breve systema, ex

118  Bartholomäus Keckermann 7 Princeps habet ius promulgandi et sanciendi leges de doctrina coelesti recte proponenda; de sacramentis recte administrandis, de synodis indicendis et celebrandis, de visitatione ecclesiarum et scholarum, de presbyteriis atque adeo de tota disciplina ecclesiastica, deque ecclesiasticis iudiciis. 8 Princeps curet omnibus modis ne quid desit, quod ad verum Dei cultum necessarium est, atque adeo curam quoque gerat caeremoniarum, quae ad cultum Dei externum pertinent. Vide Tolos. lib. 8. c. 2. Et Danaeum in Aphor. ad lib. 5. Pol. 9 Blasphemos, periuros, magos et artibus diabolicis deditos, princeps seuerissime puniat. 10 Cohibeat quoque et reprimat impostores, seductores1 atque adeo omnes eos, quicunque ecclesiam et disciplinam ecclesiasticam malitiose turbant. 11 Neque tantum ecclesiam curet gubernando et iudicando, sed etiam conseruando et defendendo. Rempublicam ad ciuile bonum diriget princeps gubernando, iuuando et defendendo; quapropter ista 3. etiam debet ecclesiae et statui religioso. Vide Tol. lib. 8 c. 2. ex Deut. c. 13. 1. Reg. 7.8. Ierem. 4. Iesaiae 49. itemque exemplo Iosaphati et Iosuae. 12 Bona etiam et reditus ecclesiis procuret, augeat, seruet, neque ad vsus profanos transferri patiatur. 13 In testamento quoque et vltima voluntate [518] religionis curam habeat; eiusque curam, propagationem et conseruationem suo successori demandet. Exemplo Dauidis, 1 Chron. 8. 1. Reg. 2. et exemplo aliorum piorum imperatorum, de quibus vide Theod. c. 25. hist. eccl. Niceph. c. 23. lib. 1. Et sic de officio principis circa statum religiosum: sequuntur adiutores principis in statu religioso, qui sunt tum consiliarij ecclesiastici, tum ministri ecclesiae, et senatores, siue seniores. Consiliarij ecclesiastici vocantur, quibus princeps vtitur in consiliis pertinentibus ad ecclesiae constitutionem, defensionem, et amplificationem.

1 1625: sed auctores.

Bartholomäus Keckermann  119 7 The prince has a right to promulgate and sanction laws about the correct setting forth of heavenly doctrine, about the correct administering of the sacraments, about declaring and celebrating synods, about the visitation of churches and schools, about presbyteries and thus about ecclesiastical discipline as a whole, and on ecclesiastical judgements. 8 The prince should ensure by all means that nothing that is necessary for the true worship of God is lacking and indeed provide for the ceremonies that pertain to the external worship of God. See Grégoire book eight, chapter 2 and Daneau in the aphorisms to book five of the Politics.7 9 The prince should very severely punish blasphemers, perjurers, magicians and those devoted to diabolic arts. 10 He should also keep imposters in check and restrain them, as well as seducers8 and in a way all those, who maliciously disturb the church and church discipline. 11 He should not only take care of the church through his government and judgement, but also by protecting and defending it. The prince will direct the commonwealth to civil good by governing, helping, and defending it. For this reason, he also owes these three things to the church and the religious state. See Grégoire book eight, chapter 2 based on Deuteronomy chapter 13, 1 Kings 7-8, Jeremiah 4, Isaiah 49, as well the example of Josaphat and Joshua.9 12 He should also procure, increase, and protect goods and revenues for the churches, and he should not allow them to be transferred to worldly uses. 13 In his testament and final will [518] he should also keep religion in mind and entrust his successor with its care, propagation, and conservation. This is based on the example of David, 1 Chronicles 8, 1 Kings 2, and the example of other pious emperors, about whom see Theodoret, chapter 25 of the Ecclesiastical History and Nicephorus chapter 23 of book one.10 And this is what I had to say regarding the religious state. We will now move on to the prince’s assistants in the religious state. These are both ecclesiastical councillors and ministers of the church and senators or elders. Ecclesiastical councillors are those whom the prince consults in the councils that are concerned with the institution of the church, its defence, and its amplification.

variorum theologorum, ivreconsultorum, et philosophorum, cum primis vero recentium scriptis, excerptum et adornatum ab Othone Casmanno (Frankfurt: Collegium Palthenianum, 1603), 111–116. 7 Grégoire, De republica, 522–534; Daneau, Politices libri, 352–360. 8 In the Latin text, the 1625 edition reads sed auctores for seductores. 9 Grégoire, De republica, 522–534. On Josaphat’s and Joshua’s care for religion, see 2 Chron. 17: 6; Deut. 31: 10–13; Josh. 10 The first reference is to Theodoret Hist. Eccl. 5.25 (on Theodosius); the second to the Ecclesiastical History of Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus.

120  Bartholomäus Keckermann De his canon est: Valde vtile, imo et necessarium est, principem in sua aula habere viros excellenter religiosos, pios et doctos, quibus tanquam adiutoribus et consiliariis vtatur in gubernatione ecclesiastica; siquidem impossibile est principem solum ista omnia, quae ad ecclesiasticum statum pertinent, posse considerare et perpendere sufficienter, vtpote cum tot aliis grauioribus curis sit districtus. Nunquam satis laudari potest consuetudo Electoris Palatini, qui duplices habet in aula consiliarios, nempe politicos et ecclesiasticos. Nam si in rebus ad minus bonum spectantibus scilicet in politicis et ciuilibus consiliariis eget princeps, quanto magis egebit in rebus ad maius bonum spectantibus nempe ad religionem et salutem subditorum? Ministri ecclesiarum sunt, qui eam vocationem habent, vt doctrinam coelestem publice populo proponant, sacramenta administrent, et alia officia ecclesiastica praestent. [519] De his canon est: Magistratus siue princeps non debet se immiscere muneri ministrorum ecclesiae, sed eorum officio vti, in verbi diuini praedicatione et sacramentorum vsu, quia Deus vult distinctissimum esse officium ministrorum et magistratus. Seniores ecclesiarum sunt, quorum opera princeps vtitur in disciplina ecclesiastica curanda, et vitiis siue censuris ecclesiasticis instituendis, pauperibus curandis, et officiis aliis religiosis extra verbi diuini praedicationem et sacramentorum administrationem. Et sic de statu religioso ex parte principis: sequitur de statu religioso ex parte subditorum qui consideratur vel respectu subditorum ad Deum, vel ad principem, vel ad seipsos mutuo. De officio subditorum ad Deum, sunt hi canones: 1 Subditi non tantum externam obedientiam praestent principi, sed ita se gerant in toto reipublicae statu, vt puram et illibatam conscientiam habeant coram Deo. 2 Subditi obediant omnibus illis legibus et statutis, quae princeps ex Dei verbo sancit, atque adeo Deo praestent, tum internum tum externum cultum, et ea sollicite caueant, quaecunque iram Dei aduersus totum Reipublicae corpus possint irritare. Subditi respectu principis considerati, iterum vel in genere spectantur, vel in specie.

Bartholomäus Keckermann  121 The rule concerning these matters is: It is very useful, in fact even necessary, that the prince has eminently religious, pious and learned men at his court that he can use as his assistants and councillors in directing ecclesiastical matters. For it is impossible that the prince alone can sufficiently consider and weigh all those things, which pertain to the ecclesiastical state, since he is hindered by such deep, grave concerns. The custom of the Elector Palatine cannot be praised enough: he has two types of councillors at his court, namely political and ecclesiastical ones. For if the prince needs political and civil councillors in matters that concern the lesser good, then how much more will he need them in matters that concern the greater good, namely religion and salvation of his subjects? Ministers of the churches are those, who have the vocation to publicly set out to the people the heavenly doctrine, to administer sacraments, and to fulfil other ecclesiastical offices. [519] The rule concerning these matters is: The magistrate or prince should not interfere in the task of the ministers of the church, but should make use of their position in the preaching of the word of God and the administering of the sacraments, because God wants the positions of ministers and magistrates to be strictly distinct. The elders of the church are those, whose help the prince uses in ensuring church discipline and establishing what are ecclesiastical vices and censuring about them, looking after the poor, and other religious offices besides the preaching of the word of God and the administering of sacraments. And this is what I had to say on the religious state on the prince’s part. Now follows the religious state on the part of the subjects, which is considered either with respect to the subjects towards God, towards the prince, or towards each other. Concerning the duty of the subjects towards God, these are the rules: 1 Subjects should not just render external obedience to the prince, but should behave themselves in the whole public order of the commonwealth in such a way that they have a pure and unimpaired conscience before God. 2 The subjects should obey all those laws and statutes, which the prince sanctions based on the word of God, and they should provide both the internal and external worship to God and they should thoroughly guard against all those things that could incite the wrath of God against the whole body of the commonwealth. Subjects considered with regard to the prince are in turn considered in general or specifically.

122  Bartholomäus Keckermann De subditis respectu principis in genere canon est: [520] subditi agnoscant in principe suo non tantum ius maiestatis politicum, sed etiam ecclesiasticum, atque adeo praestent ei obedientiam in omnibus, quae ex verbo Dei ad cultum et salutem animarum princeps constituit. Subditi in specie considerati, sunt personae ecclesiasticae, de quibus canon est: Ministri ecclesiarum et aliae personae religiosae agnoscant in principe ius maiestatis ecclesiasticum, neque peregrinam iurisdictionem quaerant. Nempe ipse Christus et apostoli iurisdictionem Romani imperatoris agnouerunt, et fuit 1. Christus ciuis in Capernaum; quae vrbs tum Romano imperio subiecta erat. 2. soluit etiam vectigaliis, qui id in Iudaea nomine imperatoris exigebant. 3. agnouit etiam iudicium praesidis Romani et coram illo se vltro stitit. Et sane valde absurdum est, velle sub patrocinio et sub defensione magistratus viuere, et commodis omnibus frui vna cum reliquis subditis, et interim nolle agnoscere potestatem et iurisdictionem principis, a quo omnia ista habes. Quod notetur contra ius canonicum et contra omnes pontificios, qui personas ecclesiasticas eximunt a iurisdictione politici magistratus, et Romae etiam scilicet iudicari volunt ij, qui 500. miliaribus Roma absint. Ex his antecedentibus facile determinabitur quaestio, vtrum sacerdotes sint pars reipublicae. De qua quaestione, tum alii multi, tum Hosius disputat in libro de Monarch. eccl. pag. 91. Nam si id certum est, vt certum est, personas ecclesiasticas subiectas esse iurisdictioni principis, sequitur etiam eas esse reipublicae capiti subiectas et legibus reipublicae obnoxias. [521] Officium subditorum religiosum inter sese, habet hunc canonem. Subditi2 sibi mutuo praestent officia non tantum coniunctionis ethicae et politicae, sed etiam coniunctionis Christianae et dilectionis fraternae: peregrinos quoque exteros secum habitantes Christiana patientia et hospitalitate ferant, iuuent et foueant. Et sic de statu religioso pacato; sequitur status religiosus affectus, siue turbatus; qui duplex est, nempe vel leuiter turbatus, vel grauiter.

2 1625: Subiti

Bartholomäus Keckermann  123 Regarding the relationship between subjects and prince in general this is the rule: [520] subjects should recognize in their prince not just his sovereign political right, but also his sovereign ecclesiastical right and should therefore show obedience in all matters that the prince decides based on the word of God with an eye to worship and the salvation of souls. Subjects considered specifically are people of the church, about whom the rule is: Ministers of the church and other religious persons should recognize his sovereignty in ecclesiastical matters and should not seek legal authority abroad. For Christ himself and the apostles recognized the jurisdiction of the Roman emperor and Christ was, first, a citizen in Capernaum, which was a town that at the time had been subjected by the Roman Empire. Second, he paid taxes to those who demanded it in name of the emperor in Judea. Third, he even accepted the judgement of the Roman governor and presented himself before him of his own free will. It is indeed truly absurd to want to live under the protection and defence of a magistrate and enjoy all the advantages together with other subjects and meanwhile refuse to recognize the authority and jurisdiction of the prince, from which you get all those things. This should be taken note of against canon law and against all those papists who remove the clergy from the political jurisdiction of the magistrate and want in fact to be judged in Rome, even though they are 500 miles away from Rome. On the basis of these antecedents, it will be easy to answer the question whether priests are part of the commonwealth. This question is discussed by Hosius in his book On the Ecclesiastical Monarchy, page 91.11 For if that is certain, just as it is certain that the clergy is subject to the jurisdiction of the prince, then it follows that they are also subject to the head of the commonwealth and bound to the laws of the commonwealth. [521] The religious duty of the subjects towards each other has this rule. Subjects should fulfil duties for each other not just with regard to ethical and political union, but also Christian union and brotherly love. They should also support, help, and assist strangers from abroad that live with them with Christian indulgence and hospitality. This is what I had to say about the peaceful religious state. Now follows the troubled or disturbed religious state, which consists of two kinds, namely lightly disturbed or gravely.

11 Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius did not write a book by this name, but the second book of his Confutatio prolegomenon Brentii has the title De legitimis iudicibus rerum ecclesiasticarum, which on page 91 does indeed discuss the primacy of bishops over magistrates in religious matters. See Hosius, D. Stanislai Hosii, Cardinalis, Episcopi Varmiensis, in concilio Trid. praesidis, Confutatio prolegomenon Brentij, quae primum scripsit aduersus Petrum a Soto, deinde vero Petrus Paulus Vergerius apud Polonos temere defendenda suscepit (Lyon: Rovillivs, 1564), 91.

124  Bartholomäus Keckermann Leuiter turbatus status religiosus est, vel ob nudum dissensum subditorum a religione principis, vel ob dissensum religionis inter ipsos subditos; de quo statu sunt hi canones: 1 Princeps qui veram religionem profitetur, perfectior est eo, qui a religione est alienus; interim tamen is qui alienus est a vera religione, propterea, quia alienus est, non desinit esse legitimus princeps; multo minus debet haberi pro tyranno, aut pro tali cui iure subditis se possint opponere. Nimirum princeps qui a religione dissentit, et interim tamen subditos suos ad ciuile bonum ducit ac dirigit, retinet adhuc fundamenta principatus ea nempe, quae pertinent ad statum politicum absolute consideratum, et idcirco obedientia etiam ei et honor debetur. Euangelium enim et religio Christiana non tollit honestatem, neque politias ad bonum ciuile, et ad honestatem compositas, etiamsi non sunt compositae ad pietatem, [522] tanquam ad finem eminentiorem. Hinc Christus Mat. 28. Date, inquit, Caesari quae sunt Caesaris, id est, agnoscite eum pro principe, etiamsi non sit religioni vestrae addictus. Non debemus autem nobis plus iuris vendicare in principem quam Christus in eos sibi vendicauit. Vide similia loca ad Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2. quae omnia obseruanda sunt contra exitialia dogmata pontificiorum, qui omnem eum principem tyrannum pronuntiant, quicunque a religione pontificia dissentit. Sic enim scribit Wilhelmus Rossaeus in libro cui titulus est de vindicta reipublicae Christianae aduersus reges impios, et haereticos p. 156. Omnis rex haereticus simul est tyrannus; et postea addit, arma a manu deponere aut etiam occidere. Similia fere habet Andreas Philopater in libro contra edictum reginae Angliae, anno 1593 Ingolstadij Germanice excusum. Et ante annos aliquos Grotziae in Stiria prodiit liber, cui titulus est Paedagogia, autore Petro Maschith, qui liber etiam Ingolstadij est excusus Germanice, cuius sunt haec verba: Quamuis haeretici reges, principes, et magnates imperium sibi vendicent, tamen ipsorum regimen nihil est, quam mera tyrannis. Iohannis Dinardus Iesuita propria manu

Bartholomäus Keckermann  125 A lightly disturbed religious state is due either to a simple religious disagreement between subjects and prince or because of religious disagreement among the subjects. The rules concerning this state are as follows: 1  A prince who professes the true religion is more perfect than one who is no adherent of that religion. Yet at the same time, he who is no adherent of the true religion does not cease to be a legitimate prince because he is not an adherent. Even less must he be considered to be a tyrant or someone the subjects can rightly oppose. Of course, a prince who dissents from the true religion, yet in the meantime leads and directs his subjects to the civil good, naturally still retains those foundations of his sovereignty that pertain to the political state absolutely considered and therefore obedience and recognition are owed to him. For the Gospel and the Christian religion do not remove the duty of moral integrity or polities that have been established with an eye to the civil good and moral integrity, even if they have not been established with an eye to piety [522] in the sense of the more eminent goal. Hence, Christ said in Matthew 28 ‘Give to Caesar what is owed to Caesar’, that is, recognize him as your prince, even though he is not an adherent of the true religion. We must not claim for ourselves more rights towards the prince than Christ claimed for himself over them. See likewise Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. These are all passages that should be taken into account against the destructive dogmas of the papists, who declare every prince a tyrant who dissents from the papal religion. This is what Guillielmus Rossaeus writes in the book with the title On the Vindication of the Christian Commonwealth against Impious and Heretical Kings, page 156.12 Every heretical king is by definition a tyrant and he later mentions deposing or even killing them with sword in hand. Andreas Philopater argues virtually the same things in a book against the edict of the queen of England, printed in German in Ingolstadt in 1593.13 And a couple of years ago a book came out in Graz in Styria with the title Paedagogia, written by Petrus Maschith. This book has also been printed in German in Ingolstadt and these words can be found in it: ‘Although the heretical kings, princes, and lords claim authority

12 [William Reynolds], De ivsta reipvblicae christianae in reges impios et haereticos avthoritate: iustissimaque Catholicorum ad Henricum Nauarraeum et quemcunque haereticum a regno Galliae repellendum confoederatione G. Guilelmo Rossaeo Authore, Liber (Antwerp: Ioannes Keerbergius, 1592). 13 The original title of this work was [Robert Parsons], Elizabethae Angliae reginae haeresim Calvinianam propvgnantis saevissimvm in Catholicos sui regni Edictvm promulgatum Londini 29 Nouembris 1591. Cum responsione ad singula capita per D. Andream Philopatrum, presbyterum. ac theologum Romanum (Lyon: Didier, 1592). The German translation is Elisabethen der Königin inn Engellandt, vnd Irrlandt, &c.: Edict, den neun vnd zweyntzigisten Nouembris dess fünfftzehenhundert ein vnd neuntzigsten Jars zu Londra öffentlich publiciert. Mit einer Erleutterung Andreae Philopatri darinnen von jenigen Verlauff vnd Zustandt der Kron Engellandt Frankreich vnd Schotten allerley zufinden sehr nutzlich und lustig zulesen ([Ingolstadt]: s.n., 1593).

126  Bartholomäus Keckermann Parisiis haec verba scripsit: Num Neronem Franciae, Lupam Angliae, Gryphum Sueciae; Porcum Saxoniae, reges appellabimus, aut principes? quae verba referuntur p. 16. libri anno 1595 editi, sub hoc titulo Quaestio parricidij intentati Henrico IV. Similia plane habet et disputat Gregorius de Valentia, tom. 3. disp. diput. 5.8. quaest. Et Bellarminus. lib. 5. de summo pontifice, cap. 7. 2 [523] Princeps non vendicet sibi imperium in conscientias; et cogitet fidem suaderi, non cogi posse; atque idcirco dissensiones quidem religionis omnes sedulo praecaueat, atque auertat; sin autem praecauere non possit, ferat et pacem inter dissidentes seruet, vt maiora mala caueri possint. Hoc nempe consideratum fuit in Germania maiorum nostrorum tempore, quando pax illa religionis Passauii anno 1552. die 2. Augusti sancita et deinceps anno 54. et 66. confirmata fuit. Cuius pacificationis beneficio Germania hactenus salutari pace fruitur, neque ita horribilibus lanienis vexatur, vt Anglia, Gallia, Belgium. Quod Germanorum institutum ordines Poloniae secuti sunt, sancita confoederatione religionis anno 1573. Et sapientissimus rex Stephanus edictum etiam promulgauit de pace religionis seruanda, simulque addit memorabilem vocem, Nolle sese conscientijs dominari; siquidem Deus solus sibi haec tria reseruarit, nempe creare aliquid ex nihilo, nosse futura, et dominari conscientijs. Nec praetereundum est quod Iohannis Molanus sacrae theologiae professor in academia Louaniensi, in libro de fide haereticis seruanda, pag. 44 siue c. 23. lib. 1. scribit: Cogitur aliquando Catholicus princeps siue magistratus, in quibusdam locis libertatem religionis sub certis conditionibus concedere, ne si minus malum tolerare nolit, maiora in republica sua perpeti cogatur. Quae pontificij hominis

Bartholomäus Keckermann  127 for themselves, yet their regime is nothing but sheer tyranny’. The Jesuit Johannes Dinardus wrote these words with his own hand in Paris: ‘Surely we will not call the Nero of France, the whore of England, the gryphon of Sweden, the pig of Saxony kings or princes?’14 These words are mentioned on page 16 of the book, published in 1595, under this title: The Question of the Attempted Assassination of Henry IV.15 Gregory of Valencia clearly writes and argues similar things in volume three, disputation 5, question eight.16 The same goes for Bellarmine in book five, chapter 7 of On the Pope.17 2  [523] The prince should not claim authority for himself over people’s consciences and he should realize that faith can be urged, but not forced. For this reason, he should certainly carefully guard against all dissensions of religion and avert them. Should he be unable to do so, then he should tolerate them and preserve peace between those who dissent from each other, so that greater evils can be avoided. This was, of course, the consideration in Germany in the age of our forefathers, when that religious peace of Passau on 2 August 1552 had been established and then confirmed in the years 1554 and 1566. Thanks to this pacification, Germany has up to now enjoyed a very beneficial peace and is not tormented by terrible destruction as are England, France, and the Low Countries. The estates of Poland have followed this arrangement of the Germans since a religious agreement was reached in 1573 and the very wise king Stephen promulgated an edict on the preservation of religious peace and at the same time added his memorable saying that he did not want to have dominion over people’s consciences since God alone keeps these things for himself, namely creating something from nothing, knowing the future, and having dominion over consciences. Nor should we pass over what Joannes Molanus, professor of sacred theology at the University of Leuven, writes in his book on the duty to keep one’s word to heretics, page 44 or chapter 23 of book one: sometimes a Catholic prince or magistrate is forced in some places to concede freedom of religion under some conditions, lest, if he refuses to tolerate a smaller evil, he will be forced to suffer greater evils in his commonwealth.18 This view of a papist should 14 Quaestio parricidii a J. Chatel attentati in Henricum IV christianissimum regem Francorum et Navarrae (Paris: s.n., 1595). The monarchs referred to are Henry IV of France, Elizabeth I of England, Sigismund III of Sweden, and Christian II of Saxony. 15 Quaestio parricidii a Iohanne Chastel, Iesvitaram discipulo, attentati in Henricum IV Christianissimum Regem Francorum et Nauarrae; et Senatusconsulta contra parricidam facta (Paris: s.n., 1595), 16. 16 Gregorio de Valencia, Commentariorvm theologicorvm tomus tertius complectens materias Secvndae Secvndae diui Thomae (Ingolstadt: Sartorius, 1595), 1308–1333. 17 This work can be found in English translation in Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, transl. Ryan Grant (Post Falls ID, 2016), vol. 2, 307–312. 18 Jan Vermeulen (Johannes Molanus), Libri quinque. De fide haereticis servanda, tres. De fide rebellibvs seruanda, liber vnus, qui est quartus. Item vnicus, de fide et ivramento, quae a tyranno exiguntur, qui est quintus (Cologne: Godefridus Kempensis, 1584).

128  Bartholomäus Keckermann sententia opponenda crudelissimis opinionibus aliorum pontificiorum, et inprimis cuiusdam Dominici Bannis professoris academiae Salmanticensis in Hispania, qui super secundum secundae, id est, [524] super summam Thomae quaest. II. art. 2. sic scribit: Inquisitores haereticae prauitatis ex praesumptione etiam procedere possunt, et tenentur punire eum, qui ex dictis vel factis conuincitur esse haereticus, etiamsi reuera non sit. Haec nimirum sunt dogmata, quorum culpa accidit, vt ab anno 1562. ad annum 84, 140,000 hominum variis suppliciis et bellis propter religionem confecta sint in Gallia; sicuti quidem Cicarella continuator Platinae in vita Gregorii XIII. refert, quod legatus regis Galliae pontifici dixerit, post mortem Amiralii 70,000 haereticorum annis 14. in gratiam pontificis trucidata esse. Et autor libelli de iure belli Belgici, refert, quod Ferdinandus dux Albanus paucis illis annis, quibus praefuit illi bello 18,000 hominum, et 600. praeterea in vtroque sexu tum palam, tum clanculum furialibus carnificinis sustulerit, gratissimo sc. Sathanae, tanquam Archihomicidae spectaculo. 3 In dissensionibus de religione non patiatur princeps certamina publica nimis inualescere, praesertim pro suggestis et ad populum. Sed disputationes de religione subtiliores iubeat proponi et disputari in academiis et scholis inter viros doctos, et intelligentes, ac capaces subtilium controuersiarum. Sequitur status religiosus grauiter turbatus, qui est vel persecutio, vel bellum sacrum. Persecutio ob religionem est, vel ex parte principis, vel ex parte subditorum. Contra persecutionem ex parte principis sunt hi canones: 1 [525] Etsi pius princeps dolere debeat si subditi a vera religione aberrent, et huic errori remedia quaerere et adhibere; tamen propterea in subditos saeuire non debet persecutionibus, exiliis aut crudelibus suppliciis. Nimirum Dauid rex habuit etiam sub suo imperio ethnicos; neque eos vel violenter ad suam religionem coegit, vel ipsos extirpauit, aut sedibus suis pepulit. Quis vero princeps ausit dicere se magis pium Dauide, qui vir et rex fuit secundum cor Dei? Sufficiat hoc vnum argumentum; plura enim pro hac confirmanda sententia suo tempore afferri a nobis poterunt.

Bartholomäus Keckermann  129 be set against the very cruel opinions of other papists and in particular of some Domenigo Bañez, professor at the University of Salamanca in Spain, who on the Secundum secundae, that is, [524] on the Summa of St Thomas, question two, article two, writes the following: inquisitors of heretical irregularity can proceed even on the basis of presumption and are bound to punish him who is shown to be heretic based on his statements or deeds, even if in reality he may not be one.19 These are, of course, dogmas through whose fault it happened that between 1562 and 1584 140,000 people were slaughtered in various executions and wars because of their religion in France. Similarly, Cicarella, who continued Platina’s work, in his life of Gregory XIII tells, that the ambassador of the Catholic king of France said that after the death of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny 70,000 heretics were slaughtered in 14 years to please the pope.20 And the author of a little book on the justice of the Dutch Revolt recounts that Fernando, Duke of Alba, during those few years in which he presided over that war killed 18,000 men and furthermore 600 people of both sexes both openly and secretly in terrible torments, a spectacle very pleasing, of course, to Satan the archmurderer as it were.21 3  In disagreements on religion the prince should not be allowed to increase public strife, especially from the pulpits and in addresses to the people. But let him order that more subtle disputations about religion be proposed and that debates take place in the universities and schools between men who are learned, understanding, and capable of subtle controversies. Now follows the gravely disturbed religious state, which is either persecution or a holy war. Religious persecution takes place either from the side of the prince or on behalf of the subjects. These are the rules against persecution on behalf of the prince. [525] 1. Although the pious prince should be grieved if subjects stray from the true religion and should seek and apply remedies for this error, he must not for this reason rage against his subjects with persecutions, exile, or cruel punishments. King David, of course, had pagans under his authority and did not force them into his religion with violence or eradicate them or drive them from their dwelling-places. What prince would dare to say that 19 Dominicus Bañez, Commentarij in secundam secundae Diui Thomae (Venice: Giunti, 1602). 20 Antonio Cicarella, Historia B. Platinae De vitis pontificum Romanorum. A D. N. Iesu Christo usque ad Paulum II. Venetum Papam, longe quam antea emendatior, doctissimarumque annotationum Onuphrii Panvinii accessione nunc illustrior reddita. Cui etiam nunc accessit supplementum pontificum, primum per eundum Onuphrium usque ad Pium V. et deinde per Antonium Cicarellam porro ad Clementem VIII. qui hodie Cath. Rom. Ecclesiae praesidet (Cologne: ­C holinus, 1600), 407. 21 [Willem Verheiden], De iure belli Belgici adversus Philippum regem Hispaniarum oratio nobilis Belgae, ad potentissimos, ac serenissimos Christiani orbis principes (The Hague: Albertus Henricus, 1598), 40.

130  Bartholomäus Keckermann 2 Si qua pacta, si qua iuramenta, si quae salui conductus formulae datae sunt subditis in religione dissentientibus, eae a principe seruari debent, nihil obstante pestilentissima thesi: haereticis non est seruanda fides. Si non seruanda, ergo nec danda nec quicquam eis promittendum. Vide de hac re latius Danaeum lib. 2. Ethic. cap. 9. Bodinum libro 5. c. 6. inprimis vero eum, quem ante citauimus, Iacobum Scultetum, in solida illa et plena tractatione ac probatione istius axiomatis, quod princeps catholicus etiam haeretico fidem seruare debeat. Sed quorsum hos nostros homines cito? cum adsit testimonium manifestum Iohannis Molani s. theologiae in academia Louaniensi professoris, et pontificii ac regii librorum censoris, cuius ante quoque mentionem feci, qui lib. 1. de fide seruanda cap. 16. probat hosti fidem seruandam esse, et deinceps, c. 16. Ex sacris, inquit, literis docebo, haereticis hominibus fidem seruandam esse. Et tandem concludit, valeat igitur impia illa sententia, [526] quod nempe infidelibus et haereticis non sit seruanda fides; et vt veritas exigit, omne mendacium omnemque perfidiam detestemur. Nec attendamus cui, sed per quem iurauerimus. Et c. 30. eiusdem libri, soluit istam celebrem obiectionem, in turpi promisso rescindendam esse fidem. Dicit autem illud axioma esse intelligendum de promissis, quae in se habent talem turpitudinem, quae sit malitia, aut malum culpae. Itaque non omne turpe promissum esse rescindendum, sed tantum eiusmodi quod in se contineat malitiam culpae; tale autem promissum non esse quod princeps Catholicus dat haereticis. 3 Cogitet princeps dissensiones in religione, per se non afferre mutationes in rebuspublicis sed per accidens, quatenus nempe vel ipse princeps inueteratam suam opinionem nimis obstinate vult tueri, vel quatenus sub specie religionis quaeritur suppressio subditorum, vel denique quatenus inter subditos aliqui sint, qui sub religionis specioso titulo occultis ac fraudulentis machinationibus turbant statum politicum.

Bartholomäus Keckermann  131 he is more pious than David, who was a man and king after God’s heart. Let this one argument suffice; for we will be able to adduce more arguments in due course to confirm this view. 2. If any accords, oaths, or agreements of safe conduct have been given to subjects that dissent in religious matters, then those must be maintained by the prince, despite the awful thesis that one should not keep promises to heretics. If such promises are not to be kept, then they must not be given, nor must anything be promised. For more about this, see Daneau, book two, chapter 9 of his Ethics, Bodin in book five, chapter 6, but most of all the man we referred to above, Jakob Schultes in that solid and full treatment and demonstration of that axiom that a Catholic prince should keep his word even to a heretic.22 But why am I referring to the people on our side when there is the manifest testimony of Joannes Molanus, professor of sacred theology in the university of Leuven and papal and royal censor of books, of whom I also made mention above and who in book one, chapter 16 on the duty to keep one’s word proves that one should even keep one’s word to an enemy and then in chapter 16 writes: ‘I will demonstrate on the basis of scripture that you should keep your word to heretics’. And finally he concludes that the view that a promise to heretics should not be kept, [526] should be seen as impious, and that we should detest every lie and every dishonesty, as truth demands.23 We should not consider to whom but by whom we swear an oath. In chapter 30 of the same book he dispels that well-known objection that one should break one’s word in case of a shameful promise. However, Molanus says that axiom must be interpreted with regard to promises that have in themselves such shamefulness, that is constituted by malice or blameworthiness of error. Therefore, not every shameful promise must be broken, but only those that contain within them the malice of guilt. He argues that is not the kind of promise that a Catholic prince gives to heretics. 3. The prince must consider that dissensions in religious matters do not by themselves bring about revolutions in states, but do so contingently, to the extent that the prince himself obstinately wants to protect his own outdated opinion, or to the extent that the suppression of subjects is sought under the appearance of religion, or finally to the extent that there may be some among the subjects, who under the specious pretext of religion disturb the political state with secret and deceitful machinations. Very worthy of

22 Daneau, Ethices libri, pp. 144–154; Jean Bodin, Les six livres de la république de I. Bodin Angeuin (Paris: Du Puys, 1577), 602–624. Keckermann’s reference is to Jakob Schultes’s Brevis et accuratus tractatus, de haereticis religiose servanda, originally published in 1599. Only the 1652 edition seems to be extant nowadays: Brevis et accuratus de haereticis religiose servanda, ex iure divino, pontificio et civili, perspicue deductus et examinatus per Jacobum Schultes Elbing. U.I.D. (Frankfurt: Weissius, 1652). 23 Molanus, De fide servanda, 50.

132  Bartholomäus Keckermann Consideratione dignissimum est iudicium Camerarii in meditatione Histor. parte 1. capite 58. vbi inquit: Diuersae religiones per se minime afferunt mutationes aut perturbationes rerumpublicarum sed eae tandem incidunt, quando magistratus inueteratam opinionem absque iudicio et discrimine abiectis per vim reliquis pertinacius tuetur. Quod idem plane iudicium est domini de Noue, in discursibus Pol. discursu 2. Vide etiam eximium librum cui titulus est Suscitabulum, parte 1. c. 5. et 6. De statu turbato grauiori ex [527] parte subditorum, sunt hi canones, qui partim respiciunt officium subditorum erga principem, partim officium subditorum erga se inuicem. 1 Subditi aduersus principem in religione dissidentem insurgere non debent, modo non saeuiat persecutionibus, suppliciis et exiliis. 2 Si saeuit exiliis, suppliciis et persecutionibus, priuati homines et subditi fugere debent alio: sin autem fugere non possint, debent patienter ferre quod ferendum est, dum tandem optimates siue magistratus inferiores in aliquo principatu patrocinium suscipiant priuatorum, eosque defendant ac tueantur contra saeuitiam, quam causa religionis patiuntur. Anxia admodum quaestio est: an subditis licitum sit religionis causa a principe deficere, aut arma contra eum capere, quae quidem quaestio ordines confoederatarum prouinciarum Belgicarum hodie concernit, et olim concernebat ordines regni Scotici et Gallici. Ne autem prolixi simus, adductis in vtramque partem argumentis, quae alibi ab aliis fuse

Bartholomäus Keckermann  133 consideration is the judgement of Camerarius in a contemplation in his History, part one, Chapter 58 where he says: Contrary religions do not in themselves bring about revolutions or disturbances of commonwealths, but they only occur when the magistrate protects his outdated opinion without judgment and discernment, having forcibly rejected other views.24 The sieur de la Noue clearly has the same opinion in his Political discourses, discourse two.25 See also the excellent book with the title The Clock, part one, chapters 5 and 6.26 On the more gravely disturbed state originating on [527] the side of the ­subjects, these are the rules, which partly concern the duty of the subjects towards the prince, partly the duty of the subjects towards each other. 1 Subjects must not rise against a prince who dissents in religious matters, provided he does not savage them with persecutions, punishments, and expulsions. 2 If he does savage them with expulsions, punishments, and persecutions, then private citizens and subjects must flee elsewhere. Should they be unable to flee, then they must patiently bear what must be borne, as long as the foremost subjects or lower magistrates in some position of authority take up the protection of the private citizens and defend and protect them against the rage they suffer for the sake of religion. The very unsettling question is: is it licit for subjects to defect from the prince or take up arms against him. This very question concerns the states of the confederated Dutch provinces today and once concerned the states of the kingdoms of Scotland and France. Lest I digress by

24 Philippus Camerarius, Operae horarum succissivarum, sive Meditationes historicae. Continentes accuratum delectum memorabilium historiarum, et rerum tam veterum, quam recentium, singulari studio inuicem collatarum, quae omnia lectoribus et vberem admodum fructum, et liberalem pariter oblectationem afferre poterunt. Una cum indice locupletissimo. Philippo Camerario I.F. Iurisconsulto, et reipublicae Noricae a consiliis, auctore (Nuremberg: Lochner and Hofmann, 1591), 265. 25 François de la Noue, Discours politiques et militaires du Seigneur de la Nouë (Basel: Forest, 1587). 26 [Bartholomäus Gericke], Vng resveille matin siue Tempestivum suscitabulum pro principibus: Hoc est, ad edictum imp. Diocletiani de malefic. et Manich. in Cod. Hermog., quod in Christianos scriptum est, commentarius: Vitam D. D ­ iocletiani Avgusti, atque res svb eodem, item ante et post eum, potissimum adversus Ecclesiam Dei, atque pro ea, gestas, complectens: Pro defensione S.R. Imperii, Autonomiam et Eunomiam, conscientiarumque libertatem, non tam concedentis, quam statuentis: Et pro his, qui ex omni hominum genere, odijs iniquis, et violentae vexationis, S. fidei caussa, sunt obnoxij. In gratiam illorum, qui boni communis, bonarumque artium et partium studiosi sunt, confectus opera et labore Ant. Benbellonae de Godentijs I.C. (Zerbst: Schlerius, 1602), 33–53.

134  Bartholomäus Keckermann enumerantur, recta accedimus ad decisionem controuersiae quae sit per limitationem duorum terminorum in ista quaestione, nempe principis et subditi. Princeps enim dupliciter consideratur, vel vt nude tantum dissentiens a religione subditorum, et sic nullo modo est ei resistendum; si quidem etiam malo et scelerato principi obediendum esse sacrae litterae docent Matt. 22. 1. Pet. 2. Ier. 29. Baruc. 11. Sam. 15 et nos supra etiam idem probauimus, et probat Alth. c. 4. in Pol. vide etiam Castell. lib. 3. de officio Regis c. 12. [528] Secundo consideratur princeps, quatenus non tantum dissentit a religione vera et sincera subditorum, sed eam tyrannice persequitur, atque adeo saeuit in subditos vel occultis machinationibus et oppressionibus, sicut accidit in Gallia, in Belgio, in Anglia, et alibi. Et tali principi resistendum esse docet ipsum ius naturae, quo conceditur defensio homini contra hominem, ius antecedens naturae non tollitur per iura politica. Resistendum est igitur tali principi, sed non temere, non praecipitanter verum ita, vt omnia prius remedia fideles et afflicti subditi experiantur; est enim graue et sapiens monitum Liuij, quod est libro 3. Scutum potius quam gladium subditis in tyrannum esse sumendum quem patientia et modestia subditorum mitigat, contumacia vero exasperat. Et constat ex crudelibus tyrannis progressu temporis factos esse optimos reges. Vide Tol. lib. 8. c. 1. Lip. lib. 6. Pol. c. 5. Nec resistendum est quibusuis subditis. Subditi enim, vt ad secundi termini limitationem accedamus; vel vt priuati sunt, et tales debent vel sequi consilium Christi, quod est Mat. 10. Fugite de ciuitate in ciuitatem; vel si fugere non possunt, debent quiescere et iniuriam patienter ferre; quia non habent ius gladij, Matthaei 26. ad Roman. 13. Et bellum quod a priuato mouetur, non tantum non est legitimum, sed ne bellum quidem recte dicitur, vt probat Obrecht. disput. 1. de bello; thesi 30. Vel consideratur subditus

Bartholomäus Keckermann  135 adducing arguments on both sides, which are copiously enumerated by others elsewhere, I come straight to the decision of the controversy through the limitation of the two terms in that question, namely ‘prince’ and ‘subject’. For the prince is considered in two ways, either just simply dissenting from the religion of the subjects and then he must not be resisted in any way since scripture teaches us that even a bad and wicked prince must be obeyed. See Matthew 22, 1 Peter 2, Jeremiah 29, Baruch 11, Samuel 15 and I have proved the same above and Althusius proves it in Chapter 4 of his Politics.27 See also Castellanus in book three of On the Duty of the King, chapter 12.28 [528] Second, the prince is considered to the extent that he does not just dissent from the true and genuine religion of the subjects, but persecutes it as a tyrant and rages against his subjects for instance with covert machinations and acts of oppression, as happened in France, the Low Countries, England, and elsewhere. Even natural law itself, through which self-defence is granted to a person against another person, teaches that such a prince must be resisted. The precedence of natural law is not invalidated by political rights. Such a prince must therefore be resisted, but not in any rash or hasty way, but in such a way that the believing and afflicted subjects first try out all remedies. For Livy’s advice in book three is grave and wise. Subjects must take up the shield rather than the sword against a tyrant. The patience and modesty of the subjects appeases him, yet stubbornness provokes him.29 And it is a well-known fact that some cruel tyrants have, with the passing of time, become excellent kings. See Grégoire book eight, chapter 1; Lipsius, book six of the Politics, chapter 5.30 Nor must resistance be offered by any subjects whosoever. For subjects – to come to the limitation of the second term – are either private citizens and must as such follow Christ’s counsel in Matthew 10, ‘Flee from city to city’.31 Or, if they cannot flee, then they must remain calm and patiently bear the injury, because they do not have right of the sword, see Matthew 26 and Romans 13.32 Furthermore, a war started by a private citizen, is not only illegitimate, but cannot even be rightly called a war, as Obrecht proves in his first disputation on war, thesis 30.33 ­A lternatively, a subject is considered to the extent that he 27 Althusius, Politica, 29–35. 28 Vincentius Castellanus,De officio regis libri IIII (Marburg: Egenolphus, 1597) 352–354. 29 A paraphrase of Livy 3.53. 30 Grégoire, De republica, 516–522; Justus Lipsius, Politica: Six Books of Politics or Political Instruction, edited with translation and introduction by Jan Waszink (Assen, 2004), 689–699. 31 Matth. 10:23. 32 Matth. 26:52; Rom. 13: 1–6. 33 Keckermann’s reference is imprecise. Obrecht makes this point in thesis 33. See Georg Obrecht, Dispvtationes II.ivridicae: prior de principiis belli et eivs constitutione: ex integro tractatu de bello excerpta: et in inclyta Argentoratensium academia ad disputandum proposita a Georgio Obrechto IC. Reipub. Argentinensis Aduocato, et Iurium Antecessore. Respondente

136  Bartholomäus Keckermann quatenus simul habet potestatem et ius magistratus inferioris, quod ius ipse princeps ei dedit, vt supra monuimus. Ratione ergo huius iuris quod habet subditus [529] tanquam magistratus inferior et vnus ex optimatibus regni potest resistere principi ob religionem saeuienti propter rationes, quas supra allegauimus de resistentia subditorum aduersus principem ob tyrannidis politicae siue ciuilis causas. Atque haec est sententia cum theologorum, tum politicorum, qui prudenter et moderate de eiusmodi grauibus controuersijs sentiunt. Qui tamen etiam hoc addunt: posse quoque implorari a subditis intercessiones ab alijs exteris principibus, qui nempe principem moneant, vt ab eiusmodi saeuitia desistat, sicut quidem Galli apud suum regem vsi sunt intercessione regis Daniae, principum Germaniae, et aliorum. Vide historiam Gallicam et eius epitomen. 3 Libertatem conscientiae et pacem religionis a principe concessam, subditi pro magno beneficio habeant, eaque non abutantur vel ad licentiam opinionum nouarum, vel etiam ad dissolutionem et laxationem disciplinae politicae, sed pro ea grati sint principi, seque in aliis oneribus ciuilibus tanto promptiores exhibeant: et vt princeps non vult dominari eorum conscientiis, ita nec dominentur illi conscientiae principis, siue magistratus sui. 4 Subditi inter sese pacem politicam colant, nec seditiones aut tumultus moueant ob differentias in religione. Si enim princeps et magistratus subditis debet concedere pacem religiosam siue libertatem conscientiae quanto magis subditus subdito eam debet concedere? Atque canonibus prioribus probatis, iam hic nessario concedetur. Et sane Euangelium non tollit politias, vt est recepta omnium [530] theologorum sententia, idcirco nec dissensio in religione inter subditos tollit pacem politicam inter eos; neque illi, qui veram Euangelij sententiam tenent, cupient pace politica priuare eos, qui istam sententiam nondum amplectuntur. Quo pertinet admonitio apostoli ad Romanos 15. Pacem (nempe politicam) colite cum omnibus. Et Christus ipse humanissime conuersatus est cum hominibus a religione Iudaica et Christiana alienis, vt cum Samaritanis, publicanis, Pharisaeis. Idem et apostoli fecerunt, vt actorum apostolicorum liber testatur.

Bartholomäus Keckermann  137 has the authority and right of a lower magistrate, which is a right given to him by the prince himself, as I pointed out above. By reason of this right, which the subject has [529] as a lower magistrate and as one of the leaders of the kingdom, he can resist the prince who is raging because of religion for the reasons that we adduced above on the resistance of subjects to the prince because of political tyranny or for civil causes. This is the view of both theologians and political writers, who take a prudent and nuanced position regarding grave controversies of this kind. They also raise this point: subjects can also beseech other, foreign princes for intervention since they are in a position to warn the prince to desist from savagery of this kind, just as the French have had an intervention with their king from the king of Denmark, the princes of Germany, and others. See Robert Céneau’s History of France and its summary.34 3 The subjects should consider the freedom of conscience and religious peace granted by the prince a great favour, which they should not abuse either for an unrestrained license for new opinions or even for a dissolution and relaxation of political discipline. They should be grateful for this favour and should show themselves all the readier in other civil duties and just as the prince does not want to rule over their consciences, in the same way should they not rule over the conscience of their prince or magistrate. 4 The subjects should honour the political peace among them and should not start seditions or rebellions due to religious differences. For if a prince and magistrate must grant religious peace or freedom of conscience to subjects, then how much more must a subject do the same to another subject? Since the previous rules have already been proved, this one will now have to be conceded by necessity. Of course the gospel does not abolish polities, as is the received view of all [530] theologians, and for that reason dissension in religious matters among the subjects does not abolish the political peace among them. Nor will any who hold the right view of the gospel have the desire to deprive those of political peace, who do not yet embrace that view. The apostle’s warning in ­Romans 15 is pertinent: ‘Honour the peace (that is, the political one) with everyone’.35 Christ himself conversed most humanely with people who did not adhere to the Jewish and Christian religion, such as ­Samaritans, tax farmers, and Pharisees. The apostles did the same, as the Book of the Acts of the Apostles testifies. generoso et illustri domino, D. Stanislao Comite Ostrorogano etc. Polono. Posterior de militari disciplina, quae administrationis belli praecipuam partem continet: in eadem Academia et ab eodem publici exercitij gratia proposita. Respondente illustri et generoso domino Dn. Ioanne Skumyn P.N. Capitaneo Baslauuiensi etc. Lithuano (Strasbourg: Bertram, 1592). 34 Robertus Céneau, Gallica Historia in duos dissecta tomos: Quorum prior ad anthropologiam Gallici principatus, posterior ad soli chorographiam pertinet: Ad Henricum II Valesium, Franciae regem Christianissimum (Paris: Galliot du Pré, 1557). 35 Rom. 12: 8.

138  Bartholomäus Keckermann Et sic de priori specie status religiosi grauius turbati, deque eius remediis. Posterior species est bellum, quod religionis causa suscipitur; et quod historici ac politici sacrum vocant; de quo hic canon est: Bella sacra aliis bellis grauiora esse solent et diuturniora. Sic bellum Peloponnesiacum maxime diuturnum fuit inter omnia bella Graeca; quia sacrum nempe bellum erat. Sic hodie bellum Belgicum, quod est sacrum bellum, et a causis religiosis ortum, pertinacissimum est, et cum annis aliquot supra 30. durarit, nullus tamen eius adhuc finis, aut exitus apparet. Atque haec etiam de statu religioso, quem politicus in genere considerat, quatenus nempe collatio instituenda est finis rerumpublicarum eminentioris cum fine absoluto. Plenius autem et specialius de toto statu religioso tam in communi, quam in specie, nempe de oeconomico et politico peculiaris disciplina tractat, quae dicitur politia siue disciplina ecclesiastica.

Bartholomäus Keckermann  139 This is what I had to say about the first kind of the gravely disturbed religious state and its remedies. The second kind is war, which is taken up for the sake of religion and which writers on history and politics call ‘holy’. The rule concerning holy war is: Sacred wars tend to be graver and longer than other wars. Thus, the Peloponnesian war was the longest of all Greek wars, because it was, of course, a holy war. Likewise, in our time, the Dutch war, which is a holy war and arose from religious causes, is fought very tenaciously. And although it has already lasted more than 30 years, there still does not seem to be a conclusion or end in sight. This is what I had to say about the religious state, which the writer on politics considers in general to the extent that a union has to be established between the more eminent and the absolute goals of commonwealths. There is a specific discipline that gives a fuller and more specialized treatment of the religious state as a whole, both in general and with regard to particular aspects, such as economics and politics. This discipline is called the ecclesiastical polity or ecclesiastical discipline.

4 Guillaume du Buc and the Institutiones Theologicae

Guillaume du Buc (Gulielmus Bucanus, d. 1603) was born in Rouen, but spent most of his documented life in Switzerland. He obtained his master’s degree from the Academy of Lausanne in 1564 and was ordained deacon in 1568. From 1571, he served as pastor in Yverdon, but returned to his alma mater in 1591 to become professor of theology. He was invited to move to Saumur to teach theology at the local academy, but died in 1603 before he could take up this position. Like Vermigli before him, Bucanus’s work is important for the systemization of Reformed theology, although the latter focused more strongly than the former on making difficult theological problems accessible to theology students and explaining the practical consequences of Reformed doctrine in life and in politics. By far his important work in this respect is the Institutiones theologicae seu locorum communium analysis (1602), which was frequently reprinted in the first half of the seventeenth century. The work was also translated into English by Robert Hill (d. 1623) in 1606 (second edition in 1659). However, Bucanus’s Institutiones were by no means seen as an innocent introduction to Reformed teachings. Partly with the Swiss war against the Habsburg Empire in mind, Bucanus argued on the basis of natural law that subjects could rise up against their prince when they were faced with violence and could not turn to any armed authorities to protect them. Furthermore, Bucanus emphasized that junior magistrates who took part in the administration of a country had a duty to restrain the prince’s bad and violent impulses. This view alarmed Protestant authorities in England. Hill decided not to follow the original Latin text in the passages concerned, but instead turned against Bucanus, arguing that his views were subversive, were not part of Reformed doctrine, and were in fact much more typical of Catholic teachings on the possibility of rebelling against Protestant authorities. The universities of Oxford and Cambridge strongly condemned the Institutiones. Bucanus’s case thus shows the importance of studying the political balance and context in which works of theology were written and published. In mainland Europe, where Protestants more often than not occupied a subordinate position, aggressive views in resistance theory were more acceptable and common than in England, where the Protestants were

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-8

Guillaume du Buc  141 in charge themselves. The excerpt presented here contains the controversial passages from the Latin original, taken from commonplace 49, on political administration. The text follows the third, corrected edition printed in Bern in 1605: Institutiones theologicae, seu locorum communium christianae religionis, ex Dei verbo, et praestantissimorum theologurm orthodoxo consensu expositorum, analysis (Bern: le Preux, 1605), 826–827; 829–832; 842–845.

