« PreviousContinue »
other choice. But before I proceed, both myself would be glad to take some breath; and I shall frankly desire, that some of your lordships would take your turn to speak, that can do it better. But chiefly, for that I see here some that are excellent interpreters of the divine law, though in several ways; and that I have reason to distrust mine own judgment, both as weak in itself, and as that which may be overborne by my zeal and affection to this cause. I think it were an error to speak farther, till I may see some sound foundation laid of the lawfulness of the action, by them that are belter versed in that argument. Eupolis. I am glad, Martius, to see in a person of your profession so great moderation, in that you are not transported in an action that warms the blood, and is appearing holy, to blanch or take for admitted the point of lawfulness. And because, methinks, this conference prospers, if your lordships will give me leave, I will make some motion touching the distribution of it into parts. Unto which when they all assented, Eupolis said: Eupolis. I think it would not sort amiss, if Zebedajus would be pleased to handle the question, Whether a war for the propagation of the christian faith, without other cause of hostility, be lawful or no, and in what cases? I confess also I would be glad to go a little farther, and to hear it spoken to concerning the lawfulness, not only permissively, but whether it be not obligatory to christian princes and states to design itj which part, if it please Gamaliel to undertake, the point of the lawfulness taken simply will be complete. Yet there resteth the comparative: that is, it being granted, that it is either lawful or binding, yet whether other things be not to be preferred before it; as extirpation of heresies, reconcilements of schisms, pursuit of lawful temporal rights and quarrels, and the like; and how far this enterprise ought either to wait upon these other maters, or to be mingled with them, or to pass by them, and give law to them, as inferior unto itself? And because this is a great part, and Eusebius hath yet said nothing, we will by way of mulct or pain, if your lordships think good, lay it upon him. All this while, I doubt much that Pollio, who hath a sharp wit of discovery towards what is solid and real, and what is specious and airy, will esteem all this but impassibilities, and eagles in the clouds: and therefore we shall all entreat him to crush this argument with his best forces; that by the light we shall take from him, we may either cast it away, if it be found but a bladder, or discharge it of so much as is vain and not sperable. And because I confess I myself am not of that opinion, although it be a hard encounter to deal with rollio, yet I shall do my best to prove the enterprise possible; and to show how all impediments may be either removed or overcome. And then it will be fit for Martius, if we do not desert it before, to resume his farther discourse, as well for the persuasive, as for the consult, touching the means, preparations, and all that may conduce unto the enterprise. But this is but my wish, your lordships will put it into better order. They all not only allowed the distribution, but accepted the parts: but because the day was spent,
they agreed to defer it till the next morning. Only Pollio laid:
Pollio. You take me right, Eupolis, for I am of opinion, that except you could bray Christendom in a mortar, and mould it into a new paste, there is no possibility of an holy war. And I was ever of opinion, that the philosophers' stone, and an holy war, were but the rendezvous of cracked brains, that wore their feather in their head instead of their hat Nevertheless, believe me of courtesy, that if you five shall be of another mind, especially after you have heard what I can say, I shall be ready to certify with Hippocrates, that Athens is mad, and Democritus is only sober. And, lest you should take me for altogether adverse, 1 will frankly contribute to the business now at first. Ye, no doubt, will amongst you devise and discourse many solemn matters: but do as I shall tell you. This pope is decrepit, and the bell goeth for him. Take order, that when he is dead, there be chosen a pope of fresh years, between fifty and threescore; and see that he take the name of Urban, because a pope of that name did first institute the croisado, and as with an holy trumpet, did stir up the voyage for the Holy Land. Eupolis. You say well; but be, I pray you, a little more serious in this conference.
