Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Laity or Secular Persons (Book III)
Chapter 14: That It Is Sometimes Lawful for Christians to Wage Wars
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Laicis sive Saecularibus (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book III), On the Laity or Secular Persons (On the Members of the Church, Book III). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There follows the fourth question, which is of war. Now this disputation contains three parts. For first it must be demonstrated that wars are sometimes lawful for Christians. Secondly, the causes of a just war must be explained. Thirdly, on account of Luther, it must be proved that Christians rightly take up arms against the Turks.
And to begin with the first: it was an ancient heresy of the Manichaeans, who asserted that war was of its own nature unlawful, and therefore accused Moses, Joshua, David, and the other Fathers of the Old Testament who waged wars, as impious, as Blessed Augustine relates (Book XXII against Faustus, chapter 74 and following). The same heresy some have stirred up in our age; and first of all Erasmus, both elsewhere and chiefly in his annotations on Luke 3 and 22, contends by a lengthy disputation that war is one of the evils that are tolerated, and was permitted by God to the ancient Jews, but forbidden to Christians by Christ and the Apostles.
Cornelius Agrippa too, in his book On the Vanity of the Sciences, chapter 79, affirms that the art of war was prohibited by Christ. The same John Ferus also followed (Book IV of his commentaries on Matthew, expounding that of chapter 26: “He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword”). The same the Anabaptists teach, as Melanchthon testifies (in the Theological Commonplaces, chapter on the Magistrate). The same Alfonso de Castro also attributes to John Oecolampadius (under the word “war”) — which seems strange to me, since Zwingli his colleague so approved of war that he perished fighting in battle, and likewise Calvin (Book IV Institutes, chapter 20) and Melanchthon (as above) and the other heretics of this time teach, by word and deed, that one ought to wage war.
But we, as the whole Church has always taught by words and examples, say that war is not of its own nature unlawful, and that it is lawful not only for Jews but also for Christians to wage war, provided the conditions be kept, of which we will speak afterward. This is proved by the testimony of Scripture. Judges 3: “These are the nations which the Lord left, that He might instruct Israel by them, and all who had not known the wars of the Canaanites; that afterward their sons might learn to fight with enemies and have the custom of battle.” These words indeed show not a permission, but the absolute will of God. Likewise 1 Kings 15: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts: I have reckoned all that Amalek hath done to Israel; now therefore go and smite Amalek, and destroy all that is his; spare him not,” and so on. Here too we see not a permission but a precept; and the Old Testament is full of the like. Likewise Luke 3: “And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: Do violence to no man, neither calumniate any man, and be content with your pay.” The Anabaptists, in Melanchthon, say that John permitted war to the Jews as imperfect, but that Christ taught far otherwise.
But against this: for John was preparing the way of the Lord; therefore he ought not to have permitted what Christ was soon to take away; for neither could they have used that concession, since in the same year Christ came and forbade war, as they will have it; and besides, men could have suspected that Christ and John did not agree between themselves, which would have been most absurd. Erasmus answers otherwise, that these things were said to soldiers, not that by keeping them they might live well, but that they might live less badly, as Theophylact too seems to explain.
But against this: for John had premised: “Bring forth fruits worthy of penance; and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cast into the fire,” and so on. Thereupon the publicans and soldiers, being compunct, asked what was the good fruit which they ought to do; therefore either John deceived them, or soldiers can be saved if they keep what John commanded them.
To Theophylact I say two things. First, that he does not say war is evil, but only says that John exhorted the crowds, who were innocent, to good works, that is, to share their goods with others; but the publicans and soldiers, who were not capable of this perfection and could not do the good of supererogation, he exhorted to desist from evil. For Theophylact thought that to give a coat to one who has none, by him who has two, is a work of counsel and of supererogation; otherwise he would not call the crowds, to whom this is said, innocent, nor distinguish this work as good from evil; for if it were a precept not to keep two coats, to keep them would be evil.