Suggestions for further reading Serjeantson, R., “Preaching Regicide in Jacobean England: John Knight and David Pareus,” English Historical Review 134, no. 568 (June 2019), 553–588 (esp. 566–568). Vuilleumier, H., Histoire de l’Église réformée du Pays de Vaud sous le régime bernois. 2 vols. Lausanne: Éditions La Concorde, 1927–1933), volume 2, 168–177.

Gulielmi Bucani Institutiones theologicae, seu locorum communium analysis (1605)

Locus quadragesimus nonus: De Politica administratione, siue de Magistratu. [826] XLIII. Anne quia nullum exemplum, aut praeceptum extat in Nouo Testamento, de bello inferendo, propterea bellum Christianis illicitum est? Non. 1. Quia non propositum fuit Christo in Euangelio politiam formare, sed spirituale regnum instituere. 2. Quia, inquit Augustinus, quibus Iohannes Baptista proprium stipendium sufficere debere praecipit, militare vtique non prohibuit. Vsitatum autem est argumentari a concretis ad abstracta. Et consequentia valet, vbi non est ambiguitas; vt, Iohannes Baptista recipit et approbat milites manentes in officio: Igitur et [827] militiam approbat: Nam approbatione exempli in subiecto, approbatur res in genere. 3. Quia si iure eos latrones plectit magistratus, quorum iniuriae in paucos tantum progressae sunt, multo minus totam regionem latrociniis impune affligi, vastarique sinet: Nam non frustra gerit gladium, sed vindex est ad iram, malefacienti, Rom.13.14. Et legitima bella, (de quibus 1.Sam.25.28. Abigail, ad Dauidem inquit, Praelia Domini praeliaris) sunt pars vindictae publicae. 4. Et vere pios viros bella, atque etiam ex fide gessisse, et hostes fudisse, scribitur Heb.11.34. Sed illius meminisse oportet, omnia prius experiri, quam armis decernere, sapientem decet. Et cauendum, ne cupiditatibus, aut affectu prauo magistratus ducatur, sed misereatur etiam communem in eo naturam, vt Augustinus loquitur, in quo punit proprium delictum. Denique, iusta bella sint oportet. Illud autem Matt.26.52. Qui acceperit gladium, gladio peribit, de eo dicitur, cui a Domino non traditur, id est qui nulla superiori ac legitima potestate iubente, vel concedente, feriendi causa gladium vsurpat. Et Petro, vt pastori animarum, et Euangelij praeconi dictum est: Converte gladium tuum in locum suum. Sicut illud ministris dictum est, 2.Tim.2.4. Nemo militans Deo

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-9

Guillaume du Buc, Theological Instructions or Analysis of Commonplaces (1605)

Commonplace forty-nine: On political government or on the magistrate [826] XLIII. Since there is no example or direction in the New Testament about waging war, is war therefore illicit for Christians? 1. For in the Gospel, it was not Christ’s intention to form a state, but to establish a spiritual kingdom. 2. Because, as Augustine says, those who are told by John the Baptist to be content with their own pay were certainly not forbidden to be soldiers.1 Moreover, it is usual to argue from concrete examples towards abstract rules. And the consequence is valid where there is no ambiguity: since John the Baptist welcomes and approves of soldiers who remain in service, therefore he also [827] approves of military service, for with approval of an example in a subject the matter in general is approved. 3. For if the magistrate rightfully executes those as bandits whose crimes have been committed against only a few people, then much less will he tolerate that a whole region is afflicted and devastated by crimes with impunity. ‘For he does not carry the sword in vain, but is the avenger of God’s wrath to the evildoer’ according to Romans 13: 14. Furthermore, legitimate wars – about which Abigail said to David ‘you will fight the battles of the Lord’ in 1 Samuel 25: 28 – are part of public defence. 4. Also, it is written in Hebrews 11: 34 that truly pious men have even waged wars in good faith and have slain enemies. But it must be remembered that it becomes the wise man to attempt everything before taking up arms. And one must be careful lest the magistrate be led by desires or improper zeal, but rather let him feel compassion for that common element in him, as Augustine says, in whom he punishes a particular offence.2 Finally, wars must be just. Moreover, that phrase in Matthew 26: 52 that ‘he who has taken up the sword, shall perish by the sword’ is said about him to whom God does not 1 In modern editions this is not letter number 14 (i.e. the number used in the edition of Augustine’s Opera omnia, edited by Erasmus), but number 138 (PL vol. 33, cols 523–533). The biblical passage referred to is Luke 3: 14. 2 Aug. Ep. 104 (PL vol. 33, cols 388–395).

144  Guillaume du Buc implicat se negotiis secularibus: nisi quod iuste pugnantibus, suis hortationibus et precibus adesse possunt. Sicut Iosue 6.8. mandabatur, vt sacerdotes sacris buccinis in bello clangerent. Denique dictum de Christi regno vaticinantis Micheae 4.3. Succident gladios suos in ligones et lanceas suas in falces, nec feret gens contra gentem gladium, neque ultra velle assuescent: de Christianis intelligitur, et eo ostenditur qui ipsorum mores atque studia inter hos futura sint, atque esse debeant: nimirum vt charitatem ac pacem, atque concordiam colant, quod faciunt quotquot Principem pacis Iesum Christum vera fide sunt amplexi: non autem externa protectio omnium aduersus nefarios homines aboletur. ********************* [829] XLVIII. Licetne religionem veram armis defendere? Licet, aduersus externos, quibus nullum in nos ius est. Quinetiam, si publico consensu ordinum reipublicae recepta est, aduersus eam reipublicae partem, quae eam vult euertere. Sic Constantino licuit aduersus Licinium collegam Christianos tueri. Si enim Deus in Lege, Deut.13.14. iubet vrbem quae nostrae ditionis est, excindere, si deos alienos colat, et in impietate contumaciter perseueret, multo iustius et magis necessarium est iis resistere, qui nobis deos alienos ac nefarias superstitiones obtrudere volunt, et salutarem Dei verbi doctrinam eripere vel humanarum traditionum toxico inficere. Hoc probat lex naturae, quae nos omnia nostra Deo debere docet, et per quam olim Athenienses illuminati, ciues iuramento publice obstringebant, vt pro diis suis ac sacris, et soli,1 et cum aliis pugnarent. At Dominus non praecipit suis, vt alios fines invaderent, aut bella inferrent propter idololatriam, sed suae terrae iussit euertere altaria. Religionis autem propagandae causa, bellum inferre exteris qui nobis subiecti non sunt, Christus non iussit, sed docere, et Euangelium praedicare; et vbi non admittitur, fugere, et cedere, Matth.10.23.

1 1605: solis.

Guillaume du Buc  145 give the sword, that is he who abuses the sword for the sake of killing when no superior or legitimate authority commands it. It was also said to Peter, as a pastor of souls and a promulgator of the Gospel, ‘put your sword back in its place’.3 Similarly that phrase was addressed to ministers in 2 Timothy 2: 4 ‘nobody who serves as a soldier for God must get entangled in secular business’, except that they can support those who are fighting justly with their encouragements and prayers. As is ordered in Joshua 6: 8, namely that the priests must blow the sacred trumpets in war. Finally, I should mention what has been said about Christ’s kingdom in the prophecy of Micah 4: 3, namely ‘They will hammer their swords into mattocks and their lances into pruning-hooks, and no nation will carry a sword against another nation, nor will they be in the habit of wanting it’. This is interpreted as referring to Christians and thus it is shown how the habits and inclinations between them will be and should be, namely to cherish love and peace and concord, which is what those who have embraced Jesus Christ in true faith as the prince of peace do. However, external protection of all against wicked men will not be abolished. ************************ [829] XLVIII. Is it licit to defend the true religion with arms? It is licit against foreigners who have no authority over us. In fact, it is licit against that part of the commonwealth that wants to overturn this religion if this church has been accepted by the public consent of the estates of the commonwealth.4 Thus, it was licit for Constantine to protect the Christians against his colleague Licinius. For if God commands in His Law – ­Deuteronomy 13: 14 – to destroy a city in our realm if this city worships alien gods and proudly persists in its impiety, then it is even much more just and necessary to resist those who want to force upon us alien gods and wicked superstitions and want to take away the salvation bringing teaching of God’s word and want to stain it with the poison of human traditions. Natural law approves this, which teaches us we owe all we have to God and inspired by which the Athenians once publicly obliged their citizens by means of an oath that they would fight for their gods and sacred sites, both alone and side by side with others. However, the Lord does not command his people to invade the territory of others or to wage war against foreigners because of idolatry but commands the destruction of the altars of his own land.5 Christ, moreover, did not order the waging of war with foreigners who are not our subjects for the sake of spreading our religion, but to teach and preach the Gospel and, where that is not allowed, to flee and withdraw, according to Matthew 10: 23.

3 John 18: 11. 4 Josh. 22: 10–12; 2 Kings 25: 15 [Bucanus’s reference]. 5 Deut. 1: 5 [Bucanus’s reference].

146  Guillaume du Buc XLIX. Suntne iustae bellum concomitantes2 actiones, velut praedationes, insidiae, obsidiones, caedes, ereptiones facultatum, caeteraeque calamitates, quae in bello hostibus inferuntur? Sunt, si belli primum suscipiendi causa iusta est: si iniusta, iniustae. Sed et monet Augustinus: Non satis est bellum iustum esse nisi etiam bellum iuste geratur. Quod vt fiat, sequentes cautiones sunt obseruandae. 1 Incendia, aut demolitiones pagorum, aut castrorum, arborum, quae fructus ferunt, et segetum excisiones et vastationes, nisi iis ad perniciem nostram abutantur [830] hostes, Verbo Dei non probantur. 2 In iustis bellis, exploratoribus, insidiis, dolo, et stratagemate (in quo tamen data fides non violetur: nam etiam hosti data fides seruanda est, quandiu ipse prior datam non frangit) licet fasque est vti aduersus hostes. Vnde Augustinus. Cum iuste bellum suscipitur, vt aperte pugnet aliquis an ex insidiis nihil interest. Et hoc probat authoritate Domini, qui mandauit Iosuae, vt insidias poneret ciuitati Hai. Et Dauidi, vt diuerteret a Philistaeis, et eos ex aduerso aggrederetur. Vera enim est in bello illa sententia: Dolus, an virtus, quis in hoste requirat? Exploratores etiam iussu Dei ex exercitu Israelitarum in promissam terram praemissi sunt: et quidem viri boni vt Caleb et Iosue. 3 Quando hostis pacem petit, seruandum est ius supplicum, et dedititiorum: qua ratione parcitum Gabaonitis. 4 In expugnatis vero vi oppidis, a sanguine ciuium captorum, postquam certo constat tibi victoria, temperandum est, a saeuitia in sexum muliebrem, in infantes, et senes decrepitos, et imprimis a pudicitia mulierum captarum abstinendum. Nec enim Dei lex vnquam concedit adulteria, aut raptus virginum, seu matronarum, sed seuerissime damnat: et

2 1605: concomiantes.

Guillaume du Buc  147 XLIX. Are the actions accompanying war just, such as plundering, ambushes, sieges, slaughters, seizure of supplies, and other losses that are inflicted on enemies in war? Yes, if the cause of starting the war in the first instance is just. If that cause is unjust, then so are these actions. However, Augustine also warns: ‘It is not enough that a war is just, if the war is not waged justly’.6 To ensure this is the case, the following precautions should be taken. 1 The burning or destruction of villages or strongholds or trees that bear fruit and the slashing and plundering of fields, unless these things are abused [830] by enemies to our destruction, are not approved by the word of God.7 2 In just wars it is licit and lawful to make use of spies, deceit, and military ruses against enemies (as long as a promise is not violated. For even a promise made to an enemy must be kept, as long as he does not break his promise first).8 Hence Augustine writes, ‘When a war is justly started, it make no difference if someone fights openly or from an ambush’.9 He proves this with the authority of the Lord, who ordered Joshua to set up an ambush for the city of Ai and David to circle around the Philistines and attack them from behind.10 For that opinion is true in war: ‘Who will ask of an enemy whether he is deceitful or virtuous?’11 For spies from the army of the Israelites were sent ahead to the promised land at the command of God no less and they included good men such as Caleb and Joshua.12 3 When the enemy asks for peace, the right of supplicants and those who have surrendered must be observed.13 For this reason the Gibeonites were spared.14 4 Moreover, when towns have been captured, you must refrain from shedding the blood of captured citizens once it is absolutely clear that victory is yours and you must hold yourself back from cruelty against the female sex, against children, and decrepit old men and especially from violating the chastity of captured women. For God’s law never allows adultery or rape of virgins or matrons, but condemns it most harshly and as long as the enemy is alive, the divine bond of marriage remains

6 A paraphrase of Augustine’s insistence on the importance of ius in bello rather than a direct quotation. 7 Deut. 20: 19 [Bucanus’s reference]. 8 Ps. 15: 4. [Bucanus’s reference]. 9 Aug. Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 6.10 (PL vol. 34, p. 781). 10 Josh. 8: 2 [Bucanus’s reference]; 2 Sam. 5: 23 [Bucanus’s reference]. 11 Verg. Aen. 2.390. 12 Num. 13: 6–8 [Bucanus’s reference]. 13 Deut. 20: 11 [Bucanus’s reference]. 14 Josh. 9: 3 [Bucanus’s reference].

148  Guillaume du Buc

5

6

7

8

donec viuit hostis, manet vinculum coniugii diuinum: Quos Deus coniunxit, homo non seiungat, Matt. 19.6. Moderate vtendum victoria: et discernendae sunt causae ducum, ab errore populi, et dediti exercitus, aut populi, non sunt crudeliter interficiendi. Nam, ait ad Bonifacium scribens Augustinus, Sicut bellanti et resistenti violentia redditur, ita a victore misericordia capto debetur, maxime in quo pacis perturbatio non timetur. Ideo laudantur Romani quod scirent, Parcere subiectis, et debellare superbos. Et nisi peculiare Dei mandatum obstet: in vniuersum maior laus est clementiae, quam nimiae seueritatis. Nec enim temere dictum est, In lenitate et misericordia, victoriae partem ese maximam. Manubiae et spolia in bello iure cedunt victori, eiusque bona iure sunt, et quidem ipso iure belli, inquit Ambrosius: fit enim iusta rerum translatio, quando gerens bellum legitimum, occupat res eorum qui sontes sunt: vt Cyrus iuste factus est dominus Regni [831] Babylonici. Quod confirmat Abrahami exemplum, Dauidis, et Israelitarum. Sit etiam in defendendis locis obsessis defensionis modus, ne cum natura pugnetur, sed cum hostibus: vt de Anaxilao tradit Xenophon lib.1. De rebus Graeciae, qui accusatus in iudicio Spartano, quod vrbem Byzantij sibi commendatam tradidisset hostibus, cum iam videret multos fame mori, respondit: Se defendisse donec cum hostibus bellum esset, postquam vero vidisset bellum esse cum natura, et perire eos quibus in bello parci solet, iudicasse se finem belli esse. Qua honesta excusatione audita, iudices eum absoluerunt. Habent enim officia bellica suas metas, lege diuina, et lege naturae sancitas. Militibus autem gregariis vel praesidiariis, vel per sociorum, aut innocentium agros iter facientibus, hae leges a Ioh. Baptista positae sunt. Luc. 3.14. Neminem concutite: Neminem dolo opprimite: et contenti estote stipendiis vestris. Et multa laude dignissima Aureliani Imperatoris sententia apud Vopiscum, qui tribuno vicario suo eiusmodi mandata dedit:

Si vis tribunus esse, imo si vis viuere manus militum contine: Nemo pullum alienum rapiat: Ouem nemo contingat: vuam nullus auferat: Segetem non

Guillaume du Buc  149

5

6

7

8

in place: ‘A man must not separate those whom God has united’, in Matthew 19: 6. One must make moderate use of a victory and the motives of the leaders must be distinguished from the error of the people and armies or peoples that have surrendered must not be cruelly killed.15 For – Augustine wrote to Boniface – just as violence is offered to someone who fights and resists, likewise mercy is owed by the victor to the captured, especially when no disturbance of the peace is feared from them.16 For this reason, the Romans are praised for they knew: ‘To spare the conquered and subdue the proud’.17 Unless a particular command of God goes against it, the praise for clemency is greater in general than for an excess of harshness. Nor, after all, has it been said in vain that the largest part of victory lies in lenience and mercy. The booty and spoils by right belong to the victor and are rightfully his possessions, in fact by the very right of war, said St Ambrose. For there is a just transfer of possessions when he who wages a legitimate war seizes the possessions of those who are guilty, just as Cyrus rightly became lord of the Babylonian [831] kingdom, which is confirmed by the example of Abraham, David, and the Israelites.18 Let there also be moderation of defence when defending places under siege, so that you do not fight with nature, but with your enemies, as Xenophon tells about Anaxilaus in book one of the Hellenica.19 When he was accused in a Spartan trial that he had surrendered the city of Byzantium that had been entrusted to him to the enemy as soon as he saw that many in the city were dying from hunger, he responded as follows. He had defended himself as long as the war was with the enemy, but after he had seen that the war was with nature and that those were dying who are normally spared in war, he decided that the war was at an end. When the judges heard this honourable excuse, they acquitted him. For the duties of war have their limits, ordained by divine and natural law. John the Baptist has established these laws for common and garrison soldiers as they make their way across the fields of allies or innocent people in Luke 3: 14: ‘Do not attack anyone. Do not accuse anyone falsely and be content with your wages’. The opinion of emperor Aurelian in the work of Vopiscus is most worthy of praise as he gave his deputy tribune orders of this kind: If you want to be tribune, in fact if you want to live, then restrain the hands of the soldiers. Let nobody steal another person’s fowl or

15 16 17 18 19

2 Chron. 28: 11 [Bucanus’s reference]. Aug. Ep. 189 (PL vol. 33, col. 856). Verg. Aen. 6.853. Isa. 45: 1; Gen. 14: 21; 1 Sam. 30: 10; Josh. 22: 8 [Bucanus’s reference]. Xen. Hell. 1.3.18–19.

150  Guillaume du Buc deterat. Oleum, sal, lignum nemo exigat. Annona sua quisque contentus sit: de praeda hostis, non lacrymis prouincialium habeat, etc.203 L. Cum plerunque principes ex prauo affectu bella excitent, quo modo consulendum est conscientiis militantium subditorum? His persuasum esse debet, bellum iusta de causa geri neque contra Verbum Dei susceptum esse. Quod eo dicitur, ne subditi se patiantur cogi prudentes et scientes, vt veras ac iustas causas oppugnent. Quia vero subditi non semper possunt intelligere veras causas et consilia principum, hic in dubitatione regula sequenda est: Tene certum et relinque incertum. Est autem certum, obtemperandum esse potestati, non manifeste iniusta praecipienti. Et vt in Lege Mosis, Exod. 21.13. pro eo qui [832] non volens, seu non ex proposito interfecerat alium, constitutum erat Asylum: sic merito excusantur subditi dum in causa dubia principi parent. ********** [842] LXXIV. Licetne subditis in magistratus suos insurgere? Non: nam Deus olim seditionum authores puniuit, vt in deserto contra Mosem, Core, et alij murmurantes igne absumpti sunt: Et terra domesticos Core, Dathanum, [843] et Abironem cum suis omnibus viuos absorbuit. Absalon et iam propriis capillis suspensus, impiae seditionis in patrem excitatae poenas luit. Nec Zebae, Adoniae, et Zabri melior sors fuit. Prou. 24.21. Time Deum, et Regem, et cum seditiosis ne commiscearis, quia cito eorum veniet interitus. Et Christus inquit, Qui gladium accipit, gladio peribit. Matth. 29.52. LXXV. Rectene Naboth, 1. Reg. 21.3. Regi Achab vineam petenti, et pretium offerenti denegauit? Recte. 1. Quia regi non licuit eam petere: nam iura diuina non sunt violanda. Distinctio autem dominiorum, et proprietas possessionum, est iuris diuini: iuxta mandatum, non furtum facies. Et distinctae sunt res principum et ciuium. Ideo Baptista dixit, Non plus quam vobis constitutum est, exigite, et contenti estote stipendiis vestris Luc. 3.13.14. Sicut non licet vlli regi postulare alterius coniugem.

20 Hist. Aug. Aurelianus 7.5.

Guillaume du Buc  151 sheep. Let nobody take away grapes or thrash out grain. Let nobody demand any oil, salt, or wood. Let everyone be content with their pay. Let them take booty from the enemy not from the tears of the provincials, etcetera. L. Given that very many princes stir up wars out of wicked desire, how must the consciences of subjects who serve as soldiers be taken into account? The soldier must remain persuaded that the war is waged for a just cause and has not been started contrary to the word of God. This is said for the reason that subjects, being prudent and understanding, must not allow themselves to be forced to oppose true and just causes. However, because subjects cannot always understand the true causes and intentions of princes, the following rule must be followed here in case of doubt: Hold on to what is certain and avoid what is uncertain. Moreover, it is certain that one must obey an authority which does not give manifestly unjust commands. As in the Law of Moses in Exodus 21: 13 a refuge was founded for those who [832] unwillingly or without design had killed someone, in the same way are subjects deservedly excused when they obey their prince in a dubious cause. ********** [842] LXXIV. Is it licit for subjects to rise against their magistrates? It is not, for in the past God punished the instigators of seditions, such as Korah and others grumbling against Moses in the desert who were consumed by fire and the followers of Korah, Dathan, [843] and Abiram who, with all those belonging to them, were swallowed alive by the earth.201 And at another time, Absalom, while hanging by his own hair, suffered the punishment of the impious sedition stirred against his father as he was hanging from his own hair.22 Nor was the fate of Sheba, Adonijah, and Shebar any better.23 Proverbs 24: 21 says, ‘Fear God and your king and do not join the rebellious, because their end will come soon’. Christ said, ‘Who takes up the sword will die by the sword’ (Matthew 29: 52). LXXV. Did Naboth rightly refuse when in 1 Kings 21: 3 King Ahab asked for his vineyard and offered a price? Yes. 1. Because it was not licit for the king to ask for it, for divine rights must not be violated. The distinction of lordships and ownership of possessions is part of divine law, in accordance with the commandment you shall not steal. The possessions of princes and citizens are separate. Therefore, John the Baptist said, ‘Do not demand more than is your due and be content with your pay’, in Luke 3: 13–14. Likewise, it is not licit for any king to demand the wife of another man.

21 Num. 26: 10. Num 16: 41–49; 16: 12–31 [Bucanus’s reference]. 22 2 Sam. 18: 9 [Bucanus’s reference]. 2 3 On Sheba, see 2 Sam. 20: 21–22 [Bucanus’s reference]; on Adonijah, see 1 Kings 2: 25; on Sheber, see 1 Chron. 2: 48.

152  Guillaume du Buc 2. Quia lex erat diuinitus sancita peculiaris istius politiae, vt auita bona, seu praedia, non auerterentur a tribu vna ad alteram, seu retinerentur in singulis tribubus, iunctis inter se connubiis: quia Deus sciri volebat stirpem ex qua Messiam nasci decreuerat. LXXVI. Quid si iniuste magistratus indicat tributa: rectene subditi detrectabunt obedientiam? Non quidem priuati: quia alia est quaestio de eo quod iuste vel iniuste fit a magistratu: alia quid fieri debeat a subditis. Quanquam igitur actio immoderata, siue expilatio, iniusta est, tamen passio est iusta. Sicut Solomon dixit Prouer. 28.2. Propter peccata populi, mutantur principatus. Et Dan. 9.7.8. Tibi, Domine, iustitia: nos vero iuste punimur. Itaque toleranda; et poenitentia agenda, auxilium vero Dei implorandum: iniuriae acceptae in ipsius sinum deponendae: et preces concipiendae, vt Deus mitigat publicas calamitates. Nec statim propter magistratuum ἁμαρτήματα, publica tranquilitas seditiosis clamoribus, aut molitionibus turbanda et labefactanda est: [844] Non enim recte decem tribus Israel a Roboamo Rege defecerunt. Qui tamen sunt in parte aliqua administrationis Rei publicae participes, vt custodes, senatores, consules, ordines vel tribus, moderari Principum impetus debent. LXXVII. Quid faciendum, si magistratus saeuus te afficiat atroci et manifesta iniuria? Nulla vis ipsi intentanda est, nisi quis forte priuatus extraordinarium mandatum a Deo acceperit, sed patienter potius ferenda iniuria grauis, vt in casu ambiguo, et in negotiis politicis, quam aduersus Deum peccandum. Hic enim iubet Christus, vt obuertas et alteram maxillam id est vt hanc quoque iniuriam magistratus tui toleres, propter Deum: et scias te propter acceptam iniuriam non esse abiectum a Deo. Deinde omnia prius experiri sapientes, quam armis decet. 3. Contra inferiores magistratus, imploranda est defensio superioris: et contra hunc quoque in libera Republica lege potius quam vi agendum est. Piis denique Christus concedit fugam, qua declinent pericula imminentia.

Guillaume du Buc  153 2. Because a law was divinely sanctioned in that particular polity that inherited goods or estates should not be transferred from one tribe to another, but must be retained within individual tribes bound to one another through marriages.24 For God wanted the stock to be known from which He had decreed the Messiah to be born. LXXVI. What if the magistrate unjustly imposes tributes, will the subjects rightly withdraw their obedience? No, not if they are private citizens at least. For it is one question what is justly or unjustly done by the magistrate, it is another question what must be done by the subjects. Since although an unrestrained action or plundering is unjust, suffering it, however, is just. As Solomon said in Proverbs 28: 2: ‘Because of the sins of the people leaders are replaced’. And according to Daniel 9: 7, ‘Lord, you are righteous, but we are justly punished’.25 Therefore, the injustice should be suffered and we should repent and should invoke God’s help. We should commit the endured injustices to His care and address prayers so that God may mitigate the public misfortunes. Nor should seditious complaints or plotting because of the sins of the magistrates immediately disturb and overthrow the public peace, [844] since the ten tribes of Israel did not rightly defect from King Rehoboam.26 Those, however, who have some share in the administration of the commonwealth like constables, councillors, syndics, estates or tribes must temper the princes’ impulses.27 LXXVII. What must be done, if a cruel magistrate harms you with an atrocious and manifest injury?28 He should not be threatened with violence, except if some private citizen happens to have received a special mandate from God, but one should rather suffer a grave injury as in an ambiguous case and in political matters than sin against God. For in this case Christ commands to turn the other cheek that is to bear this injury of your magistrate too for the sake of God. And you should know that you have not been rejected by God because of the received injury. Furthermore, it befalls wise men to attempt everything else before resorting to weapons. Thirdly, the protection of a superior magistrate should be sought against lower magistrates and against the superior magistrate too one should act with the help of the law rather than with violence in a free commonwealth. Finally, Christ allows the pious to flee in order to escape from imminent dangers. 24 Num. 36: 7–9 [Bucanus’s reference]. 25 The quotation seems to be a conflation of Dan. 9: 7 and Luk. 23: 41. 26 1 Kings 12: 1–24. 27 1 Kings 11: 7; 2 Kings 11: 4 [Bucanus’s reference]. 28 This passage was perhaps the most controversial one in the seventeenth century because of its endorsement of armed resistance of private citizens against authorities. See Richard Serjeantson, “Preaching Regicide in Jacobean England: John Knight and David Pareus,” English Historical Review 134 (2019), 566–568.

154  Guillaume du Buc Verum vbi haec locum non habent, seu in casu inculpatae tutelae, id est iustae et ordinatae defensionis, cedunt iuri naturae coetera pacta, Vt subdito aduersus Dominum grassatorem concessa est defensio sui corporis, coniugis, et liberorum, vere et non sophistice seu sycophantice iniuria notoria id est atrox et manifesta: cum non aboleantur in Euangelio leges naturae, et videamus omnes bestias, imo et gallinas, pro natis pugnare. Ideo Traianus constituens Praefectum Praetorij, dedit ei ensem cum his mandatis, Hoc ense utaris pro me, iusta faciente: contra me utaris, si iniusta fecero: videlicet in defensione proprij corporis, aut eorum quorum commendata est defensio. Sic Heluetii iuste excusserunt Austriacos, inusitatam crudelitatem exercentes. Et populus Iudaicus iuste [845] expulit Antiochum idola, coli mandantem, quantum tunc eius populi Dominus erat. Et Dauid potuisset iuste Saulem interficere, quia coniugem eius alteri dederat: ipsum ac parentes eius patria expulerat: Sacerdotes propter ipsum interfecerat: et magno exercitu eum persequebatur: Sed non vsus est summo iure, sed Sauli ideo pepercit, imo Amalecitam illum iussit interfici, qui iactabat se Saulem interfecisse: ne in populo Dei author esset exempli interficiendorum regum, quod alij postea, per ambitionem imitarentur: Et reipsa voluit refutare calumniam qua grauabatur, quasi studio, hoc semper egisset, vt per occasionem excuteret dominum ex regno: vitauit praeterea scandalum, quia coeterae Gentes dixissent falso gloriari Israelitas, diuinitus sibi reges dari, cum regnum per seditionem et neces dominorum rapi viderent. Illud etiam cogitans, Omnia licent, sed non omnia expediunt, 1. Cor. 6.12. Et satius est insidiatoris sui sacrosanctum habere caput. Et Tertullianus ait, magis proprium esse Christianis occidi quam occidere. Sed tamen subditis, si sit publica et manifesta saeuitia, licet fieri supplices, implorare auxilia ab aliis, et suscipere eorum defensionem aliis regibus licet: sicut Constantinus Christianos implorantes ab ipso auxilium, aduersus Licinium collegam, et affinem, et quidem foedere coniunctum, iuuit.

Guillaume du Buc  155 However, where there is no opportunity for these things or in the case of blameless defence, that is of just and orderly defence, then other agreements yield to natural law, namely that against a plundering lord a subject is allowed to defend his own body, his wife, and children, when the injury is, truly, and not sophistically or slanderously, evident, that is atrocious and manifest. For the laws of nature are not abolished in the Gospel and we see that all beasts, even chickens fight in defence of their offspring. For this reason, Trajan, when he appointed a prefect of the Praetorian Guard, gave the man a sword with these orders: ‘Use this sword in my defence when I act justly and against me when unjustly’.29 Obviously, he meant ‘to protect your own body or those whose protection has been intrusted to you’. In like manner the Swiss justly drove out the Austrians when they exercised exceptional cruelty and the Jewish people justly [845] expelled Antiochus when he ordered idols to be worshipped for as much as he was then the lord of that people.30 And David could have justly killed Saul, because he had given his wife to another man, had expelled him and his parents from his fatherland, had killed priests because of him, and pursued him with a large army. But he did not use this utmost right, but spared Saul for the reason – in fact even ordered that Amalekite to be killed who bragged that he had killed Saul – that he would not set an example among God’s people of the killing of kings that others would later follow out of ambition. In fact, he also wanted to confute the false accusation weighing down on him that he would have done this anyway as if on purpose, so that on a favourable opportunity he had driven his lord out of the kingdom. In addition, he avoided a scandal, because the other peoples would have said that the Israelites falsely boast that they get their kings by divine influence, when they would see that the kingdom was seized through sedition and the murders of lords. He also thought ‘All things are licit, but not all things are advantageous’ (1 Corinthians 6: 12) and it is more satisfying to hold the head of one’s waylayer inviolable. Also, Tertullian wrote, ‘it is more fitting for Christians to be killed than to kill’.31 Nevertheless, it is licit for subjects, in case the savagery is public and manifest, to become suppliants, seek help from others, and it is licit for other kings to take up their defence, as Constantine helped the Christians when they sought help from him against his colleague and brother-in-law Licinius, who was even united to him by an alliance.

29 Cass. Dio 68.16. 30 Reference to the de facto independence of Switzerland after their victory against the Swabian League under Emperor Maximilian I in 1499 and the Maccabean Revolt from 167 to 160 BCE. 31 Tert. Apol. 37.

5 David Pareus and his Commentary on Romans

David Pareus (Germ. David Wängler; Frankenstein, Silesia 1548 – ­Heidelberg 1622) was educated at the Collegium sapientiae, a sort of preparatory academy and theological seminary in Heidelberg. He served as a pastor in various congregations in the Palatinate between 1571 and 1584, when he started teaching at the Collegium sapientiae. In 1598, he joined the theological faculty of the University of Heidelberg to teach the Old Testament and from 1602 until his death the New Testament. Pareus is widely regarded as the most important and influential Reformed theologian of early seventeenth-century Europe, who attracted students from across the continent to Heidelberg. He published on systematic and controversial theology, irenicism, and also wrote a number of biblical commentaries, such as his commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (first published in 1608) and on the Book of Revelation (first published in 1618). Like Bucanus, Pareus had a big influence on Reformed resistance theory thanks to the views he had expressed in connection with Romans 13, in which St Paul urged the Christians of Rome to submit to the governing authorities. Pareus argued that junior magistrates could hold their superiors to account if the prince or supreme magistrate displayed tyrannical behaviour and even ordinary citizens were allowed to fight back in case of an attack against them from a tyrant if official authorities could not provide any assistance. In 1622, a young theologian in Oxford by the name of John Knight ended up in prison when he adopted Pareus’s ideas in one of his sermons. At the command of James I and the Privy Council, both Oxford and Cambridge were required to search for copies of the controversial commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and publicly burn them. The excerpt presented here contains the propositions from the commentary in which Pareus set out his ideas on justified resistance and follows the text of In divinam ad Romanos S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolam commentarius (Frankfurt: Rosa, 1608), cols 1378–1388.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-10

David Pareus  157

Suggestions for further reading Friedeburg, R. von, Self-Defence and Religious Strife in Early Modern Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002, 184–190. Serjeantson, R., “Preaching Regicide in Jacobean England: John Knight and David Pareus,” English Historical Review 134, no. 568 (June 2019), 553–588. Toft, D. J., “Shadows of Kings: The Political thought of David Pareus, 1548–1622.” Ph.D. diss., UW-Madison, 1970.

Davidis Parei In Divinam ad Romanos S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolam Commentarius (1608)

[1378] Dubium IV. An et quatenus licitum sit resistere potestatibus, et Pontifici Romano? Dubium IV. ex vers. 2. Itaque quisquis sese opponit potestati Dei ordinationi resistit, etcetera. videtur, quod potestatibus civilibus etiam impijs et pravis, qui vel [1379] nos vel Rempublicam iniuste opprimunt, vel religionem veram armis persequuntur, aut ad idololatriam subditos adigunt, nullo modo resistere liceat. I. Quia omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subiecta esse debet. At subiectum esse et resistere sunt pugnantia. Nemini igitur potestatibus resistere licet. II. Quia apostolus diserte prohibet ne resistamus. III. Quia ordinationi divinae non est resistendum. At potestas etiam degenerans est ordinatio divina. IV. Petrus iubet subesse Dominis, non solum bonis et aequis, sed etiam pravis et iniquis, idque quia gratum sit Deo, potius molestias et iniurias sufferre, quam resistere, Christi exemplo, qui convitiis affectus non iterum est convitiatus (1. Pet. 2.19). V. Christus iubet nos diligere inimicos, benedicere persequentibus nos (Matth. 5, Rom. 12.14). Non igitur resistere sed benedicere debemus magistratibus, etiamsi hostiliter et iniuste nos opprimant, aut religionem veram persequantur. VI. Non licet Christianis reddere malum pro malo Rom. 12 vers. 17. Nemini malum pro malo vicissim reddentes et versu 21. Ne vincitor a malo, sed vince malum bono. 1 Pet. 3:9. Non reddentes malum pro malo, etcetera. Sed resistere magistratibus pravis esse reddere malum pro malo. VII. Resistere magistratui est gladium sumere. At qui gladium sumit, gladio peribit. Ergo, etcetera.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-11

David Pareus, Commentary on the Divine Epistle to the Romans of St Paul the Apostle (1608)

[1378] Point of Debate IV If and to what extent it is permitted to resist authorities and the Pope in Rome? Point of debate IV. From verse 2 ‘Therefore whoever opposes authority resists the order of God etcetera’ it seems that it is in no way permitted to resist civil authorities, even the impious and wicked, which unjustly suppress either [1379] the commonwealth or us or persecute the true religion with weapons or force subjects into idolatry.  I Because every soul must be subject to higher authorities. However, being a subject and resisting are contrary to each other. Therefore, nobody is permitted to resist authorities. II Because the Apostle clearly forbids us to resist.  III Because one should not resist the divine order. However, even a vicious authority is part of God’s order.1  IV Peter commands us to be subject to lords, not just the good and just ones, but also the wicked and unjust (1. Pet. 2: 19). The reason is that it is pleasing to God to suffer vexations and wrongs rather than resist, in accordance with the example of Christ, who after he had been the object of insults was not insulted again. V Christ commands us to love our enemies and those who persecute us (Matth. 5, Rom. 12: 14).2 We must therefore not resist our magistrates, but speak well of them, even if they oppress us in a hostile and unjust way, or persecute the true religion.  VI Christians are not allowed to take an eye for an eye. Romans 12 verse 17: ‘Do not render evil for evil’ and verse 21: ‘Do not be overcome by evil, but defeat evil with good’. 1. Peter 3.9. ‘Do not render evil for evil etcetera’. However, resisting wicked magistrates is taking an eye for an eye. VII Resisting a magistrate is taking up a sword, but who takes up the sword, will perish by the sword. Therefore etc. 1 1 Pet.2: 19. 2 Matt. 5; Rom. 12: 14.

160  David Pareus Videtur etiam quod Papae Romano etiamsi sit Antichristus resistere, aut potestatem, quam sive iure sive iniuria sibi paravit, eripere non liceat. I. Quia potestatibus resistere non licet ne iniustis quidem. At Papa habet potestatem. II. Hos. 4:4 repraehenduntur qui litigant cum Sacerdote: Populus iste est similis contendentibus cum Sacerdote. Deut. [1380] 17:12 Capitalis poena statuitur non obedientibus Pontifici: Vir qui fecerit per superbiam, ut non obediat Sacerdoti, morietur. Non igitur licet Pontifici Romano contradicere resistere. III. Christus abolebit Antichristum illustri adventu suo. Ergo etiam posito, quod Papa Romanus sit Antichristus, non tamen erit oppugnandus, sed relinquendus, dum a Christo aboleatur. IV. Christus iubet pseudoprophetas cavere, Iohannes pios exire ex Babylone (Matth. 7, Apoc. 18:4). Ergo fugiendus quidem est Antichristus Pseudopropheta, non vero oppugnandus. Responsio Sed contra est, quod Christus iubet Matth. 22. Dare Caesari quae sunt Caesaris, et Deo quae sunt Dei. Contra igitur vetat dare Caesari, quae non sunt Caesaris, sed Dei. Ergo cum Caesar sibi sumit ea, quae sunt Dei, neganda est ei obedientia. Negare vero obedientiam est resistere. Tunc vero sibi sumit ea, quae sunt Dei, cum vel inhonesta subditis praecipit, vel ad impiam religionem eos adigit. Item, quod dicunt Apostoli, Deo plus est obediendum quam hominibus, hoc est magistratibus. Ergo magistratibus aliquando non est obediendum. Non obedire autem est resistere. Hic vero ne erretur, explicanda est vera sententia distinctis propositionibus. De potestate civili Propositio I. Episcopi ac pastoris magistratibus suis impiis aut iniustis possunt ac debent resistere, non vi aut gladio, sed verbo Dei: arguendo eorum notoriam impietatem aut iniustitiam, et ad officium iuxta verbum Dei et iuxta leges faciendum, eos cohortando, contumaces vero de [1381] consensu Ecclesiae etiam Satanae tradendo, donec resipiscant.

David Pareus  161 It even seems that it is apparently not allowed to resist the Pope even though he is the Antichrist or to take away the authority he has claimed for himself either justly or unjustly. I Because it is not allowed to resist even unjust authorities. Yet the Pope has authority. II In Hosea 4.4 those who quarrel with the priest are reproached: ‘Those people are like those who contend with the priest’, in Deuteronomy [1380] 17.12 the capital punishment is imposed on those who do not obey the high priest: ‘A man who has acted through pride, so that he does not obey the priest, will die’. Therefore, it is not permitted to speak against or resist the Pope in Rome. III Christ will bring down the Antichrist at his illustrious coming. Therefore, even assuming that the Pope in Rome is the Antichrist, it will not be allowed to fight him, but he should be allowed to remain until he is brought down by Christ. IV Christ commands to beware of pseudoprophets, John commands the pious to leave Babylon (Matth. 7, Apoc. 18: 4).3 Therefore one should flee from the Antichrist as a pseudoprophet, but not fight him. Response However, this view goes against Christ’s command in Matthew 22: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’. On the other hand, therefore, he forbids giving Caesar the things that are not Caesar’s, but God’s. Therefore, when Caesar takes for himself those things that are God’s, then one should refuse him obedience. To refuse obedience is in fact to resist. For then he claims for himself those things that are God’s when he gives disgraceful orders to his subjects or forces them into an ungodly religion. ‘Likewise’, as the apostles say, ‘God is to be obeyed more than men’, that is, more than the magistrates.4 Therefore magistrates should sometimes not be obeyed and not to obey is to resist. However, to make sure that no mistakes are made in this respect, the true significance should be explained through separate propositions. On civil authority Proposition I. Bishops and pastors can and must resist their impious or unjust magistrates, not with force or the sword, but with the word of God: by reproving their evident impiety and injustice and by exhorting them to fulfill their duty in accordance with the word of God and the laws, but also by handing over the unyielding with regard to the [1381] consensus of the church even to Satan, until they repent.

3 E.g. Matt. 7: 15; Rev. 18: 4. 4 See e.g. Acts 5: 29.

162  David Pareus Ratio I. Quia officium pastorum est, quosvis fidei suae commissos errantes in viam reducere, arguere, & corrigere secundum verbum Dei: Quodcunque ligaveritis in terra, etcetera. Argue, obiurga, exhortare cum omni lenitate et doctrina. Eos qui peccant coram omnibus argue, ut et reliqui timeant (Matth. 18, 1. Tim. 4.2, 1. Tim. 5.20). II. Quia debent excubare pro animabus, et rationes Deo reddere pro sanguine pereuntium non modo peccatorum, sed et magistratuum Ezech. 3; Heb. 13:17. Ergo et horum notoriae impietati aut iniustitiae verbo resistere tenentur. III. Exemplis Prophetarum: Eliae qui impio Achabo, Ieremiae qui impio Ioachimo; Iohannis Baptistae, qui impio Herodi; Ambrosij qui Theodosio ob iniustam caedem verbo restiterunt, etc. Propositio II. Subditi non privati, sed in magistratu inferiori constituti, aduersus superiorem magistratum se et Rempublicam et Ecclesiam seu veram religionem etiam armis defendere iure possunt, his positis conditionibus. 1 Cum superior magistratus degenerat in tyrannum. 2 Aut ad manifestam idololatriam atque blasphemias ipsos vel subditos alios vi vult cogere. 3 Cum ipsis atrox infertur iniuria. 4 Si aliter incolumes fortunis, vita et conscientia esse non possint. 5 Ne praetextu religionis aut iustitiae sua quaerant. 6 Seruata semper ἐπιεικείᾳ et moderamine inculpatae tutelae iuxta leges. Ratio I. Quia etiam superior magistratus est subiectus legibus diuinis et [1382] suae reipublicae. Esset enim manifesta impietas et scelus, magistratum quantumlibet sublimem1 se velle eximere legibus, quod patet, quia rex iubetur

1 1608: sublimen.

David Pareus  163 Reason I. For the duty of the pastors is to bring back all those committed to their trust who stray on the way, and to reprove and correct them in accordance with the word of God: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth etcetera’.5 ‘Reprove, dissuade, exhort with every gentleness and learning’.6 ‘Reprove those who sin in the presence of all, so that the others are fearful’ (Matth. 18, 1. Tim. 4: 2, 1. Tim. 5: 20).7 II. For they must keep watch over the souls, and account for the blood of those dying, not just of the sinners, but of the magistrates. See Ezekiel 3; Hebrews 13: 17. Therefore, they are also bound to resist their evident impiety or injustice with words. III. Following the examples of the prophets: of Elias who opposed the impious Ahab, of Jeremiah who opposed the impious Joachim, of John the Baptist who opposed the impious Herod, and of Ambrose who through their word opposed Theodosius due to his unjust slaughter etcetera.8 Proposition II. Subjects who are not private individuals, but part of the lower magistracy can rightfully defend themselves and the commonwealth and the church or the true religion even with weapons against a higher magistrate, under these conditions. 1 When the senior magistrate slips into tyranny. 2 Or when he wants to force the junior magistrates themselves or other subjects with violence into manifest idolatry and blasphemies. 3 When a harsh wrongdoing is done to them. 4 If otherwise they could not remain unharmed in their circumstances, life, and conscience. 5 They do not seek to improve their own possessions under the pretext of religion or justice. 6 As long as the reasonableness and moderation of blameless defence in accordance with the laws are observed.9 Reason I. For even the superior magistrate is subject to divine laws and [1382] those of his commonwealth. It would be a manifest impiety and a crime that a magistrate however important should want to release himself from the laws, which is obvious, because the king is commanded to read 5 Matt. 18. 6 2 Tim. 4: 2. 7 2 Tim. 5: 20. 8 On Elijah and Ahab, see 1 Kings 21: 17–18; on Jeremiah and Joachim, see Jeremiah 36; on John the Baptist and Herod see Matt. 14: 1–12; on Ambrose and Theodosius see Bill Leadbetter, “From Constantine to Theodosius (and Beyond),” in Philip F. Esler (ed.), The Early Christian World, (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), vol. 1, 285. 9 The moderamen inculpatae tutelae refers to the observance of reasonable limits in case of justified defence of oneself or one’s property (see Kenneth Pennington, “Moderamen Inculpatae Tutelae: The Jurisprudence of a Justifiable Defense,” Rivista internazionale di diritto commune 24 (2013), 27–55).

164  David Pareus legere Deuteronomium, seu legem diuinam. Deuter. 17; Ios. 1:8. Ergo Deus vult regem legibus diuinis subiectum esse. At lex Dei non modo tyrannidem prohibet, sed etiam iubet legitime eam coherceri: Qui sanguinem hominis effuderit, etc. Item, quia Imperator in Codice testatur, se contra ius nolle, ut sua in iudiciis locum habeant, sed debere irrita fieri, si fortasse cognoscantur a iustitia discedere. Et linea 4 Codicis de legibus principis. Adeo. Digna vox est maiestate regnantis, legibus alligatum se Principem profiteri. Ergo etiam superioris magistratus tyrannis aut latrocinia coherceri debent ab ordinaria potestate, quae est in qualibet politia vel magistratus inferior, vel consensus populi. II. Quia inferioris magistratus non minus quam superioris officium est defendere vitam et salutem subditorum contra iniurias atroces et vim iniustam latronum et tyrannorum siue externorum sive domesticorum. Quod probatur, quia etiam de ipsis dicitur: Est minister Dei tibi in bonum: non est terrori bonis operibus, sed malis. Gladium non gerit frustra: est ultor ad iram Dei, qui quod malum est, facit. Ergo cum superior magistratus quod malum est facit, et atrocibus iniurijs in subditos, aut blasphemijs in Deum, inferior debet esse ultor ad iram, etcetera. Item, quia ideo inferiores magistratus adduntur superioribus, tum ut sint socij gubernationis, tum etiam ut horum moderentur immensam licentiam. Ergo cum istam frenant, utuntur authoritate et gladio per legitimam vocationem sibi divinitus tradito. III. Quorum est constituere magistratus, eorum etiam est enormiter grassantes cohercere aut tollere si desistant grassari contra Deum et contra rempublicam. [1383] Constituuntur autem vel per populi consensum, vel per senatum, vel per electores, vel per alios magistratus. Ergo hi recte faciunt, cum cohercent aut tollunt grassatores. IV. A simili: Magistratus furiosus recte amouetur authoritate publica, ut Nabucodonosor in furiosam bestiam conversus ab hominum consortio fuit abiectus, Daniel 4.31. At furioso similis est grassator, et tyrannus atrox.

David Pareus  165 Deuteronomy, or the divine law. See Deuteronomy 17; Joshua 1.8. Therefore, God wants a king to be subject to the divine laws. However, the law of God does not only prohibit tyranny, but even commands it to be legally repressed: ‘He who has shed the blood of a man etcetera’.10 Likewise, the Emperor declares in his code of law that he does not want that his decrees have a place in courts of justice opposed to the law, but that they must become void, if they are found to divert from justice. See Codex Justiniani 1.14.4: ‘Indeed, it is a statement worthy of the majesty of the ruler for him to declare himself bound by the laws’.11 Therefore even the tyranny and villanies of the superior magistrate must be repressed by the ordained authority, which in any polity is either the inferior magistrate or the consensus of the people. II. For it is the inferior magistrate’s duty as much as the superior’s duty to defend the life and wellbeing of subjects against any cruel wrongdoings and unjust violence of bandits and tyrants, either foreign or domestic. This is proved, for even about the lower magistrates it is said: He is a servant of God for your good: he is no source of fear for those who do good deeds, but for those who do bad deeds. He does not carry the sword in vain, but is an avenger for the wrath of God to him who does what is bad.12 Therefore, when the superior magistrate does what is bad both through cruel wrongdoings against subjects and through blasphemies against God, the lower magistrate must be the avenger for the wrath etc. Likewise, because in this way the lower magistrates are joined to the superior ones, both so that they may be partners in government and also so that they may mitigate their immense licence. Therefore, when they curb that licence, they use the authority and sword given to them by divine providence for their lawful calling. III. Those whose task it is to appoint the magistrates, their task it is also to constrain those who act very harshly and to praise them if they stop acting harshly against God and against the state. [1383] They are appointed, moreover, either through the consensus of the people, or through the Senate, or through electors, or through other magistrates. Therefore, they act rightly, when they suppress or praise disorderly persons. IV. By analogy, the raging magistrate could be rightly removed from public authority, like Nebuchadnezzar when he had turned into a raging beast was banished from human society in Daniel 4.31. And a disorderly person and cruel tyrant are similar to a raging beast. 10 Gen. 9: 6. 11 CJ 1.14.4. 12 Rom. 13: 4.