The next day the same persons met as they had appointed; and after they were set, and that there had passed some sporting speeches from Pollio, how the war was already begun; for that, he said, he had dreamt of nothing but Janizaries, and Tartars, and Sultans all the night long: Martius said: Martius. The distribution of this conference, which was made by Eupolis yesternight, and was by us approved, seemeth to me perfect, save in one point; and that is, not in the number, but in the placing of the parts. For it is so disposed, that Pollio and Eupolis shall debate the possibility or impossibility of the action, before I shall deduce the particulars of the means and manner by which it is to be achieved. Now I have often observed in deliberations, that the entering near hand into the manner of performance, and execution of that which is under deliberation, hath quite overturned the opinion formerly conceived, of the possibility or impossibility. So that things, that at the first show seemed possible, by ripping up the performance of them, have been convicted of impossibility; and things that on the other side have showed impossible, by the declaration of the means to effect them, as by a back light, have appeared possible, the way through them being discerned. This I speak not to alter the order, but only to desire Pollio and Eupolis not to speak peremptorily, or conclusively touching the point of possibility, till they have heard me deduce the means of the execution: and that done, to reserve themselves at liberty for a reply, after they had before them, as it were, a model of the enterprise. This grave and solid advertisement and caution of Martius was commended by them all. Whereupon Eupolis said: Eupolis. Since Martius hath begun to refine that which was yesternight resolved; I may the better have leave, especially in the mending of a proposition, which was mine own, to remember an omission which is more than a misplacing. For I doubt we ought to have added or inserted into the point of lawfulness, the question, how far an holy war is to be pursued, whether to displanting and extermination of people? And again, whether to enforce a new belief, and to vindicate or punish infidelity; or only to subject the countries and people; and so by the temporal sword to open a door for the spiritual sword to enter, by persuasion, instruction, and such means as are proper for souls and consciences? But it may be, neither is this necessary tp be made a part by itself; for that Zebedteus, in his wisdom, will fall into it as an incident to the point of lawfulness, which cannot be handled without limitations and distinctions. Zebedceu.s. You encourage me, Eupolis, in that I perceive, how in your judgment, which I do so much esteem, I ought to take that course, which of myself I was purposed to do. For as Martius noted well, that it is but a loose thing to speak of possibilities, without the particular designs; so is it to speak of lawfulness without the particular cases. I will therefore first of all distinguish the cases; though you shall give me leave, in the handling of them, not to sever them with too much preciseness; for both it would cause needless length, and we are not now in arts or methods, but in a conference. It is therefore first to be put to question in general, as Eupolis propounded it, whether it be lawful for christian princes or states to make an invasive war, only and simply for the propagation of the faith, without other cause of hostility; or circumstance that may provoke and induce the war?
Secondly, Whether, it being made part of the case, that the countries were once christian, and members of the church, and where the golden candlesticks did stand, though now they be utterly alienated, and no christians left; it be not lawful to make a war to restore them to the church, as an ancient patrimony of Christ? Thirdly, if it be made a farther part of the case, that there are yet remaining in the countries multitudes of christians, whether it be not lawful to make a war to free them, and deliver them from the servitude of the infidels? Fourthly, whether it be not lawful to make a war for the purging and recovery of consecrated places, being now polluted and profaned; Bs the holy city and sepulchre, and such other places of principal adoration and devotion? Fifthly, whether it be not lawful to make a war for the revenge or vindication of blasphemies and reproaches against the Deity and our blessed Saviour; or for the effusion of christian blood, and cruelties against christians, though ancient and long since past; considering that God's visits are without limitation of time; and many times do but expect the fulness of the sin? Sixthly, it is to be considered, as Eupolis now last well remembered, whether a holy war, which, as in the worthiness of the quarrel, so in the justness of the prosecution, ought to exceed all temporal wars, may be pursued, either to the expulsion of people, or the enforcement of consciences, or the like extremities; or how to be moderated and limited; lest while we remember we are christians, we forget
