Page images

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, both 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 of this 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 penknives. 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 dominus," and "natura servus;" affirming expressly and positively, that from the very nativity some things are born 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 it 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 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, VOL. II.-56

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 Cæsar, that were no Christian. The second mistaking 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: shall 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 society 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 dominiumnisi 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; but protecting it against the reluctation. The sound interpreters therefore expounded 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, saith 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 governBut 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 the 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 their own 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 Græcia 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 situated upon the borders of Saraca; and was for a time a great terror to all the princes of the Levant. Their custom was, that upon the commandment of their king, and a blind obedience 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 seignory, 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 were fiction 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, | not only as lawful, but as meritorious even of and subordinate magistrates masculine, but where divine honours; and this although the deliverer the regiment of state justice, families, is all ma- came from the one end of the world unto the naged by women. And yet this last case differ- other. Let us now set down some arguments to eth from the other before, because in the rest there prove the same; regarding rather weight than is terror of danger, but in this there is only error of number, as in such a conference as this is fit. nature. Neither should I make any great diffi-The first argument shall be this. It is a great culty to affirm the same of the sultanry of the Mamelukes; 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, Martius, 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 have 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. Surely their nakedness, being with them, in most parts of that country, without all veil 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, yet 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,

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 a union in sovereignty, or a conjunction in pacts 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; 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 bctween 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 acknowledge, that 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 interested, 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 Adæ 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.]





Questions wherein I desire opinion joined with arguments and authorities. WHETHER a war be lawful against infidels, only for the propagation of the Christian faith, without other cause of hostility?

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 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 Whether a war be lawful, to free and deliver preferred before extirpations of heresies, reconcileChristians that yet remain in servitude and sub-ments of schisms, reformation of manners, purjection 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?

suits 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?






No praise of magnanimity, nor of love, nor of | wars, left her to make her own peace; one that knowledge, can intercept her praise, that planteth | could never be by any solicitation moved to renew and nourisheth magnanimity by her example, love the treaties; and one that since hath proceeded by her person, and knowledge by the peace and from doubtful terms of amity to the highest acts serenity of her times. And if these rich pieces be of hostility. Yet, notwithstanding the opposition so fair unset, what are they set, and set in all per- so great, the support so weak, the season so imfection? Magnanimity no doubt consisteth in proper; yet, I say, because it was a religion contempt of peril, in contempt of profit, and in wherein she was nourished and brought up; a meriting of the times wherein one liveth. For religion that freed her subjects from pretence of contempt of peril, see a lady that cometh to a foreign powers, and indeed the true religion; she crown after the experience of some adverse fortune brought to pass this great work with success which for the most part extenuateth the mind, worthy so noble a resolution. See a queen that, and maketh it apprehensive of fears. No sooner when a deep and secret conspiracy was plotted she taketh the sceptre into her sacred hands, but against her sacred person, practised by subtile inshe putteth on a resolution to make the greatest, struments, embraced by violent and desperate the most important, the most dangerous that can humours, strengthened and bound by vows and be in a state, the alteration of religion. This she sacraments, and the same was revealed unto her, doth, not after a sovereignty established and con- (and yet the nature of the affairs required further tinued by sundry years, when custom might have ripening before the apprehension of any of the bred in her people a more absolute obedience; parties,) was content to put herself into the guard when trial of her servants might have made her of the divine providence, and her own prudence, more assured whom to employ: when the reputa- to have some of the conspirators in her eyes, to tion of her policy and virtue might have made her suffer them to approach to her person, to take a government redoubted: but at the very entrance petition of the hand that was conjured for her of her reign, when she was green in authority, death; and that with such majesty of countenance, her servants scant known unto her, the adverse such mildness and serenity of gesture, such art and part not weakened, her own part not confirmed. impression of words, as had been sufficient to Neither doth she reduce or reunite her realm to have repressed and bound the hand of a conspirator, the religion of the states about her, that the evil if he had not been discovered. Lastly, see a queen, inclination of the subject might be countervailed that when her realm was to have been invaded by by the good correspondence in foreign parts: but, an army, the preparation whereof was like the contrariwise, she introduceth a religion extermi- travel of an elephant, the provisions were infinite, nated and persecuted both at home and abroad. Her the setting forth whereof was the terror and wonproceeding herein is not by degrees and by stealth, der of Europe; it was not seen that her cheer, her but absolute and at once. Was she encouraged fashion, her ordinary manner was any thing alterthereto by the strength she found in leagues and ed: not a cloud of that storm did appear in that alliances with great and potent confederates ? countenance wherein peace doth ever shine; but No, but she found her realm in wars with her with excellent assurance, and advised security, nearest and mightiest neighbours. She stood she inspired her council, animated her nobility, single and alone, and in league only with one, redoubled the courage of her people, still having that after the people of her nation had made his this noble apprehension, not only that she would 2 P


« PreviousContinue »