166  David Pareus V. Idem exempla laudata confirmant tam sacra quam profana. In historia Iudicum saepe leguntur Israelitae per suos iudices Deo approbante insurrexisse adversus vicinos tyrannos a quibus crudeliter tractabantur. Ezechias rex pius ab Assyrio tyranno defecit, cumque bello ab eo peteretur, armis se contra eum defendit 2 Regibus 18. Nec refert, quod hi fuerunt tyranni externi. Domestici enim tyranni ab externis nihil differunt, immo magis sunt reprimendi, quia periuri et nocentiores. Sic populus restitit Sauli regi stolido et saevo Ionathan filium trucidare volenti 1. Samuel 14.45. Ahikam defendit Ieremiam Prophetam contra regem Ioiakim interficere eum volentem Ieremia 26.24 Athaliam tyrannum sustulerunt centuriones et principes 2 Regibus 11. Maccabaei contra tyrannos Macedonicos se et Rempublicam armis tutati sunt. Trasybulus 30 tyrannos Athenis eiecit. Romani consensu publico expulerunt reges flagitiose regnantes; saepe consules se abdicare magistratu coegerunt; Neronem et Maximinum tyrannos hostes iudicauerunt et sustulerunt. Electores Wenceslaum ignauum et luxuriosum imperio abdicauerunt, suffecto in eius locum Ruperto Electore Palatino aedis cathedralis huius oppidi conditore anno 1400. Denique Traianus laudatur apud Dionem, quod praefecto praetorio gladium tradens dixit: Hoc pro me utere, si iusta imperavero, contra me si iniusta. [1384] Videatur quoque iudicium Lutheri et Theologorum ad Iuris Consultos Witebergensium de hac quaestione Tomus 7 operum Ienensium germanicorum a pagina 384 ad 396. Et Martyris commentarium in capite 1 Iudicum.

David Pareus  167 V. Celebrated examples both sacred and worldly confirm the same point. In the Book of Judges, we often read that the Israelites were brought together by their judges to rise against nearby tyrants by whom they are cruelly treated. The pious king Hezekiah defected from the Assyrian Tyrant, and when he was attacked by him in war, he defended himself against him with weapons in 2 Kings 18. Nor does it matter that they were foreign tyrants: for domestic tyrants are by no means different to foreign ones. On the contrary, they need to be kept in check even more, because they break their oaths and are more pernicious. Thus, the people opposed the foolish and ferocious king Saul when he wanted to slaughter his son Jonathan in 1 Samuel 14.45. Ahikam defended the prophet Jeremiah against king Joakim when he wanted to kill him in Jeremiah 26.24. Commanders and the nobility removed Athalia as a tyrant in 2 Kings 11. The Maccabees protected themselves and their commonwealth against Macedonian tyrants.13 Thrasybulus drove 30 tyrants from Athens.14 Supported by common consent, the Romans expelled their kings when they reigned in a shameful way.15 They often forced consuls to resign from their magistracy.16 They judged the tyrants Nero and Maximinus to be enemies and deposed them. The electors forced the lazy and immoderate Wenceslaus from power, electing in his place Rupert Elector Palatine founder of the cathedral of this city in the year 1400.17 Finally, Trajan is praised in Dio’s work, because he said to the prefect of the Praetorian Guard when handing a sword to him: ‘Use this for my defence, if I give just orders, and use it against me if I give unjust ones’.18 [1384] See also the judgement of Luther and the theologians to the jurists of the people of Wittenberg on this question. See volume seven of Luther’s works in German published in Jena, pages 384 to 396 and the commentary on Chapter 1 of the Book of Judges by Peter Martyr Vermigli.19

13 The Jewish rebellion from 167 to 160 BCE led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire as described in 1 Maccabees. 14 The Thirty Tyrants had been installed in Athens as a pro-Spartan oligarchy after its defeat in the Peloponnesian War in 404 BCE. They remained in power until they were overthrown by the Athenian general Thrasybulus (440-388 BCE) in 403 BCE. See also Peter Krentz, The Thirty at Athens (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982). 15 The expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus in 509 BCE. 16 Examples are Gaius Marcius Figulus and Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum who had to resign in 162 BCE following irregularities surrounding their election. See Thomas Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1951), 442. 17 See John Middleton, ed., World Monarchies and Dynasties (London and New York: Routledge, 2015), 006. 18 Reference to Cassius Dio, History of Rome 68.16.1b. 19 Pareus refers to the following works. The seventh volume of Luther’s collected works in German, published in Jena: Der Siebend Teil aller Bücher und Schrifften des thewren seligen Mans Gottes Doctoris Martini Lutheri vom XXXVIII. Jar an bis auff das XLII. Geschrieben und im Druck ausgangen Ausgenomen etliche wenige Stücke So zu ende des Sechsten Teils gedruckt sind (Jena: Christian Rödingers Erben, 1558); Peter Martyr Vermigli, In librum Iudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, Professoris divinarum literarum in

168  David Pareus Propositio III. Subditis mere priuatis sine legitima vocatione neque ad inuadendum tyrannos ante periculum, neque ad defendendum se contra eos in periculo, neque ad vindicandum se post periculum arma capessere licet, si ab ordinaria potestate defendi possint. Ratio I. Quia hoc esset gladium sumere, a Deo et a legibus sibi non concessum. II. Quia etiam impio magistratui obedire tenentur subditi, dum nihil contra Deum facere ab eo coguntur, in quo etiam casu potius moriendum est, quam iniuste resistendum. Exemplum Lacedaemoniorum, qui cum victores imperarent, quae legibus et institutis eorum adversabantur dixerunt: Si duriora morte imperetis, potius moriemur. Et Aristoteles in Ethicis suadet potius mori, quam ferre ad turpia se cogi, lib. 3 cap. 1 Eth. III. Exemplo Davidis nolentis interficere tyrannum Saulem etiam cum posset 1. Samuel 24 et 26. Quis mittet manum suam in unctum Domini et innocens erit? IV. Denique argumenta pro parte negante ignitio adducta, omnia huc pertinent, atque hanc tantum propositionem de officio Christianorum, qui sunt mere priuati, confirmant. Propositio IV. Subditis tamen mere privatis, si tyrannus tanquam latro aut stuprator in ipsos faciat impetum, et ipsi nec potestatem ordinariam implorare, nec alia ratione effugere periculum possint, in praesenti periculo se et suos contra tyrannum, [1385] sicut contra privatum grassatorem, defendere licet. Ratio I. Quia contra quos licita est defensio per magistratum, contra eosdem est licita defensio privata in casu necessitatis, cum ea quae fit per magistratum haberi non potest, quoniam tunc reges armant etiam priuatos. At in casu necessitatis licita est defensio per magistratum inferiorem contra superiorem, et per superiorem contra inferiorem. Ergo etiam tunc licita est defensio priuata. Ratio II. Quia sublata defensione sive publica sive priuata, contra atrocem saeuitiam tyrannorum, confirmaretur licentia tyrannorum infinita, qua palam destrueretur societas civilis, et praesertim Ecclesia, quia scelerata pars tolleret meliorem. Sine dubio autem lex Dei non ita stabilit tyrannorum licentiam, vt interea destruatur societas humana. Non igitur Deus sine exceptione vetat, Tyrannis pro libidine in quorumvis vitam et salute grassantibus resistere.

David Pareus  169 Proposition III. Merely private subjects without a lawful calling are not permitted to take up arms, neither to attack tyrants to prevent a danger, nor to defend themselves against them when the danger takes place, nor to avenge themselves after the danger has taken place, if they can be defended by a regular authority. Reason I. For this would be to take up a sword, which is not allowed to them either by God or the laws. II. For subjects are obliged to obey even the impious magistrate, as long as they are not forced by him to do anything against God. Even in that case it is better to die than to resist unjustly. See the example of the Spartans who said when their conquerors gave orders that opposed their laws and practices: ‘If you command things harsher than death then we will rather die’. Aristotle, too, advises in the Ethics that it is better to die than to be forced to shameful deeds. See book three, chapter 1 of the Ethics.20 III. By the example of David, who did not want to kill the tyrant Saul even when he could in 1 Samuel 24 and 26: ‘Who shall lay a hand on one anointed of the Lord and shall be innocent?’ IV. Finally, the arguments mentioned at the beginning [of the point of debate] on the negative side, all apply here, and only confirms the proposition on the duty of Christians who are merely private persons. Proposition IV. However, if a tyrant undertakes an attack on them as a bandit or debaucher and if they cannot appeal to a regular authority or escape from peril in another way, then merely private subjects are allowed to defend themselves and their relatives when the peril is at hand, [1385] in the same way as against an individual rioter. Reason I. For against enemies against whom defence through a magistrate is permitted, against those same enemies a private defence is allowed in case of necessity, when those things that take place via a magistrate cannot be obtained, since then kings arm even private persons. But in case of necessity a defence via a lower magistrate is allowed against a superior magistrate and via a superior one against an inferior one. Therefore, in such a case of necessity, too, a private defence is permitted. Reason II. For if either public or private defence against the savage cruelty of tyrants has been cut off, the infinite licence of tyrants, by which civil society and especially the church is ruined, would be established, since the wicked part would destroy the better part. There is no doubt, however, that the law of God does not establish the licence of tyrants to be such that in the meantime it destroys human society. Hence God does not forbid without exception opposing tyrants who according to their fancy violate anyone’s life and wellbeing. schola Tigurina, Commentarii doctissimi, cum tractatione perutili rerum et locorum (Zürich: Christoph Froschoverus, 1561). 2 0 Aristot. Eth. Nic. 1110a.

170  David Pareus De Antichristo Romano Propositio V. Fideles privati tyrannidi Pontificiae, qua ipsi cum suis ad impios cultus adiguntur, resistere debent obedientiam negando et fugiendo, non vi et gladio. Ratio prioris I. Quia tunc plus est obediendum Deo quam hominibus impia praecipientibus siue sint pseudoepiscopi, quales erant principes sacerdotum Actis 4.19 et 5.29 sive tyranni alij. II. Quia omnes iubentur cauere et fugere pseudoprophetas. Cauete pseudoprophetas. Fugit eidola. Nolite credere cuivis spiritui. Exite ex Babilone popule mi. Papa autem est pseudopropheta, bestia habens cornua agni, loquens ut draco, mulier insidens bestiae coccinae, habenti capita septem, quae sunt septem montes, [1386] super quos Papam sedere constat Apocalipsi 17. Ratio posterioris. Quia privatis gladium sumere non licet. Idola igitur Papae tollenda sunt authoritate publica, non praepostero zelo populi. Propositio VI. Pastores et episcopi Ecclesiarum Tyrannidi Pontificiae resistere debent non gladio, quem non habent, sed praedicatione Evangelii, assertione veritatis doctrinae et cultus, detection errorum et fraudum, et denique hortatione fidelium ad detestationem et fugam Antichristi. Ratio I. Ab officio communi pastorum, quia debent excubare pro grege contra lupos. At Papa est lupus. II. Debent convincere contradicentes. At Papa est ὁ ἀντίλεγων et ὁ ἀντικείμενος. III. Quia Dominus Antichristum conficiet spiritu oris sui, hoc est, praedicatione et efficacia verbi sui, quo retegentur eius imposturae, et potential paulatim labefactabitur. Os Domini est verbum Domini. Ergo fidelium pastorum ministerio conficiendus est Antichristus. IV. Quia duo testes prophetabunt adversus bestiam, et doctrina sua cruciabunt terrae incolas bestiam adorantes, et occisi a bestia tamen reviviscent. Per hos autem testes intelliguntur instauratores doctrinae et Ecclesiae sub regno Antichristi. Qui tantum duo erunt, hoc est, pauci respectu errantium, recte docentes et defendentes doctrinam Christi contra bestiam et oppressis aliquibus subinde alii succedent. Doctores ergo Evangelii fortiter prophetare oportet contra bestiam Apocalipsis 11. V. Fideles iubentur bestiae reddere talionem, Apocalipsis 18.6. Reddite sicut et ipsa reddidit vobis. At Antichristus pios praecipue afflixit impia doctrina et falsis cultibus. Ergo vicissim debent ipsum affligere assertione verae doctrinae, qua [1387] potentia et luxuria eius destruitur. Hoc autem praestare maxime est fidelium Doctorum.

David Pareus  171 On the Roman Antichrist Proposition V. Private believers must oppose the papal tyranny, by which they together with their relatives are forced into impious adorations, by refusing obedience and by fleeing, not with violence or the sword. Reason for the first half of the proposition I. For then God must be obeyed more than men who command impieties whether they be false bishops, as were the foremost of the priests in Acts 4.19 and 5.29, or other tyrants. II. For all are ordered to beware and flee pseudoprophets. ‘Beware of false prophets. Flee from the idols. Do not believe just any inspiration. Leave Babylon, my people’. The pope is a false prophet, a beast with ram’s horns, speaking like a dragon, a woman sat upon a scarlet beast with seven heads, which are seven mountains. [1386] It is undisputed that the pope sits on these according to the Book of Revelation 17. Reason for the second half of the proposition. Because private citizens are not allowed to take up the sword. The pope’s idols must therefore be removed through public authority not through the disorderly zeal of the people. Proposition VI. Pastors and bishops of the churches must oppose the pope’s tyranny not with the sword, which they do not have, but by preaching the Gospel, the assertion of the truth of doctrine and worship, the uncovering of errors and frauds, finally the exhortation of the believers to renounce and flee from the Antichrist. Reason I. Derived from the common duty of pastors: for they must keep watch over the flock against the wolves. The pope is a wolf. II. They must convince those who speak against them. The pope is the one who speaks against us and who is the adversary. III. For the Lord will slay the Antichrist with the breath of his mouth, that is, with the preaching and efficacy of his word, through which his deceits will be uncovered and his power will gradually be overthrown. The mouth of the Lord is the word of the Lord. Therefore, the Antichrist must be swept away through the ministry of the pastors of the faithful. IV. For two witnesses will prophetize against the beast and with their doctrine they will torment the inhabitants of the earth who venerate the beast, and killed by the beast they will nevertheless come to life again. By these witnesses we understand the renewers of doctrine and the church under the reign of the Antichrist. There will only be two, that is, few with regard to those erring, who teach correctly and defend Christ’s doctrine against the beast and when some are stifled others will subsequently succeed to them. Those learned in the Gospel therefore need to prophesy bravely against the beast in accordance with the Book of Revelation 11. V. The believers are ordered to retaliate on the beast: Book of Revelation 18: 6: ‘Give back to the beast, in the way in which it gives to you’. The Antichrist, however, particularly strikes down the pious with his impious doctrine and false adorations. Therefore, they in turn need to strike him with their love for the true doctrine, with which [1387] his power and excess are destroyed. It is the task of the believing doctors above all to bring this about.

172  David Pareus Propositio VII. Christiani reges et principes debent resistere tyrannidi Pontificiae etiam gladio, et vi eam impediendo et frangendo, idola tollendo, et Ecclesiam libertati suae resistuendo. Ratio I. Ab eorum officio, quia debent esse terrori operibus malis, vltor ad iram iis qui male faciunt. At opera pessima sunt Antichristi, quibus et Christo gloriam furatur, et Ecclesiam opprimit animas hominum nundinatur et in orcum praecipitat, denique regum et principum thesaurus expilat, opes et possessions fraudulenter occupant. Ergo maxime cohercenda est gladio magistratuum Antichristi militia. II. Quia hoc eis mandatur Apocalipsi 18.6 Reddite ei, sicut et ipsa reddidit vobis, et duplicate ei duplum secundum opera eius. In poculo quod propinauit propinate ei duplum. Quod non solis pastoribus, sed etiam magistratibus dicitur, nempe ut illi quidem potentiam spiritualem Antichristi frangant doctrina et verbo, liberantes ab eius laqueis conscientias fidelium; isti vero potentiam quoque temporalem, quam sibi rapuit, gladio reprimant, ac regnum eius destruant. Nec praecipitur iniustitia, cum duplum ei reddendum praecipitur, sed nullum ultionis genus adversus Papam iniustum aut nimium esse posse significatur. Et duplum intelligitur non eius poenae, quam sit meritus, sed eorum malorum, quae ipse prius inflixit piis, et quibus Ecclesiam affecit. III. Quia praedicitur futurum, ut reges et Prinicipes Christiani odio persequantur meretricem, et solam reddant eam et nudam, carnes eius comedant, et ipsam igne exurant (Apoc. 17.16). At praedictio habet vim praecepti vt hoc faciant. [1388] Ad argumenta contraria pro Antichristo non impugnando Ad I. quod potestatibus etiam iniustis resistere non liceat. Respondeo. De oppugnatione violenta privatorum datur totum; de oppugnatione vero spirituali per pastores, et reali per magistratus negatur maior vniuersaliter. II. Minor est falsa de potestate oecumenica spirituali et temporali, quam Papa non habet nisi tyrannica vsurpatione, ut patet ad argumentum XI dubio praecedente.

David Pareus  173 Proposition VII. Christian kings and princes must resist the pope’s tyranny by obstructing and breaking it even through weapons and use of force, by removing idols, and by restoring the church to its liberty. Reason I. Derived from their duty: for they must be a source of terror for evil-doers, an avenger of the wrath to those who do wicked deeds.21 The works of the Antichrist are very foul. Through these works he plunders Christ’s glory and oppresses the church, he sells the souls of people and hurls them down into hell. Finally, he pillages the coffers of kings and princes, he falsely seizes riches and possessions. Therefore, the malice of the Antichrist must be vigorously restrained with the sword of the magistrates. II. Because the Book of Revelation 18.6 commands them to do the following: ‘Render unto him, like he renders unto you and render it twice as strongly to him according to his deeds: what he pledges to you, pledge it to him twofold’. This is said not just to pastors, but even to magistrates, obviously so that the first may break the spiritual power of the Antichrist through doctrine and word of mouth, as they liberate the consciences of the believers from his snares. The latter, however, must also curb with weapons the temporal power, that he has seized for himself and must destroy his territory. Neither is an injustice being taught, when it is taught that it must be returned to him twofold, but it means that no sort of vengeance against the pope can be unjust or too much. And twofold is understood not of the punishment he has deserved, but of those wicked deeds that he himself as earlier inflicted on the pious and with which he has weakened the church. III. For it is predicted that Christian kings and princes will persecute the harlot through their hate and will render her lonely and naked and will eat her flesh and burn her in a fire (Rev. 17: 16).22 However, the prediction has the force of a precept that they do this. [1388] In answer to the arguments on the opposite side, against fighting the Antichrist Counterargument I. That it is not even permitted to resist unjust authorities.23 Response. With regard to a violent attack of private persons the major premise is fully conceded, but with regard to the spiritual – in the case of pastors – and real assault in the case of magistrates the major premise is refuted entirely. II. The minor premise is false with regard to the ecumenical authority spiritual and temporal, which the pope only has through tyrannical usurpation, as is apparent in argument XI in the preceding debated point.24 21 Rom. 13: 4. 2 2 Rev .17: 16. 23 As becomes apparent from Pareus’s response, this counterargument is basically a very concise implied syllogism. The reasoning is as follows: It is not licit to resist any political authorities (major). The Pope is a political authority (minor). It is not licit to resist the Pope (conclusion). 24 This refers to Argument XI of Point of debate III. This point of debate revolves around the question if all power and authority is ordained by God. Pareus argues this is not the case.

174  David Pareus Ad II. Ex Hosea 4.4. Respondeo ad maiorem. Non est litigandum cum Sacerdote Dei vero, in iis quae facit ex officio: at cum Sacerdotibus non veris sed falsis, qualis est Antichristus Romanus, quin et cum veris limites officii transcendentibus,2 Deus ipse passim litigat per Prophetas, et illis obedientiam praestandam esse negat, quia plus est obediendum Deo quam hominibus. Iubet enim coecos ductores fugere etc. nolite exire, nolite credere, Mattheo 24. Ad III. Christus abolebit eum. Respondeo. I. Negatur consequentia, quia abolebit eum per praedicationem verbi, nam praecedit: Conficiet eum spiritu oris sui etc. II. Christus abolebit eum in adventu suo penitus, nunc vero per vocem doctrinae eum conficit. Non cessabit igitur affligere Ecclesiam Pontifex Romanus, donec Christi adventu aboleatur. Ad IV. Quod iubeamur tantum cavere Antichristum non oppugnare. Respondeo. De oppugnatione privatorum datur, non de publica pastorum et magistratus, ut ad I.

2 1608: transscendentibus.

David Pareus  175 25

Counterargument II. From Hosea 4.4. Response. In answer to the major premise. One should not quarrel with a true priest of God with regard to those things he does as part of his duty, but by means of his prophets God himself continuously quarrels with priests who are not true but false, such as the Roman Antichrist, indeed even with true ones who overstep the limits of their duty, and he denies that any obedience is to be shown to them. For God must be obeyed more than men. After all, he commands to flee from blind guides etc. Do not leave, do not believe: Matthew 24. Counterargument III. Christ will annihilate him. Response I. The consequence is refuted, for he will annihilate him through the preaching of the word, for this statement precedes it: ‘He will weaken him through the breath of his mouth etcetera’. II. Christ will completely annihilate him at his coming, yet now he strikes him through the word of his doctrine. The pope in Rome will therefore not stop afflicting the church, until he is annihilated at the coming of Christ. Counterargument IV. That we are commanded only to beware of the Antichrist not to fight him. Response. With an eye to an attack by private persons this argument is conceded, but not with regard to a public attack of pastors and the magistrate. See under point I.

His ninth argument is as follows: Satan is said to be the prince and God of this world in John 14:30, 2 Corinthians 4:4. And he himself says about the kingdoms of this world: ‘All these things belong to me and I give them to whomever I want.’ See Matthew 4:9 and Luke 4:6: ‘The things that belong to and are given by Satan do not come from God etc.’ 25 Hosea 4: 4: ‘But let no one bring a charge, let no one accuse another, for your people are like those who bring charges against a priest’. Again, this counterargument functions as an implied syllogism, which runs as follows: One should not bring charges against a priest (major). The pope is a priest (minor). One should not bring charges against the pope (conclusion).

6 Johann Heinrich Alsted on interaction with non-Christians and war against blasphemers

Born in Ballersbarch near the northern border of the Palatinate in 1588, Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638) was educated at the Reformed Academy at Herborn where he was taught by among others Johannes Althusius and then pursued further studies at Marburg, Basle, and Heidelberg, where David Pareus was his teacher. He then returned to Herborn to become professor of philosophy in 1608 and later theology at the Reformed Academy. Alsted is best known today as an important theologian of the Millennium and as an encyclopaedist. Indeed, the millennial theology that he advanced while teaching at the Reformed Academy at Herborn – and especially his ­ evelation identification of the Holy Roman Empire as the fourth Beast of R – has been identified by Peter Wilson as a significant contributor to the brinksmanship of the Palatinate court before the outbreak of war in 1618. In his book on cases of conscience printed in 1630, Alsted presented his readers with an ambivalent theology of religious war. On the one hand, he wrote that the Christian faith must not be advanced by force; on the other hand, he thought a war against blasphemers or against those who deviate from the worship of God was by that fact alone justified. The excerpts presented here contain Alsted’s views on the interaction of the Reformed with those of other faiths, specifically non-Christians as well as his views on just wars. The Latin text used is Theologia casuum, exhibens anatomen conscientiae et scholam tentationum, in quibus universae quaestiones ad conscientiam recte aut prave factorum pertinentes breviter et dilucide tractantur studio Iohannis Henrici Alstedii (Hanau: Eifrid, 1630), 251–254; 340–345.

Suggestions for further reading Clouse, R. G., “Johann Heinrich Alsted and English Millenarianism,” Harvard Theological Review 62 (1969), 189–207. Han, B. S., “The Academization of Reformation Teaching in Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588–1638).” In Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, edited

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-12

Johann Heinrich Alsted  177 by Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, 283–294. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013. Hotson, H., Johann Heinrich Alsted, 1588–1638: Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Idem, Paradise Postponed: Johann Heinrich Alsted and the Birth of Calvinist Millenarianism. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001. Kramer, J. H., J.H. Alsted, Herborns calvinistische Theologie und Wissenschaft im Spiegel der englischen Kulturreform des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt: Lang, 1988. Wilson, P. H., Europe’s Tragedy: A New History of the Thirty Years War. London: Allen Lane, 2009.

Iohannis Henrici Alstedii Theologia casuum (1630)

[251] XIII.VII. Quaestiones conscientiae circa paganismum, Iudaismum et Turcismum, soluuntur ferme ex istis regulis. 1 Pagani, Christianorum principum potestati et iurisdictioni subiecti, non debent cogi, vt fidem Christi recipiant. Cum enim credenda actus sit voluntarius et liber, quempiam ad fidem adigi minime patitur. Nec solum Christiana fides a vi omni et coactione debet esse aliena, sed etiam absque metu mortis, seruitutis, carceris, suppliciorum, aut similium malorum suscipienda est. Idem de Iudaeis et Turcis iudicabis. Memineris, paganos dici omnes idolorum cultores. 2 Muneribus, donis, officiis et obsequiis infideles ad fidem allici possunt. Nihil enim id derogat humanae voluntati, aut libertati. Ex quo infertur, posse fidelem foeminam, cum pagano matrimonium inire ea conditione: Te in virum accipiam, si sacro baptismate initiabere. Princeps item tuta conscienta fidem suam obligat, ea conditione, vt qui baptismum susceperint, a certis oneribus sint immunes. Neque enim in his vlla vis infertur. 3 Pagani iure compelli possunt ad euangelium audiendum. Nec enim inde recte concludas, eos proinde ad credendum compelli: quoniam eo pacto tantum curatur et efficitur, vt sacris diuini verbi concionibus intersint. 4 Quando pagani, Iudaei et Saraceni, siue Turcae, quiete et pacifice viuunt, non debent expelli a Christianis. Nam iure naturae charitas, aequitas et misericordia eis debentur. Et nullus innocens suis rebus, et praesertim domicilio spoliandus est. 5 Princeps Christianus abolere debet delubra et fana paganorum. Recte enim Christiani imperatores olim leges sanxerunt, quibus haec abolentur. Et sane hac ratione pagani adducuntur ad deorum suorum cultum abiiciendum, ad legem naturae seruandam, ad ritus superstitiosos respuendos, ad omnem demum impietatem sacrilegam repudiandam.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-13

Johann Heinrich Alsted, Theological Casuistry (1630)

[251] XIII.VII. Questions of conscience regarding paganism, Judaism, and Islam are entirely resolved with the help of these rules. 1 Pagans that are subject to the authority and jurisdiction of Christian princes must not be forced into the faith in Christ. Since believing is a voluntary and free act, it is not at all allowed that anyone should be forced into faith. Not only must the Christian faith be free from all force and coercion, but it must be received without fear of death, servitude, incarceration, punishments, or similar evils. What applies to pagans also applies to Jews and Turks. You will remember that all worshippers of idols are called pagans. 2 Unbelievers can be enticed to the faith with favours, gifts, offices and indulgences. For that does not diminish human will and freedom. From which it is inferred that a Christian woman can enter into marriage with a pagan on the following condition: ‘I will accept you as my husband, if you will be baptised’. The prince can therefore make his faith obligatory with a clear conscience, on the condition that those who have received baptism are exempt from certain burdens. For under these circumstances no force is applied. 3 Pagans can be compelled to listen to the gospel. And you would conclude from that incorrectly that they are then compelled to believe, because in that situation it is only provided for and made sure that they attend the sacred sermons of the word of God. 4 When pagans, Jews, and Saracens or Turks live in peace and quiet they must not be expelled by Christians. For by the law of nature charity, equity, and mercy are owed to them and no innocent person may be robbed of his or her possessions and especially not of their domicile. 5 The Christian prince must abolish the pagans’ sanctuaries and shrines. For Christian emperors once enacted laws, with which these were abolished, and in this way, pagans are certainly induced to reject the veneration of their gods, to observe the law of nature, to spurn superstitious rituals, and finally to repudiate all sacrilegious impiety.

180  Johann Heinrich Alsted 6 Princeps Christianus iure non potest debellare paganos, eo nomine et causa, quod idola et simulachra inanium deorum colant. Etsi enim pagani colendo idola grauiter peccant: principibus tamen Christianis nullo iure subiecti sunt. Nec enim si vnius reipublicae ciuis delinquit, alia respublica ius habet in eum inquirendi et animadvertendi. 7 Princeps potest paganos compellere ad ius naturae seruandum, quantum attinet ad conseruationem ciuilis societatis. Pagani duobus modis non seruant ius naturae. Aut enim non seruant illud naturae ius, quod debitum Deo cultum et honorem praescribit: aut id, quod cuique homini reddere, quod suum est, iubet. Si loquamur de priore iure, nequeunt pagani iuste puniri, eo quod diuinum cultum despiciant. Si vero de posteriore sit sermo, iuste puniri possunt: vt si furta, latrocinia, adulteria, homicidia, falsa testimonia, incestus, stupra, aut perpetrent ipsi, aut liberam concedant facultatem huiusmodi mala perpetrandi, aut passim in aliis, quos iure suo ab iis malis coercere possunt ac debent, sine vlla poena supplicioque [252] permittant. His enim legibus naturae violatis, plane consequitur, vt innocentes multis damnis, incommodis et malis afficiantur. Iure autem naturali innocentum iniurias propulsare, et possumus, et debemus. Et vero eiusmodi mala communi reipublicae saluti, paci et bono officiunt et nocent. 8 Septem sunt casus in quibus princeps Christianus ius habet agendi contra paganos. Primo in eo, ne aditum praecludant idoneis euangelii nuntiis ad eos destinatis, eos excludendo, aut indigne et contumeliose tractando. Deinde, ne in Christum, eiusve religionem et fidem probra et maledicta coniiciant. Tertio, ne eos impediant, neve remorentur, qui se ad Christum conuertendi studio tenentur. Quarto, ne eos persequantur, qui Christi euangelium audire cupiunt, student, aut annuntiandum sibi et audiendum curant. Quinto, ne quouis modo ad Christum conuersos infestent, opprimant, vexent. Sexto, ne vi, metu, minis, mendaciis, fraudibus alios inducant ad simulachra deorum veneranda, ad thus eis adolendum, aut ad legem naturae peruertendam, aut ad susceptam Christi fidem deserendam. Septimo, ne suos, vel alios vanis suis diis immolent: item ne eos permoueant, aut incitent ad immolandos homines, vt diis suis inseruiant, vel ad eos mactandos, vt vesci queant eorum carnibus more ferarum. 9 Princeps optimo iure paganos sibi subditos priuare potest dominio Christianorum seruorum. Nam serui isti variis artibus et fraudibus dominorum paganorum seduci solent, et interdum in contemtum religionis Christianae contumeliose tractari.

Johann Heinrich Alsted  181 6 A Christian prince cannot rightfully go to war against pagans by the title and for the reason that they worship idols and images of worthless gods. For although the pagans sin gravely by worshipping the idols, they are nevertheless not subjects of Christian princes by any law. If the citizen of one commonwealth commits a crime, then another commonwealth does not have the right to go after him and punish him. 7 The prince can compel pagans to observe natural law, inasmuch as it concerns the conservation of civil society. Pagans do not observe the natural law in two ways: either they do not observe that natural law, which prescribes the veneration and honour owed to God, or the law that commands to give each man his due. If we are talking about the first law, then pagans cannot be justly punished for the reason that they despise the worship of God. On the subject of the second law, however, they can be justly punished, so that if either they themselves commit robberies, brigandage, adultery, murders, false testimonies, incest, debaucheries or give others free rein to commit such evil deeds, or allow it to others, who they in their own right can and must constrain from those wicked deeds, without any punishment and retribution. [252] For when these natural laws have been violated, it clearly follows that innocent people are harmed by many injuries, troubles, and wicked deeds. According to natural law we can and must avert the injustices done to innocent people and certainly wicked deeds of that kind obstruct and harm the common preservation, peace, and good of the commonwealth. 8 There are seven cases in which the Christian prince has the right to act against pagans. First of all, lest they refuse access to the appropriate messengers of the gospel sent to them, either by shutting them out or by treating them shamefully and abusively. Second, lest they hurl insults and abuse at Christ and his religion and faith. Third, lest they obstruct or hinder those who are gripped with a desire to convert to Christianity. Fourth, lest they persecute those, who wish to hear the gospel, study it, or take care that it is made known to them and heard by them. Fifth, lest they disturb, oppress, and molest in any way those who have converted to Christianity. Sixth, lest they induce others through force, fear, threats, lies, and deceit to worship the images of their gods, to burn the incense to them or overthrow natural law or abandon their accepted faith in Christ. Seventhly, lest they sacrifice their own people or others to their meaningless gods or induce or urge them to sacrifice people in order to serve their gods or kill them, so they can feed on their meat like wild beasts. 9 The prince can most rightfully deprive pagans who are his subjects of the ownership of Christian slaves. For those slaves tend to be led astray by the various devices and lies of their pagan masters and are sometimes treated abusively in contempt of their Christian religion.

182  Johann Heinrich Alsted 10 Christiani bello capti a paganis, et serui effecti, ius habent ab iis fugiendi. Aut enim in iusto, aut in iniusto bello sunt capti. Si in bello iusto, manet illud Azorii: Seruus iure belli captus potest bona fide, et tuta conscientia fugere, vt ad suos reuertatur, non autem, vt intra hostium fines maneat. Tuta etiam conscientia seruus fugere potest, si probabile periculum impendeat impietatis, aut cuiuslibet alterius peccati. Si in bello iniusto capti sunt, ex communi omnium consensu, tuta conscientia fugere possunt. Seruitus enim nonnisi iusto bello potest induci. 11 Christianus non potest bona conscientia Iudaeis, paganis, et Saracenis eas res vendere, quibus ad suas superstitiones abusuros certo nouit. Non licet itaque Christiano quidquam vendere paganis ad eum finem, vt extruantur, reficiantur, fulciantur aut muniantur idolorum fana, aut Saracenorum delubra: quoniam haec impio cultui et superstitioni deseruiunt. Nec item ad synagogas Iudaeorum aedificandas, eo quod per se, et natura sua ad Iudaicos ritus et ceremonias dirigantur. 12 Infantes paganorum non debent baptizari. Nam quia neque nati sunt ex Christianis parentibus, neque confessionem fidei edere possunt, non possunt accipere sacramentum initiationis, seu insitionis in Ecclesiam. 13 Infantes nati ex vno parente Christiano, altero vero Iudaeo vel pagano, iure baptizantur, annuente et volente parente Christiano, altero vero renuente et reclamante. Nam liberi [253] sancti sunt, si nascantur ex alterutro parente sancto. 14 Decem sunt casus in quibus interdicta est Christianis communio rerum Iudaeis: vt colligere est ex cap. Nullus, et cap. Omnes, 28. q. 1. Primo, prohibentur Christiani habitare simul cum Iudaeis. Secundo, ad eorum conuiuia accedere, vel eos ad nostra inuitare conuiuia, et vna cum eis cibum capere. Tertio, simul cum eis in balneum intrare, et in eo se lauare. Quarto eos vocare infirmitatis causa, hoc est, Iudaeos vt medicos accersere ad Christianorum morbos curandos. Quinto, ab eis medicinas recipere. Sexto, eorum filios in suis domibus nutrire. Septimo, eis famulatum praestare. Octauo, seruitutis vincula eis subiici. Nono, eos publicis officiis fungi inter Christianos. Decimo, vesci eorum azymis. Interdicitur autem Christianis cibum cum Iudaeis sumere, aut medicinam ab illis petere, ad vitandam familiaritatem, ex qua periculum creatur: quanquam alii volunt, interdici communicatione cibi, quod Iudaei

Johann Heinrich Alsted  183 10 Christians captured in war by pagans and made slaves have the right to flee from them. For they have either been captured in a just war or in an unjust war. If they were captured in a just war, then the words of Azor remain true: ‘A slave captured according to the law of war can in good faith and with a clear conscience flee to return to his people and not to stay in the country of his enemies’.1 The slave can also flee with a clear conscience if they face a probable risk of impiety or some other sin. If they were captured in an unjust war, then they can run away with a clear conscience according to the general consensus of all. Servitude can only be imposed in a just war. 11 A Christian cannot with a good conscience sell those things to Jews, pagans, and Muslims, which he knows for certain they will abuse it for their superstitions. Therefore, it is not licit for a Christian to sell anything to pagans for the purpose of building, restoring, strengthening or protecting the sanctuaries of idols or the shrines of Muslims, because these serve their impious worship and superstition. The same goes for things for building the synagogues of Jews, because intrinsically and by their nature they are destined for the rituals and ceremonies of the Jews. 12 The infants of pagans must not be baptised. For because they were not born to Christian parents and are unable to make an acknowledgement of faith or receive the sacrament of initiation of grafting into the Church. 13 Infants born to one Christian parent and one Jewish or pagan parent are rightly baptised when the Christian parent consents and wants it while the other refuses and protests. For children [253] are holy if they are born from one holy parent.2 14 There are ten cases in which involvement with Jews is forbidden as can be gathered from the chapter ‘Nobody’ and the chapter ‘All’, cause 28, question 1.3 First, Christians are forbidden to live with Jews. Second, to go to their meals or to invite them to our meals and to have food together with them. Third, to enter into a bath and wash yourself in it with them. Fourth, to call on them in case of sickness, that is to summon a Jew in the capacity of doctor in order to cure the illnesses of Christians. Fifth, to receive medicines from them. Sixth, to raise their sons in our houses. Seventh, to work for them as servants. Eighthly, to be subjected to them by the bond of servitude. Ninth, that they serve in public offices among Christians. Tenth, to eat their unleavened bread. Furthermore, it is forbidden to Christians to take food with Jews or to ask medicine from them, in order to avoid familiarity, from which a risk arises, although others prefer that the sharing of food is banished, because Jews separate 1 Juan Azor, Institutionum moralium, in quibus universae quaestiones ad conscientiam recte, aut prave factorum pertinentes, breviter tractantur pars prima. Auctore Ioanne Azorio Lorcitano, societatis Iesu, presbytero theologo (Rome: Zannetti, 1600), 1029. 2 1 Cor. 7: 12–14. 3 Decretum Gratiani 2. C. 28 q. 1 c. 13 and 14.

184  Johann Heinrich Alsted

15

16

17

18 19

20

cibos discernant, et vsu medicinae, quod infidi et inuidi illi homines facile possint hoc modo propinare venenum. Porro non solum interdictum est Christianis, ad Iudaeorum epulas accedere: sed etiam ad eorum nuptias, dies festos, synagogas, cum eis ludere et choreas agere. Quae omnia prohibentur in iure, ad familiaritatem vitandam. Christiano non licet a Iudaeo accipere eos cibos, quos ipsi discernunt, abiiciunt et aspernantur. Nam turpe est et indignum Christiano, ita se gerere, vt Iudaei Christianis superiores videantur. Hoc autem sequatur necesse est, si Christiani eos cibos accipiant et edant, quos Iudaei reiiciunt, respuunt, atque contemnunt. Christianus non peccat vendendo Iudaeis res sua natura indifferentes. Liberum enim est Iudaeis, bene vti vel male re indifferente. Neque vero Christianus adstringitur, vt exquirat, ad quos vsus rem emant emtores. Alioqui nefas est Christiano ea vendere Iudaeo, quibus scit illum vsurum ad Iudaicas ceremonias peragendas, hoc est, in eum finem, vt eis abutatur. Tunc enim affectus vendentis est deprauatus. Ita Christianus non potest tuta conscientia agnum Iudaeo vendere, quem nouit emere ad eum finem, vt ritu et more suo Iudaico eum mactet et edat: arboreos item ramusculos, quibus scit, Iudaeum in suis diebus festis vsurum. Libri Iudaeorum, qui continent blasphemias aduersus religionem Christianam, flammis sunt tradendi, vel saltem sunt castigandi siue immaculandi. Quod attinet ad libros ipsorum historicos, medicos et philosophicos, illi vtiliter retinentur. Principes Christiani statuta debent condere, quibus praecipiant Iudaeis, ne vltra certam pecuniae quantitatem vsuras exigant. Hoc enim non est praeceptum dare, vt vsurae exigantur, sed ne immodicae accipiantur. Foedera cum infidelibus sunt licita vsque ad aras: hoc est, si non sint idololatrica, et non fiant in fraudem Christianae religionis: sed agant de finibus, limitibus, et commerciis: vt nimirum finitimi pacifice inter se viuant, et paciscantur de rebus necessariis [254] importandis et exportandis. Qui a Christianis ad Iudaeos vel Saracenos transeunt, primo fraterne admoneantur: deinde, si deprehensi fuerint insanabiles, iudicio Dei, permittantur. Obserua Saracenos in iure ciuili et canonico appellari, qui impiae et nefariae sectae Mahumedanae adhaerent, siue sint Turcae, siue Tartari, siue Persae, siue Arabes, siue Aegyptii, siue Africani et Mauri.

Johann Heinrich Alsted  185

15

16

17

18

19

20

different types of food, and the use of medicine because those treacherous and envious people can easily administer poison in this way. Furthermore, it is not just prohibited to Christians to go to the dinners of Jews, but also their weddings, feasts, synagogues, to play and dance with them. All these things are prohibited in law in order to avoid familiarity. It is not licit for a Christian to accept and eat from a Jew those foods, which they themselves separate, reject, and disdain. For it is shameful and unbecoming of a Christian to behave in such a way that Jews seem superior to Christians. However, this necessarily follows if Christians accept and eat those foods, which Jews despise, refuse, and disdain. A Christian does not sin by selling things that are indifferent in nature to Jews. After all, Jews are free to make good or bad use of an indifferent thing. Nor are Christians bound to ask for which uses buyers buy that thing. In any case, it is illicit for a Christian to sell those things to a Jew, which he knows the Jew will use to carry out Jewish ceremonies, that is, with the goal of making ill use of them. For then the disposition of the seller is depraved. Thus, a Christian cannot with a clear conscience sell a lamb to a Jew, of which he knows that he buys it with the goal of sacrificing and eating it in accordance with his Jewish rituals and customs, likewise tree branches of which he knows that a Jew will use it on his feast days.4 The books of Jews that contain blasphemies against the Christian religion must be burnt or at least censured or corrected. With regard to their historical, medical, and philosophical books, they are usefully retained. Christian princes must establish laws in which they order Jews not to demand interest beyond a certain amount of money. For this is not to give the command that interests are demanded, but rather that no excessive interests are received. Treaties with unbelievers are licit up to the altars, that is if they are not idolatrous and do not turn out to be to the detriment of the Christian religion, but deal with territories, borders, and commerce, so that neighbours can peacefully live with each other and agree on importing [254] and exporting necessary goods. Those who switch from Christians to the Jews or Muslims should first be admonished in a brotherly way. If they have then been found to be incurable, they must be given over to God’s judgement. Note that those are called Muslims in civil and canon law who adhere to the ungodly and nefarious sect of Mohammed, whether they be Turks, Tatars, Persians, Arabs, Egyptians, or Africans and Moors.

4 In fact, animal sacrifice quickly came to an end among Jews after the Roman destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. See Alexander Guttmann, “The End of the Jewish Sacrificial Cult,” Hebrew Union College Annual 38 (1967), 137–148; Mira Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in early Rabbinic Literature (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017), 1–4, 224–227.

186  Johann Heinrich Alsted 21 Christianus princeps ex parte potest impune permittere ritus Saracenorum, ex parte non potest. Si ritus ita sint superstitiosi, vt nec eorum sectae congruentes sint, nequaquam Christianus princeps illos tolerare debet. Si vero sint ipsorum proprii, nec a veteri professione discrepantes, permitti et tolerari possunt ad plura et deteriora mala euitanda: nimirum ad commune reipublicae pacem tuendam, ad odia et dissidia profliganda, ad expeditiorem eorum conuersionem. Nam cum eorum vana et superstitiosa secta, tota vndique erroribus scateat ac foeteat, facilius, citius et commodius possunt hac ratione refutari.

************************* [340] XVIII.III: Casus conscientiae de bello soluuntur ex sequentibus regulis. 1 Bellum defensiuum est iuris naturae: quia defensio est iuris naturae. Bellum offensiuum, quod etiam dicitur aggressiuum et vindicatiuum, est legitimum, si sit debita poena. Vtrumque debet esse iustum ratione causae, modi et finis, vt nempe geratur a magistratu, obseruatis legibus polemicis, pro aris vel focis, seu pro religione et patria defendendis, et ad atrocem iniuriam propulsandam. 2 In vniversum caussae iusti belli sunt duodecim. Prima, quando Deus publice blasphemiatur ab idololatris. Deut. 12. Secunda, ob discessum a cultu Dei. Deut. 13. Tertia, quando fidelitas temporalis dominij deseritur. 4. Reg. 3. Quarta, ob rebellionem. 2. Reg. 20. Quinta, quia malefactores defenduntur. Iud. 20. Sexta, quia iniuria publica principi irrogatur. 2.Reg.10. Septima, quia res propria repetitur 2.Reg.3. Octaua, vt hostis repellatur. 2. Reg.8. Nona, vt hostis consurges, intra confinia sua contineatur. Num. 21. Decima, vt amicus ab hostibus eripiatur. Gen. 14. Vndecima, quia princeps est tyrannus exercitio. Duodecima, quia princeps est tyrannus absque titulo. 3 In hac bellorum materia [341] oportet expendere leges, quas Deus per Mosen praescripsit. Illae autem respiciunt antecedentia, coniuncta et consequentia bellorum, adeoque docent, quid ante bella, in iis, et post illa sit agendum. De antecedentibus bellorum sunt quatuor leges. 1. Ne adhibeantur ad bellum, qui alias sunt immunes ab hoc onere: nisi forte necessitas extrema vrgeat. 2. Legantur milites matura aetate. 3. Ius transeundi per terras amicorum, amice petatur, nec violenter per terras inuitorum, aut transitum recusantium exercitus ducatur. 4. Exploratores mittantur, qui aditus obseruent, et munitiones regionum, vbi, et

Johann Heinrich Alsted  187 21 A Christian prince can partly permit the rites of the Muslims without punishment and partly he cannot. If the rites are so superstitious that they are not even appropriate for their sect, then a Christian prince must not tolerate them at all. If they are proper to them and do not diverge from the old profession, then they can be permitted and tolerated in order to avoid further and bigger evils, namely to protect the general peace of the commonwealth, to overcome animosities and disagreements, and to bring about their speedier conversion. For since their empty and superstitious sect entirely abounds with and reeks of errors everywhere, they can more swiftly and conveniently be refuted in this way. ************************* [340] XVIII.III: Cases of conscience about war are solved based on the following rules. 1 A defensive war is part of natural law because defence is part of natural law. An offensive war, which is also called an aggressive and vindictive war is legitimate, if a punishment is due. Both of these must be just in relation to the cause, manner, and goal, namely both that a war is waged by a magistrate, with observance of the laws of war, in defence of altars or homes, or to defend the religion and fatherland, and to avert an atrocious injury. 2 In general, there are twelve causes of a just war. First, when God is publicly blasphemed by idolaters (Deuteronomy 12). Second, because of apostasy from the worship of God (Deuteronomy 13). Third, when the loyalty to temporal lordship is deserted. (4 Kings 3). Fourth, because of rebellion (2 Kings 20). Fifth, because evildoers are defended (Judges 20). Sixth, because a public injury is inflicted on the king (2 Kings 10). Seventh, because one’s property is repeatedly attacked (2 Kings 3). Eighth, in order to drive away an enemy (2 Kings 8). Ninth, in order to contain an enemy, who is growing in strength, within his own borders (Numbers 21). Tenth, in order to free a friend from enemies (Genesis 14). Eleventh, because the prince is a tyrant in practice. Twelfth, because the prince is a tyrant without a just claim. 3 In this matter concerning wars [341] it is appropriate to consider the laws that God prescribed through Moses. Moreover, they concern the preceding conditions of wars, the matters connected with them, and their consequences, and in this way they teach what must be done before, during, and after wars. There are four laws with regard to the conditions preceding wars. (1) Those should not be employed in a war who are otherwise exempt from this burden, unless perhaps extreme necessity requires it. (2) Soldiers of a mature age must be enlisted. (3) The right to cross the lands of allies must be requested in a friendly

188  Johann Heinrich Alsted

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

quomodo consultius sit hostem adoriri; quique vires, copias et facultates hostium solicite obseruent. De coniunctis sunt leges numero sex. 1. Pax primo offeratur populo, quem bello cogitamus adoriri. Si pacem respuat, tum demum aperto Marte oportebit illum oppugnare. 2. Ante conflictum deuota habeatur concio, et precatio. 3. Duces in prima acie constituantur, vt sua fortitudine, et rei militaris peritia totum exercitum iuuent. Quod attinet ad regem aut principem, ille non facile intererit conflictui. 4. Arbores frugiferae non exscindantur. 5. Ab omni re mala et peccatorum pollutione in castris abstineatur. 6. Castra munda seruentur. De consequentibus bellorum duae sunt leges. 1. Praeda pro labore, dignitate et qualitate militum diuidatur. 2. De partis spoliis aliquid impendatur cultui Dei conservando. Atque hae fere sunt leges polemicae; quae in verbo Dei describuntur. Socii socios, bellis et bellorum infestationibus vrgentibus non deserent: nisi et Deum offendere, et perfidi audire, et de suis quoque possessionibus periclitari velint. Imperator bellicus exercitui de victualibus et annona mature providebit. Amicorum exercitui omnia humanitatis officia sunt praestanda. In bellis iustis licita sunt stratagemata: quippe quae sunt effecta singularis et rarae prudentiae, et non nisi dolus bonus a recte sentientibus appellantur. Vigiliae bellorum tempore recte constituantur, non diurnae tantum sed etiam nocturnae, quae de periculis ab hoste impendentibus mature praemoneant. Bellis minantibus, omnia, quae hostibus commodare possunt, eis praeripiantur: et quaecunque ad patriae defensionem pertinent, temporius comparentur. Imperator belli bellica consilia secretissima habeat, ne illa vel hosti prodantur, vel alia ratione impediantur. Foedera et iuramenta, sacrosancto Dei nomine interposito, hostibus facta atque praestita, sancte et intemerate seruentur; etiamsi dolo et circumuentione elicita, nostraque cum iactura et dispendio exsoluenda sint.

Johann Heinrich Alsted  189

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

way, and an army must not be led across the lands of those who do not want it or who refuse the crossing of their lands. (4) Spies must be sent to observe the approaches and fortifications of the regions, where and how the enemy can best be attacked. They must also carefully observe the forces, troops, and means of the enemies. Regarding the matters directly connected with war there are six laws in total. (1) First, peace must be offered to the people we consider attacking with a war. If they refuse peace, only then will it be appropriate to attack them in open war. (2) Before a battle, a devout sermon must be held and prayer must be said. (3) The officers must be positioned in the frontline of the battle, so that they may help the whole army through their courage and experience with military matters. With regard to the king or prince: it will not be easy for him to be present at the battle. (4) Trees that bear fruit should not be cut down. (5) Let everyone refrain from any wicked thing and defilement of sins in the camp. (6) Let army camps be kept morally pure. There are two laws regarding the consequences of wars. (1) Let booty be divided according to performance, rank, and station of soldiers. (2) Of the spoils obtained a part must be devoted to preserving the worship of God. In general, these are the laws concerning war that are described in the word of God. Allies must not desert allies when wars and the troubles of wars become pressing, unless they also want to offend God, become known as perfidious, and risk their possessions. The military commander must provide the army with provisions and means of subsistence on time. To the army of allies all favours of kindness must be provided. In just wars stratagems are licit, for they are the accomplishments of a singular and rare prudence, and are exclusively called ‘good deceit’ by those who properly understand it. Sentinels are rightly used in time of war, not just during daytime, but also during night time, so that they can warn of impending dangers from the enemy in time. When wars are a serious threat, everything that can benefit enemies must be taken away from them, and whatever is useful for the defence of the fatherland must be brought together beforehand. The war commander must keep his war counsels very secret, so that they may not fall into the hands of the enemy or be otherwise hindered. Treaties and oaths, made and given to enemies in the sacrosanct name of God, must be held sacred and inviolable, even if they have been elicited through fraud and deceit and they are fulfilled at our loss and expense.