that others arc men? But there is a point that precedeth all these points recited; nay, and in a manner dischargeth them, in the particular of a war against the Turk: which point, I think, would not have come into my thought, but that Martius giving us yesterday a representation of the empire of the Turks, with no small vigour of words, which you, Pollio, called an invective, but was indeed a true charge, did put me in mind of it: and the more I think upon it, the more I settle in opinion, that a war to suppress that empire, though we set aside the cause of religion, were a just war. After Zebeda?us had said this, he made a pause, to see whether any of the rest would say any thing: but when he perceived nothing but silence, and signs of attention to tRat he would farther say, he proceeded thus:
Zebedteus. Your lordships will not look for a treatise from me, but a speech of consultation ; and in that brevity and manner will I speak. First, I shall agree, that as the cause of a war ought to be just, so the justice of that cause ought to be evident; not obscure, not scrupulous. For by the consent of all laws, in capital causes, the evidence must be full and clear: and if so where one man's life is in question, what say we to a war, which is ever the sentence of death upon many? We must beware therefore how we make a Moloch, or a heathen idol, of our blessed Saviour, in sacrificing the blood of men to him by an unjust war. The justice of every action consisteth in the merits of the cause, the warrant of the jurisdiction, and-the form of the prosecution. As for the inward intention, I leave it to the court of heaven. 'Of these things severally, as they may have relation to the present subject of a war against infidels: and namely, against the most potent and most dangerous enemy of the faith, the Turk. I hold, and I doubt not but I shall make it plain, as far as a sum or brief can make a cause plain, that a war against the Turk is lawful, l>oth by the laws of nature and nations, and by the law divine, which is the perfection of the other two. As for the laws positive and civil of the Romans, or others whatsoever, they are too small engines to move the weight ofMhis question. And therefore, in my judgment, many of the late schoolmen, though excellent men, take not the right way in disputing this question; except they had the gift of Navius, that they could, "cotem novacula scindere," hew stones with pen-knives. First, for the law of nature. The philosopher Aristotle is no ill interpreter thereof. He hath set many men on work with a witty speech of natura dominns, and natura servns; affirming expressly and positively, that from the very nativity some things are bom to rule, and some things to obey: which oracle hath been taken in divers senses. Some have taken it for a speech of ostentation, to entitle the Grecians to an empire over the barbarians; which indeed was better maintained by his scholar Alexander. Some have taken it for a speculative platform, that reason and nature would that the best should govern; but not in any wise to create a right But for my part, I take i: neither for a brag, nor for a wish; but for a truth as he limiteth it. For he saith, that if there can be found such an inequality between man and man, as there is between man and beast, or between soul and body, it investeth a right of government: which seemeth rather an impossible case than an untrue sentence. But I hold both the judgment true, and the case possible ; and such as hath had, and hath a being, both in particular men and nations. But ere we go farther, let us confine ambiguities and mistakings, that they trouble us not. First, to say that the more capable, or the better deserver, hath such right to govern, as he may compulsorily bring under the less worthy, is idle. Men will never agree upon it. who is the more worthy. For it is not only in order of nature, for him to govern that is the more intelligent, as Aristotle would have it; but there is no less required for government, courage to protect; and above all, honesty and probity of the will to abstain from injury. So fitness to govern is a perplexed business. Some men, some nations, excel in the one ability, some in the other. Therefore the position which I intend, is not in the comparative, that the wiser, or the stouter, or the juster nation should govern; but in the privative, that where there is a heap of people, though we term it a kingdom or state, that is altogether unable or indign to govern ; there it is a just cause of war for another nation, that is civil or policed, to subdue them: and this, though it were to be done by a Cyrus or a Cesar, that were no christian. The second mis-' taking to be banished is, that I understand not this of a personal tyranny, as was the state of Rome under a Caligula, or a Nero, or a Commodus: «hall the nation suffer for that wherein they suffer? But when the constitution of the state, and the fundamental customs and laws of the same, if laws they may be called, are