I say secondly that Theophylact does not rightly expound this passage; for he calls those crowds innocent to whom John says: “Brood of vipers,” and: “Bring forth fruits worthy of penance.” And besides, to have two coats is to keep superfluous things, as Jerome says (question 1 to Hedibia), and it is a sin to keep superfluous things. Besides (Matthew 22), the Lord taught that tribute is to be paid to Caesar; but it is certain that tribute is not owed to kings except that they may be able to maintain soldiers for the defense of the commonwealth, which the Apostle explains (Romans 13): “For this cause also you pay tribute; for they are the ministers of God, serving unto this very purpose” — namely, that with the sword they may punish the disturbers of the public peace; for he had premised: “He beareth not the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath.”
Secondly, it is proved by the examples of the Saints who waged wars; for if war were evil, it would certainly not be waged by the Saints. In the Old Testament we read that Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samson, David, Josiah, the Maccabees waged wars with great praise. In the New Testament (Matthew 8), when the centurion said to Christ, “I have soldiers under me, and I say to this one, Go, and he goeth,” and so on, the Lord praised his faith, and did not command him to desert the military life. In Acts 10 Cornelius, likewise a centurion, is called “a just man, and one that feareth God” — so that he even merited to see an angel; nor afterward, when he was taught the way of salvation by Saint Peter, was it said to him that he should desert the military life.
Further, that after Christ’s ascension into heaven there were always Christians — some truly holy and pleasing to God — in military service, even under heathen princes, Tertullian teaches (in the Apology, chapter 5), where he relates a signal miracle worked by Christian soldiers when they waged war under Marcus Aurelius in Germany; who certainly either would not have been soldiers if this were evil, or, if they were soldiers, would not have been so pleasing to God that they could even work miracles. See the history of Eusebius (Book VIII, chapter 4, and Book IX, chapter 10). Basil too teaches (in the oration on the praises of the 40 soldier-martyrs) that there were many of the Saints in the camps of the gentile emperors, and likewise Gregory Nazianzen (oration 1 against Julian, past the middle). Finally, it is established that Constantine, Theodosius, Valentinian, Charlemagne, Saint Louis King of Gaul, Saint Maurice with his Theban legion, and very many other holy Christians waged wars, whom the holy bishops never reprehended; nay, Theodosius consulted the Abbot John about the outcome of a war, as Augustine relates (Book V On the City of God, chapter 26).
Thirdly it is proved, because God often aids just wars, which He would in no way do if war were unlawful; for evils can be permitted, but aid is not given to the doing of them. Genesis 14: to Abraham, when he had vanquished four kings with only his 318 servants, it was said by Melchizedek: “Blessed be the most high God, by whose protection the enemies are in thy hands.” Exodus 17: at the prayers of Moses God gave victory to the Hebrews against Amalek. Joshua 10: as Joshua fought, the sun stood still, and the Lord rained great stones from heaven, and God killed more by the stones of hail than the children of Israel by spears and swords. 2 Maccabees 10: angels in the appearance of horsemen fought for the Maccabees; and (chapter 15) we read that God gives victory to the worthy, not according to the power of arms, but as it pleases Him.
That Constantine, by the aid of God evidently shown by miracles, conquered in wars, Eusebius testifies (in the Life of Constantine, and Book IX of the history, chapter 9). That with Theodosius the holy Apostles John and Philip openly fought against his enemies, Theodoret testifies (Book V of the history, chapter 24). That for Theodosius the younger angels fought against the Saracens, Socrates writes (Book VII, chapter 18). Of Clovis, see Gregory of Tours (Book II of the history of the Franks, chapter 30). That the army of Honorius, by a divine miracle, won an incredible victory over the Goths, Blessed Augustine writes (Book V On the City of God, chapter 23). Innumerable similar examples could be adduced.
Fourthly it is proved by reason. It is lawful for the commonwealth to defend its citizens from internal enemies of peace by putting them to death with various kinds of punishment; therefore it will also be lawful, by war and arms, when it cannot be done another way, to defend those same its citizens from external enemies. For that commonwealths may be preserved, it is necessary that they be able to keep off all enemies, both internal and external; and since this is of the law of nature, it is in no way credible that it was taken away by the Gospel.