190  Johann Heinrich Alsted 12 Nulla vis aut rapina in bellis grassentur, iuxta legem illam Iohannis Baptistae, quam militibus praescripsit, Luc. 3. Neminem concutitote, neque calumniamini, et contenti estote vestris stipendiis. 13 Ei, cui constat, certo vel probabiliter, bellum esse iniustum, non est licitum occidere in bello, quando [342] est aggressiuum, quia erit causa iniustae mortis aliorum, vel saltem exponet probabili periculo alios iniuste occidendi. Secundo, si bellum est aggressiuum, et belli iustitia est dubia, peccatum est bellum aggredi, ob periculum iniustitiae contra proximum committendae. Tertio, si bellum est defensiuum, nimirum ad se defendendum ab hoste inuadente, tunc licitum est occidere hostem inuadentem, quando aliter quis se tueri non potest, etiamsi dubia sit belli iustitia. 14 Saepe bellum est iustum ex vtraque parte: si nempe vnus exercituum gerat iustum bellum aggressiuum, et alter bellum iustum defensiuum. Sic v.g. bellum ex parte Pauli potest esse iustum in aggrediendo, et ex parte Petri potest esse iustum defensiuum, non vero aggressiuum. 15 Quando dubia est belli iustitia, miles debet ab illo abstinere. Nam quidquid sit dubitante conscientia, peccatum est. 16 In bello, quod militi priuato constat esse iniustum ex parte sui principis, licitum est priuatum militem inuadentem occidere, si aliter se ab eo defendere non possit, nisi occidendo. Haec tamen cautela adhibenda fuerit, vt miles inuasor admoneatur, vt ab inuadendo desistat, quod inuasus nolit in eo bello pugnare vel occidere, quod credit esse iniustum. Quod si monitus sic inuasor nolit ab irruendo desistere, tunc sibi imputet, si occidatur ab inuaso se defendente. Idem iudicium est de principe aut toto exercitu hostili, cuius bellum est iustum. Nimirum totus exercitus, qui certo nouit ex parte hostium bellum esse iniustum, ea de re monere debet hostilem exercitum, vt a bello desistat. Quod si ille nolit a bello cessare, sed sic monitus bellum persequatur, tunc exercitus, qui bellum iniustum initio suscipit, ius habet se defendendi ab exercitu hostium, etiam cum interitu hostium, si aliter se tueri non potest.

Johann Heinrich Alsted  191 12 Soldiers should not run amok with excessive violence and plunder, in accordance with that law of John the Baptist, which he prescribed to soldiers in Luke 3: ‘Do not strike fear in anyone, do not falsely accuse anyone and be content with your wages’.5 13 For him to whom it is clear, either with certainty or probability, that a war is unjust, it is not licit to kill when it is an aggressive war [342], because he will be the cause of other people’s unjust death, and he will at least expose others to the probable risk of killing unjustly. Second, if a war is aggressive and the justice of the war is doubtful, then it is a sin to wage an aggressive war, due to the risk of committing an injustice against one’s neighbour. Third, if a war is defensive, that is, waged in order to defend oneself against an invading enemy, then it is licit to kill the invading enemy, when one cannot defend oneself otherwise, even if the justice of the war is doubtful. 14 Often a war is just on both sides, namely in case one of the armies fights a just aggressive war and the other a just defensive war.6 Thus, for example, a war can be just according to St Paul when it is an aggressive one, and in accordance with St Peter it can be just when it is a defensive one, but not an aggressive one.7 15 When the justice of a war is doubtful, then a soldier must refrain from it. For whatever is done with a doubting conscience is a sin. 16 In a war, of which it is clear to an individual soldier that it is unjust on the part of his prince, it is nevertheless licit for him to kill an individual attacking soldier, if he cannot otherwise defend himself against him, unless by killing him. However, this precaution must be taken, namely that the attacking soldier is warned to desist from attacking, because the soldier who is under attack does not want to fight or kill in that war, which he believes to be unjust. But if the attacking soldier does not want to desist from rushing forward after he has been warned, then it is his own fault if he is killed by the soldier under attack who is defending himself. The same judgement holds true regarding a prince or a complete hostile army, whose war is just. For a whole army that knows for sure that a war is unjust on the part of the enemies must warn the hostile army about it so that it may desist from war. However, if that army does not want to cease from the war, but pursues the war after it has thus been warned, then the army, which initially started an unjust war has the right to defend itself from the hostile army, even if that means the destruction of the enemies, if it cannot defend itself otherwise. 5 Luke 3: 14. 6 The idea that a war could be just on both sides was still very much a minority position in the seventeenth century. See e.g. the excerpt from Hoornbeeck’s work in Chapter 11 for a refutation of this position. 7 Alsted seems to be thinking here of Romans 13: 3–4 on the worldly government’s authority to punish wrongdoing either at home or abroad. The reference to St Peter must be to 1 Peter 2: 13–17, a passage calling for obedience to and defence of one’s rulers, regardless of their shortcomings.

192  Johann Heinrich Alsted 17 Quando inter doctos et bonos viros varia est opinio de bello, quod princeps indicere et gerere cogitat; aliis nempe asserentibus, bellum esse iustum, aliis dicentibus esse iniustum: sed ita, vt vtrinque sint rationes aequae et pares in probabilitate: tunc, inquam, principi licitum est bellum gerere, quia in practica satis est, sequi opinionem probabilem, quoniam in his demonstratio haberi non potest. sic medicus in porrigenda medicina aegroto, satis habet, si eam praebeat medicinam, quam ex opinione doctorum virorum putat futuram salutarem: et aduocato in defendenda causa litigantis satis est, si eam causam defendat, quam ex opinione probabili doctorum putat esse iustam. 18 Quando dubium est inter duos principes successores in aliquo regno, vter eorum sit legitimus successor in regno, non licitum est alteri bellum gerere contra alterum, vt regnum sibi acquirat. Nam primo, si alter eorum est in regni possessione, illi licitum est se defendere, ne possessionem amittat; et alteri est illicitum, bellum gerere contra illum, quia caeteris paribus, in dubio melior est conditio [343] possidentis. Ita in rebus priuatis si quis possidet aliquid, de quo dubito an sit meum an ipsius qui possidet, ius non habeo auferendi illud ab eo, qui possidet. Deinde, si neuter est in possessione regni, et ius succedendi est aequaliter dubium ex parte vtriusque, tunc neutri est licitum bello regnum acquirere, quia vterque se exponit periculo vsurpandi sibi regnum alteri debitum: item; quia non est maior ratio de iustitia vnius, quam alterius. Tertio, in praedicto casu aut lis componenda esset arbitrio bonorum virorum per compromissionem, vel sorte regnum esset alteri tribuendum. Quarto, si in praedicto casu alter illorum principum inuaderet, et vendicaret sibi regnum, ius esset tunc alteri defendendi sese, et regnum: quia contra iniustum inuasorem licet seipsum defendere. 19 Deficiente legitimo successore in regno, non licet alteri regnum bello occupare. Tunc enim ius regni deuoluitur ad ipsam rempublicam. Nam quia respublica primum regem sibi elegit, et in regem transtulit suam potestatem, deficiente regia successione manet penes rempublicam regia potestas. Ipsa ergo respublica in eo casu habet ius eligendi sibi regem. Hinc nulli alteri, quam reipublicae est ius bello occupandi tale regnum: quia si quis absque consensu reipublicae illud regnum occuparet, esset inuasor et occupator alieni iuris, et respublica haberet ius sese defendendi contra eum.

Johann Heinrich Alsted  193 17 When opinions vary among the learned and honourable men about the war that a prince is considering to declare and wage – when therefore some assert it is just, while others say it is unjust, but in such a way that the reasons on both sides are equal and similar in probability – then, I say, it is licit for the prince to wage a war, because in practice it is enough to follow a probable opinion, because no demonstration can be had in these matters. Thus, the medic has enough ground in giving a sick person a medicine, if he provides that medicine, that he believes will be beneficial based on the opinion of learned men. It is also sufficient for a lawyer when defending the cause of a litigant, if he defends that cause, that he believes is just based on the probable opinion of learned men. 18 When there is doubt between two princes who are successors in a kingdom, which of them is the legitimate successor in the kingdom, then it is not licit for either of them to wage war against each other, in order to acquire the kingdom for himself. For, first, if one of the two is in possession of the kingdom, then it is licit for him to defend himself in order not to lose his possession and for the other it is illicit to wage a war against him, because other things being equal the condition [343] of the possessor is better in a doubtful case. Thus, in private affairs, if someone possesses something, about which I have doubts if it is mine or belongs to him who possesses it, then I do not have the right to take it from him, who possesses it. Second, if neither is in possession of the kingdom and the right of succession is equally doubtful on both parts, then it is licit for neither of them to acquire the kingdom through war, because each exposes himself to the risk of usurping for himself a kingdom that belongs to the other and because the amount of rightfulness of one of them is not greater than that of the other one. Third, in the aforesaid case either a lawsuit would have to be set up for the judgement of good men through a compromise or the kingdom should have been given to the other by lot. Fourth, if in the aforesaid cause one of those princes attacked and claimed the kingdom for himself, then the other would have the right to defend himself and the kingdom, because it is licit to defend oneself against an unjust invader. 19 When there is no legitimate successor in a kingdom, it is not licit for someone else to occupy the kingdom through war. For then the right of the kingdom reverts to the commonwealth itself. After all, because the commonwealth chose its first king and transferred its power to the king, the royal power remains in the hands of the commonwealth when there is no royal successor. The commonwealth itself therefore has the right to choose itself a king in that case. Hence, nobody but the commonwealth itself has the right to occupy such a kingdom through war, because if someone were to occupy that kingdom without the consent of the commonwealth, then he would be the invader and occupier of someone else’s right and the commonwealth would have the right to defend itself against him.

194  Johann Heinrich Alsted 20 In ipso belli conflictu licite occiduntur duces et milites hostilis exercitus, et omnino quotquot pugnant, auxilium, fauorem, consilium, vel operam suam quomodocunque praestando in exercitu hostium. Licite etiam occiduntur infantes, et caeteri omnes innocentes existentes in hostili exercitu, dum belli communis conflictus durat, et aliter hostes debellari non possunt commode, nisi etiam simul cum eis occidantur innocentes. Ita si aliter hostes debellari non possunt iusto bello, nisi tota ciuitas igne exuratur, licite exuri potest, aut solo aequari, vbi etiam infantes et pueri innocentes igni subiiciuntur. Denique finito belli communis congressu, vt etiam ante ipsum inceptum, non est licitum occidere innocentes, peregrinos, mercatores, infantes, rusticos, dum sunt in agricultura, vel eunt et redeunt, vt et animalia, quibus agros colunt. Nam quia bellum est finitum, et victoria ab hostibus reportata, iam cessat ius occidendi innocentes, qui iure belli occidi licite non possunt, nisi quando reliqui, qui in culpa sunt, debellari commode non possunt, cum quibus misti sunt innocentes. Quod attinet ad malefactores, illi iuste parta victoria occiduntur, quod causam belli dederint: item ad terrorem et exemplum aliorum: item, vt delicta iuste puniantur. Sed non debent occidi, nisi post cognitam delicti causam. Nemo enim incognita causa condemnari potest. Caeterum duo sunt casus, in quibus obtenta victoria licitum est occidere omnes innocentes. Primo in terrorem [344] aliorum, qui hoc modo continentur in officio, vel ad deditionem atque obsequium compelluntur. Deinde ob bonum publicum: nempe ad pacem et securitatem in posterum habendam. 21 Qui se dediderunt in bello vel obsidione, aut sunt innocentes, aut nocentes. Innocentes iure occidi non possunt. Nocentes possunt occidi, si non dediderunt se ea conditione, vt salua esset eorum vita. Hoc habet ius belli, et fides data hosti est seruanda. 22 Dux siue imperator belli potest tradere militibus suis ciuitatem hostium diripiendam, cum aliter hostes debellari non possunt: et, quando milites aliter animari et excitari nequeunt ad faciendum officium. Licitum etiam est illud ad terrendas alias hostium ciuitates, vt sese subiiciant et dedant: item in poenam hostium, vt luant in temporalibus bonis. Haec tamen cautio fuerit duci adhibenda, vt, quando ciuitatem tradit militibus suis in direptionem et praedam, iis praecipiat, vt abstineant ab innocentibus.

Johann Heinrich Alsted  195 20 In the actual clash of a war officers and soldiers of the hostile army are licitly killed, as are all those who fight by giving reinforcement, support, counsel, or their assistance in whatever way in the enemy army. Even infants and all other innocents are licitly killed, who find themselves among the hostile army, as long as the general clash of the war lasts and if otherwise enemies cannot be vanquished in an efficient way, unless those innocents are not killed together with them. Thus, if otherwise enemies cannot be vanquished in a just war, unless a whole city is burnt down with fire, then it can be licitly burnt down and razed to the ground, even where innocent infants and children perish in the fire. Finally, when the encounter of the war in general has come to an end – and likewise before the start of the war – it is not licit to kill innocents, travellers, merchants, infants, farmers, when they are working on their farms or coming and going, and likewise the animals with which they cultivate the fields. For because the war has come to an end and the victory over the enemies has been achieved, the right to kill innocents ceases. They cannot licitly be killed according to the law of war, unless when others, who are guilty and with whom the innocents have mingled, cannot be efficiently vanquished. With regard to malefactors, they can be justly killed after victory has been obtained, because they provided the cause of the war and likewise as an example to inspire fear in others and to make sure crimes are justly punished. However, they must not be killed, unless the cause of their crime is known. For no one can be condemned when the cause of their crime remains unknown. Besides, there are two cases, in which it is licit to kill all innocent people after the victory has been obtained. First, to scare off [344] others who in this way are subdued in their duty or are compelled to surrender and be compliant. Second, for the public good, namely in order to have peace and security in the future. 21 Those who surrender in a war or siege are either harmless or harmful. The harmless cannot be rightly killed. The harmful can be killed if they did not surrender on the condition that their lives would be safe. This is what the law of war says and a promise made to the enemy must be kept. 22 An officer or war commander can leave a city of the enemies to his soldiers to be destroyed when enemies cannot be vanquished otherwise and when soldiers cannot otherwise be animated and roused into doing their duty. It is even licit to do so in order to frighten other cities of the enemies so that they may submit themselves and surrender. It is also licit as a punishment for the enemies, so that they may atone with their worldly goods. However, this caution should be observed by the officer, that when he hands over a city to his soldiers for destruction and plunder, he must order them to leave the innocents be.

196  Johann Heinrich Alsted 23 Si hostis prior frangat fidem, fides illi non est seruanda, iuxta illud tritum: Frangenti fidem, fides frangatur eidem. 24 Obsides licite occiduntur, si hostes fidem fregerint. Nam ea conditione dantur obsides, vt hostis fidem seruet. 25 Priuatis militibus non est licitum occidere, aut praedas agere, aut incendia procurare absque ducis facultate. Hoc enim si facerent milites, priuata authoritate bellum gererent: cum tamen geri non possit absque publica authoritate principis vel reipublicae. 26 Si priuati milites privata authoritate irruant in ditionem alicuius principis aut reipublicae, et subditorum bona diripiant, princeps aut respublica illa ius habet bellum gerendi contra eum, sub quo milites isti merent. Ille siquidem in culpa est, quia non punit nocentes suos milites. At vero, si satisfaciat pro iniuriis illatis, cessat istud ius. 27 Quando iustitia belli est dubia, licitum non est militibus bellum gerere publica principis authoritate indictum; si nempe milites non sint subditi, sed vel mercede conducti, vel sponte sua se ad bellum offerentes. Si enim dubii sint de iustitia belli, periculo se exponunt multorum peccatorum, si militent. Similiter si milites sint subditi, et dubitent, an licitum sit militare, annon, non debent principem sequi: quia non licet agere contra conscientiam dubiam practicam, etsi licitum sit agere contra dubium speculatiuum, quod est, an bellum sit licitum nec ne. Et in huiusmodi dubiis licitum est obedire superiori. 28 Licitum est homines bello iusto captos in seruitutem redigere; quia cum licitum sit eos occidere, si deprehendantur, mitius agetur cum illis, si viui seruentur, et serui capientium fiant. Et hoc valet tum de nocentibus, puta hostibus, qui contra nos militarunt; tum de innocentibus, puta infantibus hostium. Sicut enim infantes et omnino liberi perpetua infamia notari possunt ob delictum parentum: ita et perpetua seruitute puniri possunt; quia perpetua infamia aequiualet [345] perpetuae seruituti. Quod attinet ad consuetudinem, quae hodie inter Christianos obtinet, vt scilicet non amplius sint serui, qui capiuntur in bello, de illa sic est pronuntiandum. Etsi Christiani capti bello iusto, ex natura rei iure belli fiunt serui: de vsu tamen et more inter Christianos receptum est, vt serui quiden non sint, seruari tamen possint captiui, vt pretio redimantur.

Johann Heinrich Alsted  197 23 24 25

26

27

28

8

If an enemy breaks his word first, then our word to him should not be kept, in accordance with the well-known saying: ‘Let our word be broken to him who breaks his word’.9 Hostages are licitly killed, if the enemies have broken their word. For hostages are given on the condition that an enemy keeps his word. It is not licit for private soldiers to kill or to carry off booty or to set something on fire without the permission of an officer. For if soldiers did this they would wage a war under their own private authority, whereas it cannot be waged without the public authority of the prince or the commonwealth. If individual soldiers rush into the dominion of some prince or commonwealth and destroy the goods of subjects, then the prince or that commonwealth has the right to wage a war against him, under whom those soldiers serve. He is guilty because he does not punish his harmful soldiers. However, if he gives full compensation for the injuries done, then that right ceases. When the justice of a war is dubious, then it is not licit for soldiers to wage a war declared under the public authority of the prince, if the soldiers are not subjects, have been hired with a reward or are freely offering their services for the war. For if they have doubts about the justice of the war, then they expose themselves to the risk of many sins if they serve as soldiers. Likewise, if the soldiers are subjects and are torn whether or not it is licit to serve as soldiers, then they must not follow their prince, because it is not licit to act against the practical conscience when in doubt, although it is licit to act against a speculative doubt, which is whether the war is licit or not. And in these kinds of uncertain situations it is licit to obey one’s superior. It is licit to force people captured in a just war into servitude, because since it is licit to kill them, if they are caught, then they are dealt with in a more gentle way, if they are kept alive and become the slaves of their captors. This is valid both regarding those who are harmful, for example the enemies who fought against us, and regarding the harmless, for example the infants of the enemies. For as infants and children in general can be marked by notorious infamy due to a crime of their parents, thus can they also be punished with eternal servitude, because perpetual servitude is proportionate [345] to eternal infamy. With regard to the custom, which now prevails among Christians, namely that those who are captured in war are no longer slaves, this is what must be said about it. Although Christians captured in a just war become slaves in accordance with the law of war based on the nature of the matter, it has become the received use and custom among Christians that they may not be slaves, but they can nevertheless be kept as prisoners, so that they may be bought back for money.

8 This numbering is incorrect in the original text. 9 This argument and saying had been formulated by canon lawyers. See e.g. Gregory XI’s Decretales bk 2, title 24, ch. 25.

198  Johann Heinrich Alsted 29 Christiani capti ab infidelibus et paganis bello iusto, fiunt serui capientium, iure belli. Nam ius gentium in hoc non est abrogatum, vsu et more. Sed quaeritur, An licitum sit illis sic seruis effectis fugere a domino? Respondeo: Certum est apud omnes, licitum esse illis fugere, quoties ad infidelitatem a paganis solicitantur. Deinde, in vniuersum licitum est illis fugere, vt in patriam redeant ad verae religionis exercitium: non vero, vt in regione paganorum maneant. 30 Septem sunt causae, quibus pagani licite debellari possunt a principe Christiano: Primo, si fidem Christi in nostra terra impediant, vel blasphemiis, vel persuasionibus, vel persecutionibus. Secundo, si subditos conentur abducere a Christiana religione. Tertio, si Christianos offendant. Quarto, si impediant cursum et propagationem Christianae religionis apud vicinos nostros. Quinto, si pagani sint anthropophagi, qui mactent homines. Sexto, si opus fuerit bellum ad tuendos fideles, qui ad Christum sunt conuersi. Septimo, si alant factiones in terra nostra. 31 Princeps Christianus habet ius gerendi continuum bellum contra Turcas: quoniam illi occupant et detinent terras Christianorum, et persecutionibus atque bellis vexant Christianos et Christianam religionem.

Johann Heinrich Alsted  199 29 Christians captured by unbelievers and pagans in a just war become slaves of their captors, according to the law of war. For the law of nations has not been repealed in this respect by practice and custom. The question is raised if it is licit for those who have thus been made slaves to flee from their master? My answer is: certainly, in all cases it is licit for them to flee, if they are incited by pagans into unbelief. Second, it is generally licit for them to flee, so that they may return to the fatherland and to exercising the true religion, but not so that they may remain in a pagan region. 30 There are seven causes, for which pagans can be legitimately vanquished by a Christian prince. First, if they impede the faith in Christ in our land either through blasphemies, attempts at persuasion, or persecutions. Second, if they try to alienate subjects from the Christian religion. Third, if they offend Christians. Fourth, if they impede the progress and propagation of the Christian religion among our neighbours. Fifth, if the pagans are cannibals, who sacrifice people. Sixth, if a war is necessary in order to protect believers, who have converted to Christianity. Seventh, if they support factions in our land. 31 A Christian prince has a continuous right to wage a war against the Turks, because they occupy and hold on to lands belonging to Christians and threaten Christians and the Christian religion with persecutions and wars.

7 Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf on religious intervention in foreign states

Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf (Opava, Silesia 1561 – Basel 1610) was educated at Tübingen, Basel, and Geneva. Between 1584 and 1596 he acted as tutor to the noble Žerotín family. During the final years of his life, Polanus was based in Basel where he taught on the Old Testament. Polanus is mostly known for two systematic treatments of Reformed doctrine. The first of these is the Partitiones theologiae (‘Divisions of Theology’, 1590), a one-volume compendium of Christian theology with a distinctly Ramist approach. The second of these is the vast Syntagma theologiae Christianae (1609), which had the same objective as the Partitiones but on a much more ambitious scale. Polanus is usually treated as a systemizer and consolidator rather than an original and innovative mind. As we have seen in the case of Bucanus, even systemizers can make small yet important changes or give a more pointed formulation to points of doctrine. The excerpt presented here contains Polanus’ ideas on warfare. Of particular interest is his view that Christian nations can declare a just war simply in order to help fellow believers in other countries. The case he had specifically in mind was the intervention of the Germans in the war between the Hungarians and Ottoman Empire. Polanus also insisted that victory was entirely owed to God and had little to do with military prowess, whereas many other Reformed authors believed military success was a mixture of divine help and good strategic thinking. Finally, the categories Polanus distinguished with an eye to deciding whether a war was just or not deal almost exclusively with religion. Most other authors in this collection also see material damage (damnum) as a justification to start a war, whereas we do not find this term in Polanus. The Latin text used is Syntagma Theologiae Christianae ab Amando Polano a Polansdorf. Iuxta leges ordinis methodici conformatum atque in libros decem tributum. 2 vols (Hanau: Marnius, 1609), volume 2, cols 4504–4507.

Suggestions for further reading Faulenbach, H., Die Struktur der Theologie des Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf. Zurich: EVZ-Verlag, 1967.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-14

Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf  201 Han, B. S., Symphonia Catholica: The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–1610). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Letham, R., “Amandus Polanus: A Neglected Theologian?,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 21, no. 3 (1990), 463–476. Staehelin, E., Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf. Basel: Schwabe 1955.

Amandi Polani a Polansdorf Syntagma Theologiae Christianae (1609)

[4504] Bellum esto justum: alioqui non suscipiendum, aut susceptum non prosequendum, non continuandum. Bellum justum, est quod a principe seu summo magistratu indictum aut aliis legitimis magistratibus susceptum ex justis causis et ad fines justos, modo legitimo geritur: Quale fuit bellum Asae adversus Jarobeamum, 2. Chron. 13. Justum bellum igitur ut sit requiruntur tria: personae inter quas bellum geritur: causa propter quam geritur: et modus intra quem consistere debet. Personas si spectes, consideranda duo: unum, cujus sit bellum movere? Alterum, adversus quem bellum gerere liceat, vel non liceat? Quod ad primum attinet; bellum nemo movere debet, nisi legitimus magistratus, cui reipublicae administratio commissa est a Deo. Sic Moses, sic Josua, sic David, moverunt bella adversus hostes. Privati autem et simplices subditi, si contra interdictum summi magistratus bellum moveant, peccant. Alia est ratio eorum, qui non sunt simplices subditi, sed etiam partem aliquam reipublicae legitime administrant et statum reipublicae incolumem conservari, juris ipsorum interest ac proinde subordinati magistratus sunt: sicut David vivente adhuc Saule adversus Pelischthaeos copiolas suas duxit, et Kehilaeos [4505] obsidione liberavit, etiamsi a Saule jussus non esset. 1. Samuel. 23. Sic Machabaei recte fecerunt, arma sumentes adversus hostes: et principes regii sanguinis in Gallia illisque juncti proceres, recte fecerunt, arma sumentes adversus Guisios. Deinde perpendendum, adversus quem bellum gerere liceat, vel non liceat?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-15

Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf, Compendium of Christian Theology (1609)

[4504] A war must be just: otherwise, it must not be started or, once it has been started, one must not proceed with or continue it. A war is just when it has been declared by the prince or highest magistrate or has been started by other legitimate magistrates for just causes and just ends, as long as it is waged in a legitimate manner. This was the kind of war Asa waged against Jeroboam, in 2 Chronicles 13. In order to have a just war, three things are required: the persons between whom the war is waged, the cause for which it is waged, and the limits within which it must remain. Regarding the persons, two things must be considered. First, whose task is it to start a war? Second, against whom is it licit or not licit to wage a war? As far as the first matter is concerned, no one must start a war, unless he is a legitimate magistrate to whom the administration of the commonwealth has been entrusted by God. This is how Moses, Joshua, and David started wars against their enemies. However, private, individual subjects sin, if they start a war against the prohibition of the supreme magistrate. The reasoning is different in the case of those who are not simply citizens, but who are legitimately in charge of some part of the commonwealth and who have the right to keep the condition of the commonwealth from harm and who are accordingly junior magistrates. In this manner, David led his troops against the Philistines and liberated the people of Keilah [4505] from being besieged, while Saul was still alive and had not ordered him to do so (1 Samuel 23). In the same way, the Maccabees did the right thing when they took up arms against their enemies and so did the princes of the blood in France and the nobles allied to them, when they took up arms against the House of Guise.1 Next, we must consider against whom it is licit to wage war and against whom it is not.

1 Reference to the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid empire (167-160 BCE) and the conflict between Kings Henry III and Henry IV of France and the Catholic League.

204  Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf Respondeo. Bellum licet gerere tantum adversus hostem, sive externus is sit, sive intestinus. Sic Abraham et Josua bellum gesserunt adversus hostes externos: Israëlitae adversus domesticos, nempe Benjaminitas; David adversus Israëlitas, qui partes Ischbosethi duce Abnero sequebantur: idem David adversus subditos rebelles, qui primo Absalomum sibi regem constituerant, deinde Sebam sequebantur. Non licet autem bellum movere et gerere adversus amicos sive cognati sint sanguine, sive conjuncti ejusdem religionis orthoxae vinculo. Nam Deus noluit ut Rechabeamus rex Judaeae bellum gereret adversus Jarobeamum et Israëlitas, qui a domo Davidis defecerant, 1. Reg. 12. vers. 24. Ne pugnate contra fratres vestros, filios Israëlis. Sic Deus noluit, ut Israëlitae terram sibi promissam occupaturi bellum miscerent cum Edomaeis et Moabitis, Deuteronom. 2. Adversus fratres igitur et concives ejusdem reipublicae aut sanguine junctos bellum non gerendum: quod qui faciunt, justo judicio Dei, exitium sibi accersunt, ut accidit Ephraimitis, Judic. 12. Causae belli justae sunto, ut bellum ipsum justum sit. Eaeque vel a nobis sunt, vel ab aliis. A nobis justae causae sunt: I Ut purum Dei cultum conservemus et defendamus, contra temerarios corruptores et violentos omnes [4506] oppressores ejus, sive domesticos, sive exteros. Testantur exempla. Josuae 22. Vers. 31. Et sequentibus multis. Nechem. 4. Versicul. 9 et sequentibus. Daniel 11. Versic. 34. Et in historia Machabaeorum. Proinde etiam bellum ob defensionem religionis verae in Scriptura Sacra praescriptae, ab inferioribus magistratibus adversus tyrannos susceptum, est justum. II Ut contumaciter resistentes justitiae publicae, quae in puniendis publicis et notoriis delictis declaranda est, ad officium compellantur. Hoc fine Israëlitae bellum decreverant adversus Benjaminitas et divino jussu postea gesserunt, Judicum cap. 20. III Ut regnum, libertatem et salutem publicam, subditos et facultates eorum vel tueamur, vel recuperemus. 2. Samuel 8. Et capite 10. Et 11. Judicum 19. Versic. 29. Neque ulla frequentior causa est arma justa capiendi quam servitutis depulsio, quam vitae et incolumitatis tutela contra vim et immoderatam dominationem potentiorum, publicam libertatem et salutem opprimentium.

Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf  205 I answer: it is only licit to wage war against an enemy, either external or internal. Thus, Abraham and Joshua waged wars against external enemies, while the Israelites did so against enemies at home, namely the tribe of Benjamin, David against the Israelites who followed the faction of Ishbosheth under the leadership of Abner.2 The same David fought against rebellious subjects, who had first chosen Absalom as their king, and then followed Sheba.3 However, it is not licit to start and wage a war against friends, whether they be related by blood, or connected by the bond of the same true religion. For God did not want Rehoboam, king of Judah, to wage a war against Jeroboam and the Israelites who had defected from the House of David (1 Kings 12: 24): ‘Do not fight against your brothers, the sons of Israel’. In the same way, God did not want the Israelites to engage in war with the Edomites and Moabites as they were on their way to occupy the land that had been promised to them (Deuteronomy 2). One must, therefore, not wage a war against brothers and fellow citizens of the same commonwealth or those related to you by blood. Those who do so call for their own downfall by the just judgement of God, as happened to the Ephraimites in Judges 12. The causes for the war must be good in order for the war itself to be just. These causes can either depend on us or on others. Just causes that depend on us are: 1 So that we may preserve and defend the pure worship of God against heedless corrupters and all [4506] of its violent oppressors, whether in our own country or abroad. The examples in Joshua 22: 31 and following, Nehemiah 4: 9 and following and Daniel 11: 34 and in Maccabees testify of this. Hence, a war for the defence of the true religion as prescribed in Scripture is also just when it has been started by lower magistrates against tyrants. 2 So that those who obstinately resist public justice, which must be declared in the punishment for public and notorious crimes, should be compelled to their duty. With this aim, the Israelites had declared a war against the tribe of Benjamin and waged it afterwards at God’s command (Judges 20). 3 In order to protect or recover a kingdom, the public liberty and wellbeing, subjects and their possessions. See 2 Samuel 8, 10, and 11; Judges 19: 29. Nor is there any more frequent just cause to take up arms than driving off servitude and the protection of one’s life and safety against the violence and unrestrained domination of more powerful forces that oppress public liberty and wellbeing.

2 For these wars see Gen. 14 (Abraham); Jos. 2–12 (Joshua); Judg. 19–21 (Israel against the tribe of Benjamin); 2 Sam. 2: 12–18 (David against Abner). 3 2 Sam. 18: 1–15.

206  Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf Ab aliis justae causae offeruntur: I Si vicini, vel alii orthodoxae religionis consortes, quamvis remotiores, ob veram religionem tyrannice opprimantur, ut hos eruamus et vindicemus. Sic olim Constantinus Magnus Christianis adversus sex hostes, Diocletianum, Maximianum, Galerium, Maxentium, Maximinum & Licinium, suppetias tulit et tyrannis devictis Christianos in libertatem vindicavit. Proinde suppetias ferre exteris ob religionem a tyranno aliquot vim injustam patientibus est justum. Hoc fine [4507] hactenus Germani bellum gesserunt ad defensionem Hungarorum adversus Turcas haereditarios Christianae religionis hostes. II Ut vicinos atque in primis propinquitate junctos aut federe aliquot, ex manibus hostium liberemus. Eo fine Abrahamus Loti agnati sui liberandi gratia, ut et aliorum cum ipso in captivitatem abductorum vernas suos armavit et hostes persequutus est eosque cecidit; et Lotum aliosque captivos reduxit, una cum facultatibus ipsorum, Genes. 14. Sic Israëlitae Gibeonitarum liberandorum causa adversus reges aliquot exercitum duxerunt, eosque ceciderunt, Josu. 10. Extra has causas bellum adversus neminem suscipiendum. Nam qui vel elatione quadam animi, et praesumtione vana consequendi victoriam, vel nullis injuriis lacessitus, belllum alii infert, eumque ad conflictum provocat: plerunque infelix est, ac sibi ipsi, atque Reipublicae toti infortunium accersit: Amatzja rex Judae insignem contra Edomaeos victoriam consequutus erat, qua elatus Joaschum regem Israëlis bello lacessivit, et ab eo fusus, captus, gravi mulcta affectus est, ut legitur 2. Reg. 14. Josias rex Judae nullis affectus injuriis a Pharaone Necone Rege Aegypti, bellum contra eum temere suscepit, et in conflictu vulnere accepto ex eo mortuus est, regnumque Judaicum perturbatum reliquit, ut legitur 2. Reg. 23. Vel qui eo fine bellum movet, ut facultates diripiat aliorum, quamvis illi pacem colant et causam bello nullam praebuerint aut praebeant; is justam belli causam non habet. Eo fine Benhadadus rex Syriae bellum moverat Achabo, sed infeliciter, ut legitur 1. Reg. 20.

Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf  207 Just causes offered by others are: 1 In order to rescue and vindicate neighbours or others who share our true religion, no matter how remote they may be, if they are tyrannically oppressed because of their true religion. In this way, Constantine the Great once came to the rescue of the Christians against six enemies, Diocletian, Maximianus, Galerius, Maxentius, Maximinus, and Licinius, and set them free after the tyrants had been vanquished.4 Hence, it is just to provide assistance to those abroad who suffer some unjust violence because of their religion from a tyrant. To this end, [4507] the Germans have waged a war to this day for the defence of the Hungarians against the Turks, the hereditary enemies of the Christian religion.5 2 In order to free neighbours and in particular those bound to us by proximity or some treaty from the hands of enemies. To this end, Abraham armed men from his household in order to free Lot, his relative, and others who had been taken captive and pursued the enemies and killed them and brought back Lot and the other captives, together with their possessions (Genesis 14). Thus, in order to free the Gibeonites, the Israelites led an army against some kings and killed them in Joshua 10. Without any of these causes, war must not be undertaken with anyone. For if anyone through some whim of the mind and vain presumption of obtaining victory inflicts a war on someone else without being harmed by any injuries and provokes him into conflict, then he is most calamitous and calls misfortune upon himself and the whole commonwealth. King Amaziah of Judah had obtained a considerable victory against the Edomites and delighted about this result he then provoked Jehoash, king of Israel, into war and was vanquished, captured, and struck with a grave punishment by him, as we read in 2 Kings 14. Josiah, king of Judah, rashly started a war against Pharaoh Necho without being provoked by any injuries, and in the clash, he received a wound and died from it, leaving the Jewish kingdom in a heavily disturbed state, as we read in 2 Kings 23. Indeed, he who starts a war with the aim to plunder the possessions of others, even though they respect the peace and did not do provide any cause for war, has no just cause for war. To this end, Ben-Hadad, king of Syria, had started a war against Ahab, but with an unfortunate outcome, as we read in 1 Kings 20. 4 A reference to the Wars of the Tetrarchy (306–324 CE). 5 A reference to the almost continuous wars between the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Polanus seems to be thinking in particular here of the Long Turkish War or Thirteen Years’ War (1593–1606), which was fought between these empires over the principalities of Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania.

8 Venceslaus Clemens’s Gustavis and the Thirty Years’ War as a religious conflict

So far, we have mostly looked at texts in prose that those at universities in twenty-first-century universities recognize as part of academic discourse. Early modern academics and intellectuals, however, also presented their views through poetry. A case in point is the Latin epics that justified and praised the intervention of the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus (1594–1632) in the Thirty Years’ War (1630–1632). Examples include the Gustavis by the Dutch Remonstrant Johannes Narssius (1580–1637) and the Adolphis (1649) by the French Huguenot Antoine Garissoles (1587–1651). By far the most religiously oriented of these epics was the Gustavis (1632) by Venceslaus Clemens. Clemens was a Bohemian academic who studied at the University of Prague, where he obtained his BA in 1612 (thesis: Utrum penes homines an leges debeat esse imperium – whether empire ought to be under men or laws) and his MA in 1614 (thesis: Magistratui politico in causis decidendis an lex scripta an aequitas non scripta sequenda? – Whether the written law or unwritten equity must be followed by the political magistrate in deciding cases). During the following years, he combined various teaching jobs with the composition of Latin poetry and university disputations. After the Catholic victory in the Battle of the White Mountain in 1620, the Protestant Clemens was forced to leave Bohemia and led a wandering existence in the Holy Roman Empire and Poland. In Gdansk he offered a Libellus supplex to Gustavus Adolphus and entered the service of the Swedish chancellor Axel Oxenstierna, following the Swedish army through Prussia, Germany and Poland, while acting as tutor to Oxenstierna’s son Johan. In 1631, Clemens and his charge matriculated at the University of Leiden, where Clemens did his best to build up a network of correspondents, among whom we find Gerard Vossius and Caspar Barlaeus. Clemens hoped these eminent scholars would help him in his search for literary patronage, e.g. by enhancing the prestige of his writings by writing poems in praise of his works. An example is the Gustavis, published in Leiden in 1632. Clemens hoped he would receive a reward from the Swedish monarchy for it, but to no avail. In 1634, Clemens decided to try his luck in England, but he died in poverty in London in 1637. The Gustavis tells the story of how Gustavus Adolphus got involved in the war in the Holy Roman Empire until the Battle of Breitenfeld (1631), which

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-16

Venceslaus Clemens  209 is presented as a decisive victory for Protestants over Catholics. The excerpt presented here is from the first two books of the epic and consists of a lament by religion personified about the fate of Protestantism in the German lands. She then goes to God to complain about the losses suffered by Protestants and is told by him that there will be a saviour who will come to their aid. It is implied this is Gustavus Adolphus and religion goes to him to tell him of his role in the war. What makes the Gustavis as a whole so fascinating is that in its form it closely follows the examples of classical epic. Religion’s complaint to God, for example, is closely modelled on Venus’s address to Jupiter in the first book of Vergil’s Aeneid. Her visit to Gustavus Adolphus is reminiscent of a very similar scene in book four of the Aeneid, in which Mercury tells Aeneas to leave Carthage and go to Italy. However, Clemens’s central argument in the Gustavis was a religious one: the 30 Years’ War was religious in nature, and it was God’s will to help the Protestants. Gustavus Adolphus acted as God’s instrument and waged a holy war in defence of Protestantism. The Latin text presented here is Gustavidos libri IX, quibus Gustavi II vere Magni et Augusti, Suecorum, Gothorum, Vandalorum Regis Serenissimi, Victoriarum heroicarum, rerumque per Germaniam gestarum series carmine Heroico narratur (Leiden: Heger, 1632), 17–34.

Suggestions for further reading Helander, H., “The Gustavis of Venceslaus Clemens.” In Germania Latina – ­L atinitas Teutonica: Politik, Wissenschaft, humanistische Kultur vom späten Mittelalter bis in unsere Zeit, edited by Eckhard Kessler and Heinrich C. Kuhn, volume 2, 609– 622. 2 vols. Munich: Fink, 2003. Poole, W., “Down and Out in Leiden and London: The Later Careers of Venceslaus Clemens (1589–1637), and Jan Sictor (1593–1652), Bohemian Exiles and Failing Poets,” The Seventeenth Century 28, no. 2 (2013), 163–185. Starnawski, J., “Venceslaus Clemens Zebracenus a Lybeo Monte, Leciados Libri IV (1632–1635),” Humanistica Lovaniensia 21 (1972), 281–384.

Venceslai Clementis Gustavidos libri IX (1632)

Liber primus [17] Sic ibat; studioque gradum celerabat anili. Attigit ut tandem coelum, genibusque tonantis [18] Procubuit,1 precibus suspiria tristia miscet, Flebile lingua sonat, Miserere frequens it ab ore. Et velut orphani quorum pater aequora tranans Fluctibus oppressus periit, matremque peremit Crudelis praedo, sub honesto nomine tectus Militiae (quales per Caesaris arma vagantur) Iejunos rabies dum longa fatigat edendi, Matrem sed frustra implorant, et nomen inani Voce cient, maestosque oculos ad limina vertunt, Nusquam mater adest, nusquam pater, obvius inde, Si transit quisquam validis ululatibus instant, Nec praeter Miserere, merum Miserere queruntur. Sic geminans Miserere suum inter caetera pergit; O tu qui rerum solus moderaris habenas, Cujus grande tonans non est effabile numen, Quo mare, quo tellus, quo sese regia coeli2 Congenulant, atque audito demissa tremiscunt, Aspicis ista? patique potes? Jam deficit ignis? Dextera fessa tua est? Heu! quur innubila cerno Culmina? et aëreos piceo sine turbine campos? Fulgure quur tonitruque negas coelum omne ciere?3 Aut tantum miseris irasci fulmine discis? Necquiquam timet orbis iners? an tu quoque nostrum Excidium peragis? tibi cordi nostra ruina est? Nec pater o natam solito dignaris ocello? Extorrem! profugam! per inhospita saxa vagantem! 1 Claud. De bello Gildonico, 26–27. 2 Ov. Met. 1.257. 3 Marco Girolamo Vida, Hymn 21, Divo Laurentio Martyri, 157–160.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-17

Venceslaus Clemens, Gustavis (1632)

Book one [17] Thus, she went forth and with effort she hastened her old woman’s pace. As soon as she had finally reached heaven, she [18] prostrated herself holding on to the knees of the thunderer, mingled sad sighs with prayers. Her tongue sounds mournful and a frequent Miserere went forth from her mouth. She was like orphans whose father has perished overcome by waves while sailing across the seas and whose mother was killed by a cruel plunderer under cover of the honourable description of military service. Such men roam among the ranks of Caesar’s army.1 As the desire to eat renders them weak and tired, they call for their mother in vain, mention her name with feeble voices, and turn their eyes to the door. However, mother is nowhere and father is nowhere. Hence, if they encounter some passer-by, they pursue him with loud wailing and complain with nothing but a Miserere, a genuine Miserere. In the same way did Religion go forth, moaning her Miserere among those of others. ‘Oh you, who alone control the reins of the world, whose great, thundering, divine power is ineffable, through which the sea, earth, and royal palace of heaven kneel down and tremble in humility when they hear it, do you see these things? Can you allow them to happen? Has your fire already run out? Is your right hand tired? Oh! Why do I see cloudless skies and fields of air with a pitch black storm? Why do you refuse to move all of heaven with lightning and thunder? Or do you only know how to rage with a stroke of lightning against the miserable? Does the powerless earth fear you in vain? Or do you, too, pursue my destruction? Is my downfall your heart’s desire?

1 A reference to the troops of the Holy Roman Emperor.

212  Venceslaus Clemens Exilio fessam! Latiali fulmine pressam! Quae mea culpa tuam, rogo, quae mitissime mentem Vertit? ubi est quae cura tibi prior esse solebat?4 Nil jam sancte mei miseret? miseretve tuorum? Qui tam sorte truci fracti tostique premuntur? Praesentemve quibus mortem jam cuncta minantur? [19] Eheu! ista movent nihil? Et nihil omnia curas? Nominis at moveat te saltem gloria sancti, In majestatemque tuam vel crimina mille, Electique tui spes caetus, qui tua linquit Numina, qui Latiae larvam meretricis adorat, Ad statuas idolaque vana reducitur, in te Tabescens odio, aeternam sic sponte ruinam Accelerat, sequiturque nefas vivensque vidensque. Vix ego sola super, vix vitae munere fungor, Sedibus ejicior priscis, damnataque pellor. Ergone prae reliquis, ego neglectissima natis Progenies? nullo coeli jam digna favore Perpetuo deserta querar? semperque catenas Serva pati cogar? semper cruce pressa rubebo? Cunctis praeda ferar populis? rapientque trahentque Hostes? illudentque malis miseraeque protervo Ore insultabunt? mea membra in frustra recedent? At quis erit posthac, per quem celebreris honore? Templa tuum studio nuper quae dogma sonabant, Cultu sacra pio, verbum coeleste salutis, Aure quibus docili coelo gens nata bibebat; Mugitus, fremitus, inconditique ululatus Nunc resonant, caetusque procul tuus exulat inde, Et conjurata in coelum superosque caterva, Cui Deus haud satis est unus, sed mille deastri, Quae genibus positis picti ad ludibria trunci, Insertis filo numerat sua murmura baccis, Campigenam in frugem divinos vertit honores; Ac te blasphemat, convicia faetida coelo Objicit, ac spoliat te majestate verenda, In larvasque hominum defunctaque corpora transfert. Gens blasphema sacrae, Triados mysteria ridens, In superos cives, nostraeque salutis alumnam [20] Ore truci maledicta vomens, convicia ructans, Spirituique Dei semper praefracta, rebellis, Sedibus acta suis, anathematis ungue notata;

4 Ov. Met. 11.421–422.

Venceslaus Clemens  213 Do you as my father not deign me, your daughter, worthy of the usual affection? I am banished, a fugitive, wandering through inhospitable rocks, worn out by exile, struck down by Roman lightning! What guilt of mine, I wonder, turns your mind very cool? Where is the care that used to concern you more? Do you feel no mercy at all for me, holy one? Or with your people, who, broken and scorched, are so struck down by their grim fate, or whom now everything threatens with imminent death? [19] Oh! Do these things not move you? And do you not care about anything at all? But let at least the glory of your holy name move you and indeed the thousand crimes committed against your majesty, and the hope of your elect people, who are now forsaking your divine power and are now worshipping the image of the Roman harlot, turning towards statues and vain idols, consumed by hatred against you, and thus bringing their eternal downfall willingly closer, pursuing sin freely and knowingly. I am almost left all alone. There is hardly any life left in me. I am cast out from my old dwelling places and am condemned and driven away. Am I therefore your most neglected offspring, more so than your other children? Will I complain, deserted forever and no longer worthy of heaven’s favour? Will I be forced to suffer chains forever as a slave? Will I turn red with blood, pressed down with this cross? Will I be carried off as loot by all peoples? Will enemies seize me and drag me away? Will they mock me with evil words and taunt me unhappy one with wanton mouth? Will my limbs wither away? But who will there be afterwards, by whom you might be worshipped? Churches that recently zealously resounded with your dogma, rituals of pious worship, the heavenly word of salvation, from which the people born from docile heaven drank with their ears, now resound with bellowing, murmuring, and irregular wailing, and your people live far removed from there and a crowd, bound together in conspiracy, for whom one God is not enough, but a thousand godlings. They kneel down for this mockery of a painted body, they count their mutterings with beads that have been strung together, turn divine honours into fruit produced on a field.2 They blaspheme you, fling foul insults towards heaven, and strip you of your venerable majesty, and transfer it to the spectres of people and dead corpses. A blaspheming nation, laughing at the mysteries of the holy trinity, spewing out, [20] with fierce mouth, abuse against the citizens of the upperworld and the nursling of our salvation, belching out insults, and always inflexible towards the spirit of God, insurgent, marked by the nail

2 A mocking reference to Catholic religious practices such as the veneration of saints and the use of a rosary.

214  Venceslaus Clemens Ethnicus impurus, Mahometis cultor, et orbis Vastator Turcus, vel si quid foedius illis, Fur, homicida, latro, grassator, turpis adulter, Nequam, leno, bibo, sodomita, scurra, cynoedus, Quorum corde fides, pietasque excussa, pudorque Libera tecta colunt, et eodem jure fruuntur; Sunt uitiis aulae, sunt alta palatia monstris Naturae, laeso sunt fana erecta pudori; Sunt sua lustra lupis, avibus domicilia, nidi, Antra colunt vulpes, habitant spelaea leones, Tutus in abstrusis agit ocia cervulus antris; Non locus at nobis toto conceditur orbe. Atque iterum nihil ista movent te sancte deorum? Sic tua Religio vix Heu! tua credita, linquor? Linquunturve mei, grex parvus, debitus astris? Si tam, deserti sumus, et jam numine verso Funditus occidimus, nec habet fortuna regressum,5 Nec spes ulla solo, pars et super aethere nulla, Nos animae viles, infleta, inhumataque turba Sternamur campis, omnes moriamur ad unum, Devoret haec Latius laniata cadavera vultur, Exultet Liga-Santa, feros et pascat ocellos, Caedibus illa meis semel exsaturata triumphet; Insultans coelo peregrinus dicat et hospes; Relligio quondam superum generata parente, In qua divini per tot jam nominis annos Gloria conspecta est, et multa potentia Jovae Hospitium hic habuit, jam profligata recessit, [21] Exul in exilio auxilio deserta suorum Mortem obiit miseram, vix nominis umbra remansit Nomen et urna legat; coelorum dedecus ingens! Non! o Non! Hoc sancte veta. Concede fateri! Pro me, proque meis supplex ego deprecor, audi, Evigila genitor, morienti porrige dextram! Paenarum satis exhaustum,6 me pignora cogit Laesus amare dolor. Mereunt? Meruisse fatentur Supplicium gravius. Magno pro crimine natis Supplicii paulum satis est imponere patrem. Si pater es, facilem soboli pater indue mentem, Et non excidiis nostris. Sed flectere paenis. Verte tuas acies, contorque fulmen in hostem, 5 Verg. Aen. 11.413. 6 Verg. Aen. 9.356.