against the laws of nature and nations, then, I say, a war upon them is lawful. I shall divide the question into three parts. First, whether there be, or may be any nation -or society of men, against whom it is lawful to make a war, without a precedent injury or provocation? Secondly, what are those breaches of the law of nature and nations, which do forfeit and divest all right and title in a nation to govern? And thirdly, whether those breaches of the law of nature and nations be found in any nation at this day; and namely, in the empire of the Ottomans? For the first, I hold it clear that such nations, or states, or societies of people, there may be and are. There cannot be a better ground laid to declare this, than to look into the original donation of government. Observe it well, especially the inducement, or preface. Saith God: "Let us make man after our own image, and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts of the land," &c. Hereupon De Victoria, and with him some others, infer excellently, and extract a most true and divine aphorism, "Non fundatur dominium, nisi in imagine Dei." Here we have the charter of foundation: it is now the more easy to judge of the forfeiture or reseizure. Deface the image, and you divest the right. But what is this image, and how is it defaced? The poor men of Lyons, and some
fanatical spirits, will tell you, that the image of God is purity; and the defacement, sin. But this subverteth all government: neither did Adam's sin, or the curse upon it, deprive him of his rule, but left the creatures to a rebellion or reluctation. And therefore if you note it attentively, when this charter was renewed unto Noah and his sons, it is not by the words, " You shall have dominion;" but "Your fear shall be upon all the beasts of the land, and the birds of the air, and all that moveth:" not regranting the sovereignty, which stood firm; and protecting it against the reluctation. The sound interpreters therefore expound this image of God, of natural reason; which if it be totally or mostly defaced, the right of government doth cease; and if you mark all the interpreters well, still they doubt of the case, and not of the law. But this is properly to be spoken to in handling the second point, when we shall define of the defacements. To go on: The prophet Hosea, in the person of God, said of the Jews; "They have reigned, but not by me; they have set a seigniory over themselves, but I knew nothing of it." Which place proveth plainly, that there are governments which God doth not avow. For though they be ordained by his secret providence, yet they are not acknowledged by his revealed will. Neither can this be meant of evil governors or tyrants: for they are often avowed and established as lawful potentates; but of some perverseness and defection in the very nation itself; which appeareth most manifestly in that the prophet speaketh of the seigniory in abstracto, and not of the person of the Lord. And although some heretics of those we speak of have abused this text, yet the sun is not soiled in passage. And again, if any man infer upon the words of the prophet following, which declare this rejection, and, to use the words of the text, rescission of their estate to have been for their idolatry, that by this reason the governments of all idolatrous nations should be also dissolved, which is manifestly untrue, in my judgment it followeth not. For the idolatry of the Jews then, and the idolatry of the heathen then and now, are sins of a far differing nature, in regard of the special covenant, and the clear manifestations wherein God did contract and exhibit himself to that nation. This nullity of policy, and right of estate in some nations, is yet more significantly expressed by Moses in his canticle; in the person of God to the Jews: "Ye have incensed me with gods that are no gods, and I will incense you with a people that are no people:" such as were, no doubt, the people of Canaan, after seisin was given of the land of promise to the Israelites. For from that time their right to the land was dissolved, though they remained in many places unconquered. By this we may see, that there are nations in name, that are no nations in right, but multitudes only, and swarms of people. For like as there are particular persons outlawed and proscribed by civil laws of several countries; so are there nations that are outlawed and proscribed by the law of nature and nations, or by the immediate commandment of God. And as there are kings de facto, and not de jure, in respect of the nullity of their title; so are there nations that are occupants de facto, and not de jure, of their territories, in respect of the nullity of their policy or government. But let us take in some examples into the midst of our proofs; for they will prove as much as put after, and illustrate more. It was never doubted, but a war upon pirates may be lawfully made by any nation, though not infested or violated by them. Is it because they have not certas sedes or lares? In the piratical war