Lastly it is proved by the testimonies of the Fathers. Tertullian (in the Apology, chapter 42): “We too sail with you, and serve as soldiers, and till the fields, and trade.” Saint Gregory Nazianzen (oration 3 on peace): “Although account must be taken of either occasion — since, according to His law and authority, a war is at times excellently undertaken — yet, as long as it is lawful, we ought to be more inclined to peace; for this is more sublime and more divine.” Saint John Chrysostom (homily on the Gospel of the marriage, John 2, from various): “You allege your military service and say, I cannot be pious. Was not the centurion a soldier, and did his military service in no way harm him?” Blessed Ambrose (sermon 7): “Not to be a soldier is no fault; but to be a soldier for the sake of plunder is a sin.” And (Book I On the Offices, chapters 40 and 41) he numbers warlike fortitude among the virtues, and proves by many examples that it was not lacking to our men. Likewise (in the oration on the death of Theodosius) he vehemently commends Theodosius for warlike praise.
Blessed Augustine (letter 5 to Marcellinus): “For if Christian discipline condemned all wars, this counsel of salvation would rather be given to soldiers in the Gospel, that they should throw away their arms and withdraw themselves altogether from military service. But it was said: Do violence to no man, calumniate no one, let your own pay suffice you. To whom he commanded that their own pay ought to suffice, he certainly did not forbid to be soldiers.” And (letter 205, elsewhere 207, to Boniface): “Do not think that no one can please God who serves in warlike arms,” and so on. The same he teaches (Book XXII against Faustus, chapter 74 and following, and Book VI of the Questions on Joshua, question 10).
Blessed Gregory (Book I of the letters, chapter 72, to Gennadius): “As the Lord in this life has made your excellency shine with the light of victories in wars against enemies, so it behooves you to go against the enemies of His Church with all liveliness of mind and body,” and so on. And (chapter 73): “If so great a prosperity of your excellency’s warlike deeds came about, not from the merit of faith, but from the grace of the Christian religion, it would not have been greatly to be wondered at; but since you anticipate the victories to come (God bestowing them) not by carnal providence, but rather by prayers, it comes to be a matter of amazement that your glory descends not by earthly counsel, but from God bestowing it from above.”
Gregory of Tours (Book V of the history, chapter 1): “Would that you too, O kings, exercised yourselves in those battles in which your forefathers did, that the nations, content with your peace, might be kept down by your strength.” Blessed Bernard (in the sermon to the soldiers, chapter 3): “But the soldiers of Christ fight securely the battles of their Lord, in no way fearing either sin from the slaughter of enemies or danger from their own death, since death for Christ, whether to be borne or to be inflicted, both has nothing of crime and merits very much of glory.”
But against this they object. First the Scriptures, and first Deuteronomy 32: “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay.” And Romans 12: “Not defending yourselves, dearly beloved; for it is written, Vengeance is mine, and I will repay.” I answer that the vengeance which public persons exercise is rightly called the vengeance of God, for they are the ministers of God serving unto this very purpose; whence Paul, after he had said at the end of Romans 12, “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay,” adds at the beginning of chapter 13: “If thou do evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.”
They add further that of Isaiah 2: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into sickles; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they be exercised any more to war” — which were foretold of the Christian time. I answer: in this passage only a most profound peace is foretold, which would be at that time when Christ was born, as Blessed Jerome expounds, and which we know was fulfilled in the time of Augustus Caesar. For that word “any more” does not signify “forever,” but “for a long time.” Besides, even if this were not fulfilled, nothing would be concluded from it; for Isaiah does not forbid war if there be enemies who trouble us, but foretells that there will be no enemies. As long, then, as there are enemies, war too can be waged. It can also be said that it was foretold that the kingdom of Christ would be a peaceful kingdom, since it is not of this world, nor cares for temporal things, and in this is distinguished from the Jewish kingdom, which had to be established and preserved by war and slaughter.
Finally they object those words of Matthew 5: “If anyone strike thee on one cheek, offer him the other; and love your enemies; do good to them that hate you.” And Matthew 26: “He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword.” Similar to which are those of Romans 12: “To no man rendering evil for evil, and not avenging yourselves, dearly beloved,” and so on.
I answer that the apostate Julian objected the same arguments of old to the Christians, as Gregory Nazianzen relates (oration 1 against Julian, far from the middle). But we say, first, that all these, whether precepts or counsels, are given to private men; for neither the Lord nor the Apostle commands a judge not to punish him who has done injury to another, but commands each one to bear his own injuries with an even mind. But war pertains to public justice, not to private vengeance; and just as the love of an enemy, to which all are bound, does not hinder a judge or an executioner from his office, so also it does not hinder soldiers and commanders from theirs.