Venceslaus Clemens  215 of excommunication. An impure pagan, a worshipper of Mohammed, and a Turkish destroyer of the world or anything more foul than those things, a thief, murderer, robber, vagabond, filthy adulterer, worthless wretch, pimp, drunkard, sodomite, buffoon, catamite, from whose hearts faith, piety, and shame have been banished, live in free houses and enjoy the same rights. Halls have been erected for vices, high palaces have been erected for the monstrosities of nature, shrines have been erected for broken shame. Wolves have their forests, birds their habitations, namely nests. Foxes live in caverns, lions in caves. The little deer rests safely in concealed caves, but no place in the whole world is granted to us. And again, those things do not move you, holy of gods, at all. Thus, do I remain alone and do people hardly believe I am your religion? Or do my people leave me, a small flock, owed to the stars? If I have already been deserted, divine power has turned against me, I am utterly ruined, and there is no chance of recovery, or any hope either on earth or anywhere else in heaven, then let us be spurned as worthless souls, an unwept and unburied multitude. Let us all die without exception and let the Roman vulture devour these mutilated corpses. Let the Holy League exult and feast its eyes on them and let it triumph once it is completely satiated with our dead bodies. Let the foreigner and stranger speak scoffing at heaven. Religion once born from the father of the gods, in whom the glory of the divine name has been conspicuous for so many years and in whom much power of Jehova has had its lodging, already withdrew, utterly cast down. [21] She died a miserable death as an exile deprived of the help of her people. Hardly a shadow of her name remained. Her epitaph and urn should read: “Great shame of the heavens!” No! No! Forbid this, holy one. Allow me to profess it! I humbly beg you for me and for my people, listen, wake up, creator! Reach out to someone who is dying! Vengeance has been sufficiently fulfilled and afflicted grief forces me to love my relatives. Do they deserve it? They profess to deserve a graver punishment. It is sufficient that a father imposes a small punishment on his children for a great crime. If you are a father, then assume a benevolent disposition for the sake of your offspring not for our ruin. But be appeased by our hardship. Turn your gaze, fling your lightning at the enemy. Let him feel there is still a God, let him feel there is an avenger of tyranny, let him tremble for you who alone see everything, who steer everything and move everything with just a nod.

216  Venceslaus Clemens Sentiat o superesse Deum, superesse tyrannis Sentiat ultorem, tremat unum cuncta videntem, Cuncta gubernantemque et nutu cuncta moventem, Sic me redde meis pater o, mihi redde meorum Reliquias. Patris ac non obliviscere morum. Plura dolor prohibet, verboque intervenit omni Plangor, et egelido gemitus a corde trahuntur, Mussando tantum vix dimidiata feruntur Verba foris, et vix bene percipienda cuiquam. Ah pater! anne audis? Haec imperfecta relinquens Concidit, abruptisque immutuit ore querelis, Totaque diriguit, friget sine sanguine pectus, Ac immota jacet, nihil est in corpore vivum. [22] Liber secundus Non tulit omnipotens, cui sunt sua pingora curae, Iras at spectans hominum, mentesque procaces In sua conversas jam viscera, risit ab alto Conatus vanos, et dextra sceptra levavit. Protinus intremuere poli, commotus et aether, Nutarunt montes, auditaque murmura coelo, Sulphur et ignis edax, periit quo clara Sodomes Pentapolis, micuit, tellus patefecerat vmbras, Pallentes vmbras Erebi, noctemque profundam, Queis olim Core Datan Abironque voravit, Venit et vnda suis subito instructissima telis, Diluvium minitata novum, mundumque ruina Eversura truci, rerum compugo vagarum Attonita adstabat, si quid super hostibus ipsis Mandaret sator, ulcisci voluere nocentes. Increpat ille gravi nutu coelumque solumque, Et compressa metu sua fulmina claudit in antro. Mox breviter divam (nec enim dilectior illi, Terris ulla fuit) verbis afflatur amicis, [23] Incipiens alto (grave ex immitabile sanctis Pondus inest verbis, et vocem fata sequuntur.)7 Parce metu mea nata mihi,8 quae pectore sacro Concilias mortale genus, desiste querelis, Surge. Quid addubitas? Metuis quem stulta? Quid haeres? Mortalesne times vitae brevioris et aevi? Et caussas petis ex alto? Fiducia cessit 7 Stat. Theb. 1.212–213. 8 Verg. Aen. 1.257.

Venceslaus Clemens  217 Return me to my people and return what remains of my people to me. Do not forget the appropriate behaviour of a father’. Grief does not allow her to say more and her wailing interrupts every word and groans are drawn from her cold heart. While she mutters, just hardly articulated words leave her mouth that are barely audible to anyone. ‘Oh, father! Do you hear me?’ Leaving her words unfinished, she collapses and falls silent after her complaints had come to an end. She grew completely stiff and her chest grew cold without any blood and she lay motionless and there is not a single trace of life in her body. [22] Book two The almighty, who cared about his relatives, could not bear it. Yet looking at the rage of the people and their insolent minds turned against his offspring, he laughed at their vain attempts from heaven and raised his sceptre with his right hand. Immediately, the poles trembled and the sky was strongly moved, the mountains swayed, and as soon as the roars were heard from heaven, the consuming sulphur and fire, through which the famous pentapolis Sodom perished, glowed, the earth revealed the shades, the pale shades of the underworld, and the deep night into which it once swallowed Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. A wave came at once, richly provided with its weapons and threatening a new deluge. It would have thrown the world into savage ruin. The collection of moving things was ready in case the creator commanded something and they were willing to take revenge on those who had caused harm. He admonished heaven and earth with a grave nod and when the fear had been restrained he locked his lightning bolts in a cave. Soon afterwards he briefly addressed the divine woman with friendly words (for no one on earth was dearer to him), [23] starting from up high his holy words have grave and immutable weight and fate follows his voice: ‘Do not fear me, my daughter. You who unite all of humanity in your sacred chest, stop complaining and rise. Why are you in doubt? Who do you fear, silly woman? Why do you hesitate? Do you fear mortals who have a rather brief lifespan? Do you seek causes from heaven? Tell me: where has your faith in me gone. I certainly prepare to test and judge my children in

218  Venceslaus Clemens Quo tibi fare mei?9 Certe mea pignora tantis Cladibus explorare paro, atque expendere, coelo Quae pars debetur, veniet simul et semel istis Nata modus. Nec te incassum flevisse quereris. Fata viam invenient. Ego quod nam voce profudi Nulla immutabit venturi temporis aetas, Praesidiumque meis non unquam deerit Olympo. Adspicies olim quantum mea numina possint, Quamve sit, inferior nobis humana potestas, Illa dies veniet, quum magno optaverit emptum10 Ausonius terror, qui nunc mea moenia quassat, Qui mare nunc terrasque metu, coelumque fatigat, Intactas sineret coelestes ariete portas. Sero Deum credet, qui tot quae ructat ab ore Non sit laturus placido convitia vultu. Sentiet esse manum nobis sine fine potentem. Nullus adhuc coelos ausit qui tangere telo Laetatus violare redit. Tu comprime luctus. Sufficiat tibi noster amor, rebusque sub arctis Auxilium toties praesens, et gratia nota Qua te complector. Tibi nil haec bella nocebunt. Nec tibi solo manes. Quid maerens talia fingis? Servavi mihi plus quam septem mille virorum, Qui genubus flexis non procubuere Baalis Ad faciem, nec participes anathematis ejus Facti, nec dextram aut frontem infecere figura [24] Perditionis, eis non polluit ora character. Haec reputa, inque fide, ne sic malefida vacilles. Caetera nil ad te. Certis stant omnia fatis. Sic series aeterna manet. Sic diximus olim Quum rudis esset adhuc tellus. Sententia sic stat. Insanire sinas mundum populique furores Bacchari. Tu crede mihi. Sic fatus et arma Permittit populis frenosque furentibus ira Laxat, et insanos regum, plebisque tumultus Ordinat ad fines aeterna mente repostos. Diva sed auditis mentem viresque recepit Non oblita animorum, annorum oblita suorum; Vt cum sole malo tristique rosaria pallent Vsta Noto,11 si clara dies et amoena Favona

9 Verg. Aen. 8.395–396. 10 Verg. Aen. 10.503. 11 Stat. Theb. 7.223–224.

Venceslaus Clemens  219 such great misfortunes. The part owed to heaven and due measure will come together and at one time. Do not complain that you have wept in vain. Fate will find a way. For what I have spoken with my voice no future age will alter and aid to my people will never be absent from Olympus. You will see at some point how much my divine powers can accomplish or how human power is inferior to me. That day will come when the Italian terror, who is now battering my walls and harasses the sea, lands, and heaven with fear, will prefer to have bought at great price that he left the heavenly gates untouched. Too late will he believe in the God who will not suffer with calm expression the numerous insults he belches out. He will feel that our hand is endlessly powerful. No one who has dared touch the heavens with a weapon returns happy to have violated them. Suppress your sorrow. Let my love suffice for you, my help which has so often been at your disposal in difficult circumstances, and my well-known grace, with which I embrace you. These wars will not harm you at all. You will not remain alone. Why do you come up with such things in your sorrow? I have kept more than seven thousand men who did not bend their knees in the presence of Baal and did not take part in his done anathema or stain their right hand or forehead with the sign [24] of perdition, their character has not desecrated their countenance.3 Think about this and do not so completely waver in your faith. The other things do not concern you. Their fate is settled. Thus the eternal succession of events remains in place. Thus we spoke once, when earth was still unformed. Thus my decision stands. You may give the world permission to rage and the people’s wrath to spread. Believe me’. He spoke thus and allowed the people to use weapons and released the reins on those raging with anger and with his eternal mind ordered the enraptured throngs of kings and common people at the border. But when the goddess had heard these words, she regained her force, mindful of her feelings, but not of her years, just as when the rosebeds, scorched by a south wind, grow pale under a bad and harsh sun, yet all luster returns, the offshoots cheerfully rise, and the new glory removes the withered flowers, if a clear day and a pleasant east wind arrive. Or just as,

3 1 Kings 19: 18.

220  Venceslaus Clemens Aura redit, redit omnis honos, erectaque rident Germina, et arentes resicit nova gloria flores. Qualiter aut nimbos tempestatesque sonoras, Eurus ubi Boreasque cient magno agmine, Titan Exoriens vultu, quo coeli tecta serenat, Emicat, et cunctis pulcher displendet in oris, Diffugiunt venti, pontus sedatur et aether, Ac peramoena quies rebus sua robora reddit. Mente sed haerebat quonam divertere possit, Quaerere quas sedes, quibus aut se credere terris. Vnus erat prope solus adhuc, prope solus et unus, Conatus ac ausa Ligae viresque Gigantum Sustinuisse potens, vir sceptris notus, et armis Strenuus, haud ulli veterum virtute secundus (Quos hodie miramur, at haud imitamur) avorum, Qui genus admotum superis, summumque per altos Attingebat avos;12 Latii Thersitis avara Invidies obstet nisi, primos inter habendus [25] Quos sol exurgens sero repetensque cubile Adspicit, Arctois late regnator in oris Illustri fama, meritis illustrior heros, Certa salus rerum,13 cui nullum parve priusve Vel fortuna, caput, virtus aut viderat unquam, Aspera semper amans, par et cuicumque periclo, Cui mens humana major, nec tela nec enses Horrescens, robur nec equos, tot millia contra Impare saepe manu fortis congressus in hostem, Invictosque duces, toties tot in agmina victor Ibat, et in sese viresque virosque ferebat. A puero castris, puer innutritus in armis, Vicinis terror, bella horrida bella14 repressit, Ac pacem Dana Moscoque extorsit honoram, Cum Lechicis nuper qua Visla borussicus errat, Visla viris opibusque potens, celebrisque triumphis, Pro patriae adflictae rebus, populique salute Tractabat gladios, magno sudore Ligistis Militiaeque sacrae semper contrarius obex.

12 Cf. Sil. Pun. 8.293–294. 13 Mart. 2.91.1. 14 Verg. Aen. 6.86.

Venceslaus Clemens  221 when the autumn and north wind move thunderclouds and noisy storms in a great multitude, Titan, rising up with a countenance with which he clears the sky, appears and shines across the earth in his beauty. Then the winds flee, the sea and sky calm and a most agreeable peacefulness gives everything its vigour. But religion is torn where she can go, which resting place to seek, which lands to turn to. There was only one nearby, almost lonely and alone who was able to withstand the attempts and reckless deeds of the League and the forces of the giants, a man known for his power and strong with weapons, second to none in any of the virtues of our old forefathers, who we admire today, but not imitate.4 His race was akin to the gods and through his ancestors he was related to heaven. The avaricious envy of the Roman Thersites would be an obstruction if he were not among the first to be seen by [25] the sun when it rises late in the morning and when it returns to bed, a king who reigned over extended northern territories with an illustrious reputation and an even more illustrious hero by his merits, the world’s reliable salvation. Fortune or virtue had never seen a man equal to or better than him, always up for calamitous situations and ready for any danger. Nor had they ever seen a greater human mind than his, not afraid of weapons or swords or enemy force or horses. He had often fought bravely against an enemy, against thousands, often with an unequal force at his disposal. He was victorious so often in so many battles against invincible commanders and endured their forces and men rushing against him. From childhood on, he had lived in army camps, a boy raised in arms, the fear of his neighbours, and he brought wars, horrible wars to an end and forced through a peace that was honourable to both the Swedes and Russians.5 Against the Poles on whose side the Prussian Sigismund III Vasa errs, who is mighty in terms of manpower and means and celebrated triumphs, he recently fought in combat in the interest of his afflicted fatherland and the salvation of his people, an ever hostile barrier with his great effort to the members of the League and their holy warfare.6 He would have also established a friendly peace long ago, if the Holy League had not refused, driven on by its furies.

4 The man referred to here is Gustavus Adolphus. The Catholic League had been formed in 1609 as a coalition of the Catholic states in the Holy Roman Empire. 5 A reference to the Ingrian War (1610–1617) between Russia and Sweden. It ended with the Treaty of Stolbovo. 6 Sigismund III was monarch of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and king of Sweden until he was deposed from the Swedish throne by Gustavus Adolphus’s father, Charles

222  Venceslaus Clemens Hic quoque jamdudum pacem stabilisset amicam, Ni Furiis stimulata suis Liga-Santa vetaret, Attamen est aliquanta quies, et pacis imago Composita ad tempus, Mavorsque recessit ab armis. Ille sedens curas augustas corde volutat, Quis modus adflictis possit succurrere fatis? Aut ubi subsidium fessis quaeratur? Et hostes Quam compescendi? Qui Balthica littora praedis Infestare audent, Martemque lacessere pergunt Armis ac animis? Qua Fex versuta Sinonum Quam non sancta fides, non jus legumque potestas, Non animae sperata salus, non fama moratur Mole coërcenda? Et pacis qua dona paranda? [26] Et quid Germanis tandem non patret in oris Depraedator Iber? Quae non Liga rura cruentet? Ac quid Tarpeia residens tricoroniger arce Cerberus attentet, qui res hominumque deumque Sanguineis regit imperiis et fulmine terret, Singula disquirit solers et singula prensat. Ante pedes cui se squallore abstersa videndam Obtulit, ac subito meditantis limine fulsit, Sponte sua confessa Deam, qualisque videri Coelicolis et quanta solet, dextraque prehensam Solatur; roseoque haec insuper addidit ore,15 Dis genite, et geniture deos, modo numina nostris Faustiter annuerint votis; amor unice coeli, Delicium humani generis, certum exulum Asylon, Aeternum patriae ornamentum, et gloria secli, En ego germanis (Eheu!) a finibus exul Advenio; quid dirus Iber, quid turba Ligistarum, Hactenus ausa fuit, scis ipse, et scire fateris, Non sit opus nunc ut longis ambagibus uti, Ante tuos istinc ego pulsa advolvor ocellos, Ac mea demissis submitto genua lacertis, Eripe me gladiis praesentibus; eripe letho, Eripe suppliciis; in nostram Roma ruinam Conjurata venit, quantis en pellimus armis! Quot signis nostrum petitur caput! ensibus o quot Quaeritur hoc jugulum! succurrito dive ruenti, Exoptate, veni; exitium commune piorum Verte procul, nam te caelestia numina rebus Portendunt medicum, solus defensor et auctor

15 Cf. Verg. Aen. 2.590–593.

Venceslaus Clemens  223 Yet there was some quiet and an undisturbed appearance of peace and Mars had retired from his weapons. He was seated, his heart occupied by august worries: in what way might he be able to come to the rescue of bad fortune or where should aid to the tired be sought? How are the enemies to be held in check who dare attack the Baltic coasts for loot and continue to provoke war with their weapons and plans? By what mass of remedies must the sly scum be restrained, who neither holy faith, nor justice or the authority of the laws or the hoped-for salvation of the soul or reputation make reconsider? How are the peace gifts to be provided? [26] What might the Iberian plunderer not obtain in the German lands? Which parts of the countryside might the League not stain with blood? What is the Cerberus with three crowns seated in his Tarpeian stronghold trying to achieve, who steers the matters of people and gods with bloody commands and inspires fear with a stroke of lightning?7 Intelligent, he looks into and ponders upon each of those things. She makes herself visible after having removed any squalor and makes herself known as a goddess, in the appearance and size in which she tends to appear to the inhabitants of heaven and comforts him, taking him by the right hand and adds these words with her rose-tinted lips: ‘You who are born from the gods and will bring forth gods, if God favourably assents to my wishes. Sweetheart of humankind, steadfast sanctuary of those in exile, eternal ornament of your fatherland and glory of our age. Look, I have come, alas, as an exile from the German lands. You yourself know and profess to know what the dreadful Spaniard and the crowd of League members have dared to do so far, so that it is not necessary to speak to you with long digressions. Driven from Germany I have turned to your presence and bend my knees with my arms folded: save me from the swords at hand, save me from death, save me from my punishments. Plotting Rome is out for my ruin. Look by how many weapons I am driven away! With how many battle standards is my head attacked! Oh, with how many swords is this neck assaulted! Come to the rescue, divine one, of someone who is falling down. Come, you who are so greatly longed for. Turn away the general destruction of the pious, for heavenly powers presage that you are the

IX, in 1599. He tried to regain the throne of Sweden, which led to the Polish-Swedish War (1626–1629), referred to by Clemens. 7 A reference to the pope.

224  Venceslaus Clemens Sufficies, victrix cedet tibi gloria soli. Assere tu profugam, profugae quoque viscera, sanctam Cum pietate fidem, pol non indebita posco, [27] Quippe tuae gentes, communia sacra, Deumque Pura simplicitate colunt, pars optima nostri, Expeto te patrem, liceat me vivere tutam In gremio rex magne tuo. Da libera tecta, Da precor, ut tandem post tot discrimina fati Perfruar exigua per te defensa quiete, Nota mihi tua nam virtus, spectataque laudum Gloria, notus honos operum, quin nota per omnes Fama tua est terras, celso contermina coelo. Est et adhuc animis opus, est et pectore tali Quod tibi quum Moscos fueris paulo ante secutus (Ne non ex aliqua partos sensisse triumphos Me quoque parte putes) diuturnaque praelia felix Finisses, pacemque Arcto populisque dedisses, Durum hominum genus, invictis prope viribus auctum, Terrigenae crudi, torvique Draconis alumni, Harpyae immanes, Titanes origine tetra Antiphatae, Polyphemi, immansuetique Cyclopes Humano virtus quibus est, conspergere terras Sanguine florentes viduareque civibus urbes, Ac mundum tristi prorsus vastare ruina, Viribus immensis satagunt qui frangere coelum, Sedibus et numen superis detrudere in Orcum. Haec soboles invisa suas feritate catervas Induravit, et invicto prope robore sepsit, Qui recti specie, et coelestis imagine vultus Ipsi naturae tentant indicere bellum, Vincere queisve dedit numen quod in aethere regnat, Bestia cum sanctis (ita pagina sancta notavit) Bella geret, vincetque; sed his est meta triumphis Mente Dei praescripta semel, nam nulla tyrannis Orco nata licet, poterit diuturna videri, Vincere quippe truces quamvis didicere Gigantes [28] Historicis quorum largissima copia chartis, Attamen in brevius laxant sua frena furori, Et quum saevitiae vestigia summa prehendunt, A capite ad calcem sanctorum caede madentes Fata viam inveniunt. Laesum cit fulmina numen. Vis divina homines mortali semine cretos Esse probat, non saxo aut duro robore ferri. Sic genus antiquum terrae, titania monstra, Sic alii dignas immani crimine paenas

Venceslaus Clemens  225 physician to these matters. You as the only defender and guardian will be sufficient and conquering glory will be on your side alone. You must protect a fugitive, as well as the offspring, holy faith with piety. Indeed, I ask nothing that is not due to me, [27] for your peoples revere common rituals and God with a pure simplicity, the best part of us. I reach out to you, father: allow me to live in safety under your guidance, great king. Grant me a free home, grant, I beg you, that after so many crises of fate I can finally fully enjoy some modest peacefulness defended by you. For your virtue is known to me as well as your worthy glory of praise. The renown of your efforts is known, in fact your reputation is known across all countries and reaches up to heaven. There is still need for your spirit and such courage as you had when you had pursued the Muscovites some time ago – do not think I did not also experience the triumphs you obtained elsewhere – and had brought long battles to an end favourable to you and had offered peace to the north and its peoples, a tough kind of people, increased by almost invincible power, vigorous men, the fierce offspring of a snake, monstrous harpies, titans of a dark origin, Antiphateses, Polyphemuses, and savage Cyclopses, who have the strength to sprinkle flourishing lands with human blood and empty cities of their citizens and ravage the world completely to the ground, who are more than happy to break up heaven itself with their immense strength and force God’s power from its seat above into the underworld. This hateful race hardened their hordes with fierceness and invigorated them with almost invincible strength. They were tall in appearance and had a heavenly countenance and tried to declare war on nature herself and the divine spirit that reigns in heaven granted them to win. The beast will wage wars with the saints (according to Scripture) and will achieve victories.8 But God’s mind had ordered an end to these triumphs once and for all. For a tyranny born from the underworld is not licit, though it can seem long-lasting, for although the fierce Giants learned to gain victories – [28] there is a very ample abundance of them in the writings of historians – they nevertheless soon give in to fury and when they reach the utmost degree of savagery, intoxicated from head to toe by the slaughter of the saints, then the Fates find a way. Vexed, God’s power stirs the lightning bolts. Divine power shows that humans have grown from mortal seed, not from stone or rockhard iron. Thus, the ancient species of the earth, the titanic monsters, and others suffer punishments worthy of such an immense crime. This hunger and hence irksome thirst for blood. Yet not yet satisfied, divine power forces

8 Revelation 13: 7. See also the excerpt from Daneau’s Treatise on the Antichrist (Chapter 2).

226  Venceslaus Clemens Pendunt; haecce fames, sitis inde molesta cruoris. Non satiata tamen, miseros ad Tartara trudit. Jam sine sole domos, feralia regna tenebris, Abjecti pro luce colunt, paenisque perenne Torquentur, sero temeraria crimina damnant. Tu quae bella geris, Domini sunt bella supremi, Ille suos reges, bellatoresque tuetur, His Deus est praesens, his omnia caepta secundat, Quos caussam sarcire suam videt, ille vocatus Successus dabit optatos, animosque creabit. Et si caussa bona est, victi quoque saepe triumphant, Corpore devicto, mens est tamen inscia vinci. Abramidum proles, divis radicibus orta, Pro caussa quae bella Dei satis aspera gessit, O quoties victa est, quoties adflicta, jacensque Hostibus ante pedes! Bona caussa scilicet armis Deprimitur, tandem tandem depressa resurgit; Eximiumque refert victo super hoste tropaeum. Te moneo caeptos belli tolerare labores, Sume mares animos, conatus frange Ligae, quae Vincere si nequeat superos, Acheronta movebit, Artes expromet solitas, fraudesque vetustas, Plurima promittet, facilis promittere multa, Vulpinari etenim didicit, didicitque Leonis [29] Dente frui, cum blanditur, plus Tigride saevit. Nunc vigilare decet; dulci ne forte veneno Illectus capiare cave; fuge pocula Circes, Dulcacidasque dapes noli gustare palato. Ne rogo te fallant animi sub vulpe latentes,16 Sirenum cantus, consutaque pectora fraude Dispice, tot Syrtes, tot caesorum ossibus albas, Atque lupi rabiem sub ovina pelle frementem Noscere condiscas. Prudentia fulmine major Nec tamen e lacrymis muliebribus aut prece segni, Non ad fornacem victoria grata paratur, Audendum est. Capuloque manus tractanda, laborque Continuandus, et arma animo vibranda virili. Hac fortuna tenus, simul et victoria tecum; Terrarum domitor, debellatorque profundi Audis; ipsa tibi coeli servire videntur Sidera, cum pelago tellus famulatur et aether. Ac quid dissimulem? Tua sunt tua quippe supernis

16 Hor. Ars P. 437.

Venceslaus Clemens  227 the miserable creatures into hell. Soon they live in a palace without a sun, the kingdom of the dead with darkness instead of light, are tormented with eternal punishments, and condemn their thoughtless crimes, but too late. The wars you wage are the wars of the supreme lord. He protects his kings and warriors. God assists them and favourably directs all enterprises of those, who he sees restore his cause. When called upon he will give the desired outcomes and will create elect souls. And if the cause is good, then they often triumph even when they have been defeated. Even though the body may have been vanquished, the mind nevertheless knows no defeat. The offspring of Abraham’s children, sprung from divine roots, who for God’s cause fought very fierce wars, were often defeated, struck down, and lay before the feet of their enemies. For a good cause is oppressed in arms, but in the end, it rises back up even though it had been oppressed and grants an outstanding victory over the vanquished enemy. I urge you to endure the suffered hardships of the war. Take courage, break the attempts of the League, which, should it not be able to vanquish those in heaven, will move the underworld itself, and will display the usual tricks and old deceit. Ready to promise many things, the League will in fact make promises in abundance. For the League has learned to be sly like a fox or use the [29] lion’s teeth when it pleases and rage more than a tigress. Now it is fitting to be careful. Make sure you are not captivated and taken in by sweet poison. Flee from Circe’s cups. Do not taste any sourish-sweet dishes. I ask you: never allow the thoughts lurking inside the fox to mislead you.9 You must see through the songs of the Sirens and individuals full of deceit and you should get to know so many Syrtes, white with the bones of so many who died, and the frenzy of the wolf roaring in sheep’s clothing. Prudence is stronger than a lightning bolt, yet a pleasing victory is not prepared from women’s tears or an uninspired prayer or in the oven; one must be bold. The hilt of the sword must be held in hand and efforts must continue and weapons must be brandished with manly spirit. So far good fortune and victory, too, have been with you, tamer of the earth and warrior of the sea, as you hear. The stars themselves in heaven seem to serve you and sea, earth and heaven are your servants. But why do I dissemble? Of course, the gods above care for your army camp. They wanted you to engage in so many wars with a happy – oh please – omen. An ancient people, your forefathers the Goths, left their fatherland marching out in a

9 I.e. ‘do not be deceived by flatterers’.

228  Venceslaus Clemens Curae castra deis, qui te committere tantis Felici (o utinam) voluerunt alite bellis, Gens antiqua, tui majores, agmine denso Egressi, patriosve Gothi liquere, penates, Et veteris luxus Romae fregere pudendos, Ac deplumarunt Aquilas, nidumque superbum Disjecere, avibusque dedere minoribus altas Exuvias, ut quae praedas vectaret ab orbe Praeda sit, opprobrium, stupor orbis, dedecus aevi, Exoriare aliquis vestris nunc ossibus ultor, Ut Romae luxus, fastum, praedasque recentis, Crudelem Babylona, piorum caede rubentem Sacrilegam, scelerum securam, bella vomentem In Christum, turbamque suo de sanguine lotam Destruat, et nidum furialibus ignibus urat [30] Ibidos Ausoniae, quae cum sit nuda, nec ales Nec Scarabaeus, nec quadrupedum cognatior ulli, Sed monstrum infame, obscaenum, grave, turpe, pudendum, Ingenioque sagax, avibus vi fraude doloque Extorsit plumas, dat pennam quaelibet, ejus Commiserata vicem. Volucrum ditata superbit Exuviis. O nunc iterum deglubitor adsit! Venator veniat! Certe fera pinguis opima est! Retia ferte viri! O ubi nunc animosior Auceps Est avis hic, nec avis, sed aves deglubere nata. Fistula quid cantas? clava est opus Herculis, hamo Non capitur; clava contunditur Herculis, ille Deplumet captam, raptas et reddere cogat Exuvias avibus, Meropisque opprobria nudet, Qualis erat prius Urino dum nascitur ovo. Nubivagi proceres, gens o pennata volantum Ante hac liberius per celsos aetheris orbes Ivistis, nunc at vestris induta caliptris Vos trahit, ac affigit humo, frenatque lupatis. Si sapitis, rapitisque datam sibi quilibet alam, Implumis mox Ibis erit, non ibit ad auras Luminis, ast alvo reptabit ad infera, cunas Atque suas repetet, queis prodiit, ibit in umbras, Sic sola in sicco secum spatiabitur Orco. Olim (sermonis quia jam fervente calore Venimus huc, ne sit quaedam tetigisse molestum Quae mihi non vani nec erat quur fallere vellent

Venceslaus Clemens  229 dense column and destroyed the shameful luxury of Rome, plucked the eagles, dashed their haughty nest to pieces and gave the great spoils to smaller birds, so that the city which carried loot from across the world was now itself the booty, disgrace, and shock of the world and shame of the age. Let someone now arise from your bones as an avenger, so that he may destroy the decadence, arrogance, and recent spoils, cruel, sacrilegious Babylon, red from the slaughter of the pious, unconcerned about wicked deeds, belching out wars against Christ, as well as the crowd bathed in its own blood. And let him burn down the nest of the [30] ibis of Italy with raging fires.10 Since the ibis is naked and neither a bird nor a scarab, or better known than any of the animals, but is a disreputable, obscene, unpleasant, unsightly, shameful, and sly creature, and has obtained feathers from birds through force, fraud, and deceit. For every bird gives a feather, feeling sorry for the Ibis’s fate. The ibis is proud, enriched with the spoils of other birds. Oh, let there now be a knacker present again! Let the hunter arrive! The fat beast is certainly sumptuous! Bring the nets, men! Oh, where is now a more undaunted bird-­ catching bird than here. In fact, it is not even a bird, but a creature born to pluck birds? Shepherd’s pipe, why do you sing? Hercules’s club is needed; this ibis is not caught with a hook. It is crushed with Hercules’s club and once it is caught, he should pluck it and force it to return the stolen spoils to the birds. He should expose the bee-eater’s scandals, as it was before being born from a wind-egg. Noble wanderers among the clouds, oh plumed nation of birds, before the ibis you flew more freely through the elevated spheres of heaven, but now it drags you along, clothed in your dress, hooks you and restrains you with a bridle. If you are wise, then you each snatch back the wing you have given. Then the ibis will soon be without feathers and will not fly to the warmth of the sunlight, but crawl on its belly to the underworld and go back to the cradle from which it came forth and roam along the shades. Thus, it will wander all by itself in waterless hell.

10 Clemens builds on a tradition that goes back to Ovid’s poem Ibis, written during the poet’s exile. The bird was a metaphor for an unnamed enemy in Ovid’s original, but refers to the pope in Clemens’s poem.

230  Venceslaus Clemens Narravere senes)17 Capitoli prodidit anser Insidias, quum turba canum silet immemor, hostes Vepribus irrepunt, Arci sensimve propinquant Defensi tenebris, et tegmine noctis opacae, Anser ubi strepero vigilum clangore veternum Excitat, ingeminatque sonos, quasi, dicere vellet [31] Gallus adest! Vigilate viri! Defendite muros! Sat fuit anserulum stimulare ad bella gradivos, Queis nihil in toto fuerat tum fortius orbe. Provida cura patrum anserulos decreverat urbis Nutriri e fisco, fidei data pabula merces. Atque iterum anser erat, vigiles ubi forte Molossi Altum stertentes, ovium pinguedine pasti, Regnorum regis pallatia sacra Sionis Prodiderant hosti, qui tum sub imagine vultus Angelici tectus, sese insinuavit in urbem, Hic solito clangens animosius impetit illum, Et larvam rostro pulsatam detrahit ore, Hem! Monstrum esse patet, monstrum exitiabile, et ira Tisiphones natum, cui par non viderat aetas Ulla prior; Draco ter centum porrectus in ulnas, Horribilis cauda, coeli qua territat ignes, Stellarumque choros bene multos aethere vellit, Caetera squamosus, triplici diademate cinctus, Terribile stridens, et sibila mortifera edens, Obstupuere canes, subitus penetravit in artus Horror, diriguere oculi, vox vocis inane, Clangere sed solus contra non destitit anser, Sibila discutiens clangore interritus, audax. Tum nostri primum cives videre, quid hoc sit Monstri, quum larvam ex oculis detraxerat anser. Non tulit hoc ausus Draco, sed correptus ab iris, Tartareas rigidis flammas e naribus efflat, Obstrepit, oggannit, tonat, attonat, intonat, instat, Sibilat, exterret, mugit, rugit, infremit, hinnit, Gutture Cerbereo lethales evomit ignes, Queis circumventus (non effugisse licebat Nec defensor erat quisquam) comburitur anser. Anseris exuviis justo pro tempore candens [32] Venit olor, linguaeve potens, vocisve peritus, Sibila nec tantum, funestaque murmura monstri Adgreditur, dulci modulans et voce retundit,

17 Cf. Ov. Met. 8.721–722.

Venceslaus Clemens  231 Once – for through the fervent heat of my speech we have reached the point that it is no nuisance to touch upon some things that trustworthy old men told me and there is no reason why they would have wanted to deceive me – a goose revealed an ambush of the Capitol, while a forgetful pack of dogs remained silent. Enemies crept up through the brambles and slowly approached the citadel, protected by darkness and under cover of the dark night, when a goose with repeated noises woke up the sleepy guard and redoubled its cries as if it wanted to say: [31] “The Gaul is here! Be on your guard, men! Defend the walls!”11 It was enough for a little goose to stir up men so ready to march forth in wars. At the time, nothing in the world was braver than they were. The prudent care of the senate decided that the city’s little geese be fed with funds from the state treasury and be given nourishment as a reward for their loyalty. And again there was a goose on the scene, when the guard dogs were fast asleep (fed with an abundance of mutton) and had thus exposed the sacred palace of the king of the kingdoms of Zion to the enemy, who then penetrated the city under the cover of an angelic appearance. The goose, honking as it was accustomed to do, attacked him rather boldly and pulled the mask of his face after having pecked it with its beak. Look! It is clearly a monster, a terrible monster, born from Tisiphone’s wrath.12 No prior age had seen anything like it. A snake 300 ell long, with a terrible tail, with which it stirred the fires of heaven and swept away many bodies of stars in the sky, for the rest it was covered with scales, crowned with a threefold crown, hissing terribly and bringing forth terrible sounds. The dogs were struck with amazement, sudden fear entered their limbs, their eyes were paralyzed, and they could not utter a sound. Only the goose, however, did not stop honking, dispelling the hisses with its sounds, unafraid and bold. Then our citizens saw for the first time, what kind of monster this was, when the goose had pulled of the mask from the eyes. The snake could not suffer this boldness, but consumed by anger breathed the flames of hell from its rigid nostrils and roared, snarled, thundered, growled, howled, hissed, shrieked, bellowed, rumbled, raged, neighed, and belched out lethal fires from its Cerberus-like throat. The goose was surrounded by these flames and was completely burnt (it was impossible to flee and there was no one to defend it at all). [32] A white swan came to the goose’s remains at just the right time and, powerful with its tongue and experienced with its voice, it went against not just the hisses, but also the dismal growls of the monster

11 This episode of an attack by the Gauls on the Capitol in 390 BCE can be found in Livy’s Ab urbe condita (5.47–49). 12 In Greek mythology, Tisiphone was one of the Furies.

232  Venceslaus Clemens Sed magis atque magis pennis petit ora Draconis, Et majora audens rostro, durissima squamis Colla, caput, ventrem maculosaque terga fatigat. Ac jam vulnus erat Capiti lethale cavatum, Quum clamore canes etiam ciet, utque retectum Latratu monstrum vexent, aestu admonet, instat. Quid fit? Consueto Draco tortus inaestuat igne, Et striges orcigenas, communem in origine gentem, Vulneris impatiens serpente dolore per artus Sollicitat, mox en atris Acherontis ab umbris, Sulphureus turbo, atque insani saevior Euro Spiritus erumpit, stygio de gurgite densa Tempestas oritur, mixtam stridore procellam Tartareo intorquens; sed circumstante phalange Tectus olor, canibus fisus, divumque saluti Perstitit immotus, potes est vis nulla nocere Quamvis e stygia tanto agmine venerit aula Salve dulcis olor! Tua vox qua conficis Hydram, Anseris et sancti bene caeptos perficis ausus, Immensas orbis laudata perambulat oras! Felix! O felix Germania nostra fuisset, Si discat melius per vos bona parta tueri! Nunc quoque. Sed linguae parco, compesco labellum Quid jactem incassum voces, et inania verba? Quid clausas sanis tundam sermonibus aures? Fabula jam surdis. Nunc est medicata Draconis Plaga, coït vulnus, rursum fera Bestia saevit. [33] Res et eo rediit grassante tyrannide monstri Amplius ut sit opus non ansere, non sit olore; At leo nunc veniat. Veniet Leo tempore fixo. Vae tibi! Vae meretrix! quae moechos ebria reges Sanguine dementas, et numina casta prophanas, Ac toto ludos exerces orbe cruentos! Vae tibi pernicies hominum divumque vorago! Coelo invise cruor! Terrae fatalis Enyo! Jam movet ora Leo, quem septem vasta Trionis Progenuit spelunca mihi, jam crescere sentit Ungue pedes; et terga jubis, et dentibus ora, Explorat vires patrias, ac lustra relinquit, Verbere se stimulans caudae, jam colligit iras, Et graditur rugiens, rugientem Roma quid audis? Nec sapis ac rabiem non contrahis antraque claudis?

Venceslaus Clemens  233 and weakened them, modulating with its own sweet voice. It attacked the face of the snake more and more with its wings and boldly struck its big, very hard scaly neck, head, spotted back with its beak. A wound to the head had been hollowed out already, when the swan’s noise also urged, fiercely admonished, and demanded that the dogs cover the snake and vex it with barking. What happened? The snake burnt twisting in the fire it had used and suffering with the pain of the wound that crept through stirred up screech owls born in hell, a species that shared the snake’s origin. Soon a sulphurous whirlwind and a gust of wind more savage than a wild east wind burst forth and a dark storm from the depth of the Styx casting up a wave mixed with the rattling sound of hell, but the swan, protected by the battalion created by dogs standing around it, stood firm. No power was capable of harming it, even though it came in such quantity from the hall of the Styx.13 Greetings, sweet swan! Your voice, with which you killed the Hydra and finished the well-started enterprise of the saintly goose, is showered in praise across the countries of the great world! Oh, our Germany would have been happy, if it learnt through you how to better defend its possessions! Now, as well. But I will spare my tongue and restrain my mouth. Why am I cranking out utterances and empty words in vain? Why am I pounding closed ears with reasonable words? This story now falls on deaf ears. The snake’s snare has been poisoned, the wound continues to fester, and the fierce beast is raging again. [33] The matter has now reached a point, as the monster’s tyranny continues to rampage, that there is no longer need of a goose or of a swan. The lion should now come.14 The lion will come at the decreed moment. Woe to you! Woe to the harlot, you, drunk with blood, who drive fornicating kings mad and desecrate chaste powers and practise your bloody pastimes in the whole world!15 Woe to you ruin of people and abyss of gods! Bloodshed hated by heaven! War fatal to the land! Now the lion makes me speak. The vast cavern of the north has brought him forth for me and I can feel the claws growing on the paws, the mane on the back and the teeth in the mouth. He is testing his strength, inherited from his forefathers, and leaves the woods. Driving himself on with the lash of his tail, he is becoming increasingly angry and goes forth roaring. Do you hear him roar, Rome? And are you not prudent and do you not contain his rage and close off the cave? He will come soon. Do not provoke him as he is becoming a threat. He will bring you avenging furies and your inescapable fate along with groaning,

13 This passage is a metaphor for the Reformation. The snake symbolizes the Catholic Church, while the goose stands for the Czech theologian and church reformer Jan Hus. When he was executed, Hus allegedly prophesied that he would be succeeded by a swan, believed to be a reference to Martin Luther (see Th. A. Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus: Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)). 14 The Lion is a metaphor for Gustavus Adolphus. 15 Revelation 18: 3.

234  Venceslaus Clemens Ocius adveniet. Noli irritare minantem, Et tibi cum gemitu, lacrymisque trucique ululatu Ultrices Furias, et ineluctabile fatum Adferet, horribiles mihi jam dabis improba paenas; Audiam, et extremam feret haec jam fama sub arcton. Terga Leonis adhuc lingens si porro resistes; Alter mox Judae natus Leo gente sequetur, Vincere qui solus scit, vinci nescius unquam. Hic te nudabit, mersamque libidine mittet Aeternum ad paenas pallentis in antra Barathri, Ignis ubi furit haud ullo delebilis aevo! Sufficiat. Patitur praesens non caetera tempus. Ad te, rex, redeo; tot votis eja vocate Adflictis, pater, o adsis, solare gementes Imbelles defende tua, fortissime, dextra, In te oculos, in te ora vides conjecta meorum. Vnus tu nostras vincendo restituas res. [34] Sic te pugnantem, sic aurea secla ferentem, Justitiae sceptro populos et regna regentem Asserat alma salus, sic te pia numina cernant Relligionem armis, opibus, vitaque tueri, Austriacas acies, et Iberica sistere castra Sanguineosque Ligae-Santae cohibere furores, Et facies, mens augurio laetata resurgit (Namque tuae via virtuti est non invia)18 bella, Et belli artifices, inimicaque corda quieti Calcabis, pedibusque premes, clarosque triumphos (Audiat infesto licet haec Rhamnusia vultu)19 Eripies, fama coeli venture sub axes. Di modo fortunent ac nostrum coelitus ornent Augurium, mentisque preces, et vota secundent. Tardior o lux sit, serisque annalibus olim Insita, quae te post coelestibus inseret astris, Ac heroibus antiquis sociabit Olympo, Qui pro relligione suas, pro nomine Christi Pro pietate fideque animas posuere, morique Sane si liceat decies, ac morte cruenta Sustinuere, Dei quam turpe relinquere caussam.

18 Cf. Ov. Met. 14.113. 19 Cf. Stat. Silv. 3.5.5.

Venceslaus Clemens  235 tears, and grim wailing. You will now pay the penalty for me, vile woman. I will listen and the news will reach the far north. If you, licking, still resist the body of the lion, then another lion born from the nation of Judah will soon follow, who alone knows how to win and never to lose.16 He will expose you and will send you, plunged in lust, to the caves of the pale abyss, where a fire rages that does not at any time die out, so you will suffer punishments for eternity! Let this suffice. The present time does not allow to speak any further. I will now return to you, king. May you be present, father, who have been invoked in so many prayers by those afflicted. Comfort those who are mourning, defend those who cannot fight, very brave man, with your right hand. You see the eyes and faces of my people directed to you. You alone can restore our interest by being victorious. [34] This is how nourishing salvation stands by you with the authority of justice, as you fight and bring a golden age and rule over kingdoms. This is how the holy God’s will discerns that you defend religion with your weapons, wealth, and life, and stop the Austrian battle lines and Spanish army camps and contain the bloody fury of the Holy League. And your face and mind, pleased with a good omen, turns the tide of the wars (since for your virtue there is a way everywhere) and you will trample on the artificers of war and the hearts hostile to peace and you will crush them under your feet and you will wrench splendid triumphs from their hands (though Nemesis should hear it with a disturbed countenance), oh you who through your fame will rise up to heaven, provided that God favours you, puts our omen into practice from heaven, and supports the prayers and wishes of my mind. May the day be slow to come and at some point be inscribed in the annals that will place you afterwards among the stars in the sky and will unite you in heaven with the old heroes, who laid down their lives and for their religion, for Christ’s name, for piety and faith and truly endured to die ten times, if possible, and through a violent death, rather than disgracefully relinquish God’s cause’.

16 Another prophecy, from Revelation 5: 5.

9 Dudley Fenner, Puritanism, and Reformed resistance theory

In the introductions to the excerpts from the work of Pareus and Bucanus it has been pointed out how most Protestants in England were ill at ease with some of the more radical proponents of a right to resist worldly authority. Nevertheless, there were exceptions among those who demanded that the English church should be further reformed according to the model of continental Reformed churches, often labelled Puritans, such as Dudley Fenner. Dudley Fenner (c. 1558–1587) was born in Kent and educated at Peterhouse, Cambridge, but had to leave the university without finishing his degree, possibly because his Reformed tendencies included an antipathy to bishops. He lived in exile in Antwerp from the mid-1570s until the early 1580s and was a protégé of Thomas Cartwright (c. 1535–1603), one of the foremost presbyterian thinkers of the age. Fenner returned to England to become curate in Cranbrook, Kent. The local parish had an outspoken and influential Reformed element, appeased by the recruitment of Puritan preachers. Fenner’s return to England was, however, far from unproblematic and he faced a searching examination in the presence of John Whitgift, archbishop of Canterbury (c. 1530–1604). Not long after (c. 1585) Fenner went into voluntary exile in Middelburg in the Dutch province of Zeeland, where he died in 1587. Although Fenner’s was only a relatively brief life, his learning was immense and his influence considerable. It is seen as one of his particular contributions to have adapted the learning of the French philosopher Petrus Ramus (1515–1572) to an English-speaking audience. Ramus is known for having adapted Aristotelian logic to make theology more rapidly teachable to Reformed students. An example is Fenner’s The Artes of Logicke and Rhetoricke, first published in 1584. In typical Ramist fashion Fenner explained these subjects through binary subjects, although he only gave examples taken from the text of the Bible, whereas Ramus had usually referred to classical pagan literature to illustrate his views. Arguably Fenner’s most important work was the Theologia sacra, sive Veritas quae est secundum Pietatem (‘Sacred Theology, or The Truth that follows Piety’, 1585). This Ramist systemisation of Reformed doctrine also includes a discussion of war and resistance against worldly authority. Fenner emphasized that all

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-18

Dudley Fenner  237 good monarchies should have laws that circumscribe the authority of the prince, as well as junior magistrates who shared in the power of the king. This latter point was particularly important in Reformed political thought and had also been discussed by Calvin in his Institutes, who had referred to the role of the ephors in ancient Sparta. These were primarily accountable to the city or state they served as administrators rather than to the king and Reformed thinkers believed that the junior magistrates of a state should at least to some extent see themselves in a similar fashion. Fenner’s formulation of a Puritan resistance theory is influenced by continental Reformed thought in the Ramist form in which Fenner builds up his arguments and in its content. The Latin text of this excerpt can be found in Dudley Fenner, Sacra theologia, sive Veritas quae est secundum Pietatem, Ad unicae et verae methodi leges descripta, et in decem libros per Dvdleivm Fennervm digesta. Altera editio, priore emendatior (Geneva: Eustache Vignon, 1586), fols 78r-82r.

Suggestions for further reading Collinson, P., The Elizabethan Puritan Movement. London: University of California Press, 1967. Morgan, J., Godly Learning: Puritan Attitudes towards Reason, Learning, and Education, 1560–1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Natour, E., Die Debatte um ein Widerstandsrecht im frühen elisabethanischen England 1558–ca.1587. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2016. Ong, W. J., Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Sacra theologia per Dudleivm Fennerum digesta (1586)

[78r] Atque hae sunt leges de pace: quae maxima ex parte bello etiam communia sunt. Sequuntur de bello propria. Sunt autem leges illae de • •

causis iustis belli. iis quae bellum spectant.

2. Chron. 13.6.7.8.9.10.11. 2. Reg. 14.18.19.20. Causae iustae belli sunt quae a • •

Suis Ab alijs proficiscuntur.

A suis iustae causae sunt • •

vt Dei cultum asserant, contra omnes inimicos domesticos et exteros. 2 Chro. 13.6.7.8. 2. Reg. 14. 18.19.20. Neh. 4.1.2.3.4. Ios. 22. vt regnum, subditos, et quae sunt eorum vel tueantur, vel rursus vi recuperent. 2. Sam. 8. Iudic. 19.29.

Ab aliis iustae causae proficiscuntur • •

Si exteri ob veram religionem opprimantur, vt hos eruant et vendicent. 2 Chron. 30.6.7. Si etiam seruos Dei tyrannide opprimant, vt ipsos liberent. Iud. 4.5.et 1. et 5.2.9. et 4.13.15.16.17.18.19.Gen. 14.14.15.16.17.

[78v] Leges de ijs quae ad bellum spectant, sunt • •

De apparatu, siue de iis quae bellum praeeunt De apparatu sequenti

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-19

Fenner, Sacred Theology (1586)

[78r] The following are the laws specific to war. Moreover, those laws concern • •

the just causes for war. those matters related to war itself.

See 2 Chronicles 13: 6–11; 2 Kings 14: 18–20. Just causes for war are derived from • •

oneself. others.

Just causes derived from oneself are • •

to protect the worship of God against enemies at home or abroad. See 2 Chronicles 13: 6–8; 2 Kings 14: 18–20; Nehemiah 4: 1–4; Joshua 22. to protect the kingdom, subjects, or their belongings or to recover them by force. See 2 Samuel 8; Judges 19: 29.

Just causes are derived from others • •

in order to free and vindicate foreigners if they are oppressed because of the true religion. 2 Chronicles 30: 6–7. in order to liberate those who are oppressed as servants of God by tyranny. See Judges 4; 5; 1; 5: 2; 9; 13: 13–19; Genesis 14: 14–17.

[78v] Laws about those things regarding war concern • •

the preparation or those matters that precede the war. the preparation for what follows

240  Dudley Fenner • In bello • In • victoria • fuga Deut. 20.2.3.4.5.8.10.11.12.13.14.15.19.20. In apparatu ad bellum, imperatorum, siue moderatorum populi duo sunt officia, • •

Primum quod per alios praestant Secundum quod per seipsos

Deut. 20.2.5. Quod per alios praestant est per ministros politeias diuinae, vt ipsi populum hortentur, vt forti sint animo, sine timore hostium, etiamsi multi et magni sint, proposita Dei praesentia cum ipsis in iusta causa. Deut. 20.2.3.4. ex eadem necessitate perpetua lex etiam sua aequitate est perpetua. 2. Chron. 13.12.13. Quod per ipsos praestanda sunt, est • •

Militum delectus Vt ordines militares constituant.

Deut. 20.5.9. Delectus militum (cum fieri potest) est, vt non recipiant • •

Timidos, et ad bellum ineptos. Neque qui domuum, vinearum, vxorum, fructus adhuc non percepissent, ne omnino eis fraudentur. Deut. 20.5.9.

Ordines militares constituendi sunt, pro rerum iusta occasione: primo princeps militiae; postea reliqui chiliarchi, ecatontarchi, pentecontarchi, decatarchi 2. Reg. 1 et 22. et 19. 2. Reg. 4. 1. Chron. 12. et 24. [79r] 2. Chron. 18. et Num 31. et 23.2. Sam. 8. et 18. 2. Chron.25. Hi omnes et quicunque necessarij cum apparatu suo. Atque haec de legibus quae bellicum apparatum praecipiunt. Quae vero officia in bello definiunt. • •

De imperatoris siue militiae principis officio. De reliquorum officio.