which was achieved by Pompey the Great, and was his truest and greatest glory, the pirates had some cities, sundry ports, and a great part of the province of Cilicia; and the pirates now being, have a receptacle and mansion in Algiers. Beasts are not less savage because they have dens. Is it because the danger hovers as a cloud, that a man cannot tell where it will fall; and so it is every man's case? The reason is good, but it is not all, nor that which is most alleged. For the true received reason is, that pirates are communes humani generis hostes; whom all nations are to prosecute, not so much in the right of theirown fears, as upon the band of human society. For as there are formal and written leagues, respective, to certain enemies; so is there a natural and tacit confederation amongst all men, against the common enemy of human society. So as there needs no intimation, or denunciation of the war; there needs no request from the nation grieved: but all these formalities the law of nature supplies in the case of pirates. The same is the case of rovers by land; such as yet are some cantons in Arabia, and some petty kings of the mountains, adjacent to straits and ways. Neither is it lawful only for the neighbour princes to destroy such pirates or rovers, but if there were any nation never so far off, that would make it an enterprise of merit and true glory, as the Romans that made a war for the liberty of Grrecia from a distant and remote part, no doubt they might do it. I make the same judgment of that kingdom of the assassins now destroyed, which was situate upon the borders of Saraca; and was for a time a great terror to all the princes of the Levant. There the custom was, that upon the commandment of their king, and a blind oberlience to be given thereunto, any of them was to undertake, in the nature of a votary, the insidious murder of any prince, or person, upon whom the commandment went. This custom, without all question, made their whole government void, as an engine built against human society, worthy by all men to be fired and pulled down. I say the like of the anabaptists of Munster; and this, although they had not been rebels to the empire; and put case likewise that they had done no mischief at all actually, yet if there shall be a congregation and consent of people, that shall hold all things to be lawful, not according to any certain laws or rules, but according to the secret and variable motions and instincts of the spirit; this is indeed no nation, no people, no seigniory, that God doth know; any nation that is civil and policed, may, if they will not be reduced, cut them off from the face of the earth. Now let me put a feigned case, and yet antiquity makes it doubtful whether it was fic
tion or history, of a land of Amazons, where the whole government public and private, yea, the militia itself, was in the hands of women. I demand, is not such a preposterous government, against the first order of nature, for women to rule over men, in itself void, and to be suppressed? I speak not of the reign of women, for that is supplied by counsel, and subordinate magistrates masculine, but where the regiment of state, justice, families, is all managed by women. And yet this last case differeth from the other before, because in the rest there is terror of danger, but in this there is only error of nature. Neither should I make any great difficulty to affirm the same of the sultanr/of the Mamalukes; where slaves, and none but slaves, bought for money, and of unknown descent, reigned over families of freemen. And much like were the case, if you suppose a nation, where the custom were, that after full age the sons should expulse their fathers and mothers out of their possessions, and put them to their pensions: for these cases, of women to govern men, sons the fathers, slaves, freemen, are much in the same degree; all being total violations and perversions of the laws of nature and nations. For the West Indies, I perceive, Martins you have read Garcilazzo de Viega, who himself was descended of the race of the Incas, a Mestizo, and is willing to make the best of the virtues and manners of his country: and yet in troth he doth it soberly and credibly enough. Yet you shall hardly edify me, that those nations might not by the law of nature hate been subdued by any nation, that had only policy and moral virtue; though the propagation of the faith, whereof we shall speak in the proper place, were set by, and not made part of the case. Surehr their nakedness, being with them, in most parts of that country, without all vail or covering, was a great defacement: for in the acknowledgment of nakedness was the first sense of sin; and the heresy of the Adamites was ever accounted an affront of nature. But upon these I stand not: nor yet upon their idiocy, in thinking that horses did eat their bits, and letters speak, and the like: nor yet upon their sorceries, which are almost common to all idolatrous nations. But, I say, their sacrificing, and more especially their eating of men, is such