Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

Thirdly, if it be made a further 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 consecrate places, being now polluted and profaned; as 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 whilst we remember we are Christians, we forget that others are men? But there is a point that pre

1 The passage which follows, to the end of the paragraph, is not in the Harl. MS. It is one of the passages which appear to have been inserted on revision, and to which I alluded in the preface as indicating an intention to limit the Holy War to a war against the Turks specially, and a war not for religion simply, but with "a mixture of civil titles." The same thing is observable in Zebedæus's next speech, which was probably written at a later period: for the MS. merely inserts the name and breaks off with an &c.

A series of questions relating to this subject, found among Bacon's papers, and printed by Tenison in the Baconiana (p. 179.) with the title "The Lord Bacon's Questions about the Lawfulness of a War for the Propagation of Religion," may be most conveniently inserted here; being in fact merely a note of the questions which he intended to discuss in this dialogue, and which we have just seen set forth more at large.

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 extirped?

Whether a war be lawful to tree 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

cedeth 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 Zebedæus had said this, he made a pause, to see whether any of the rest would say anything: but when he perceived nothing but silence and signs of attention to that he would further say, he proceeded thus:

ZEBEDEUS. Your lordships will not look for a treatise from me1, 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 an 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, 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 other 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)

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? 1 in hac quæstione de jure Belli Sacri contra Turcas.

take not the right way in disputing this question; except they had they gift of Navius, that they could, cotem novaculâ 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 naturâ dominus, and naturâ 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 intitle 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 further, 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 an 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 polliced, to subdue them: and this, though it were to be done by a Cyrus or a Cæsar, that were no Christian. The second mis

Ambigua quædam, et a sensu vero sermonis nostri multum aberrantia, ne interpellant, aligamus et relegemus.

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: shall the nation suffer for that wherein they suffer? But when the constitution of the state and the fundadamental 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 devest 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 devest 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 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 inter

1 Franciscus de Victoria.

preters 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 signory 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 knowledged by his revealed will. Neither can this be meant of evil governors or tyrants; for they are often avowed and stablished 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 signory in abstracto, and not of the person of the Lord. And although some heretics, of those we spake of, have abused this text, yet the sun is not soiled in passage.1 And again, if any man infer upon the words of the prophets following (which declare this rejection and, to use the words of the text, rescision 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 Canaan3, 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 utlawed and proscribed by civil laws of several countries; so are there nations that are utlawed and proscribed by the law of nature and nations, or by the immediate commandment of God. And as there are kings de facto,

1 in transitu per cloacas.

3 populi Cananæorum, et reliqui.

2 This clause is omitted in the translation.

« ForrigeFortsæt »