Dudley Fenner  241 • In the war • In • victory • retreat See Deuteronomy 20: 2–5, 8, 10–15, 19–20. In the preparation for war there are two tasks for commanders or those who lead the people: • •

The things they provide through others The things they provide through themselves

Deuteronomy 20: 2, 5. What they provide through others is what they provide through the ministers of the divine polity in order to encourage the people to be brave and without fear for the enemies, even though they may be many and great by bringing to mind that God is in their presence in the just cause. See Deuteronomy 20: 2–4. A law eternal by reason of the same necessity is also eternal by its justice. 2 Chronicles 13: 12–13. The things that must be provided through themselves are: • •

the recruitment of soldiers to set up a military hierarchy

Deuteronomy 20: 5, 9. The reason for the recruitment of soldiers (when it can take place) is to take make sure they do not admit • •

timid soldiers and those unsuitable for war or those who had not yet enjoyed the fruits of houses, vineyards, wives, lest they are wrongfully deprived of them. Deuteronomy 20: 5, 9

The military hierarchy must be put in place for the just outcome of matters, first of all the head of the military, then the other officers in charge of a thousand, a hundred, fifty, and ten men. See 2 Kings 1; 22; 19; 2 Kings 4; 1 Chronicles 12; 24; [79r] 2 Chronicles 18 and Numbers 31; 23; 2 Samuel 8; 18; 2 Chronicles 25. Each and all of these men are necessary together with their equipment. This is what I had to say on the laws that command military preparation. The laws that define the duties in war concern • •

the commander or leader of the troops. the others.

242  Dudley Fenner 1. Chron. 13.12.15. Principis militaris officium duplex est • •

Erga hostes. Erga suos.

Erga hostes (si fieri possit) aequis conditionibus pacem proclamat, vel per se, vel legatos. Legati sunt nuntij imperatoris, qui etiam in bello non sunt malo afficiendi: sed fides gentium, sine vlla perfidia seruanda est. Si tamen suspicio in his vel in alijs negotijs oborta fuerit, obsides recipiendi sunt idonei. 2. Chro. 13.5.6.7.8.9. etc. Deut. 20.10. Erga suos officium est duplex • •

Quod ad exercitum animandum spectat. Quod ad bellum gerendum spectat.

1. Sam. 10.9.10.11.12. 2. Chro. 20. 16.17.18.19. Ad primum officium est, vt • •

Hortationes, tum ex Dei potentia et praesentia; tum ex causae necessitate; vtpote quod pro Dei cultu diuino, ciuitatibus Dei, vxoribus, liberis pugnent; tum ex virtutis praemijs, tum communibus, tum specialibus. Preces Deo fundant sanctas et ardentes.

2. Sam. 10.11.12.13. 2. Chro. 14.11. 2. Chro. 20.8.9.10.11. Ad bellum gerendum acies instruere debet • •

tum ad impetum faciendum. tum ad stratagemata.

Ios. 8.1.2. Stratagemata sunt iustae in bello insidiae, et [79v] simulationes, quae tamen perfidia et mendacio prorsus immunes esse debent. Ios. 8.4.5.6.7.8. Aliorum officum, vt Deo nixi, ipsoque inter pugnandum inuocato fortiter, alacriter, constanterque officio quique suo fungantur. Deut. 20.3.4.5. In victoria officia sunt •

Erga captiuos vt (nisi iusta causa obfuerit in Deum scilicet impietas, et in homines iniustitia) illorum vitae consulant, praecipue foeminarum: deinde vt vel in seruitutem redigant: vel tributarios, prout necessarium

Dudley Fenner  243 See 1 Chronicles 13: 12, 15. The duty of the military leader is twofold: • •

towards his enemies. towards his own people.

Towards his enemies he calls for peace – if possible – on fair conditions, either in person or via legates. Legates are the commander’s messengers, who must not be harmed even in war, but trustworthiness between the nations is to be observed without any treachery. Should any suspicion have arisen about them or other matters, then they should be accepted as appropriate hostages. See 2 Chronicles 13: 5–9, etc. Deuteronomy 20: 10. Towards his own people his duty is twofold: • •

with regard to inspiring his army. with regard to waging the war.

See 1 Samuel 10: 9–12; 2 Chronicles 20: 16–19. With regard to the first point, his duty is to: •

•

encourage his soldiers by referring to the power and presence of God, the necessity of their cause, inasmuch as they are fighting for the divine worship of God, the cities of God, their wives, and children and by mentioning rewards for virtue, both for the army as a whole and for individuals. make sure that soldiers utter holy and ardent prayers to God.

See 2 Samuel 10: 11–13; 2 Chronicles 14: 11; 2 Chronicles 20: 8–11. In order to wage the war battle positions must be set up: • •

in order to attack. in order to carry out stratagems

See Joshua 8: 1–2. Stratagems are just ambushes and [79v] deceits, which, however, must be completely free from treachery and lies. See Joshua 8: 4–8. The duty of the others is to each carry out their duty bravely, eagerly, and steadily, putting their trust in God and invoking him while fighting. Deuteronomy 20: 3–5. In victory the duties are: •

towards prisoners, namely that their lives must be spared (unless a just cause has given rise to an objection against it, such as impiety against God and injustice against people), especially the lives of women. Next,

244  Dudley Fenner

•

fuerit, constituant. Deut. 20.10.11.12.13. vel redemptionis pretium accipiant. Erga suos • Publicum bonum respiciendum: et quae conseruari possunt, in bonum publicum debent absque labefactatione conseruari. Deut. 20.19.20. • Postea, praeda diuidenda ad iustitiae normam, vt omnes pro suo officio et merito, etiam qui ad impedimenta restiterunt, partibus suis potiantur. 1. Sam.30.23.24.

In fuga officium est, omnibus quibus possit mediis, sibi suisque prospiciat. 1. Sa. 15.24.25.26.27. et 16. Atque haec de legibus administrantium officia definientibus, sequuntur quae subditorum officia definiunt. Subditorum officium definiunt leges duae • •

Prima de personis ipsis. Secunda de bonis personarum.

2. Sam. 11.12. De personis lex est, vt libentissime pro donorum suorum differentia vocati, in publicis negotiis [80r] obeundis, sese libenter impendant. 2. Sam. 11.12. De bonis eadem lex est. 2. Sam. 11.12. vnde libenter reddenda sunt • •

Tributum Vectigal

Rom. 13.7. Tributum, siue φόρος, est quod in capita ciuium aut viritim, aut pro sensus ratione tribuitur. Rom. 13.7. Vectigal siue τέλος, quaecunque alio nomine persoluuntur reipublicae, vt decumae, portoria, scriptura, et quae pro inuectis aut exportatis mercibus soluuntur. Luc. 4.12.13. Atque haec communia sunt. Specialia autem sunt in • •

pace bello

In pace, vt omnibus viribus communi paci studeant, eamque ornent. Tit. 3.1.2.3.4.

Dudley Fenner  245

•

they must be made slaves or tributaries insofar as necessary (see Deuteronomy 20: 10–13). Otherwise, the price for their freedom must be received. towards one’s own people: • The public good must be kept in mind and those things that can be preserved must be preserved for the public good without wavering (see Deuteronomy 20: 19–20). • After that, the booty must be divided according to the rules of justice, so that all obtain their share according to their duty and merit, even those who stayed with the baggage train. See 1 Samuel 30: 23–24.

When fleeing one should look after oneself and for one’s people with all possible means. See 1 Samuel 15: 24–27 and 1 Samuel 16. This is what I had to say regarding the laws defining the duties of the administrators. Now follow those that define the duties of the subjects. Two laws define the duty of the subjects: • •

The first law concerns persons themselves. The second one concerns the goods of persons.

See 2 Samuel 11: 12. Regarding persons the law is that subjects must devote themselves readily to fulfilling public [80r] offices, when they have been called upon according to the difference of their gifts at the authorities’ wish. See 2 Samuel 11: 12. The same law applies to goods. 2 Samuel 11: 12. Hence the following should readily be rendered: • •

direct taxation indirect taxation

See Romans 13: 7. Direct taxation or phoros is what is paid per head or per person or according to a certain proportion. See Romans 13: 7. Indirect taxation or telos are whatever other payments are made to the commonwealth under another name, such as tithes, toll, tax paid on public pastures, and payments made for imported and exported goods. Luke 4: 12–13. And these matters are common to all circumstances. There are special considerations: • •

in peacetime in wartime

In peacetime, everyone must be devoted to and honour the common peace with all their energy. See Titus 3: 1–4.

246  Dudley Fenner In bello, vt fiducia in Deo nixi, alacri animo (huius vitae negotiis et voluptatibus exuti) ita legitime certent, vt στρατολογήσαντι placeant. 2. Sam. 11. 2. Tim. 2.4. Deut. 20. 6.7.8.9.10.11. etc. Atque hae sunt leges communes cuique politeiae, sequuntur propriae cuiusque speciei. Sunt autem • •

Democraticae Reliquarum • Monarchiae • Ἀρισταρχίας

Democraticae reipublicae leges sunt paucae admodum propriae, illud autem imprimis curandum est, ne in popularem ἀκαταστασίαν degeneret. Gen. 24.7.12. Gen. 34.20.21.22. etc. Ἀρισταρχίας leges sunt • •

Communes Speciales.

Communis lex est, ne in paucorum factionem degeneret summopere curandum, ex precedenti, ex sequenti, per analogiam. [80v] Speciales sunt duae. Iud. 21.5. • •

Prima vt partem vel Dei cultum euertentem, vel in eum delinquentem, vel iustitiam et iudicia peruertentem, reuocent, puniant, etiam (si aliter fieri non possit) bello. Iud. 20.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8. Iosch. 22. 14.15.16.17.18.19.20. etc. Secunda, vt haec siue alia adiumenta reipublicae abnuentes afferre, (siquidem pacem recusent) dignis suppliciis afficiant. Iud. 8. 16.17.18.

Monarchiae leges propriae sunt • •

Communis, ne in tyrannidem vnius euadat maxime curandum. Tyrannus est qui ius regni euertit et pessundat. Est autem duplex • Sine titulo tyrannus. • In exercitio tyrannus.

Dudley Fenner  247 During a war, they must put their faith in God and fight legitimately with an eager mind (free from any worries and enjoyments of this life) in such a way that they please the man who has levied the army. See 2 Samuel 11; 2 Timothy 2: 4; Deuteronomy 20: 6–11, etc. These are the laws common to every polity; those specific to each type are as follows. They are • •

Democratic polities Polities of other kinds • Monarchies • Aristocracies

The laws specific to a democratic commonwealth are very few, but care must be taken in the first place that it does not degenerate into popular anarchy. See Genesis 24: 7, 12; Genesis 34: 20–22, etc. The laws of an aristocracy are • •

general specific

Based on the preceding argument about democracy and the following arguments about monarchy and the analogy of the three types of government, the general law is that the utmost care should be taken that aristocracy does not degenerate into the faction of a few people. [80v] There are two specific laws. See Judges 21: 5. •

•

The first is that they should restrain and punish even with war – should no other option be possible – a party which overturns the worship of God or trespasses against him or subverts his justice and judgements. Judges 20: 1–8. Joshua 22: 14–20, etc. The second is that they give proper punishment to those who refuse to give this or other forms of aid to the commonwealth (if they refuse peace) Judges 8: 16–18.

The laws proper to a monarchy are • •

Shared, namely that great care must be taken that it does not turn into the tyranny of one person. A tyrant is someone who overthrows and destroys the law of the kingdom. The tyrant can be of two types • a usurper • someone who behaves in a tyrannical way

248  Dudley Fenner 1. Sam. 8.10.18. •

Specialis.

Sine titulo tyrannus est, qui nulla adhuc facta deditione, imperium ad se absque legitima ratione, vi, doloue rapit. Huic quisque priuatus resistet, etiam si potest e medio tollat, donec populus victus, vel respublica oppressa suam in eum potestatem transtulerit. Iud. 4.18.19.20.21.22. Exercitio tyrannus est qui consulto, pacta reipublicae omnia, vel praecipua pessundat. Hunc tollant vel pacifice vel cum bello, qui ea potestate donati sunt, vt regni Ephori, vel omnium ordinum conuentus publicus. 2. Reg. 11.4.5.6.7. Speciales leges sunt, quae officia administrantium, specie differentium, definiunt. 1. Pet. 2.13.14. De administrantibus leges sunt de • •

Summo. Inferioribus.

[81r] De summo leges sunt • •

Tempus praesens Futurum

Spectantes. Praesens • •

Quae vitam informant. Quae officium definiunt.

Prou. 31.1.2.3.4.5.6. Quae vitam informant, vt temperate viuat: tum ne supra fratres corde se extollat, tum vt subditos non opprimat. Deut. 17.20. Eccle. 10.14. Quae officium definiunt, sunt • •

Vt ipse, quantum potest, in sua persona, populi iudicia exerceat iuste, reliqua per idoneos administros. Pro. 16.12.13. Pro. 31.5.6. Vt foedera erga Deum et populum, leges et iura regni, fideliter, et sine fuco conseruet, neque ephoros vt regni socios, siue regis consiliarios, in administratione negligat. 2. Reg. 11.17.18.19. 1. Sam. 10.25. 1. Re. 12.6.7.8.

Dudley Fenner  249 1 Samuel 8: 10, 18. •

Specific.

A usurper is someone who seizes authority for himself through violence or deceit without any surrender by the people or legitimate reason. Every private person should resist this tyrant and should even, if he can, kill him, until the people have been overcome or the oppressed commonwealth has transferred its authority to him. See Judges 4: 18–22. A tyrant through behaviour is someone who deliberately destroys either all or the foremost agreements of the commonwealth. Those who have the authority to do so, such as the ephors of the kingdom or a public convention of all estates, must remove him from power peacefully or through war. See 2 Kings 11: 4–7. There are specific laws that define the duties of administrators who are different in kind. 1 Peter 2: 13–14. The laws on administrators concern: • •

the supreme magistrate the inferior magistrates.

[81r] The laws on the supreme magistrate concern • •

the present the future

With regard to the present, there are laws • •

that shape the life of the magistrate that define his duty.

See Proverbs 31: 1–6. The laws shape his life, so that he lives moderately and does not exalt himself above his brothers or oppress his subjects. See Deuteronomy 17: 20; Ecclesiastes 10: 14. The laws that define his duty are: • •

that he should justly exercise the judgements of the people as much as he can in his person and the other things through suitable administrators. See Proverbs 16: 12–13; Proverbs 31: 5–6. that he should faithfully and without deceit preserve the covenants towards God and the people, as well as the laws and rights of the kingdom, and that he should not ignore in his administration the ephors as fellow administrators of the kingdom or councillors of the king. See 2 Kings 11: 17–19; 1 Samuel 10: 25; 1 Kings 12: 6–8.

250  Dudley Fenner Quod tempus futurum spectat, est vt ad reipublicae bonum ex ipsius legibus de successore iusto et idoneo prouideat ante mortem suam. 1. Reg. 1.23.24.28.29.30.34.35.36.37. 1. Chro. 22.20. 1. Chro. 28.5.6.7.11.12. Atque hae sunt leges de summo, id est de rege, imperatore, principe, etc. De inferiorum administrantium officiis, leges sunt Primo • •

De Ephoris, siue regni officiariis. De prouincialibus, qui aliquam regni partem constituunt.

De prioribus officium duplex est: Primum, vt regem omnes vel singuli, vel cultum Dei labefactantem, vel ecclesiam, vel rempublicam opprimentem, prout necesse est, verbo et rationibus omnibus legitimis ad officium reuocent. Ios. 22.18.19. et 24.15. 1 Sam. [81v] 12.27. 1. Sam. 10.25. 1. Sam. 14.46. 1. Sam. 22.2.3.4.5. 2. Sam. 21. 1.2.3.4. 1. Chro. 21.16. 2. Reg. 11.17. inter se comparatis. Secundum, vt ipsi fideliter non modo quae regi, sed regno vtilia sunt, consulant, et consulta fortiter in finem vrgeant vt stabiliantur; ipsique in omnibus legitimis obtemperent. 2. Sam. 24.3.4.5.6. etc. 1. Chro. 21.1.2.3.16. Eccle. 10.1.2.3.4. De prouincialibus lex est, vt in vero cultu suarum prouinciarum siue ciuitatum ciues pro virili contineant, et ne opprimantur tyrannide praedicta ratione prouideant. Ios. 24.15. 2. Sam. 21.1.2.3.4. 2. Reg. 11.17 et 2. Reg. 11.4. 2. Chro. 21.10. Neh. 10.1.30. 1. Chro. 15.13. inter se comparatis. Atque haec de legibus specialibus de sanctitate, et verbo Iehouae, in politeia diuina communi post lapsum.

Dudley Fenner  251 As far as the future is concerned, the law is that before his death the prince should provide for a just and suitable successor in accordance with its laws for the good of the commonwealth. 1 Kings 1: 23–30; 34–37; 1 Chronicles 22: 20; 1 Chronicles 28: 5–7; 11–12. These are the laws concerning the supreme magistrate, that is, the king, emperor, prince etc. The laws on the duties of the lower magistrates concern First of all • •

the ephors or officials of the kingdom the provincial magistrates, who administrate some part of the kingdom.

Regarding the former, their duty is twofold. First, they should all together or individually call back to his duty, as much as necessary, with words and by all legitimate means, a king who overthrows the worship of God or oppresses the church or the commonwealth. Compare Joshua 22: 18–19, 24: 15; 1 Samuel [81v] 12: 27; 1 Samuel 10: 25; 1 Samuel 14: 46; 1 Samuel 22: 2–5; 2 Samuel 21: 1–4; 1 Chronicles 21: 16; 2 Kings 11: 17. Second, they themselves should plan things that are useful not only for the king, but for the kingdom and bring plans that have been made strongly to conclusion so that they may become established. They themselves should comply in all legitimate things. See 2 Samuel 24: 3–6, etc.; 1 Chronicles 21: 1–3, 16; Ecclesiastes 10: 1–4. Concerning the provincial magistrates the law is that they should maintain the citizens of their provinces or cities in true worship as best they can and make sure they are not oppressed by tyranny in the aforementioned way. Compare Joshua 24: 15; 2 Samuel 21: 1–4; 2 Kings 11: 17 and 2 Kings 11: 4; 2 Chronicles 21: 10; Nehemiah 10: 1, 30; 1 Chronicles 15: 13. And this is what I had to say regarding the special laws on sanctity and the word of Jehovah in the shared divine polity after the fall.

10 Gisbertus Voetius, the Dutch Revolt, and religious toleration in the United Provinces

Gisbertus Voetius (Dutch: Gijsbert Voet; Heusden, 1589 – Leiden 1676) was arguably the most authoritative and influential theologian of the Dutch Golden Age. He was a student at the Statencollege (College of the States), which had been founded at the University of Leiden in 1592 to address the lack of well-educated Reformed theologians. Following the completion of his doctorate in 1611, he served as a Reformed minister in Brabant until 1634 when he was appointed professor of oriental languages and theology at the University of Utrecht, a role he fulfilled until his death. Of particular importance for Voetius’s thinking was the influence of Franciscus Gomarus (1563–1641), who was his main teacher and had been a fierce opponent of Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609). Arminius and his followers (Remonstrants) had formulated views that slightly diverged from Reformed orthodoxy. They argued, for example, that Christ’s death had obtained redemption and forgiveness of sins for all humanity. Strict Calvinists, however, believed Christ had died for the elect only. Like Gomarus before him, Voetius was a dedicated critic of the Remonstrants and became one of the foremost representatives of their opponents, the Counter-Remonstrants. He also opposed many other ideas and theories he saw as threatening to Reformed tenets, including Cartesianism, Spinozism, and the views of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669), who argued in favour of a less literal interpretation of the Bible. Voetius had considerable influence on the religious politics of the Republic as a whole and Utrecht in particular. In 1619, he participated in the Synod of Dort, which had originally been organized with the intention of solving the controversy between Remonstrants and Counter-Remonstrants, but concluded by condemning Remonstrant tenets. Voetius wrote a remonstrance on behalf of the consistory of Utrecht to the States of the province in preparation for the Great Assembly of 1651 (more on which below). In this remonstrance, Voetius, emphasized that the Reformed religion was the only true faith, that only those who were members of the Reformed Church should serve in public offices, and that Catholic assemblies or conventicles should be forbidden. After the French occupation of Utrecht from 1672 until 1673, Stadtholder William III removed 120 officials from office in the city

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-20

Gisbertus Voetius  253 and province, since their religious views were not in line with Voetian orthodoxy and who therefore faced part of the blame for what had happened during the so-called rampjaar (year of disaster). The excerpt presented here should be interpreted against the background of the debates about religious toleration in and surrounding the Great Assembly. Thanks to the Treaty of Münster of 1648, peace had been established with Catholic Spain and after the death of William II in 1650 the office of Stadtholder had become vacant. The Assembly was therefore called in order to review the political and religious establishment created by the Union of Utrecht (1579), which had unified the Northern Provinces of the Low Countries, the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (‘Act of Abjuration’, 1581), in which these provinces renounced the authority of King Philip II, and the aforementioned Synod of Dort. Religion was one of the primary points of debate. The House of Orange had been a champion of the orthodox Counter-Remonstrant elements in the Reformed Church and with the office of Stadtholder left vacant in five of the seven provinces the Counter-Remonstrants felt they needed to emphasize the importance of maintaining limitations on religious toleration. Advocates of increased religious toleration included Catholics and other religious groups outside Reformed orthodoxy, as well as those who believed that an improvement of the legal position of these groups would lead to better relations with Catholic countries like France and thus enhance the Republic’s commercial interests. One of their arguments was that the Dutch Revolt had been a political rather than a religious conflict and had aimed to establish and protect the rights of all, regardless of religious background. Voetius countered this argument in the excerpt presented by tracing the development of the Dutch Revolt and claiming that it was a religious war, waged in defence of the Reformed Church. Therefore, other religious groups could not derive any claims or privileges from this conflict. The Latin text follows Gisberti Voetii Selectarum Disputationum Pars Secunda (Utrecht: Waesberge, 1655), 812–820.

Suggestions for further reading Beardslee, J. W., Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius, F. Turretin. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Beck, A. J., Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676). Sein Theologieverständnis und seine Gotteslehre. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Eijnatten, J. van, “Religionis causa. Moral Theology and the Concept of Holy War in the Dutch Republic,” Journal of Religious Ethics 34, no. 4 (2006), 609–635. Gelderen, M. van, The Political Thought of the Dutch Revolt, 1555–1590. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Goudriaan, A., Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625–1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Gisberti Voetii Selectae disputationes (1655)

Disputatio De temporali potestate papae [812] X. Problema. An publica, aut privato-publica religionis exercitia [813] pontificiis concedenda? Responsio Negativa. Quamdiu scilicet potestas et potentia adest, ea impediendi. Rationes sunt duum generum, theologicae scilicet et politicae. Illae ad tria capita revocari possunt, haeresios scilicet idololatriae et persecutionis reformatorum. Nos duabus aliis nunc praeteritis ad unam illam de crassa et abominanda idololatria digitum intendimus, quam communi suffragio Catechesios nostrae quaest. 30. et 80. illis imponi notissimum est. Atqui haec Catechesis non tantum ecclesiastice recepta, sed et receptio ejus de novo solenniter approbata fuit ab ordinibus et magistratibus foederati Belgii, anno 1619. et nuperrime anno 1651. quando solenniter in illustri et extraordinaria ordinum Belgicum panegyrice repetita est approbatio et authorizatio religionis reformatae, prout ea anno 1619. confirmata fuit in Synodo Dordracena: atqui illic praeter conditos canones super quinque articulis, confessio et Catechesis Belgica lectae, examinatae, et de novo approbatae sunt. Rationes politicae, quae olim suaserunt Ordinibus Hollandiae et Zelandiae, postea et aliis nominatim hic Ultrajecti anno 1580. Denique communiter Ordinibus foederati Belgii jam inde ab anno 1583. abrogationem exercitii papistici, etiamnum abrogationis continuationem suadere putamus. Confer quae praecedentis problematis jam delibavimus et in Disputatione de libertate conscientiae etcetera, De sede Romana incompatibili cum politiis reformatis. Tantum nunc objectiones contra sententiam diluendae.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-21

Gijsbert Voet, Select Disputations (1655)

Disputation On the worldly authority of the pope [812] Problem 10. Should public or semi-public exercise [813] of religion be conceded to Catholics? Response. No, as long as the authority and power are present to prevent it. The reasons are twofold, namely theological and political. The theological ones can be categorized under three headings, namely of heresy, of idolatry, and of persecution of the Reformed. Leaving the two other headings for what they are, we point the finger at the one concerned with full-blown and abominable idolatry. It is well known by the unanimous judgement of the Heidelberg Catechism, questions 30 and 80, that Catholics are identified with idolatry.1 Now, this Catechism was not only accepted as canonical; its acceptance was solemnly approved again by the States and magistrates of the United Provinces in 1619 and most recently in 1651, when the approval was solemnly renewed in an illustrious and extraordinary panegyric of the Dutch States as well as the authorization of the Reformed religion, just as it had been confirmed in the Synod of Dordt in the year 1619. Furthermore, besides the established canons on the five articles, the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism were read, examined, and again approved. Then there are political reasons, which once convinced the States of Holland and Zeeland and later also other states, notably here in Utrecht in the year 1580. Finally, we believe that since the year 1583 all States of the United Provinces have been convinced of the need to repeal the exercise of the papist faith and now of the need to continue that repeal. Compare what we already discussed in the preceding problem and in the Disputation on the freedom of conscience etcetera and the Disputation on the Incompatibility of the See of Rome with Protestant States.2 Now we only need to refute the objections against our view. 1 Question 30: ‘Do those who seek their salvation and welfare from saints, from themselves, or from others, also believe in the only saviour Jesus?’ Question 80: ‘What is the difference between the Lord’s supper and the popish mass?’ 2 In the preceding problem (number nine) Voetius discusses the question of whether only the ‘more inflexible papists’ (rigidiores papistae) should be kept at bay, while other

256  Gisbertus Voetius 1. Objectio. Variis pactis et conventionibus publicis, promissam esse libertatem, aut etiam conservationem religionis pontificiae: uti constat ex variis Decretis Ordinum, Instrumentis conventionum libello in 4. Gallice editis Monasterii (uti titulus praefert) anno 1647. Unde inferunt ponteficii, exercitia sua decretis Ordinum Generalium et Provincialium, non sine datae fidei violatione hactenus fuisse prohibita. Responsio. 1. Negamus toto illo libro ullum decretum, aut ullam promissionem Ordinum1 Generalium Belgii, aut etiam Ordinum ullius Provinciae, post annum 1581. hoc est, post constitutam liberam rempublicam et exauctoratum principem Belgarum, atque adeo omnem potestatem solis ordinibus et magistratibus vindictam, exhiberi. Quae ergo ante illud tempus, cum omnis potestas penes Ordines non esset, decreta, statuta, promissa et acta sunt, non magis nunc praejudicant Ordinibus, quam priora decreta et pacta de fidelitate Principi tunc suo Philippo II. praestanda. Quia status rerum anno 1581. plane mutatus est; nec potest discurri ab uno ad alterum, aut vice versa. Quidquid enim tulerit pacificatio Gandensis, (quam pontificii priores violarent) et eam secuta propior unio Vltrajectina, anno 1579. nihil tamen promisit libera Respublica unitarum Provinciarum. Nihil ergo ab illis jure postulari potest. Responsio 2. Ex abundanti respondemus, (quamvis liberam Rempublicam [814] hoc minime tangat), ante annum 1581. in variis provinciis, districtibus, civitatibus, per Ordines et magistratus, ut plurimum majorem partem extra communionem Ecclesiae reformatae viventes, exercitia papistica et conventicula prohibita esse, idque propter rationes politicas a praesenti et inevitabili necessitate, quam adferebat perfidia clercorum aliorumque papistarum, et collusio cum hostibus Hispanis. Illis ergo applicatur illud vulgatum: Frangenti fidem, fides frangatur eidem. Erat enim contractus δίπλευρος. Nostri certe, et imprimis Celsissimus Princeps Wilhelmus singulari studio semper fidem hac in parte servari volebat (de quo ipse in Apologia; quam vide quaeso): idem etiam inculcabant ministri reformati, uti videre est in Epistolis Illustrium Belgarum centuriam 2. epistolam. 70. Quas rationes Illustrium hujus Provinciae Ultrajectinae Ordines prohibitionis anno 1580. dederint, in publicis actis legi potest. Conferatur Historia Petri Borr, ubi refert facinus Comitis Renneburgici in traditione Groningae. Non tenebantur ergo

1 1655: Ordinum.

Gisbertus Voetius  257 First objection. In various agreements and public covenants, the liberty or even the preservation of the papal religion was promised, as is apparent from various Decrees of the States and Instruments of the covenants published in quarto in the French language in Münster (as the title says) in 1647.3 Hence, the Catholics infer that the exercise of their religion was prohibited up till now in violation of a given promise by the decrees of the States General and the Provincial States. First response. We deny that in that entire book any decree or any promise of the States General of the Netherlands or of the States of any province is presented after the year 1581, that is, after the establishment of a free republic and the deposition of the prince of the Netherlands and after all authority had been assumed by the States and magistrates only. Therefore, all the things that were decreed, decided, promised, and done when all power was not yet in the hands of the States do not impede the powers of the States any more than the earlier decrees and agreements about offering allegiance to its prince at the time, Philip II. Because the state of affairs changed completely in 1581 and cannot be applied to the state of affairs afterwards or vice versa. For whatever was decided at the Pacification of Ghent (which the Catholics violated first) and the closer Union of Utrecht in the year 1579, the free Republic of the United Provinces promised nothing. Therefore, they cannot rightfully claim anything. Second response. We respond out of abundance (although this does not concern the [814] free Republic at all) that before the year 1581 the exercise of the Catholic faith and assemblies of Catholics were forbidden in various provinces, districts, and cities by the States and magistrates, as they very often for the most part lived outside the communion of the Reformed Church. And this was done for political reasons brought about by present and inevitable necessity, which was caused by the treachery of the clergy and other papists and their collusion with the Spanish enemies. To them, therefore, applies the famous saying: ‘Let faith be broken to him who breaks it’. For the contract worked both ways. Our people, and especially our most eminent prince William – about whom please see his Apology – certainly always wanted to keep their word in this respect with great zeal.4 The Reformed ministers emphasized the same point, as can be seen in the Epistles of Leading Dutchmen, second series, letter 70. The reasons of the leaders of the leaders of the Province of Utrecht that were given by the States, can be

non-Reformed groups can be tolerated (812). The disputation on the Holy See can be found in Disputationes selectae vol. 2, 827–856 and the one on freedom of conscience in De libertate conscientiae et permissione religionum in Republica disputatio (Utrecht: Strickius 1643). 3 This pamphlet is the Pieces touchantes les catholiques sujects des Estats des Provinces Unies des Pays-Bas (Münster: s.n., 1647). 4 The most easily accessible translation of William of Orange’s Apology is A. Duke, ‘William of Orange’s Apology’, Dutch Crossings 22, no. 1 (1998), 3–96. On the circumstances in which it was written, see K.W. Swart, William of Orange and the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1572– 84, transl. J.C. Grayson (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 188–189.

258  Gisbertus Voetius Domini Ordines liberae Reipublicae, illud praestare, quod nunquam ab ipsis promissum erat; et quod ab ipsis promissoribus jam ante propter rationes necessarias ubique fere abrogatum erat; quodque a liberae Reipublicae constitutoribus nunquam resumptum aut postliminio quasi restitutum erat; quippe quod non magis aut partem aliquam aut fundamentum, aut conditionem requisitam novae Reipublicae faciebat, quam fides olim partim a praesentibus Rectoribus, partim a suis Praedecessoribus data Philippo II. antehac legitimo Belgarum Principi. Responsio 3. Insuper ex abundanti addi posse, inter alias civitates, Heusdam patriam meam, quam dicto Libello excerptorum Monasterii, uti titulus fert, anno 1647. edito, notant, sponte se adjungentem partibus Dominorum Ordinum Hollandiae et Principis Auriaci anno 1577. stipulatam quidem fuisse religionis papisticae conservationem; sed paucis annis post sponte illi renuntiasse, monachis inde migrantibus, et parocho cum sacerdote uno atque altero sponte exercitia sua omittentibus, ac templa deserentibus; in quorum vacuam possessionem, postquam aliquamdiu clausa fuissent, reformati venerunt, nec per magistratum et cives, qui maximam partem pontificii erant, ullas nunquam querelas ad Illustres Ordines aut Principem Auriacum delatas fuisse. Si puduit ipsos, aut ob rationes non visum ipsis fuit, sacra sua diutius illic exercere, certe reformati non tenebantur eos ad ea cogere aut invitare: nec etiam iis numero paucioribus tum in Collegio Magistratus, tum in corpore civium aderat tunc potestas et potentia. Responsio 4. Dato, a nova Republica jam constituta, tale quid promissum aut concessum esse (uti non est; et contrarium evincitur ex propiori interpretatione unionis Vltrajectinae facta et praesenti liberae [815] Reipublicae statui accommodata anno 1583. et succedentibus decretis, rescriptis, edictis, apologiis, declarationibus, ac perpetua praxi); inde tamen non sequeretur, fidem ab Illustribus Ordinibus violatam prohibitione exercitii: quandoquidem papistis juramentum fidelitatis violantibus, et quidem non abusu aut facto particulari, sed lege, instituto, et studio perpetuo, idque ex praescripto suae religionis et magistrorum conscientiae (clericos intelligo), promissa illa,

Gisbertus Voetius  259 read in the public acts. Compare this with Pieter Bor’s Origin, Beginning, and Continuation of the Dutch Wars, where he gives an account of the crime of the Count of Rennenberg in the surrender of Groningen.5 The States General of the free Republic are therefore not bound to provide what they have never promised, what those who themselves had promised had already repealed almost everywhere before for the necessary reasons, and what the founders of the free Republic had never resumed or as it were restored again. After all, it was no more some part, or fundament, or required condition of the new Republic, than the allegiance, once offered, partly by the present administrators, partly by their predecessors, to Philip II, who before had been the legitimate Prince of the Netherlands. Third response. In addition, out of abundance, we can add among other cities, Heusden where I was born, which they point out in the said pamphlet of excerpts, published according to the title page in Münster in 1647, had stipulated the protection of the Catholic religion when it joined the side of the States of Holland and the Prince of Orange of its own accord in 1577. Yet, a few years later it revoked that stipulation when monks migrated from there and both parish and priest gave up the exercise of their religion of their own accord and abandoned their churches. The Reformed then took possession of these vacant churches, after they had been closed for some time and no complaints from the magistrates or citizens, who for the most part were Catholics, were ever reported to the illustrious States or the Prince of Orange. If they were ashamed or if for any reasons it did not seem right to them to celebrate their rituals there any longer, then the Reformed were definitely not bound to force or invite them to do so. Nor did the Reformed have the authority and power at the time to do so, as they were fewer in number both in the college of magistrates and in the body of citizens. Fourth response. Let us assume for a moment that something along those lines had been promised or conceded by the new Republic after it had been founded. (Which is not the case and the opposite is made clear from the aforegoing interpretation made of the Union of Utrecht and adapted for the current status of the free [815] Republic in 1583 and from the decrees, judicial decisions, edicts, apologies, declarations, as well as ongoing practice.) Even then it would not follow that the illustrious States had broken their word with the prohibition of the exercise of the Catholic religion, since they did not have to keep those promises, which were made on condition after all, because the papists violated their oath of loyalty and not just with one particular abuse or deed, but as a matter of law, intention, and continuous zeal, 5 Pieter Bor (1559–1635), Oorsprongk, Begin, en Vervolgh der Nederlantsche Oorlogen. 8 vols (Amsterdam: Someren, Wolfgangh, and Boom, 1679). George de Lalaing (c. 1550–1581), Count of Rennenberg was Stadtholder of Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe, and Overijssel. He initially supported the Pacification of Ghent, but was reconciled with the King of Spain in March 1580 with the support of the Catholic faction of the city administration of Groningen.

260  Gisbertus Voetius quippe conditionata, servari non debebant: cum papistae Hispanicis partibus favendo contra liberam Rempublicam et praesens seu stabilitum regimen, fidem priores violassent: et consequenter tanquam cives inutiles, immo et Hispanizati perduelles et tyrannidi auctorati ac subservientes, omni jure dimitti potuissent. Sed noluerunt Domini Ordines jure suo uti, seque et Rempublicam hac via a tanto periculo liberare; sed potius malum eorum bonitate vincendo (juxta Rom. 12.21.) jura et beneficia civica ipsis relinquere, cum libertate conscientiae, et privata seu domestica exercitii cuique in et cum propria familia: uti hoc declaratur decreto Dominorum Ordinum Generalium contra Remonstrantium conventicula publicato anno 1619. Quibus ex communi praxi ac consuetudine addere possemus, libertatem civicam et habitationis, quae compluribus sacrificulis indulgetur; nec non libertatem, vere licentiam, qua passim utuntur in compitis, in circulis, in diversoriis, in foro, in navibus etcetera, non tantum superstitionem suam defendendi, sed et veram religionem, ecclesiam, ministerium, ministros calumniose et immodeste traducendi; denique conniventiam majorem, minorem, mediam sive magistratuum, sive praetorum, ad frequentissimos et saepe satis publicos papistarum conventus. Jam vero papistas nostros jam inde a constituta Republica anno 1581. non potuisse esse bonos cives ex vi religionis suae et erroneae conscientiae, supra in genere probatum est. De facto etiam non fuisse, specialiter probari posset ex quotidianis ipsorum vocibus et studiis, quibus se Hispano ejusque causae et successibus favere, contra Reipublicae nostrae et causae Dominorum Ordinum infensos esse, ostendebant. Sed praeter illa, omni exceptione majus est, quod omnes ipsorum clerici, aut in partibus hispanicis nati et educati, aut si nostrates essent, ibidem in academiis theologia Hispanica imbuti essent. Quodque praetensus archiepiscopus Ultrajectinus et episcopus Middelburgensis ac Daventriensis Rovenius literis suis (quae hic in archivis curiae servantur) Roma scriptis suo in sacris vicario Wachtelario tunc civi Ultrajectino, significarit, se apud legatum regis Hispaniarum ibidem inter omnes hanc motivam subjecisse: Quod Catholici nostrates addicti sint regi Hispaniae, seque (qualitate qua archiepiscopi scilicet, a quo suffraganei, parochi, aliique omnes [816] clerici dependent) omni studio hoc agere ut illa in devotione eos contineat. Conferatur quaeso sententia Dicasterii

Gisbertus Voetius  261 under the direction of their religion and the masters of their conscience, that is, the clergy. Since the papists had violated their word first by favouring the Spanish side against the free Republic and the present or established regime and as a consequence acted like useless citizens and in fact even like foes that have been made Spanish and are bound and subservient to tyranny, they could have been dismissed with full justification. However, the States did not want to make use of their right and free themselves and the Republic from such a great danger in this way, but rather left their civic rights and benefits with freedom of conscience and private or domestic freedom of religious exercise for everyone in and with their own family, overcoming their wickedness with goodness. This is declared by the Decree of the States General against assemblies of the Remonstrants published in 1619. To these freedoms we could add on the basis of common practice and custom the civic freedom and freedom of habitation, which is permitted to very many priests, as well as the freedom – the license, actually – which they enjoy everywhere on crossroads, in gatherings, in inns, on the market, in ships etcetera, not only to defend their superstition, but also to mock the true religion, church, ministry, and ministers with slander and in an immodest way, and finally the connivance – big, small, or something in the middle – of magistrates or administrates to very crowded and often rather public assemblies of papists. That right from the establishment of the Republic in 1581 our papists could not be good citizens by force of their religion and their erroneous conscience has already been proved above in general. That they were in fact no good citizens could be proved in particular from their own daily utterances and endeavours, with which they showed that they supported the Spaniard and his cause and successes and were hostile to our Republic and the cause of the States. However, beyond these points, it is bigger than any exception that all their clergy were either born or brought up on the Spanish side or if they were from our country, then they were imbued with Spanish theology in the academies there. Add the fact that the pretended archbishop of Utrecht and bishop of Middelburg and Deventer, Rovenius, indicated in his letter (which is kept here in the archives of the city council), written in Rome to his deputy in sacred matters, Wachtelaer, then a citizen of Utrecht, that of all possible motives he had brought up this one with the legate of the King of Spain, namely that the Catholics of our country are subservient to the King of Spain and that he (in his position of archbishop, of course, on whom the suffragans, parish priests, and all other members of the [816] clergy depend) acted with all his zeal to keep them in this devotion for the King.6 Please compare with this the sentence of the court of justice 6 Philip Roverius (1572–1651) was vicar apostolic for the Dutch Republic from 1614 until 1651. Johannes Wachtelaar (c. 1581–1653) was vicar general of Utrecht. Their correspondence is still held in the City Archive of Utrecht (Het Utrechts Archief, Archieven van de Apostolische Vicarissen van de Hollandse Zending en hun secretarissen (1579–1728) (entry 1003)).

262  Gisbertus Voetius Vltrajectini in Rovenium et Wachtelarium pronuntiata, cum Intendit (uti vocant) Nobilissimi Domini Praetoris. Nec praetereundum, quod in sacris suis et conventiculis orare solent, pro rege Hispaniarum. Concludatur authoritate Bentivoglii antehac in Gallia et Belgio Hispanico nuntii apostolici, qui in Historicis relationibus Italice in 8. editis testatur Catholicos in Belgio foederato esse Hispanizatos. Ex his opinor satis vident pontificii, libertini, neutrales, et quotquot spiritus p ­ seudo-politici, et pseudo-theologici tempore factionis Remonstranticae ab anno 1611. usque 1618. et hic et in vicina provincia grassantis recidivam patiuntur, ex pacto et promisso nullam iis exercitii libertatem deberi: nec etiam salva fide, qua Deo, ecclesiae, et reipublicae abstricti sunt magistratus reformati, concedi posse; quamdiu scilicet potentia adest pericula haec avertendi. II. Objectio. Repugnare hanc prohibitionem, libertati conscientiae. Responsio. Hoc negamus. Domini Ordines Generales in decreto anno 1619. modo citato exserte protestantur, se nihil velle derogari libertati conscientiae. Sed imperite confundunt hi homines sic ratiocinantes, libertatem conscientiae cum libertate exercitii. Atqui ista distinguenda esse, etiam politice semper in Belgio distincta fuisse, ostendimus in nostro Thersite, et in Disputatione de libertate conscientiae: nec hic repetimus. Priorem libertatem vindicavit nostra Respublica, atque oppositam coactionem condemnavit; posteriorem minime. Instant. Atqui vis infertur omni conscientiae, eaque vere cogitur, cum illi non conceditur libere exercere omnia illa, quae necessario sibi exercenda putat. Responsio. Commentum hoc a Remonstrantibus dictatum, nonnulli quamvis caetera, saltem intentione et studio minime Remonstrantes, alicujus facere videntur; et hinc subinde audias dubitari ac disceptari, an non pontificiis nostratibus permittendi sint sacerdotes aliqui, qui missas celebrent, aut saltem sine conventibus, privatim sacramenta administrent, praesertim moribundis ultimum viaticum (uti vocant) hoc est, sacramenta poenitentiae, eucharistiae, extremae unctionis. Sed facile difflatur, negato illo

Gisbertus Voetius  263 of Utrecht pronounced against Rovenius and Wachtelaar with the Intendit (as they say) of the very noble judge. Nor should we leave unmentioned what they tend to preach in their masses and congregations in favour of the King of Spain. Let us conclude with the authority of Bentivoglio, previously apostolic nuncio in France and the Spanish Netherlands, who in his Historical Relations, published in Italian in octavo, testifies that the Catholics in the United Provinces were under the influence of the Spanish.7 From these examples, the papists, libertines, neutrals, and all those that suffer a relapse of the raging pseudo-political and pseudo-theological spirit in the time of the Remonstrant faction from 1611 until 1618 here and in the neighbouring province can sufficiently see that absolutely no freedom of the exercise of religion is owed based on an agreement or promise and that, as long as the power is there to avert these dangers, this freedom cannot be conceded while the faith, with which Reformed magistrates are bound to God, the church, and commonwealth, is kept safe. Second objection. This prohibition goes against the freedom of conscience. Response. We deny this. The States General in a decree from 1619 cited above emphatically declare that they do not at all want freedom of conscience to be restricted. However, these people who reason thus ignorantly confuse freedom of conscience and freedom of exercise of religion. Now, I have shown in my Thersites and in the Disputation on the Freedom of Conscience that these things must be distinguished and have also always been distinguished in the Netherlands, and I am not repeating my demonstration here.8 Our Republic has defended the first of these freedoms and has condemned its opposite, compulsion, but it has not at all defended the second freedom. They insist. Force is applied to every conscience and it is truly coerced when it is not allowed to freely do all those things which it believes it must necessarily do. Response. Some seem to attach some value to this lie told by the Remonstrants, even though regarding other things, at least in their intention and inclination, they themselves are not at all Remonstrants. And hence, as a consequence, you may hear people doubt and argue if the Catholics in our country should not be allowed to have some priests to celebrate mass or at least without any gathering of people to administer the sacraments, especially the last rites (as they say) to the dying, that is, the sacraments of penance, holy communion, 7 Guido Bentivoglio (1579–1644), Relationi fatte dall’illustrissimo, e reuerendissimo signor cardinal Bentiuoglio in tempo delle sue nuntiature di Fiandra, e di Francia. Date in luce da Erycio Puteano. 2 vols. (Antwerp: Meerbecius, 1629). 8 G. Voetius, Thersites heatontimorumenos. Hoc est, Remonstrantium Hyperaspistes, catechesi, et litvrgiae Germanicae, Gallicae, et Belgicae denuo insultans, retusus; idemque provocatus ad probationem Mendaciorum, et Calumniarum quae in Illustr. DD. Ordd. et ampliss. Magistratus Belgij, Religionem Reformatam, Ecclesias, Synodos, Pastores, etc. Sine ratione, sine modo effudit, a Gisberto Voetio Sacrarum literarum in illustri Gymnasio Ultrajectino Professore (Utrecht: Herwiick and Ribbius, 1635), 51–56; Idem, De libertate conscientiae et permissione religionum in Republica disputatio (Utrecht: Strickius 1643).

264  Gisbertus Voetius pseudo-­A xiomate: Permittenda esse cuivis omnia dicere, aut facere, quae protestatur conscientiae suae in negotio religionis sic dicenda et facienda videri. Quam monstrosum hoc sit ex sequentibus subsumtis collige. Atqui Socini, Serveti, Francisci Davidis, Gnosticorum, Manichaeorum, Saducaeorum, Samaritarum, Martini Seidelii, Weigelii, Antinomorum, Davidis Georgii, Brachmanum, Ukkonis Walles, Adolphi Venatoris, Henrici Nicolai, et ceterorum sectatores; quin et Anabaptistae Monasteriensis, et Calcuthani diabolum adorentes, Judaei denique et Turcae dicent, sua [817] quaeque abominanda ex judicio conscientiae suae in negotio religionis sic tum publice tum privatim dicenda et facienda esse. Ergo omnibus illis libera exercitia permittenda sunt. Quid responderent Remonstrantes, si rerum potirentur? An non dicerent; haec si ita dicere et facere velitis, hic saltem non licet? Sic arbitror. Jam applica ad pontificios, siquidem ipsorum conscientia dictet aut publica aut saltem privato-publica exercitia ipsis esse necessaria, licet ipsis absque poena capitis et bonorum confiscatione, alibi exercitia quaerere.

Gisbertus Voetius  265 and extreme unction. However, this point is easily debunked by refuting that false axiom: that everyone should be permitted to say or do everything that he or she declares must in this way be said and done in matters of religion according to his or her conscience. Conclude from the following how awful this is from the following underlying assumptions. Then the followers of Socinus, Servetus, Ferenc Dávid, the Gnostics, Manichaeans, Sadducees, Samaritans, Martinus Seidelius, Weigel, Antinomians, David Joris, the Brahmans, Ucke Walles, Adolphus Venator, Hendrik Nicolaas, and others, and even the Anabaptists from Münster and the devil worshippers of Calcutta, and finally the Jews and Turks will say [817] that the abominable things of each sect need to be said and done both in public and in private due to the judgement of their conscience in matters of religion.9 Therefore, to all of them free exercise of religion should be permitted. What would the Remonstrants respond if they were in charge? Would not they say ‘If you want to say and do these things in this way, then at least do not do it here?’ That is what I think. Now apply this to the Catholics, since their conscience dictates that public or at least semipublic exercise of religion is necessary, they can pursue free exercise of religion elsewhere without the death penalty and confiscation of goods. 9 These are all either religious groups from Jewish antiquity and early Christianity, religious figures from the Dutch and German Reformation, or cults in Asia about whose existence Voetius would have known from travel accounts. Fausto Sozzini (1539–1604) was an Italian theologian who founded a Christian school of thought known as Socinianism. It was notorious for among other things its nontrinitarian Christology and its unorthodox views on original sin, predestination, and divine omniscience. Michael Servetus (1509/1511–1553) was a Spanish theologian and physician who was burnt as a heretic for his views on the trinity. Ferenc Dávid (c. 1520–1579), a unitarian preacher from Transsylvania and a leading figure in nontrinitarian Protestantism. Gnosticism is the name for a collection of religious movements during the first centuries of Christianity. Among the core beliefs of these movements was the view that all humans are divine souls trapped in an evil material shell. The road to salvation is through knowledge (gnosis). Manichaeism was a religious movement founded by the Iranian prophet Mani (c. 216–276), which thrived between the third and seventh centuries CE. It had a dualistic cosmology partly inspired by gnosticism revolving around a struggle between a good spiritual world and an evil material world. The Saduccees were a Jewish sect which is believed to have become extinct some time after the destruction of Herod’s Temple 70 CE and Samaritans are a Jewish ethnoreligious minority. Martin Seidel (fl. 1610–1620) was a Polish unitarian. Valentin Weigel (1533–1588), a German theologian, philosopher and mystical writer, who believed in a spiritual church in which one could know Christ without any books or the Bible. Antinomianism, the belief that those who have been saved through faith and divine grace do not need to observe the moral law of the Ten Commandments. David Joris (c. 1501–1556) was an Anabaptist leader active in the Low Countries and later in Switzerland. Ucke Walles (c. 1593–1653), a radical mennonite leader and preacher, active across the Low Countries. Adolphus Venator (c. 1569/1577–1619), a Reformed minister in the city of Alkmaar. Although Venator is usually not believed to have been a Remonstrant himself, but his relatively moderate religious views did bring him into conflict with stricter ministers. Hendrik Nikolaas (fl. c. 1540) had moved to the Low Countries from Münster and spent a large part of his life in Amsterdam and Emden (Northwest Germany). In the latter town he was father of a ‘House of Love’, which came under suspicion because the love found there was rather carnal in nature. Nikolaas also believed he was a prophet following in the footsteps of Moses and Jesus. Moses had taught people hope, Jesus had taught them faith, and Nikolaas would teach them love.