an abomination, as, methinks, a man's face should be a little confused, to deny, that this custom, joined with the rest, did not make it lawful for the Spaniards to invade their territory, forfeited by the law of nature; and either to reduce them or displant them. But far be it from me, yet nevertheless, to justify the cruelties which were at first used towards them; which had their reward soon after, there being not one of the principal of the first conquerors, but died a violent death himself; and was well followed by the deaths of many more. Of examples enough: except we should add the labours of Hercules; an example, which though it be flourished with much fabulous matter,vet so much it hath, that it doth notably set forth the consent of all nations and ages, in the approbation of the extirpating and debellating of giants, monsters, and foreign tyrants, not only as lawful, but as meritorious even of divine honour: and this although the deliverer came from the one end of the world unto the other. Let ns now set down some arguments to prove the same; regarding rather weight than number, as in such a conference as this is fit. The first argument shall be this. It is a great error, and a narrowness or straitness of mind, if any man think, that nations have nothing to do one with another, except there be either an union in sovereignty, or a conjunction in parts or leagues. There are other bands of society, and implicit confederations. That of colonies, or transmigrants, towards their mother nation. Gentes unius labii is somewhat j for as the confusion of tongues was a mark of separation, so the being of one language is a mark of union. To have the same fundamental laws and customs in chief is yet more, as it was between the Grecians in respect of the barbarians. To be of one sect or worship; if it be a false worship, I speak not of it, for that is but fratres in malo. But above all these, there is the supreme and indissoluble consanguinity and society between men in general: of which the heathen poet, whom the apostle calls to witness, saith, "We are all his generation." But much more we christians, unto whom it is revealed in particularity, that all men came from one lump of earth; and that two singular persons were the parents from whom all the generations of the world are descended: we, I say, ought to ac
knowledge, tliat no nations are wholly aliens and strangers the one to the other; and not to be less charitable than the person introduced by the comic poet, " Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." Now if there be such a tacit league or confederation, sure it is not idle; it is against somewhat, or somebody: who should they be? Is it against wild beasts; or the elements of fire and water? No, it is against such routs and shoals of people, as have utterly degenerated from the laws of nature; as have in their very body and frame of estate a monstrosity; and may be truly accounted, according to the examples we have formerly recited, common enemies and grievances of mankind; or disgraces and reproaches to human nature. Such people, all nations are interessed, and ought to be resenting, to suppress; considering that the particular states themselves, being the delinquents, can give no redress. And this, I say, is not to be measured so much by the principles of jurists, as by lex charitatis; lex proximi, which includes the Samaritan as well as the Levite; lex filiorum Ada? de massa una: upon which original laws this opinion is grounded: which to deny, if a man may speak freely, were almost to be a schismatic in nature.
[The rest was not perfected.']
LORD BACON'S QUESTIONS
A BOOT THE
LAWFULNESS OF A WAR FOR THE PROPAGATION OF RELIGION.
(Questions wherein I desire opinion, joined with arguments and authorities.
Tenison's Whether a war he lawful against •• Baconiana," infidels, only for the propagation of the p' christian faith, without other cause of
Whether a war be lawful to recover to the church countries which formerly have been christian, though now alienate, and christians utterly extirpated?
Whether a war be lawful, to free and deliver christians that yet remain in servitude and subjection to infidels?
Whether a war be lawful in revenge, or vindication, of blasphemy, and reproaches against the Deity and our Saviour? Or for the ancient effusion of christian blood, and cruelties upon christians?
Whether a war be lawful for the restoring and purging of the Holy Land, the sepulchre, and other principal places of adoration and devotion?
Whether, in the cases aforesaid, it be not obligatory to christian princes to make such a war, and not permissive only?
Whether the making of a war against the infidels be not first in order of dignity, and to be preferred before extirpations of heresies, reconcilements of schisms, reformation of manners, pursuits of just temporal quarrels, and the like actions for the public good; except there be either a more urgent necessity, or a more evident facility in those inferior actions, or except they may both go on together in some degree?