266  Gisbertus Voetius III. Objectio. Bellum Belgicum susceptum et gestum est non pro reformata religione, sed pro libertate politica et religionis, hoc est, reformatae et pontificiae, etiam quarumcunque sectarum: ut quidam interpretantur. Responsio. Variae sunt stationes, seu status nostri belli. I. Status est primo primi inchoati belli sub gubernatrice Parmensi; quod occasionem habuit ex persecutione religionis reformatae et a reformatis ac ad defensionem reformatorum plerisque in locis gestum est. Lege in Historiis quomodo arma suscepta, et quae gesta sint ab illustri dynasta Brederodio et confoederatis nobilibus, nec non ab urbe Valenchena, aliisque. Brederodius publicam ecclesiae reformationem in civitate sua Vianensi, ibique typographum Nova Testamenta aliosque libros in usum reformatorum excudentem tuebatur: quae omnia decretis Caroli V. et Philippi II. in reformationem et reformatos editis adversabantur. Hactenus ergo illustris ille heros cum aliis nobilibus et magistratibus non tantum pro libertate politica contra usurpationes Hispanicas, sed etiam pro vera religione contra intolerabilem papatus et inquisitionis tyrannidem, arma expediisse dicendus est. A cujus sensu et consiliis minime alienum tunc fuisse Celsissimum Principem Auriacum Wilhelmum, immo plane eandem navim cum illo jam conscendisse, quamvis astu politico nondum tunc omnia vela ventis danda censeret, et res ipsa paulo post clamavit, et abunde detexerunt historici adversae partis, inter quos emicat Nicolaus Burgundus, qui ipsa secretiorum consiliorum acta exhibet. 2. Status incipit, cum contra Ducem Albanum publice arma caperet Wilhelmus Princeps Arausoniensis: ubi quidem defensio liberi exercitii reformatorum, tanquam communis et adaequata belli causa non fuit assignata; sed defensio libertatis et pacis politicae contra tyrannidem Hispanicam: interim praecipuus scopus Principis cum exercitu, et Principum Protestantium Germaniae, qui illum instruebant, omniumque fere Principis sectatorum ac fautorum in Belgio; erat Reformatorum sub alis hujus belli protectio, et omnis vexationis adversio: sic tamen ut suo loco relinqueretur religio papistica. 3. Status fuit, cum Principe victore, Hollandi, Zelandi, Gandenses, aliique in aliis provinciis [818] pro libertate et securitate politica, atque una pro sola religione reformata, excluso exercitio papismi, pugnarent usque ad propiorem unionem Ultrajectinam anno 1579 incluse. Postquam et Ultrajectini papismi exercitium prohibuerunt anno 1580. et alibi alii. Ubi notandum articulos unionis Vltrajectinae, quamvis religionem Romanam decretorie non excludentes, sic tamen conceptos esse, ut constaret sua authoritas et

Gisbertus Voetius  267 Third Objection. The Dutch Revolt was started and waged not for the Reformed religion, but for political freedom and freedom of religion, that is, of the Reformed and Catholic religion and even, in the interpretation of some people, of some sects. Response. There are several stages or phases of our war. The first phase is at the very beginning of the war when Margaret of Parma was governor. It was occasioned by the persecution of the Reformed religion and was waged by the Reformed and in the defence of the Reformed in very many places. Read in the histories how weapons were taken up and what was done by the illustrious Lord Brederode and the united noblemen, as well as by Valenciennes and other cities.10 Brederode also protected the public reformation of the church in his city, Vianen, and a printing press there, which printed copies of the New Testament and other books for the use of the Reformed. All these things were opposed with decrees of Charles V and Philip II, proclaimed against the reformation and the Reformed. Up to this point, it must be said that illustrious hero and the other noblemen and magistrates armed themselves in defence of the true religion against the intolerable tyranny of the papacy and inquisition. That the very eminent Prince William of Orange was not at all unfavourable to his sentiment and plans and had in fact already boarded the same ship, although in his political cunning he estimated that he should not yet spread all his sails to the winds, was made evident by the course of events itself a little later and has been revealed by the historians of the opposing side, among whom Nicolas de Bourgogne stands out, who presents the very acts of the secret councils.11 The second phase starts when William, Prince of Orange, publicly takes up arms against the Duke of Alba. In this phase, however, the defence of the exercise of religion of the Reformed, had not been assigned as the general and adequate cause of the war, but the defence of liberty and the political peace against the Spanish tyranny. Meanwhile, the particular goal of the Prince with his army and of the Protestant princes of Germany, who supported him, and of almost all followers and supporters of the Prince was the protection of the Reformed under the wings of this war and the fending off of all persecution, yet in such a way that the papist religion would be left in its place. The third phase was when, the Prince being victorious, the Hollanders, Zeelanders, the people of Ghent, and others in other provinces [818] fought for freedom and political security and for the Reformed religion alone, with the exclusion of exercise of papism, all the way up to the closer Union of Utrecht in 1579. Afterwards they also forbade the exercise of papism in Utrecht in 1580 and so did others elsewhere. Here it must be observed that although the articles of the Union of Utrecht did not exclude the Roman religion decisively, they were 10 It is unclear whether Voetius means a specific work on history or just any of the histories that had been written on the Dutch Revolt. 11 Nicolas de Bourgogne (1586–1649), Historia Belgica. Ab anno MDLVIII (Ingolstadt: Bayr, 1629).

268  Gisbertus Voetius libertas hac in parte provinciis illis, quae jam excluserant, et pro libertate politica, pro exercitio reformatae religionis, et pro exclusione papisticae sociale hoc bellum gerebant: cum aliae provinciae, aut potius partes et civitates aliquot quarundam unitarum provinciarum in sensu illo tunc nondum essent, aut eum pro illo tempore adhuc dissimularent. 4. Status fuit ab anno 1583. postquam biennio ante Philippo II. exauctorato, libera respublica constituta esset. Tunc communi foederatorum decreto religio reformata publice recepta, cum papisticae exclusione, et sic deinceps omnibus civitatibus ad unionem reductis, aut foederato Belgio adjectis, sive volentibus, sive nolentibus imposita, tanquam religio status, ejusque fundamentum. Ut idem variis Actis et Declarationibus Dominorum Ordinum confirmatur: quae magnam partem indicarunt deputati synodi Zuyd-Hollandicae in quadam remonstrantia anno 1628. contra clandestinas pro restituendo aut saltem permittendo remonstrantismo in Hollandia molitiones; quae typis edita. Quamvis ergo communiter ab omnibus, qui initio pro libertate et privilegiis contra Hispanos arma sumebant, pro religione reformata cum exclusione papisticae bellum gestum non fuerit, fuit tamen a multis ante annum 1581. pro ea gestum, et postea communi ac peremtorio decreto, ut pro libera Republica2 contra regem, sic pro reformata religione contra papatum. Nemo etiam aliud quid in Republica nostra professus est, usque ad annum 1612. incluse; cum minister ille politicus, qui infeliciter religionis mutationi se immiscebat, et manus suas cum novatoribus remonstranticis complicabat, fabricae et promulgationi celebris illius Decreti Dominorum Ordinum Generalium contra exercitia papismi praeesset. Sed postea ille cum suis, nova illa dictata, de bello gesto, non pro reformatione, sed pro libertate politica, et quarumvis religionum seu sectarum; deque nulla religione hactenus, tanquam status, per authoritatem publicam recepta et stabilita, et similia

2 1655: Reipublica.

Gisbertus Voetius  269 nevertheless conceived in such a way that its authority in this sense fitted those provinces, that had already excluded it and waged this war together with their allies for political freedom, for the exercise of the Reformed religion, and for the exclusion of the papist religion, when other provinces or rather regions and cities of some of the united provinces were not yet of that sentiment or still concealed it according to the circumstances. The fourth phase was from the year 1583, after the free commonwealth had been established, Philip II having been removed from office two years previously. At the time the Reformed religion was accepted as belonging to the state by a general decree, with the exclusion of the papist religion, and thus, subsequently, as all cities had been brought together in a union or added to the confederate Netherlands, either willingly or unwillingly the Reformed religion was imposed as the religion of its public order and the foundation of that public order. The same is likewise confirmed by the Various Acts and Declarations of the States, to which the Deputees of the Synod of South Holland referred in large part in a certain remonstrance printed in 1628 against the clandestine plots to restore or at least permit Remonstrantism in Holland.12 Although, therefore, generally speaking, not all who initially took up arms for freedom and their privileges against the Spaniards had fought the war for the Reformed religion with exclusion of the papist religion, many nevertheless had done so before 1581 and afterwards with the general and decisive decree, as for the free Republic against the king, thus also for the Reformed religion against the papacy. No one even professed anything else up to and including 1612 when that notorious politique minister, who played a part in the change of religion with an unfortunate outcome and joined hands with the Remonstrant agitators, presided over the fabrication and promulgation of that famous Decree of the States General against the exercise of papism.13 However, afterwards he and his allies began to throw about those new dictates about the war we had fought, that it was not in defence of the Reformation, but in defence of political liberty, and the freedom of all religions or sects; and on religion they argued that no religion up to that point had been accepted and established and other similar nonsense in favour of Remonstrantism. With regard to the first dictate, the absurdity is 12 See Acta der Particuliere Synoden van Zuid-Holland, 1621–1700, vol. 1 (1621–1633), ed. W.P.C. Knuttel (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1908), 239–245. 13 A reference to Johan van Oldenbarnevelt (1547–1619), the Land’s Advocate of Holland who presided over the drawing up of this decree that was issued on 27 March 1612 (see R. Fruin, ‘De wederopluiking van het Katholicisme in Noord-Nederland, omstreeks den aanvang der XVIIe eeuw’, De Gids 58 (1894), 289). Many religious hardliners felt that the decree was too tolerant towards Catholics (see H. Nellen, Hugo Grotius: A Lifelong Struggle for Peace in Church and State, 1583–1645 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2014), 113). In the controversy between Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants Van Oldenbarnevelt favoured the first. He was condemned to death and executed in 1619 following a conflict with Prince Maurice of Orange in which the difference of religious opinion between the two men played an important role.

270  Gisbertus Voetius ejusdem furfuris, in gratiam remonstrantismi jactare coepit. Quod ad prius dictatum, facile absurditas ex hoc simili patescit: Bellum Belgicum initio susceptum et gestum est pro rege, non contra regem Hispaniarum; ergo regis illius potestas jam inde ab anno 1581. et sic deinceps usque in hunc diem admittenda fuit, et pro ea non minus fideliter standum et pugnandum ac [819] quidem initio belli juxta protestationem Principis Auriaci Wilhelmi omniumque Belli sociorum, pugnatum fuit. Quasi vero, ut status Belgii durante bello admodum mutatus fuit, ita etiam status Belli Belgici mutatus non esset, quod ad causam, modum, finem. Ad cumulum accedat, quod non tantum Ordines Belgii foederati aperte professi et toties protestati sint post annum 1581. commune hoc bellum a se geri pro religione reformata cum exclusione papisticae, sed et ipsa pars adversa papistico-Hispanica acriter semper contenderit, hoc esse bellum religionis. Vide ex scriptis pro illa causa et parte editis omni exceptione majora Patritii Armachani (revera Cornelii Iansenii tunc Lovaniensis theologi post episcopi Iprensis) Martem Gallicum libr. 2. cap. 10.12. ubi ex professo probat bellum Ordinum confoederatorum adversus regem Hispaniae initio, medio, et fine religionis esse. Et Zypaei hiatum Chassani obstructum lib. 3. cap. 4. qui Armachani rationes approbat, et suas quasdam adjicit. Denique Nicolaei Vernulaei Apologiam Austriacam cap. 16. Adde Epistolas et Relationes Cardinalis Bentivoglii; et Cancellariam Hispanicam supra citatam, imprimis Epistolas Pii V. nunc sancti canonizabilis (si Zypaeo loco citato fides adhibenda), ad Philippum II. et Ducem Albanum. Eant nunc pontificii nostrates, eant neutrales, libertinici, sectarii cum tepidis aut ignorantibus quibusdam reformatis et contra factorum lucem, contra papae, regis, partis Hispanicae, Ordinum foederatorum constans judicium ac testimonium fingant Bellum Belgicum non esse gestum, pro religione, sed aut pro sola libertate politica, aut una pro cujusvis religionis libero exercitio. IV. Objectio. Iniquum est pontificios, qui inter primos pugnarunt pro libertate, nunc solos ea carere?

Gisbertus Voetius  271 easily made evident from this similar one: from the start, the Dutch Revolt was begun and waged for and not against the King of Spain. Therefore, the authority of that king had to be granted at once from 1581 and subsequently until this very day and we should not stand for and fight for this authority any less faithfully than [819] in fact had been fought at the beginning of the war in accordance with the declaration of Prince William of Orange and of all allies of the war. As if, as the status of the Low Countries had changed, the status of the Dutch War, as it was being waged, would not have changed completely along with it with regard to cause, method, and goal. To this heap of arguments can be added that not just the States of the Netherlands openly professed and declared so many times after 1581 that they waged this general war in defence of the Reformed religion with exclusion of the papist religion, but the opposing papist-Spanish side, too, always maintained this was a war of religion. As testimonies beyond all exception, see the Mars Gallicus, book two, chapters 10 and 12 by Patrick of Armagh (in fact, by Cornelius Jansenius, then a theologian at Leuven, later bishop of Ypres), where he emphatically proves that the war of the confederate States against the King of Spain was a war of religion at the start, middle, and end.14 See also Cassan’s Boastfulness Obstructed, book three, chapter 4, by Zypaeus, who approves of Armagh’s reasons and adds some of his own.15 Finally, see Nicolaus Vernulaeus’s Apology in Defence of the House of Austria, chapter 16. Add to these, the Epistles and reports of Cardinal Bentivoglio and the Spanish Chancery, cited above, especially the letters of Pius V, who is now possibly being canonized as a saint (if we are to believe Zypaeus in the chapter cited above), to Philip II and the Duke of Alba. Let our Catholics, neutrals, libertines, sectarians together with some lukewarm and ignorant Reformed people just clear off now and fabricate falsehoods against the clarity of actual deeds, against the steadfast judgement and testimony of the pope, king, the Spanish side, and the confederate States that the Dutch War was not waged for religion, but only for political freedom or for political freedom and the free exercise of religion of everyone. Fourth objection. Is it not unjust that the papists, who were among the first to fight for liberty, are now the only ones who lack it?

14 [Cornelius Jansenius], Alexandri Patricii Armacani, theologi, Mars Gallicus, sev De ivstitia armorvm, et foedervm regis Galliae, libri dvo ([s.l.]: [s.n.] 1635). 15 Franciscus Zypaeus (1580–1650), Hiatus Iacobi Cassani obstructus. Vbi immensa illius totam Europam scriptione deuorantis ambitio nullo iure niti demonstratur: ditiones Belgicae Iuri Regis Catholici asseruntur: foederum regiorum vis atque virtus comprobatur: hodierni denique belli Hispano-Gallo-Belgici iustitia ostenditur. Quibus illapsa est disceptatio de pace Pragensi MDCXXXV. adversus Deplorationem Iusti Asterij: accessitque caput Posthumum super Vindicijs Gallicis (Antwerp: Verdussen, 1639).

272  Gisbertus Voetius Responsio. De libertate politica contra intentatam servitutem, oppressionem, et tyrannidem Hispanorum, fatemur. Nec plane diffitemur, aliquos eorum directe pugnasse contra rigorem et tyrannidem inquisitionis, et concilii turbarum seu sanguinarii (uti vocabant), modumque omnem in criminalibus contra reformatos aut reformatae religionis suspectos procedendi, qui antiquis juribus, libertatibus et privilegiis Belgarum non conveniret. Quo factum, ut cum pro se et suis pugnarent, etiam indirecte et per reflexionem quasi, quodammodo promoverent ac tuerentur libertatem conscientiae reformatorum. Sed contra dicimus, eos velificatione mutata, perfide belli socios destituisse, et cum Hispanis transegisse; aut jugum eorum sponte sibi accersivisse; aut civitates et praefecturas perfide hostibus tradidisse; aut communem causam prodidisse. Legendae historiae de Artesiis et Hannoniis, Mechliniensibus, Sylvae-Ducensibus, nobilibis illis, quos Malcontentos vocabant, deque Comite Renneburgico, aliisque, qui prius partes Ordinum secuti [820] erant. Exceptio. Atqui illis hoc imputetur, non reliquis pontificiis, qui in fidelitate perstiterunt. Responsio. Ubi illi sunt qui in fidelitate perstiterunt? Quomodo in ea perstitissent, quamdiu religioni et conscientiae papisticae, ac papae aut clericorum spirituali magisterio non renuntiarent: per quae ad defectionem illam se teneri putabant. Primi ergo cum nostris pugnarunt; sed et primi defecerunt, immo causam pro virili perditum iverunt; idque praetextu conservandae aut restituendae religionis suae, et jussu papae sui, ac ductu clericorum. Hoc triplici fune ad Hispanum et in perfidiam tracti sunt. Ita ut priora merita eorum, demeritis illis plusquam obliterata sint, et propter ea nihil ipsis debeatur ex justitia. Nec etiam ex gratia, et politice (rationes theologicas nunc sepono) quidquam concedi potest, quamdiu supremae et infallibili potestati papae, et opinionibus de supplicio haereticorum (quales ipsis sunt reformati) deque mentalibus reservationibus et dispensationibus papalibus in juramento fidelitatis, quin et absolutionibus ab eodem, adhaec confessariis ac clericis suis adhaerent. Confer supra Problemata 5. et 6. et Disputationem de sede Romana incompatibili cum politiis reformatis. Ne

Gisbertus Voetius  273 Response. We concede this point with regard to political liberty against the threatening servitude, oppression, and tyranny of the Spaniards. Nor do I simply deny that some of them directly fought against the harshness and tyranny of the inquisition and the Council of Troubles or of Blood16 (as they used to say) and against every manner of proceeding in criminal cases against the Reformed and those suspected of adhering to the Reformed religion, which was not in accordance with the ancient rights, freedoms, and privileges of the Dutch. Hence it came about that, as they fought for themselves and for their own people, they also indirectly and accidentally as it were advanced and protected the freedom of conscience of the Reformed. But I object that they changed course and treacherously deserted their allies of the war and crossed over to the Spaniards or out of their own free will invited their yoke or perfidiously handed over cities and administrations to the enemies or betrayed our common cause. One must only read the histories on those nobles from Artois, Hainaut, Mechelen, and Den Bosch, called the Malcontents,17 and about Count Renneberg and others who had previously sided with the States General. [820] Exception. Let this be imputed to them; not to the other papists, who remained loyal. Response. Where are those papists who remained loyal? How would they have remained loyal, as long as they did not renounce their papist conscience and the spiritual authority of the pope and clergy, because of which they believed they were bound to defect. They were the first to fight with us, but they were also the first to defect. In fact, they did all they could to ruin our cause on the pretext of preserving or restoring their religion, at the command of their pope, and under the guidance of their clergy. With this three-stranded rope they were drawn to the Spaniard and into perfidy, so that their earlier merits were more than erased by their demerits and therefore nothing should be owed to them as a matter of justice. Nor can anything be conceded to them as a favour or for political reasons (I will pass over the theological reasons for now), as long as they adhere to the supreme and infallible authority of the pope and their opinions regarding the punishment of heretics (which is what the Reformed are to them) and to their mental reservations and papal dispensations when swearing an oath of loyalty, nay even the absolutions from the pope, as well as their priests hearing confession and clergymen. Compare problems five and six above and the disputation on the Roman see being incompatible with Reformed states.18 16 The Council of Troubles (Raad van Beroerten), also known as the Council of Blood (Bloedraad) had been set up by the Duke of Alba in 1567 to punish the ringleaders of the unrest in the years 1566–1567. 17 The Malcontents were a group of primarily Catholic noblemen who in the years 1577–1578 who opposed William of Orange and were reconciled with King Philip of Spain in the Treaty of Arras (1579). 18 In problems five and six Voetius had discussed the question whether or not Catholics could be good citizens, e.g. if they explicitly rejected the worldly and spiritual authority of the pope, as English Catholics had done in a petition addressed to parliament in 1641

274  Gisbertus Voetius quis autem putet me hic extremam aut rigidiorem quam sententiam sectari, dum contra pseudo-politicum hoc commentum, contendo, quod tempore factionis remonstranticae in Belgio foederato jactari coepit et nunc denuo mussitatur; is conferat Illustrium Dominorum Ordinum Generalium responsum anno 1644. datum legato Gallico d’Avaux. V. Objectio. Dato antehac statum belli cum Hispano Dominibus Ordinibus rationes suggessisse, cur subditis pontificiae religionis minus fiderent, atque ideo religionis suae exercitia, et aditum ad munera publica negarent: nunc tamen constituta pace, videntur rationes illae cessare. Responsio. I. Conclusio. Pacem initam, a parte nostra servandam, credo; cum nulla dubitandi ratio religione nostra desumi possit. Quid a parte altera futurum sit, nescio; nec teneor credere nullas dubitandi rationes ex religione istius partis suppetere. Quousque autem papam aliquando Belgii pacem, si ita visum, solenniter et pontificaliter (uti nuper Germaniae pacem) abrogaturum ob easdem aut similes causas, auditura esset pars Hispanica, nostrum non est dicere, sed ex providentia divina dependere: cum futurorum contingentium non sit determinata veritas; nec dubitationes aut conjecturae nostrae circa incertos rerum humanarum eventus, factorum nostrorum sint regula. II. Conclusio. Dato, omnia ex voto nostro concedere, quin immo partem alteram pontifici ejusque doctrinae nobiscum renuntiare, aut non amplius esse in rerum natura; manent tamen rationes omnes contra praetensam nostratium papistarum libertatem, et aditum ad munera, ex dependentia ipsorum a papa Romano et a clericis desumtae: quos cum papa suo supra Problematibus 3. et 4. negavimus esse neutrales, et cum politiis reformatis compatibiles: Ut rationes theologicas nunc non tangam.

Gisbertus Voetius  275 Lest anyone might think I pursue some extreme or rather too rigid view, as I dispute this pseudo-political lie, which began to be uttered in the time of the Remonstrant faction in the United Provinces and is now being muttered again, then let him compare the response given to the French ambassador d’Avaux in the year 1644 by the illustrious States General.19 Fifth objection. Should it be admitted that the state of war with the Spanish provided the States with reasons why they had less faith in subjects of the papal religion and therefore refused them the exercise of their religion and access to public offices, then nevertheless now that the peace has been established those reasons have ceased to exist. Response. First conclusion. I believe that the established peace must be maintained by our side, since no reason for doubt can be deduced from our religion. I do not know what the future is on the other side, but I am bound to believe that there are reasons for doubt present based on the religion of that side. Moreover, as long as the pope is in a position to solemnly and pontifically repeal the peace of the Netherlands, if he so pleases, for the same or similar reasons as he has recently done with the peace of Germany, then we would have to know what the position on the Spanish side is. It is not up to us to speak, but it depends on divine providence. For there is no determined truth of future contingencies and our doubts or conjectures concerning uncertain outcomes of human events are no rule for our deeds. Second conclusion. Even if all things yielded to our desire and in fact the other side rejected the pontiff and his doctrine or if all things were no longer relevant, then nevertheless all reasons remain against the suggested freedom of our papists and the access to offices, deduced from their dependence on the Roman pontiff and clergy. We denied above in problems three and four that the clergy and their pope are neutral and compatible with reformed states, so that I do not now need to touch upon the theological reasons.

(Disputationes selectae, vol. 2, 806–811). The disputation on the Holy See can be found in Disputationes selectae vol. 2, pp. 827–856. 19 This response can be found in the Pieces touchantes les catholiques, 70–73.

11 Johannes Hoornbeeck and the Reformed against Holy War

Johannes Hoornbeeck (Haarlem, 1617 – Leiden, 1666) studied theology at Leiden and Utrecht. At the latter university he was Voetius’s student. After a stint as a reformed minister near Cologne, he obtained his doctorate from the University of Utrecht in 1643 and became professor of theology at the same institution in the following year. Like his teacher Voetius, he opposed the views of Johannes Cocceius on the interpretation of the Bible and when he was asked to take up a chair at Leiden where Cocceian views were strong he only accepted after much hesitation. Hoornbeeck’s work is usually interpreted within the context of the socalled Nadere Reformatie (Further Reformation), a period in the seventeenth and first half of the eighteenth century when many among the Dutch Reformed tried to give more practical substance to the abstract teachings of their church. An example of Hoornbeeck’s thinking in this respect is his Theologia practica (Practical Theology, 1663). Many of his publications engage in polemic and debate with other confessions and religions, such as the Summa controversiarum religionis (Essence of religious controversies, 1653), and conversion, such as Pro convincendis et convertendis Judaeis (For the convincing and converting of the Jews, 1655) and De conversione Indorum et gentilium (On the conversion of Indians and Heathens, 1669). Although he was convinced of the truth of his own Reformed beliefs, ­Hoornbeeck had a highly developed curiosity and interest in the ideas, cultures, and traditions of others. His De conversione, for example, contains detailed discussions of the customs and religious convictions of non-Western peoples across the globe. Similarly, he took a pragmatic approach to borrowing ideas and insights from Catholic authors, such as Francisco de Vitoria (1483–1546) and José de Acosta (1540–1600). The common ground between Hoornbeeck and his – often Jesuit – sources is often a shared Thomist belief that people cannot be forced through violence to believe what goes against their religious convictions and conscience. This was contrary to many of the Scotist positions advocated by the Franciscans. Although Hoornbeeck’s is a far more sympathetic approach to the confessional divide in Europe and the world than we have seen in many earlier authors, it would be naïve to see his thinking in ecumenical terms. The implied

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-22

Johannes Hoornbeeck  277 suggestion underlying his borrowings is often a polemical one, namely that Catholic monarchs do not seem to be able to live up to the ideals set out by Catholic theorists. The excerpt presented here is the chapter ‘De bello’ (On war) from the Theologia practica and demonstrates Hoornbeeck’s conviction that war is only justifiable under strict circumstances of self-defence. The Latin text used is Theologiae practicae tomus alter. Auctore Johanne Hoornbeek, S. Litterarum in Ecclesia et Academia Lugduno-Batava Doctore et Professore. Accessit ejusdem Irenicum, de studio pacis atque concordiae et Oratio, de prudentia. Editio secunda, Aucta Indice Rerum et Locorum S. Scripturae (Utrecht: Johan and Willem van de Water, 1689), 550–559.

Suggestions for further reading Gommans, J. J. L., and I. Loots, “Arguing with the Heathens: The Further Reformation and the Ethnohistory of Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617–1666),” Itinerario 39, no. 1 (2015), 45–68. Hoornbeeck, J., On the Conversion of Indians and Heathens. An annotated translation of De conversione indorum et gentilium (1669), edited and translated by Ineke Loots and Joke Spaans. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Lieburg, F. van, “Dynamics of Dutch Calvinism: Early Modern Programs for Further Reformation.” In Calvinism and the Making of the European Mind, edited by G. van den Brink and H. M. Höpfl, 43–66. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

Johannis Hoornbeeck, Theologia practica (1689)

[550] Caput tertium decimum: De Bello Jac. IV. I. Unde bella et pugnae inter vos? Nonne hinc, ex voluptatibus vestris, quae militant in membris vestris? Cum duo sint genera decertandi: alterum per disceptationem, alterum per vim, illud homini proprium est, at hoc cum belluis habet commune, et bellum appellant: an a belluis dictum? nisi potius belluarum nomen a bello derivetur: an, quia minime bellum? sed ejusmodi ἀντιφράσεις, non sine causa, Vossio videntur mera inscitiae asyla: a duello factum esse omnino verisimile; quemadmodum a duis bis a duonum bonum, et similia. Atque dupliciter consideratur, vel prout a Deo hominibus immittitur, in gravem poenam et castigationem; vel prout ab hominibus exercetur, juste, vel injuste. Et quidem inter gravissimas afflictiones locum tenet non infimum, ut quae non in vitam tantum stragem infert, quod et pestis facit; atque in bona, quod etiam fames; sed mores plane reddit ferinos et inhumanos, omniumque officiorum homines dedita opera negligentes. Levit. xxvi. 25. Primo loco ponitur inter poenas a Deo propter peccata inferendas, ante pestem, et famem: inducam contra vos gladium ulciscentem ultionem foederis, adeo ut congregetis vos in civitatis vestras: tum immittam pestem inter vos, et trademini in manum inimici. Saepe autem Deus utrumqe conjungit, bellum et pestem. Exod. v. 3. Sacrificemus Deo nostro, ne occurat in nos peste aut gladio. Vide, ut illo modo, cultu nimirum sui, Deus ab inferendis illis avertatur. Jer. xiv. 12. Fame ac peste sum eos consumturus. Deut. xxviii. 22, 25, 49. Judic. ii. 13, 14. et iv. 3. et vi. 1. etcetera. Dignum est expendere proportionem, quam

DOI: 10.4324/9781003058229-23

Johannes Hoornbeeck, Practical Theology (1663)

[550] Chapter thirteen: On War James 4: 1 ‘What is the origin of the wars and fights between you? Do they not arise from your desires, which battle in your body?’ There are two kinds of fighting: one through debate, the other through violence. The first is particular to people, but the second we have in common with beasts and is called ‘war’. Does war [bellum] derive its name from beasts [belluis]? Unless rather beasts get their name from war? Or does war get its name from its opposite, because it is not at all beautiful [bellum]? To Vossius such antiphraseis, that is, the use of a word in a sense opposite to its proper meaning seemed mere places of refuge for ignorance. He believed it was very probable that it has risen from the duel. In the same way you get the word bis from duis and bonum from duonum and other similar cases.1 War is considered in two ways, either as it is instigated by God against people or as it is carried out by people, either justly or unjustly. And among the most serious afflictions it does not hold the least position, as war is an affliction which does not just bring ruin to life, which is what the plague does too, and to goods, which is what hunger does as well, but renders all manners completely wild and inhumane and makes people of all stations negligent of their assigned tasks. See Leviticus 26: 25. War is mentioned among the punishments inflicted by God due to sins before the plague and hunger: ‘I will bring a sword against you to avenge the breaking of the covenant, when you come together in your cities. Then I will bring the plague among you and I will hand you over to the enemy’. God often combines the two, war and plague. Exodus 5: 3: ‘Let us sacrifice to our God, lest he attack us with plague and the sword’. See that in that way, namely through His worship, God is averted from inflicting those things. Jeremiah 14: 12: ‘I will burn them with hunger and the plague’. Deuteronomy 28: 22, 25, 49; Judges 2: 13, 14 and 4: 3 and 6: 1 etcetera. It is worth considering the

1 Gerardus Vossius, Etymologicon linguae Latinae. Praefigitur ejusdem de literarurum permutatione tractatus (Amsterdam: Elzevier, 1662), 69: bellum.

280  Johannes Hoornbeeck Deus constituit inter famem, bellum, et pestem, quorum optionem Davidi facit ii Sam. xxiv. 13. annorum, mensium, et dierum; ita ut septem annorum fames aequetur cum trium [551] mensium bello et ex bello fuga, atque cum trium dierum peste saevissima. Jam uti non admodum dispar debuerit istorum esse ratio, alioqui nulla futura eligendi difficultate; ita nullum dubium, quin rex sapientissimus juxta et piissimus petierit hoc quod magis tutum fuit et salutare. Unde quanto satius et optabilibus sit peste corripi, quam bello, non frustra colligas. Deus et immittit bella, ut justus judex ulturus hominum adversus se improbitatem, permittendo vid. ut plurimum alteram. Jos. xi. 20. Jer. v. 15. et l. 9. Jesa. liv. ult. Jezech. xi. 8. et xxx. 24. Etiam aufert, ubi visum, et cessare facit ac quiescere. Prout bellorum auctor est justus, etiam pacis Deus. Psal. xlvi. 8, 9, 10. Non est bellum ex genere bonorum, sed malorum, quae demum fiunt licita, et hactenus bona, ex triplici causa; primum justa, tum gravi, denique necessaria. Nisi causa justa sit, est latrocinium, eo gravius homicidium, quo latius se diffundit. Nec quaevis causa justa ad bellum vocat, nisi gravissima; tum quae aliter tolli, quam bello, non potest. Uti in medicina non est urendum et secandum, nisi extrema cogente necessitate, et nullis aliis remediis malum coërceri aut superari queat: sic in republica ad bellum, nisi alia omnia media frustra sint, haud est deveniendum. Tantam malorum segetem omnium adfert secum. Unde Job. xxxviii. 23. Tempus angustiae dicitur dies belli: quae cohibeo ad tempus angustiae, ad diem conflictus et belli. Adde Jerem. iv. 19. Matth. xxiv. 6, 7. Luc. xxiii. 29. Justa belli causa est, et prima, sui defensio; tum suorum recuperatio, adversus vim injuste illatam, neque aliter quam bello propulsandam. i Reg. xxii. 3. ii Chron. xxxv. 21. Accedit, quando jussu Dei, omnium Domini, terrae occupandae sunt: quemadmodum olim factum ab Israëlitis, et ademptae septem nationibus Cananaeorum, atque Amalekitis, quos propter scelera regionibus suis Deus expulit, ut eas traderet in haereditatem suo populo. Deut. vii. 1, 2. et xx. 17. et xxv. 19. Unde Judaei distinguunt, in bellum praeceptum, ‫מלחמת תצוה‬, quod Deus illis praeceperat, pro terra illa capienda gerendum, ideoque appellabant bellum terrae Israëlis; et ultroneum ‫מלחמת הרשת‬, quod cum finitimis gerebant, aliisque, data occasione, ex sententia

Johannes Hoornbeeck  281 relative proportion which God established between hunger, war, and the plague, of which He offered David the choice in 2 Samuel 24: 13 of years, months, and days, so that seven years of hunger was the same as three [551] months of war and fleeing from war and three days of very savage plague. There is absolutely no disparity between these options and, moreover, any future choice between them would not be difficult. Thus, there is no doubt that the very wise king as a very pious man asked for what was safer and more beneficial. Hence, you would not conclude in vain how much better and desirable it is to be snatched away by the plague than by war. God also inflicts wars as a just judge who will avenge the wickedness of humans against him, namely by allowing another wickedness at its full force. See Joshua 11: 20; Jeremiah 5: 15 and 50: 9; Isaiah 54: 17; Ezekiel 11: 8 and 30: 24. He also takes away war, brings it to an end and calms it. Just as He is the just creator of wars, in the same way is God also the maker of peace. Psalms 46: 8–10. War does not belong to the category of good things, but of bad things, that only become licit and good to an extent, depending on a threefold cause. The cause must be first of all just, grave, and finally necessary. If the cause is not just, then it is villainy, and all the graver a murder, as it spreads out more widely. Nor does just any just cause call for war, but only the gravest, as well as those that can only be removed through war. Just as in medicine one should not burn or cut away, unless in the case of extreme necessity and when evil cannot be contained or overcome through any other remedies. Thus, in a commonwealth no recourse should be taken to war, unless all other means are in vain. It brings such a great bunch of all possible evils. Hence in Job 38: 23, the day of war is called the time of affliction: ‘the treasures I put in reserve for the time of affliction, for the day of conflict and war’. Add Jeremiah 4: 19; Matthew 24: 6–7; Luke 23: 29. The first just cause of war is self-defence; then follows the recovery of one’s possessions against unjustly inflicted violence, which can only be warded off through war. See 1 Kings 22: 3; 2 Chronicles 35: 21. To this is added the situation when at the command of God, the lord of all, lands must be occupied, as was once done by the Israelites and lands were taken from seven nations of the Canaanites and from the Amalekites, who God expelled for their wicked deeds from their regions, in order to give them to His people as inheritance. See Deuteronomy 7: 1–2 and 20: 17 and 25: 19. Hence, the Jews distinguish in a war that has been commanded the milkhemet mitzvah, which God had ordered them to wage in order to capture that land and which they therefore called the war of the land of Israel, and the war of one’s own accord, the milkhemet hareshut, which they waged with their neighbours and others, on a given occasion, based on the judgement of the Sanhedrin. For this reason, it is said in the Mishnah Sanhedrin, Chapter

282  Johannes Hoornbeeck senatus supremi. Unde in Misna Sanhedrin, cap. i. ‫ אין מוצאין למלחמת הרשת‬non prodeunt in bellum arbitrarium nisi ex sententia judicum Septuaginta unius. Simpliciter, vel animi gratia bellum inferre; vel pro capiendis aliorum terris bonisque, ex avaritia, i Reg. xx. 7. atque pro imperio proferendo, [552] ex ambitione, ii Reg. xiv. 9, 10. non facit justum belli titulum aut causam. Josephus, contra Apionem secundo: nec fortitudinem exercuimus ut bella avaritiae causa susciperemus. Quare Justinus, in initio, de prima gentium et imperiorum aetate: fines imperii tueri magis, quam proferre, mos erat. intra suam cuique patriam regna finiebantur. Primus omnium Ninus, Rex Assyriorum, veterem, et quasi avitum gentibus morem nova imperii cupiditate mutavit. Hic primus intulit bella finitimis. Quod uti non cum priscis et primaevis moribus, ita neque cum justitia convenit, quae vetat aliorum res concupiscere, capere, praedari, vel alia quam suam possidere et defendere. Aliud est, si quis primus occupet bona vacua, quae nullius appellantur; vel quae jam honesto titulo ac jure sunt alterius, ideoque nec tua, nec tibi concupiscenda. Quemadmodum tua nolles rapi quomodocunque,1 vi aut arte, ab alio. Augustinus, inferre bella finitimis, et inde in caetera procedere, ac populos sibi non molestos sola regni cupiditate conterere et subdere, quid aliud quam grande latrocinium nominandum est? Neque adeo pro religione promovenda vel inferenda etiam, arma capienda sunt, quae non armis carnalibus nititur, aut inseritur, sed spiritualibus. ii Cor. x. 4, 5. Neque enim milites Christus misit ad orbem sibi subigendum, sed doctores, et doctrina imperat in homines, non gladio. Franciscus a

1 1689: quomodcunque.

Johannes Hoornbeeck  283 1: ayin mutziyin lemilkhemet hareshut, ‘they do not leave for a voluntary war, unless on the basis of the judgment of the seventy-one judges’.2 Simply starting a war for the sake of amusement or in order to capture the lands and goods of others out of avarice (1 Kings 20: 7) and to extend one’s empire [552] out of ambition (2 Kings 14: 9–10) does not make for a just title or cause for war. Josephus wrote in the second book of Against Apion: ‘We do not exercise our bravery in order to start wars for the sake of greed’.3 Therefore, Justin wrote at the beginning of his work, on the first age of nations and empires: It was the custom to defend the borders of one’s empire rather than to extend them. Kingdoms were confined to the fatherland of each. Ninus, king of the Assyrians, was the first of all to change the old and as it were ancestral custom among the nations through his desire for empire. He was the first to attack his neighbours in war.4 Just as it is not in accordance with old and ancient customs, in the same way does it not accord with justice, which forbids to desire, take, or plunder the possessions of other people or to possess and defend things that are not your own. It is one thing when someone takes possession of goods without an owner, which are said to belong to no one; it is quite another thing to take possession of those things that already belong to someone else with a just title and by right and that are therefore not yours and should be desired by you. In the same way, you would not want that your possessions should be stolen with violence or cunning by someone else. Augustine wrote: To start wars against your neighbours and to then move on to other matters and to destroy and subdue peoples that are not harmful to you out of sheer desire for power, what should we call that besides great villainy?5 Nor indeed should the weapons be drawn for the sake of advancing the religion or forcing it on others. Religion does not rely on nor is implanted with carnal weapons, but with spiritual ones. See 2 Corinthians 10: 4–5. Nor did Christ send soldiers to subjugate the world, but teachers, and he rules over people through learning, not the sword. Francisco de Victoria, the teacher

2 The Mishnah Treatise Sanhedrin, edited with an introduction, notes, and glossary by Samuel Krauss (Leiden: Brill, 1909), 2 (1.5(‫))ה‬. 3 Joseph. Ap. 2.291. 4 Just. Epit. 1.1. 5 August. De Civ. D. 4.6.

284  Johannes Hoornbeeck Victoria, praeceptor Melchioris Cani, in Relectionibus Theologicis, Relect. vi. de jure2 belli; primam hanc facit propositionem: causa justi belli non est diversitas religionis. Haec probata fuit prolixe in proxima relectione, ubi impugnavimus quartum titulum, qui praetendi potest ad possessionem barbarorum: quia scilicet nolunt recipere fidem Christianam. Et est sententia S. Thom. 2. 2. 4. 66. artic. 8. et communis sententia doctorum: neque scio aliquem qui contrarium sentiat. Secunda propositio: non est justa causa belli, amplificatio imperii. Haec notior est, quam ut probatione indigeat, alias esset aeque justa causa ex utraque parte belligerantium, et sic essent omnes innocentes. Ex quo iterum sequeretur, quod non liceret occidere illos: et implicat contradictionem, quod esset justum bellum, et non liceret occidere illos. Tertia propositio: nec est justa causa belli aut gloria propria, aut aliud commodum principis. Pro quarta autem propositione ipsi est, quod unica et sola causa inferendi bellum, est injuria accepta, gravis videlicet et atrox. Pro injuria accepta, malim dicere, saltem addere, pro damno accepto: quia in ulla condonanda multum valet religio Christiana, ut remittere velis, quod potes, forte ad devitanda graviora incommoda etiam debes: sed damnum tam grave reipublicae illatum, ut nisi bello sarciri3 possit, neque enim alias bellum justum diximus nisi necessarium et hac ratione [553] coactum, non potes omittere, ut velis, quia in hoc vertitur salus publica. Loquimur autem de eo, qui bellum statuendi habet potestatem. Nisi forsitan injuriam de damno exponas, et pro eodem capias utrumque. Denique vindicare injuriam non tam commode sonat in auribus Christianorum, quam jus

2 1689: juri. 3 1689: sacriri.

Johannes Hoornbeeck  285 of Melchior Cano makes this first proposition in the Theological Lectures, lecture six, on the right of war: A cause for just war is not diversity of religion. This was proved in the previous lecture, where we argued against the fourth title, which can lay claim to the possession of the barbarians because they decline to receive the Christian faith. And it is the view of St Thomas in 2.2.4.66. article 8 and the common view of the learned. Nor do I know anyone with the contrary opinion.6 His second proposition: Extending one’s empire is not a just cause of war. This is too well known to require proof, otherwise there would be an equally just cause on both sides of the warring parties and thus everyone would be innocent. From this, in turn, it would follow that it would not be licit to kill those engaged in the war. It also involves a contradiction, namely that it would be both a just war and it would be illicit to kill those engaged in it.7 Third proposition: ‘Sheer glory or another advantage for the prince is not a just cause of war’.8 However, the place of the fourth proposition for him is taken by what is the one and only just cause for starting a war, a suffered injury, that is a grave and atrocious one.9 For ‘suffered injury’, I would rather say, or at least add, ‘for suffered damage’, because the Christian religion is very good at pardoning anything, so that you may want to forgive what you can, and perhaps even should do so in order to avoid graver woes.10 However, there can be damage inflicted on the commonwealth that is so grave that it can only be corrected through war. For we have said that a war is not otherwise just unless necessary, and, forced on you [553] by this reason, you cannot omit it as you would like, because the public wellbeing is dependent on it. We are talking here about the person who has the authority of deciding on a war. Unless, perhaps you explain the injury from the damage and would take both to mean the same thing. Finally, avenging an injury does not sound as apt in the ears of Christians as the right to reclaim what 6 Francisco de Victoria, Relectiones Theologicae XII. in duos tomos diuisae: Quarum seriem uersa pagella indicabit. Svmmariis suis ubique locis adiectis, una cum indice omnium copiosissimo. Tomus primus (1557), 389. The refutation of the fourth title in Victoria’s lecture five can be found on page 330. 7 Ibid., 389–390. 8 Ibid., 390. 9 Ibid., 390–391. 10 In Roman Law, injuria was an actionable violation of right in general, whereas damnum implied physical loss, whether intentional or accidental. Alexander Burrill, A New Law Dictionary and Glossary. 2 parts (New York: Voorhies, 1850), part 1, sub ‘Damnum absque injuria’.

286  Johannes Hoornbeeck repetundarum: praeterquam quod in bello animum in rem satius est dirigere, quam in vindictam. Quare omne bellum, quod justum sit, originem suam ducit ex necessitate defensionis; et haec quando, vel quia praestari absque offensione non potest, illi de suo rationem justitiae communicat, quam sola ex se non haberet. Offendere enim alium non licet, nisi cogaris: cogeris vero, te defendendo. Quare quemadmodum in privatis, sic in publicis quoque, eadem enim ubique est justitiae regula, si te tuaque satis defendere possis sine ulla ullius offensione, hoc aequum: nisi quousque etiam e re publica est puniri ejus turbones. Et sic pro libertate tua, tuorumque, sive quam natura largitur, sive jus gentium, juste sumuntur arma, eaque tuenda quam jure merito possides, possident et socii tui. Florus, lib. i. cap. ix. liber jam hinc populus Romanus, prima adversus exteros arma pro libertate corripuit; mox pro finibus; deinde pro sociis. Adde ex Sacris, Gen. xiv. 14. et Jos. x. 6. Nec omitto libertatem religionis, et defensionem eorum qui eam ubi licet promovent. Nam quamvis armis propaganda non sit, propagatores tamen non sunt deserendi, sed defendendi ubi locorum jus nobis datur armis utendi: ipsaque religio ibidem patrocinio et armis juvanda est, ubi ab aliis oppugnatur, aut deseritur. Jos. xxii. 15. Jud. xx. 11, 12. Similiter arcendi haeretici ab iis, quibus et ecclesiae, et reipublicae tranquillitatem sartam tectam conservare incumbit. Vide ad haec Carpzovium, in legem Regiam Germanorum, cap. i. sect. vi. ubi ostendit, quod pro tuenda religione justum ac legitimum suscipitur bellum; secus vero ad religionem propagandam. Ergo uti bellum oportet omnino esse justum, ita sui defensio illud praestat: accedit momentum rei, atque pervicacia hostium, quae postulant quoque offensionem, et impugnari eos, quos declinare, vel arcere aliter non potes. A causa est belli justitia, verum gravi; ab hostibus, ejus necessitas. Tentandae prius omnes viae, pro recuperandis rebus nostris, vel tuendis, uti pacifice omnia sine bello transigantur: quae ubi frustra sunt omnia, tum demum armis locus est. Ea propter Israëlitae ad quam civitatem accederent bellatum, debuerunt ante omnia pacem illis offerre, neque armis pugnare, nisi spreta

Johannes Hoornbeeck  287 belongs to you. Besides, in a war it is preferable to focus your mind on a practical thing than on taking revenge. Therefore, any war that is just derives its origin from the need of defence, and when or because this cannot be provided for without attacking someone, this offence shares with defence the nature of its justice, which offence on its own would not have. For attacking someone else is not licit, unless you are forced, but you would be forced by defending yourself. Therefore, as in private matters, thus in public matters too, the rule of justice is the same everywhere, if you are able to defend yourself and your possessions without attacking anyone, then that is equitable, except to the extent that it can be expected from the commonwealth to punish troublemakers. And thus recourse is rightly taken to arms in defence of your own liberty, which is given by nature or the right of nations, and of the liberty of those that are with you. This liberty which you rightfully possess, and which your allies possess too, must be protected. See Florus, book one, chapter 9: ‘The Roman people, free from now on, first took up arms against enemies for their liberty, then to extend their borders, and next in defence of their allies’.11 From Scripture, add Genesis 14: 14 and Joshua 10: 6. Nor do I omit freedom of religion and the defence of those who promote it where it is licit. For although religion should not be spread with arms, those who spread it must not be abandoned, but defended where the right is given us to use weapons and religion itself must be supported with protection and arms, where it is attacked or abandoned by others. See Joshua 22: 15 and Judges 20: 11–12. Likewise, heretics must be warded off by those whose duty it is to keep the tranquillity of the church and commonwealth sound and safe. See on this topic Benedict Carpzov’s Commentary on Royal Law among the Germans, chapter 1, section 6, where he shows that ‘a just and legitimate war is started in defence of religion; not, however, for spreading religion’.12 Therefore, as a war must be completely just, thus self-defence provides that justification. Added to that are the importance of the matter and the stubbornness of the enemies, which also demand an attack, and fighting off those, whom you cannot repel or ward off in another way. The justice of a war is derived from a truly grave cause; its necessity from the enemies. First, all options must be tried for recovering or protecting your possessions, so that everything can be settled peacefully without war. When all these things are in vain, only then is there place for armed conflict. It is for these reasons that, when the Israelites came to a city to fight, they had to offer the population peace before everything else and were not allowed to use their weapons, unless every condition for peace had first been scorned

11 Flor. 1.9.6. 12 Hoornbeeck’s reference is imprecise: Benedict Carpzov, Commentarius in legem regiam Germanorum (Leipzig: Künnen, 1640), ch. 4, sect. 6.

288  Johannes Hoornbeeck primum et rejecta omni pacis conditione. Deut. xx. 10. quum accedes ad aliquam civitatem, ad belligerandum contra eam, primum [554] invitabis eam ad pacem. Quod si pacem acciperent, parcebatur iis, atque fiebant Israëlitarum servi et tributarii: sin minus, exscindebantur et quodcunque vita erat praeditum interimebatur. Jos. xi. 19, 20. Quin per aliquot dies, vel triduum invitatos ad pacem fuisse, antequam armis decertaretur, Hebraeorum nonnulli existimant: atque in urbis obsidione, aliquam, ex quattuor plagis, ita milite vacuam relinqui solitam, ut per eam integrum esset aufugere quibuscunque lubitum. Quae antiquorum sententia quam sit valida, debili certe fundamento nixa, eo quod scribitur Num. xxxi. 7. castrametatos Israëlitas adversus Midian, secundum quod praeceperat Jehova Mosi, jam non dico. Saltem in obsidione Hierichuntis id minime obtinuit, Jos. vi. 3, 4. Id autem verissimum, quod uti propter pacem belligeratur, necessitate bellum suadente et imperante; ita si et ante, et absque bello, pax commoda et honesta haberi queat, praeferendam hanc omnibus modis esse. Quemadmodum in corpore ad ustionem et sectionem non venitur, si minus ea necessaria sint, et absque iis vita et corpus integrum servari queant. Hinc Martiani illud: Imperatori abstinendum bello esse, quamdiu honesta pace frui liceat. Aegre admodum ad bellum accedendum est. Quin veterum nonnulli omnem fere bellandi rationem detestabantur. Tertullianus, de Corona militis: etenim ut ipsam causam coronae militaris aggrediar, puto prius conquirendum, an in totum Christianis militia conveniat. Quale est alioquin de accidentibus tractare, cum in praecedentibus culpa sit? Credimusne humanum sacramentum divino superduci licere, et in alium dominum respondere post Christum, et ejerare patrem ac matrem, et omnem proximum, quos et lex honorari, et post Deum diligi praecepit? Hos et Euangelium solo Christo pluris non faciens, sic quoque honorabit? Licebit in gladio conversari, Domino pronunciante gladio periturum, qui gladio fuerit usus? Et praelio operabitur filius pacis, cui nec litigare conveniet? Et vincula, et carcerem, et tormenta, et supplicia administrabit, nec suarum ultor injuriarum? Jam et stationes aut aliis4 magis faciet, quam Christo? aut Dominico die, quando nec Christo?

4 1689: alii.

Johannes Hoornbeeck  289 and rejected. Deuteronomy 20: 10: ‘When you come to a city to wage war against it you must first [554] ask it for peace’. However, if they accepted peace, then they were spared and became the slaves and tributaries of the Israelites. If not, they were destroyed and whatever was endowed with life was slain. See Joshua 11: 19–20. In fact, some Jews found it valuable that the enemies had been asked for peace a day or three before a fight with weapons was started and when besieging a city one out of four districts was usually left free of soldiers, so that it was safe for whoever wanted to flee. I will not repeat how strong that view of the ancients is, although certainly based on a weak fundament, judging on what is written in Numbers 31: 7 about how the Israelites besieged Midian, in accordance with what God ordered Moses to do. At least, in the siege of Jericho he did not at all maintain that (Joshua 6: 3–4). However, that point is very true that wars are waged for the sake of peace, as necessity advises and orders war. Thus, if before a war and without a war a convenient and honourable peace can be had, then that must be preferred in every way. Just as in the case of the human body no recourse is taken to cauterizing and amputation, if those things are not necessary and without them life and the body as a whole can be preserved. Hence, emperor Marcian made that famous statement of his that an emperor should abstain from war as long as it is possible to enjoy an honourable peace.13 One should take recourse to war most unwillingly. In fact, some of the ancients detested just about every reason to wage war. Tertullian wrote in On the Military Garland: To move on to the actual ground of the military crown, I think we must first enquire whether it is at all suitable for Christians. Otherwise, what use is it to deal with the accidental, when the fault lies in the underlying basis? Do we believe it is licit to add a human oath to a divine one, to respond to another lord after Christ, and to abjure one’s father and mother and every neighbour, who the law commands us to honour and love after God? Will not the Gospel also honour them thus, giving only Christ a higher place? Will it be licit to handle a sword, when the Lord says that he who will have used the sword, will die by the sword? And will a son of peace engage in battle, when it is not even suitable for him to sue in court? And will he apply chains, and imprisonment, and torture, and the death penalty as an avenger of injuries that have not been done to him? Will he either attach more value to standing on guard for others than for Christ or will he do it on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ?14 13 Zonaras, Epit. 13.25.32. 14 Tert. De corona 11 (PL vol. 2, cols 91–93).

290  Johannes Hoornbeeck Ubi quando, intellige quandoquidem. Rhenanus: Jam et statione: Notae sunt militum stationes. At stationes apud Christianos conventus erant, quum stantes precarentur. id quod fiebat Dominico die. Nam addit, aut et Dominico die, quando nec Christo? Lactantius, lib. vi. cap. xx. non enim cum occidere Deus vetat, latrocinari nos tantum prohibet, quod ne per leges quidem publicas licet: sed ea quoque ne fiant, monet, quae apud homines pro licitis habentur. Ita neque militare justo licebit, cujus militia est in ipsa justitia: neque vero accusare quenquam crimine capitali, quia nihil distar utrumne ferro, an verbo [555] potius occidas, quoniam occisio ipsa prohibetur. Itaque in hoc Dei praecepto nullam prorsus exceptionem fieri oportet, quin occidere hominem sit semper nefas, quem Deus sanctum animal esse voluit. Quae non eo a nobis adferuntur, ut putemus omne bellum esse Christiano homini interdictum. Quomodo enim quod justum diximus, adeoque necessarium, illicitum sit in se? Sed spectarunt veteres sola gentilium bella adversus Christianos, nulla in defensionem rei Christianae. Tum ea bellorum vulgarium est facies, ea gerendorum communis ratio, ut certe plurima dicenda sint, a theologis in primis, adversus ea. Neque tantum orbi periculum est ab illo quali quali errore, quam nunc ex abusu verae sententiae nascitur ipsi Christianitati: ut plures videas inde liberius in bella, et bellandi appetitum ac abusum declamitasse, qui in communia bellorum, et belligerantium vitia fuerunt invecti. Sic Lutherus, sic Erasmus: quamvis ipsorum verba a papistis sequius exponantur. Estque calumnia Eckio digna, quando scribit: plures haeretici jam, sicut et Oecolampadius, negant omnino Christianis licere bellare: in Enchiridio, cap. xxii. de bello in Turcas. Quo nomine passim illis vapulat Lutherus, quasi omne in Turcas bellum improbarit: quum potius artes paparum rejecerit, qui bellum in Turcas denunciare soliti erant, in detrimentum rei Christianae, et tantummodo ad stabiliendam et augendam

Johannes Hoornbeeck  291 For ‘when’ read ‘since’. Rhenanus explains for ‘standing on guard’: The duty of soldiers to stand on guard is well known. However, ‘standing on guard’ refers to assemblies among Christians when they prayed standing up. This happens on Sunday. For he adds ‘or on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ?’15 Lactantius wrote in book six, chapter 20: For when God forbids killing, he does not only prohibit robbery, which is not even licit by public laws, but He also warns that those things should not happen, which among humans are considered to be licit. Thus it is not licit for a just man to fight, whose military service is to justice itself, nor moreover to accuse anyone of a capital crime, because it makes no difference at all whether you kill with the sword or rather [555] with the word, because the killing itself is prohibited. Therefore there must not be any exception at all in this command of God. In fact, it is always a crime to kill a person, as God wanted humans to be a sacred animal.16 These quotations are not brought up by us here, so that we might think that every war is illicit for a Christian person. For how could what we have a moment ago called just and so necessary be illicit in itself? The ancients were thinking of the wars of the pagans against the Christians and not at all of wars in defence of the Christian interest. At the time, that was the face of ordinary wars and the common reason to wage them, so that certainly many things had to be said, by theologians in particular, against those wars. Nor is the danger for the world so great from that error, of whatever kind it may be, as the danger to Christianity itself that arises out of the abuse of its true meaning, so that you will see very many people declaim more freely against wars and the desire for and abuse of waging wars, who had attacked the common vices of wars and those waging wars. This is how we should interpret Luther and Erasmus, even though their words are explained differently by the papists. It is trickery worthy of Eck, when he writes ‘very many heretics, such as Oecolampadius, already completely deny that it is licit for Christians to wage wars’ in his Enchiridion, chapter 22 on the war against the Turks.17 Under this pretext, Luther is continuously flogged by them, as if 15 Beatus Rhenanus had been responsible for the editio princeps of Tertullian’s work (Basle: s.n., 1521). His annotations can be found in many later editions, among them the edition edited by Franciscus Junius, which may very well be the edition that Hoornbeeck used: Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani Carthaginensis presbyteri, auctoris antiquissimi opera quae adhuc reperiri potuerunt omnia: ex editione Iacobi Pamelii Brugensis. Quibus seorsim additae sunt annotations Beati Rhenani Seletstadiensis, auctae censura Inquisitionis Hispanicae: Itemque castigations ac notae perspicuae et breues Francisci Jvnii Biturigis, tum ex Manuscriptis fide, et Latini Latinii Viterbiensis, aliorumque symbolis comportatae, tum coniecturis grauissimis atque lectissimis accuratae (Franeker: Radaeus, 1597). 16 Lact. Div. Inst. 6.20 (PL vol. 6, cols 705–713). 17 Johann Eck, Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae, first published in 1525.

292  Johannes Hoornbeeck suam tum autoritatem, tum ditionem: at ille a reformatione vitiorum, quibus scatebat Christianorum vita, ordiri volebat, et agnosci manum Dei plus quam Turcicos Christianorum mores per Turcarum tyrannidem vindicantis. Nunquam autem vel ille, vel Erasmus voluit, nulla ratione a Christianis Turcarum impetum sisti armis posse, aut debere. Miror Franciscum a Victoria, Relect. vi. simpliciter Luthero impingere, quod negarit, Christianis etiam adversus Turcas licere arma sumere. Sed de his alibi fusius diximus, in Summa Controvers. lib. iii. de Muhammedismo, pag. 168. et s. Audi ipsum Erasmum, in Consultatione, de bello Turcico: sunt qui in totum existimant Christianis interdictum bellandi jus, quam opinionem arbitror absurdiorem quam ut sit refellenda: tametsi non defuerunt qui hinc mihi calumniam struerent, quod in lucubrationibus meis plurimus sim in laude pacis, ac bellorum detestatione: sed mea qui legunt integri, vel tacente me perspiciunt manifestam sycophantiae impudentiam. Doceo bellum nunquam suscipiendum nisi quum tentatis omnibus vitari non potest, propterea quod bellum suapte natura res sit adeo pestilens, ut etiam si a justissimo principe, justissimis de causis, suscipiatur, tamen ob militum ac ducum improbitatem fere plus mali adferat quam boni. Plus ausus est divus Bernardus, qui mundanam militiam appellat malitiam. Vide et [556] ejus epistolam, lib. ii. ad Antonium a Bergis, Bertini Abbatem. Quid Johannes Philonius Dugo? is Christianorum Institut. lib. i. cap. v. audacter loquar, inquit, nihil magis contrarium est religioni Christianae, quam bellum. Atque haec de belli justitia in se: videndum porro est, ut juste geratur, ne justam causam offuscet, et deprimat, atque adeo tollat modus gerendi

Johannes Hoornbeeck  293 he condemned every war against the Turks, when in fact he rejected the deceit of the popes, who had developed the habit of commanding war against the Turks, to the detriment of the Christian interest and only to establish and enlarge both their authority and their dominion. He, on the other hand, wanted to start with a reformation of the vices, of which the life of Christians is full, and also that the hand of God should be recognized more in the way in which He avenges the Turkish morals of the Christians through the tyranny of the Turks. Never, however, did either he or Erasmus insist that the advance of the Turks could or should in no way be stopped by Christians. I am amazed that Francisco de Vitoria in lecture six simply strikes out against Luther, because he denied that it is licit for Christians to take up arms even against the Turks.18 But on this topic I have written at greater length in my Compendium of Controversies, book three on Islam, page 168 and following.19 Listen to Erasmus himself, in Deliberation on War against the Turks: There are those who believe that the right of war is completely denied to Christians, which I find an opinion too absurd to even merit refutation, although there has been no lack of people who on the basis of this have fabricated a calumny against me, because in my works I very much praise peace and detest war, but those who read my works free from prejudice or without my talking see through the manifest impudence of deceit. I argue that war must never be undertaken unless all options have been tried and it cannot be avoided, for the reason that war is by its very nature so destructive that even if it is undertaken by a very just prince for very just causes, it nevertheless brings more evil than good, due to the wickedness of soldiers and commanders. St Bernard ventured further. He called worldly military service evil.20 See also [556] Erasmus’s letter in book two to Antonius à Bergis, the abbot of St Bertin.21 What about Johannes Philonius Dugo? He wrote in his Christian Institutes, book one, chapter 5: ‘I will speak boldly. Nothing is more contrary to the Christian religion than war’.22 This is what I had to say about the justice of war in itself. Furthermore, we need to make sure that it is justly waged, so that it may not obscure and weigh 18 Vitoria, Relectiones Theologicae XII, 381 (5.1). 19 J. Hoornbeeck, Summa controversiarum religionis; cum infidelibus, haereticis, schismaticis: id est, gentilibus, Iudaeis, Muhammedanis; papistis, anabaptistis, enthusiastis et libertinis, socinianis; remonstrantibus, Lutheranis, Brouwnistis, Graecis (Utrecht: Waesberge, 1653), 168–174. 20 CWE vol. 64, 233–234 (ASD V-3, p. 54). 21 CWE vol. 2, 278–283 (ep. 288) (Allen vol. 1, 551–554 (ep. 288)). 22 Johannes Philonius Dugo, Libri Christianarum institutionum quatuor in quibus ad mores Christo et homine Christiano dignos, pacemque et unitatem ecclesiae eleganter, erudite, modeste uocantur summi et infimi (Augsburg, 1538), fol. 13v.

294  Johannes Hoornbeeck iniquissimus. Neque enim eorum mihi probatur sententia, qui bellum ab utraque parte censent esse posse licitum: quod inter jureconsultos tuetur Alciatus, Paradox. lib. ii. cap. xii. inter theologos, Franciscus Victoria, Relect. v. de Indis. Quidquid enim videri et ab hac, et ab illa parte possit, vel politice disputari, theologice loquendo, quod ab utraque parte injustum possit esse, scio; justum, nego. Quia hujus forma ita est unica, et in indivisibili, quemadmodum reliquarum virtutum, posita, ut contrariis et propter se adversantibus partibus ex aequo favere non possit, et cui aut non, aut minus favet, ejus hostis est, uti illa ejus. Caeterum ubi bellum movetur, aliae sunt partes eorum qui bellum indicunt; aliae istorum qui illos sequuntur et gellum gerunt. Illorum est, de justitia belli certos esse, ii Chron. xiii. 5. Horum, ut saltem sciant non esse injustum, et hactenus causam ejus habeant exploratam. Secus si injustum noverint, operam tali bello addicere non licet homini justo et Christiano, Luc. iii. 14. Quemadmodum lictor sententiam judicum exequitur quidem, ut non omnia examinaverit ad causam facientia; sed si manifestum sit, injuste condemnatum esse quem illi jubent supplicio affici, abstinet opere injusto, et conscientiae suae repugnante, quod e fide facere non potest. Porro uti de bello statuere eorum est, quos Deus ad hoc instruxit authoritate; ita non licet bellare, nisi militiae sacramento auctoritatis. Quare Cato filium, quem intelligebat a Popilio exercitus imperatore dimissum, nolebat in exercitu remanere ad pugnandum, nisi eum Popilius secundo obligasset sacramento: quia priore amisso, jure cum hostibus pugnare non poterat. Negat enim jus esse, qui miles non sit, cum hoste pugnare: apud Ciceronem, de Officiis, lib. i. Gladium autem gestat, cui gladius datus est a Deo, potestas supereminens; et cui visum illum tradere. Qui neutiquam iis congruit, quorum, praecipue qui se apostolorum jactitant successores, ista vox esse debet, arma nostra non sunt carnalia. Non intempestivum erit huic audire egregium virum Johannem Philonium Dugonem, ita scribentem a. MDXXXVIII. in Christianis Institutionibus, lib. i. cap. xiii. hoc loco id unum demirari libuit, non quod reges et [557] monarchae Christiani bellis infinitis hoc tempore plus quam gentiliter inter se tumultuentur, sed quod ipsius Christi vicarii et successores apostolorum, episcopi atque pastores ecclesiae tam ardenter et militariter tractent arma, atque de quisquiliis temporalibus dimicent, ut cum principibus mundi de palma bellicae artis certare mihi videantur. Certe in ecclesia primitiva, ad cujus mores nostratem in primis reformari optarim, mos iste non fuit.

Johannes Hoornbeeck  295 down a just cause and in fact a very unjust way of waging it would undo such a cause. For I do not approve either of the view of those who believe that a war can be licit on both sides.23 This is the position defended among lawyers by Alciato in his Paradoxes, book two, chapter 12 and among theologians by Francisco de Vitoria in lecture five, on the Indians.24 For whatever could be seen from one side and the other or politically discussed by talking about it from a theological perspective, that it can be unjust on both sides I know; whether it can be just, that I dispute. Because the form of justice is one and indivisible, just like the form of the other virtues, so it cannot equally favour opposing parties who have turned against each other with an eye to justice, and the side that justice does not favour or favours less is its enemy, just as justice is an enemy to them. Furthermore, when a war is started, those who declare a war and those who follow those people and fight the war each have their own role. The duty of the first group is to be certain of the justice of the war. See 2 Chronicles 13: 5. The duty of the second group is that they know at least that it is not unjust and have looked into its cause up to a point. Otherwise, if they know it is unjust, then it is not licit for a just and Christian man to devote his service to such a war. See Luke 3: 14. In a similar way, the lictor carries out the sentence of the judges, even though he has not examined everything that bears on the cause. But should it be manifest that someone has been unjustly condemned and they have ordered him to execute the person, then he abstains from the unjust task that goes against his conscience and that he cannot carry out in good faith. In addition, deciding about a war is the preserve of those whom God has provided with the authority to do so. Thus, it is not licit to fight a war, unless by the oath of military authority. For this reason, Cato did not want his son to remain in the army to fight as he knew that he had been dismissed by Popilius the commander of his army, unless Popilius had bound him to him with a second oath, because having lost the earlier one he could not rightfully fight against the enemies. ‘For he denies it to be right that he who is not a soldier should fight with the enemy’, according to Cicero’s On Duties, book one.25 Moreover, he carries the sword, to whom that sword has been given by God, the supreme authority and to whom it has pleased God to hand the sword. The sword does not suit by any means those whose maxim must be ‘our arms are not carnal’, especially those who claim to be the successors of the apostles. It will not be inopportune for someone in this position to listen 23 For an example of a defence of this view see the extract from Alsted’s work, Chapter 6 below. 24 Hoornbeeck is referring here to the Paradoxa iuris civilis, first published by ­A ndrea Alciato in 1522. Vitoria, Relectiones Theologicae XII, 404 (5.32). 25 Cic. Off. 1.11.37.

296  Johannes Hoornbeeck In belli vero consiliis, attendendum primo ad Deum est, ut et pro causa ipsi non displicente, in ipsius nomine, ad gloriam denique ejus definiatur. Neque enim sine causa, vel bella Dei, I Sam. xviii. 17. et xxv. 28. I Chron. v. 21. vel Deus bellorum ipse dicitur, nisi ut illorum praeses sit, ac fautor. Exod. xv. 3. et xvii. 15. Psal. xviii. 15. Haec cum Deo. Denique cum adversario videndum, an forte devitari bellum, eique alia ratione satisfieri, quam armis, possit. Jos. xxii. 13. Judic. xx. 13. tandem, ubi aliter non potest, denuntiandum. Cicero, nullum bellum esse justum, nisi quod aut rebus repetendis geratur, aut denunciatum ante sit, et indictum. Jam si ita gentilibus visum, quod nihil rite, nihilque providenter homines sine deorum immortalium ope, consilio, honore auspicarentur, verba sunt Plinii, in initio Panegyrici; quanto magis Christianos decet, nihil inconsulto vero Deo agere, a quo omnis bellorum vis, et successus est. Judic. i. 2. et xx. 18. i Sam. xiv. 37. et xxiii. 2. et xxx. 8. Unde et quae Deo neglecto gesta, infelices quoque habuerunt exitus. Num. xiv. 41, 42. etcetera. i Reg. xxii. 17, 35. Psal. lxxviii. 9, 10. Hinc imploratio opis divinae assidua, Exod. xvii. 11, 12. i Reg. viii. 44, 45. ii Chron. xx. 21, 22. et in Deum fiducia. ii Chron. xx. 15, 20. Psal. xxiv. 8. i Sam. xvii. 45. utpote a quo et robur est bellandi, Psalm. xviii. 35. et cxliv. et belli victoria. Psalm. xliv. etcetera. Prov. xxi. 31. ii Chron. xxv. 8. Media adhibere quidem licet, atque aequum est; non vero iis fidere. i Sam. xvii. 47. et cognoscet tota congregatio haec, non gladio aut hasta Jehovam servare: nam bellum est Jehovae, ideo tradet vos in manus nostras. Aliquando enim Deus servat nullis mediis. ii Reg. iii. 17. aliquando exiguis. ii Chron.

Johannes Hoornbeeck  297 to that outstanding man, Johannes Philonius Dugo, who in 1538 wrote the following in his Christian Institutes, book one, Chapter 13: Here, I have felt the desire to express wonder not that Christian kings and [557] monarchs rage against each other more than the heathens these days in countless wars, but that the vicars of Christ himself and the successors of the apostles, the bishops and pastors of the church, handle weapons so ardently and in a soldierly manner and fight over worldly nonsense, so that they seem to me to vie with the princes of the world for the prize in the art of war. Certainly, that habit did not exist in the early church, to whose habits I would like our church to return.26 In deliberations on war, consideration must be given first of all to God, so that the war is defined in defence of a cause that does not displease Him, is in His name, and finally contributes to His glory. For not without cause do people say ‘wars of God’ (1 Samuel 18: 17 and 25: 28; 1 Chronicles 5: 21) or ‘God of wars’, unless so that he might be the defender and favourer of those wars. See Exodus 15: 3 and 17: 15; Psalms 18: 15. These wars are with God. Finally, together with the adversary it should be looked into if the war can perhaps be avoided and whether he can be satisfied in another way than with arms (Joshua 22: 13; Judges 20: 13). Finally, when it cannot be otherwise resolved, the war must be resolved. Cicero wrote: ‘No war is just, unless it is waged in order to retrieve possessions or has been announced and declared in advance’.27 It already seemed to the pagans ‘that nothing could be done properly and with foresight without the help, counsel, and honour of the immortal gods’. The words are Pliny’s, at the start of the Panegyricus.28 All the more does it befit Christians to do nothing without consulting God, from Whom all power and success in wars comes. See Judges 1: 2 and 20: 18; 1 Samuel 14: 37 and 23: 2 and 30: 8. For this reason also things done with God being neglected have unfortunate endings. See Numbers 14: 41–42 etcetera; 1 Kings 22: 17, 35; Psalms 78: 9–10. Hence the continuous plea for divine help in Exodus 17: 11–12; 1 Kings 8: 44–45; 2 Chronicles 20: 21–22 and the confidence in God in 2 Chronicles 20: 15, 20; Psalms 24: 8; 1 Samuel 17: 45, as the one from whom strength for fighting comes (Psalms 18: 35 and 144) and victory in war (Psalms 44 etcetera; Proverbs 21: 31; 2 Chronicles 25: 8). It is licit and fair to keep means for war at the ready, but not to rely on them. 1 Samuel 17: 47: ‘And this whole congregation will know that God does not save through sword or spear. For war belongs to God and he will hand you over to us’. For sometimes God saves with no means at all (2 Kings 3: 17), sometimes with modest means (2 Chronicles 24: 24; 1 Samuel 14: 6) 26 Dugo, Libri Christianarum institutionum quatuor, fol. 29r. 27 Cic. Rep. 2.17. 28 Plin. Pan. 1.

298  Johannes Hoornbeeck xxiv. 24. i Sam. xiv. 6. etiam adversus magnam hostium vim. i Reg. xx. 10, 13, 27. ii Chron. xiv. 11. et xx. 12. Ut ne [558] in alia prorsus re toto animo recumbamus, quam in ipso solo; caetera duntaxat considerantes ut instrumenta sub ipso, et nisi per ipsum valida: quae non ipsi media sunt; sed nobis, ab ipso: et quae manu potius quam mente apprehendimus. ii Sam. x. 12. Deut. xxxiii. 7. Magni usus atque necessarii est, disciplina castrensis, quae justitiam causae comitari semper debet, ut finis respondeat optatus. Neque enim satis est, bellum justum5 dici, nisi tale quoque appareat et probetur ex gerendi modo. Unde leges militares apud Christianos. Quo nomine celebratur Constantinus Eusebio, cujus tum aliae leges in juris codice occurrunt circa militum stipendia et commeatum, C. de salgamo hospit. non praestando. et de erogat. milit. annon: tum Eusebius memoriae tradidit orationem, quam a militibus in exercitu recitari voluit, hanc: te unum Deum novimus: te agnoscimus regem: te opitulatorem invocamus. Tu victoria nostra es. Per te hostes vincimus. Tibi accepta ferimus bona, quibus fruimur, omnia. Te supplices precamur, ut Constantinum principem nostrum, ejusque filios, diutissime serves incolumes. Atque apud Melanthonem, in Consiliis theologicis, part. ii. legitur ab ipso scripta institutio militis Christiani, et formulae precum pro piis militibus. De protestantium militum disciplina, sub Condaeo principe, a. MDLXII. Thuanus, hist. lib. xxx. magna inter eos modestia, et disciplina exacta initio servabatur: nam pastoribus per cohortes distributis cottidie statas ad preces conveniebant, et mane ac vespere cum excubiae disponebantur, solemnes preces concipiebantur. Nulla dejeramenta inter milites, nullae rixae audiebantur, cantibus Psalmorum tantum castra personabant, non aleae lusus, aut focariarum usus erat; tuti mercatores, rustici, et hospites ab omni injuria erant. Non miles a signis discedebat; aut pabulationis vel denique rapinae causa longius, ut fit hodie, discurrebat, maleficia severissime castigabantur.

5 1689: justam.

Johannes Hoornbeeck  299 even against great violence of the enemy (1 Kings 20: 10, 13, 27; 2 Chronicles 14: 11 and 20: 12), so that we should not [558] with our whole mind rely completely on any thing other than God Himself alone, considering other things only as instruments under His guidance and only powerful through Him. These are means not for him, but for us through him and we seize then with our hand rather than with our mind (2 Samuel 10: 12; Deuteronomy 33: 7). The discipline in the military camp is of great and necessary importance. It must always accompany the justice of the cause, so that the desired outcome is returned. For it is not enough that a war is called just, unless it appears and demonstrated to be as such from the way it is waged. This is the origin of the military laws among the Christians. For this reason, Constantine is praised by Eusebius whose other laws on payments and supplies of soldiers can be found in the code of law, under the heading On not giving nourishment to guests and On paying out military provisions.29 Eusebius has also handed down to us the words of a prayer, which Constantine wanted to be recited by the soldiers in the army: We acknowledge You as the only God. We recognise You as King. We invoke You as helper. You are our victory. Through You we overcome our enemies. We owe to You all good things we enjoy. We pray to You as suppliants that you may keep our prince Constantine and his sons safe for a very long time.30 And we read in Melanchthon in his Theological counsels, part two, an instruction to the Christian soldier, written by him and the prayer formulas for pious soldiers.31 On the discipline of Protestant soldiers under the Prince of Condé in the year 1562 De Thou wrote in book 30 of his History: There was great modesty among them and the required discipline was kept from the beginning. They had pastors distributed among the troops and came together every day for standing prayers and when in the morning and evening they were assigned to their watchpost, they started with solemn prayers. No swearing and no arguments were heard and the camp only resounded with the singing of psalms. There was no gambling or intercourse with concubines. Merchants, peasants, and visitors were safe from every injury. No soldier left his military banner or ran about too far off to forage or plunder, as happens today. Offences were very strictly punished.32 29 CJ. 12.4.1 and 12.37. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10.8. 30 Euseb. Vit. Const. 4.20. 31 These consilia had been edited for publication by Christoph Pezel in 1600: Philip Melanchthon, Consilia siue Ivdicia Theologica, Itemque Responsiones Ad Qvaestiones De rebus variis ac multiplicibus secundum seriem annorum digestae: Vna cum Fragmentis Narrationvm Historicarum pertinentium ad Acta plurimorum Conuentuum Theologicorum, aliarumq[ue] Tractationum publicarum in caussa Religionis. Collecta, et nunc primum edita studio et opera Christophori Pezelii Theologiae Doctoris (Neustadt: Harnisius, 1600), 171–172. 32 Jacques Auguste de Thou, Historia sui temporis 30.3.

300  Johannes Hoornbeeck Ne dicam, apud Hebraeos olim sacerdotem singulariter ad hoc designatum fuisse, qui cum populo in exercitum iret, et omnes ad pugnam, in Dei nomine, excitaret, quem appellant ‫ משיה המלחמה‬unctum belli, nam oleo etiam sacro ad hoc ungebatur. Vide Deut. xx. 2. 3. 4. Neque tamen ideo vel justa causa semper victrix, vel pii in bello, etiam quod cum impiis geritur, semper sunt victores. Neque ex eventu notanda facta sunt, vel ex armorum felicitate de eorum aequitate statuendum. Aliquando cadunt optimi, et pars melior ab adversa superatur. Vide Jos. vii. 4, 5. Judic. xx. 21. 25. i Sam. iv. 2. 10. 11. et xxxii. 1. Dan. vii. 21. et viii. 9. 10. Apoc. xi. 7. et xiii. 7. Ubi duo observanda. Et a Deo hoc fieri, ne in solis inferioribus haereamus, accusandis aut damnandis. Deut. xxxii. 30. i Sam. iv. 3. Psalm. [559] xlix. 10, 11. Apoc. xiii. 7. et propter hominum peccata, justitiam causae suae corrumpentia: quae vera et adaequata causa sunt omnis infelicitatis. Jos. vii. 1. Jud. ii. 13, 14, 15, 17. et iii. 12, 13. Psal. lxxviii. 9, 10, 11. et lxxxix. 43. etcetera. Haec autem in primis curanda sunt, si prospere velimus cedere res nostras. Atque ut integre rem exponamus, quatuor sunt praestanda nobis officia, quo feliciter in bello agere possimus. Amovenda scandala sunt, singulis sua, quibus Dei benignitas offenditur, et amovetur. Neque antea de victoria, aut eventu salutari est quod nobis spondeamus. Jos. vii. 24, 25, 26. et viii. 1. ii. Chron. xiii. 8. Deinde necessaria est vera animi ad Deum conversio: qua id saltem obtinebunt singuli, ut in mediis malis, atque ex iis salventur spirituali atque aeterna salute, quidquid etiam fiat de aliis, vel de publico. Jerem. iv. 1, 2. Luc. xiii. 3. Tertio, pro impetrando felici successu orandus enixe Deus est: qui orantibus promisit se adfuturum. Psalm. i. 15. et xx. 2. etcetera. Exod. xvii. 11, 12. i Sam. vii. 8, 9, 10. et post illa denique, fiducia in Deo, non in nobis, aut in aliis, certi sumus de secutura victoria. Psalm. xx. 8. i Sam. xvii. 37, 45, 46. Psalm. lx. 14. i Chron. v. 20. ii Chron. xx. 12, 20. Hebr. xi. 33, 34. quum alias neget Deus victoriam, vel quando homines in armis aut in rebus suis confidunt, i Reg. xx. 10, 20. ii Reg. xix. 23. vel ne id faciant, cavet immissa clade, in bello quamvis justo. Judic. vii. 2. et xx. 21, 25, 28. Atque ita Deum faciemus nostrarum partium, ubi partes ejus fecerimus nostras, eique totos nos tradiderimus, atque omnia nostra. In hoc solo licitum, imo necessarium est, partes facere: unde Deus futurus nobiscum, a quo omnia dependent: quo existente pro nobis, quis, aut quid demum poterit esse nobis adversum? Num. xiv. 9. Nehem. vi. 14. ii Chron. xx. 17.

Johannes Hoornbeeck  301 And then I do not even mention that among the Jews a priest was specifically appointed for this, who joined the army with the people and aroused everyone for the fight in God’s name. They call him meshiah hamilkhama, ‘the anointed of war’, for he was also anointed with sacred oil for this purpose. See Deuteronomy 20: 2–4. Nor is the just cause for that matter always victorious or are the pious in a war, even when they wage it against the impious, always victorious. Nor must deeds be marked based on the outcome or a judgement be made about the equitable behaviour of combatants on the basis of their good fortune in arms. Sometimes the best people fall and the better party is overcome by their enemy. See Joshua 7: 4–5; Judges 20: 21, 25; 1 Samuel 4: 2, 10–11 and 32: 1; Daniel 7: 21 and 8: 9–10; Revelation 11: 7 and 13: 7. Here two things must be observed. First, that this is done by God, lest we hold on to accusing and condemning only inferior matters (Deuteronomy 32: 30; 1 Samuel 4: 3; Psalms [559] 49: 10–11; Revelation 13: 7) and, secondly, that this is due to the sins of the people, which corrupt the justice of their cause. These sins are the true and equally divided cause of all misfortune. See Joshua 7: 1; Judges 2: 13–15, 17 and 3: 12–13; Psalms 78: 9–11 and 89: 43 etcetera. These things must be attended to in particular, if we want our interests to prosper. To explain the matter in its entirety, four duties must be performed by us, so that we may act with good fortune in a war. Causes for displeasure, by which God’s benevolence is offended and withdrawn, must be removed. Nor should we make any pledges regarding the victory or favourable outcome. See Joshua 7: 24–26 and 8: 1; 2 Chronicles 13: 8. Furthermore, a true conversion to God is necessary. Through this each individual will at least obtain in the middle of evils that they are saved from them through spiritual and eternal salvation, whatever befalls the others or the public interest. See Jeremiah 4: 1–2; Luke 13: 3. Thirdly, in order to obtain a favourable success God must be earnestly prayed to. He has promised to assist those who pray to Him. Psalms 1: 15 and 20: 2 etcetera; Exodus 17: 11–12; 1 Samuel 7: 8–10. And finally, after those things through trust in God, not in ourselves or in others, we are certain about the victory that will follow. See Psalms 20: 8; 1 Samuel 17: 37, 45–46; Psalms 60: 14; 1 Chronicles 5: 20; 2 Chronicles 20: 12, 20; Hebrews 11: 33–34. Since sometimes God refuses a victory either when people trust in their weapons or possessions (1 Kings 20: 10, 20; 2 Kings 19: 23), He takes care that they do not do that once a battle has started even in a just war (Judges 7: 2 and 20: 21, 25, 28). And thus will we bring God to our side, when we have made our side His, and have completely surrendered ourselves and all we possess to Him. Only in this respect, is it licit and even necessary to create factions. Hence God will be with us and on Him everything depends. When He exists for us, who or what could be against us? See Numbers 14:9; Nehemiah 6:14; 2 Chronicles 20:17.

Index

Aberdeen 25 Abiathar 99 Abiram 151 Abner 205 Abraham 31, 33, 35, 37–39, 43, 93, 149, 205, 207 Absalom 151, 205 Acosta, José de 276 Adonijah 151 Agag, king of the Amalekites 39 Agesilaus, king of Sparta 101 Ahab, king of Israel 151, 163, 207 Alba Julia (Gyulafehérvár) 26 Alciato, Andrea 295 Alexander the Great 14, 85, 89, 101 Alexander VI, pope 61 Alsted, Johann Heinrich 19, 26, 27, 176–177 Althusius, Johannes 117, 135, 176 Amaziah, king of Judah 207 Ambrose of Milan 59, 93, 149, 163 Ammonites 83, 87, 95 Amraphel, king of Shinar 31 Anabaptists 11, 18, 31, 71, 105, 265 Ananias 35 Aner 35 Antinomians 265 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Hellenistic Syria 91, 155 Antwerp 26, 236 Appian of Alexandria 59 Aretius, Benedictus 117 Arioch, king of Ellasar 31 Aristotle 12, 25, 53–55, 65, 110, 113, 169, 236 Arminius, Jacobus 24, 25, 252 Arras, Treaty of 273 Aquinas, Thomas 10, 57, 59, 129, 285 Athens 145, 167

Augustine of Hippo, St. 35, 43, 55, 57, 59, 71–73, 75, 79, 81, 83, 93, 99, 143, 147, 283 Aurelian, Roman emperor 149–151 Asa, king of Judah 203 Assyrians 43, 71, 75 Azor, Juan 183 Bainton, Roland 5 Bañez, Domenigo 129 Baptism 183 Barleus, Caspar 208 Basel 26, 30, 200 Béarn 26, 46 Bellarmine, Robert, cardinal 23, 127 Benjaminites 35 Bentivoglio, Guido, cardinal 263, 271 Bern 141 Bernard of Clairvaux 81 Beza, Theodore 3, 4–5, 21 Bible: and 1 Peter 2 (submit yourself) 12, 57, 125, 135, 159, 191; and Deuteronomy 7 (destruction of peoples of Canaan) 17, 281; and Deuteronomy 12–13 (war on idolatry) 17, 19, 145, 187; and Deuteronomy 20 (war on far-distant peoples) 17, 33, 57, 87, 93, 241, 243, 245, 247, 281, 287– 289, 301; and John 18 (put your sword back) 57, 145; and Luke 3 (behaviour of soldiers) 33, 73, 105, 143, 149, 151, 191, 295; and Matthew 5 (Sermon on the Mount) 10, 18, 55, 57, 83, 93, 160; and Matthew 10 (evangelisation) 145; and Matthew 22 (Render unto Caesar) 135, 161; and Matthew 26 (put your sword back) 43, 135, 143; and Protestant commentary 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22–23, 30; and Revelation 19,

304 Index 47, 171–175, 225, 233, 235, 301; and Romans 13 (obey the powers that be) 2, 12, 13, 18, 19, 33, 45, 55, 57, 105, 125, 135, 143, 159–169, 191; and Ten Commandments (Decalogue) 13–14, 27, 46, 51–53, 55–57, 151 Bodin, Jean 131 Bohemia 208 de Bourbon, Louis, prince of Condé 299 Bourges 46 Borgia, Cesare 61–63 Bors, Pieter 259 van Braeckel, Cornelius 46 van Brederode, Hendrik 267 Breitenfeld 208 du Buc, Guillaume (Bucanus) 26, 27, 140–141, 156 Bucer, Martin 3, 17 Buchanan, George 3 Byzantium 149 Caesar, Julius 43, 59, 69 Cajetan see under de Vio, Tommaso Calcutta 265 Caleb 97 Caligula, Roman emperor 13, 73 Calvin, John 3, 4, 5, 7–8, 12, 15–17, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27 Calvinism see under Reformed orthodoxy Cambridge 25, 140, 156, 236 Camerarius, Philippus 133 Camisard War 2 Canaanites 17, 18, 281 Cano, Melchior 285 Capito, Wolfgang 30 Carpzov, Benedict 287 Cartwright, Thomas 236 Casmann, Otto 117 Castellanus, Vincentius 135 Catholic League 215, 221, 227, 235 Cato, Marcus Porcius 295 Céneau, Robert 137 Chaldeans 41, 75 Chambeli, Jean 21 Charles I, king of Sicily 101 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor 11, 30, 267 Christ, Jesus 5 Christian II, elector of Saxony 127 Cicarella, Antonio 129 Cicero 17, 43, 53, 93, 95, 99, 295

Claudius, Roman emperor 73 Clemens, Venceslaus 26, 27, 29, 208–209 Clement IV, pope 101 Cocceius, Johannes 276 de Coligny, Gaspard 129 Cologne 276 de Commynes, Philippe 65 Conradin, duke of Swabia and king of Jerusalem 101 Constantine, Roman emperor 14, 105, 145, 155, 207, 299 Corinth 83, 95 Cornelius Fronto 69 Cranmer, Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury 30 Crusade 4–6, 12 Cyrus II, king of Persia 149 Daneau, Lambert 19, 24, 26, 27, 46–47, 59, 91–93, 117, 119, 131 Darius I, king of Persia 85 Dathan 151, 217 David, king of Israel and Judah 33, 53, 57, 73, 83, 87, 93, 95, 97, 99, 119, 129, 143, 147, 155, 169, 203, 205, 281 Dávid, Ferenc 265 Demosthenes 59 Denmark 137 Diodorus Siculus 43, 65 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 59 Dinardus, Johannes 127 Donatists 57 Dort, Synod of 24, 253, 255 Dublin 25 Dugo, Johannes Philonius 293, 297 Duplessis-Mornay, Philippe 3 Dutch Revolt 2, 19, 105, 129, 253, 255–275; see also Low Countries Eck, Johann 291 Edinburgh 25 Egyptians 71, 73 Elias 163 Elizabeth I, queen of England 127 Elymas 35 England 105, 110, 127, 135, 140 Ephraimites 205 English Civil War see under Wars of the Three Kingdoms Erasmus, Desiderius 10, 21, 291–293 Escol 35 Eusebius of Caesarea 14, 107, 299

Index  305 Fenner, Dudley 26, 236–237 Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor 19, 23 Festus Pompeius 69 Feugeray, Guillaume 24 Florence 30 Florus 287 France 105, 110, 127, 133, 135, 137 Franciscans 276 François I, king of France 11 French Wars of Religion 2, 3, 4, 20, 129, 203 Fribourg 83 Friedrich III, elector Palatine 22 Friedrich IV, elector Palatine 23, 121 Friedrich V, elector Palatine 19 Gallus, Carolus 25 Garissoles, Antoine 208 Gdańsk (Danzig) 2, 26, 110 Geneva 3, 20–21, 22, 26, 46, 200 Gericke, Bartholomäus 133 German Peasants’ War 2, 11 Germany 105, 110, 127, 207, 208 Gibeonites 83, 147, 207 Gien 46 Glasgow 25 Gnosticism 265 Gomarus, Franciscus 24, 25, 252 Goodman, Christopher 3 Gratian, canon lawyer 59, 73, 93 Great Assembly (1651) 252–253 Grégoire, Pierre 115, 117, 119, 135 Gregorio de Valencia 127 Gregory XIII, pope 129 Groningen 259 Grotius, Hugo 10, 24 Guizot, François 4 Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden 27, 208 Hannibal 65 Harvard 25 Harvey, Gabriel 46 Heidelberg 19, 21–23, 26, 110, 156–157 Heidelberg Catechism 255 Henri II, king of France 11 Henri IV, king of France 101, 127 Herborn 19, 26, 176 Herod, king of Judea 163 Heusden 259 Hezekiah, king of Judah 41–43, 167

Hill, Robert 140 Hinduism 265 Holy Roman Empire 140, 176, 208 Homer 93 Hoornbeeck, Johannes 10, 26, 27, 276–277 Hosius, Stanislaus, cardinal 123 Hostiensis (Henry of Segusia) 75 Hotman, François 3 Hugolinus 99–101 Hungary 2, 207 Hushai 99 Hussite Wars 2 Isidore of Seville 83, 91–93 James I, king of England and Ireland, and VI, king of Scotland 156 Jansen, Cornelius 271 Jehoash, king of Israel 207 Jeremiah 41, 163, 167 Jeroboam 203 Jesuits see under Society of Jesus Jews 14, 75, 179, 183, 185, 265, 276 Joachim 163 John the Baptist 163, 191 Joris, David 265 Josaphat 119 Josephus, Flavius 283 Joshua 39, 57, 97, 119, 147, 203, 205 Josiah, king of Judah 207 Julian, Roman emperor 55 Julius II, pope 91 Junius, Franciscus 24, 25 Justin 59, 71, 95, 283 Keckermann, Bartholomäus 25, 26, 27, 110–111 Kedorlaomer, king of Elam 31 Knight, John 156 Knights’ War 2 Knox, John 3 Korah 151, 217 Lactantius 53, 57, 291 de Lalaing, George, count of Rennenberg 259, 273 Latin language 7 Lausanne 26, 140 Law of nations (ius gentium) 93, 95, 243 Law of nature 135, 145, 155, 179, 181, 187

306 Index Le Havre 21 Leiden 20, 23–25, 26, 46, 208, 252, 276 Leipzig 110 Licinius, Roman emperor 14, 105, 145, 155, 207 Lipsius, Justus 24, 25, 63, 135 Livy (Titius Livius) 59, 75, 83, 135, 231 Loci communes textbook 9, 12–13, 16–17, 20, 21–22, 23, 25, 26 Locke, John 4 London 30, 208 Lot 31, 33, 43, 207 Louis VI, king of France 101 Louvain (Leuven) 131, 271 Low Countries 127, 133, 135, 252–253 Lucca 30 Luculllus, Lucius Licinius 69 Luther, Martin 9, 11–12, 21, 26, 27, 167, 233, 291–293 Lutheranism 4, 12, 22, 30, 110 Maccabees 39, 167, 203 Machiavelli, Niccolò 46, 61 Malcontents 273 Mamre 35 Manicheans 265 Marcian, Roman emperor 289 Marcion of Sinope 57, 71, 105 Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor 59, 73 Margaret, duchess of Parma 267 Mary, queen of England 17, 30 Maschith, Petrus 125 Masson, Robert 17, 30 Melanchthon, Philip 9, 12–15, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30, 299 de Mesmes, Claude, comte d’Avaux 275 Middelburg 26, 236 Mithridates, king of Pontus 69 Montanism 73 Montauban 20 Moses 33, 39, 51–53, 57, 151, 187, 203, 289 Münster, Treaty of 253 Müntzer, Thomas 11, 12 Naples 30 Narssius, Johannes 208 Nebuchadnezzar 165 Necho II, pharaoh 207 Nero, Roman emperor 13, 167 Newton, Isaac 7 Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus 199 Nikolaas, Hendrik 265

Ninus, king of Assyria 283 Nonius Marcellus 69 de la Noue, François 63, 133 Obrecht, Georg 135 Oecolampadius, Johannes 291 Og, king of Bashan 39 van Oldenbarnevelt, Johan 269 Orléans 46 Orosius, Paulus 59 Oxenstierna, Axel 26, 208 Oxford 17, 25, 26, 30, 140, 156 Padua 30 Pagans 179, 183, 197, 276, 297 Palaephatus 65 Palatinate 176 Papacy 6, 10, 11, 12, 19, 161, 171–175, 213, 219, 221, 255, 275 Pareus, David 19, 22–23, 26, 27, 47, 110, 156–157 Paris 46 Parsons, Robert 125 Peace of Augsburg 110 Peace of Passau 127 Peace of Westphalia 2 Pezel, Christoph 299 Philip II, king of Spain 11, 253, 257, 267, 269, 271 Philip V, king of Macedon 69 Philosophy 49–51 Pius, V, pope 271 Plato 79, 83 Pliny the Younger 297 Poland 110, 127, 208 Polanus von Polansdorf, Amandus 26, 200–201 Pompey the Great 69, 91 Ponet, John 3 Prague 208 Puritanism 236–237 Pyrrhus, king of Epirus 101 Rahab 97 Ramus, Petrus 21, 22, 236 Reformed orthodoxy: Antichrist, war, and 19, 47, 103–109, 161, 171–175, 176, 213, 225, 233; Calvinism, definition of, and 1; Congregationalism and 6; Crusade and 4–6; curricula of academies and universities and 20–26; forms of government (democracy, aristocracy,

Index  307 monarchy) and 247–249; inferior magistrates and 2–3, 4, 27, 133, 137, 140, 153, 156, 163–165, 205, 237, 249, 251; Liberalism and 2, 4; Lutheranism and 12; offensive religious war and 18–19, 77, 103–109, 127–129, 176, 179, 181, 187, 283–285; philosophy and 49–51; political duty and 4, 17–18, 20, 27, 135, 165, 173, 243, 245, 295; predestination and 7–8, 227; theocracy and 5; toleration and 123–139, 255–275; tyranny and 3, 41, 43, 65, 135, 163, 165, 167, 169, 187, 205, 215, 239, 249, 273; rebellion and 151, 153, 187; war of religious intervention and 4, 14–15, 107, 187, 205, 209, 239, 287; wars of self-defence and 4, 107, 133–137, 139, 145, 163, 173, 187, 205, 209, 227, 239, 251, 281, 287; wartime alliances and 18 Rehoboam, king of Israel 153, 205 Remonstrants 252, 263, 265, 269, 275 Reynolds, William 125 Rhenanus, Beatus 291 Roverius, Philip, vicar apostolic for the Dutch Republic 261 Rufinus, Tyrannius 55 Russia 225 Rutherford, Samuel 10 Sadducees 265 St Andrews 25 St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre 3, 46 St Maurice 73 Samaritans 265 Samuel 39 Sanhedrin 281 Saul, king of Israel 57, 155, 167, 169, 203 Sapphira 35 Saravia, Hadrian 25 Satan 129 Sattler, Michael 11 Saumur 20, 140 Schmalkaldic Wars 2, 11, 19, 30 School of Salamanca 9–10 Schultes, Jakob 131 Scipio Africanus 89, 101 Scotism 276 Scotland 2, 3, 5, 25, 105, 133 Scythians 85 Sedan 20 Seidel, Martin 265

Servetus, Michael 265 Sforza, Ludovico, duke of Milan 63 Sheba 151, 205 Shebar 151 Sidney, Philip 46 Siegen 26 Sigismund III, king of Sweden 127, 221 Skinner, Quentin 4 slavery 181–183, 197 Society of Jesus (Jesuits) 22, 23, 25, 276 Socinus, Faustus 265 Sodom 33, 215 Solomon, king of Israel 153 Sosius, Thomas 24 Sparta 169 Stephen Báthory, king of Poland, grandduke of Lithuania 127 Stöckle, Johannes 110 Strasbourg 26, 30, 31 Switzerland 155 taxation 245 Tertullian 57, 73, 155, 289 Thebes 73 Theodoret 119 Theodosius I, Roman emperor 163 Thirty Years’ War 2, 19, 208 de Thou, Jacques Auguste 299 Thrasybulus 167 Thucydides 85 Tidal, king of Goyim 31 de Toledo y Pimentel, Fernando Álvarez, duke of Alba 129, 267, 271 Trajan, Roman emperor 155, 167 Trelcatius, Lucas 25 Troeltsch, Ernst 4, 7 Tübingen 200 Turks, Arabs, and Islam 19, 75, 101, 107, 179, 183, 187, 197, 207, 215, 265, 291–293 Turner Johnson, James 5 Universities, importance of 7 Urbino 61 Utrecht 26, 252, 255 Utrecht, Union of 253, 257, 259, 267, 276 de Valdés, Juan 30 Valenciennes 267 Venator, Adolphus 265 Vergil (Publius Vergilius Maro) 43, 149, 209

308 Index Vermeulen, Jan (Johannes Molanus) 127, 131 Vermigli, Peter Martyr 7, 12, 17, 26, 27, 30–31, 46, 71, 97, 140, 167 Vernulaeus, Nicolaus 271 Vianen 267 de Vio, Tommaso, Cardinal Cajetan 12 Vitoria, Francisco de 276, 293, 295 Voetius, Gisbertus 24, 25, 26, 252–253, 276 Vossius, Gerard 208 Vulcanius, Bonaventura 23–24 Wachtelaar, Johannes, vicar general of Utrecht 261 Walles, Ucke 265 war: ambushes and tricks in 39, 97, 147, 189, 243; avoidance of 41–43, 73, 143, 287, 297; declaration of (ius ad bellum) 31, 189; definition of 67–71, 279–281; dignity or ambition of magistrate and 41, 81, 207, 283; discipline in 299–301; civil 79–81, 85, 99, 193; just cause of 31, 35–37, 77, 81–85, 193, 197, 203, 207, 239, 281; just on both sides 191, 295; individual conscience and 85, 97–99, 151, 191, 197, 295; keeping faith with enemies in 39, 95, 131, 147, 185, 189, 197; licit for Christians 31, 33–35, 143–145; massacre and 195, 197; ministers and 37–39, 145, 161–163, 171, 241; moderation, mercy,

avoidance of massacre in 43, 87, 89, 101, 147, 149, 189, 195, 243–244, 295; and pacifism 10–11, 12, 14, 18, 39–41, 43–45, 291; for peace rather than annihilation 93–95; plunder in 87, 93, 103, 147, 149, 189, 197, 207, 212, 245; private persons and 31, 35, 133, 135, 151, 153, 169, 171, 203; Sabbath and 91; sovereignty and 77–81, 193, 203; spiritual 67; treatment of enemies in (ius in bello) 31, 91–103 Wars of Kappel 2 Wars of the Three Kingdoms 2, 5 Weigel, Valentin 265 Wenceslaus IV, king of Bohemia 167 William I, prince of Orange 257, 267, 271 William II, prince of Orange 253 William III, prince of Orange, king of England, Scotland, and Ireland 252 Whitgift, John, archbishop of Canterbury 236 Wittenberg 110 Xenophon 83, 101, 149 Zadok 99 Zedekiah, king of Judah 41 Zepper, Wilhelm 117 Zürich 17, 26, 30 Zwingli, Huldrych 9 Zypaeus, Franciscus 271