I say besides that even to private persons these are not always precepts, but sometimes precepts, sometimes counsels. They are always precepts in the preparation of the mind, so that a man be prepared to offer the other cheek, and to give even his cloak to one taking his coat, rather than offend God; but to perform this in deed is a precept when the necessity of God’s honor requires it, otherwise it is only a counsel, and sometimes not even a counsel — as if from my offering the other cheek no advantage follows, except that the man sins again. So answer Gregory Nazianzen (in the place noted) and Augustine (letter 5 to Marcellinus).
Secondly, three decrees of the Church can be objected. The first is in the Council of Nicaea (canon 12), where a most grave penance is enjoined on those who resumed the military service they had renounced. The second is in the letter of Blessed Leo (90, to Rusticus), and is had also in the canon Contrarium (On Penance, distinction 5): “It is contrary,” says Leo, “to the ecclesiastical rules, after the action of penance, to return to secular military service.” And below: “He is not free from the snares of the devil who has wished to involve himself in worldly military service.” The third is of Gregory, in the same distinction, canon Falsas, where it is said that those who exercise a business which cannot be exercised without sin are not capable of penance unless they renounce a business of that kind; and Gregory puts the example of a soldier.
I answer to the first: it treats of those who, for the confession of the faith, had been deprived of the military belt by Diocletian or Licinius, and afterward sought back the belt, ready to deny the faith. See Zonaras and Balsamon on that canon, and Rufinus (Book X of the history, chapter 6), and what we wrote of this matter in Book II On Councils, chapter 8.
To the second and third I say: it treats of those who on occasion of military service had committed many sins, and who on that account had done penance. For these do ill if they return to a military service in which they have experienced that they cannot live without sin — not from the fault of the military service, but from their own — and then they do especially ill when it had been commanded them by a priest that they should not return to the military service. And that these canons do not absolutely forbid the military life is plain from the end of that canon Falsas, where, after it had been said that those do ill who after penance return to military service, is added: “unless by the counsel of religious bishops, for the defense of justice.”
Thirdly, several passages of the Fathers are objected by Erasmus, to which we add two, one of Tertullian, the other of Jerome. Tertullian (in the book On the Soldier’s Crown, past the middle) asks whether military service befits a Christian, and answers: “Do we believe that it is lawful for a human oath to be superadded to the divine, and to answer to another lord after Christ? Will it be lawful to occupy oneself with the sword, when the Lord declares that he shall perish by the sword who has used the sword? And shall the son of peace, to whom it will not befit even to litigate, work in battle?”
I answer that Tertullian does not condemn military service as of itself evil. This is plain, first, from the passages cited above from the Apology, chapters 5 and 42. Secondly, because in this book On the Soldier’s Crown he admits that those who were soldiers before Baptism can remain soldiers even after Baptism, and only teaches that one who is free ought not to enter the military life after Baptism: “Plainly,” he says, “if a later faith finds any preoccupied by military service, their case is different, as of those whom John admitted to the washing, as of the most faithful centurions — whom Christ approves, and whom Peter catechizes — provided, however, that, the faith having been received and sealed, either it must be at once deserted, as has been done by many, or it must be guarded against in every way, lest anything be committed against God.” Thirdly it is plain, because the chief causes he gives why Christians ought not to be soldiers are on account of the danger of idolatry; for then almost all the princes were gentiles. And so Tertullian judged war to be evil at that time by accident: “Shall he keep watch,” he says, “for the temples which he has renounced? And shall he dine there where the Apostle does not allow? And shall he defend by night those whom by day he has put to flight by exorcisms? Shall he also bear a standard that is a rival to Christ?” and so on. Now his other reasons set down above are only of congruity, as is plain.
Jerome (in the letter to Ageruchia On Monogamy): “Of old it was said to warriors, Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O thou most mighty; now to Peter it is said, Put up thy sword into the scabbard,” and so on. I answer: he means to say that in the Old Testament wars were commanded by God, and necessary for taking and preserving the land of promise; in the New Testament wars are not commanded, but rather peace, because for acquiring the kingdom of heaven arms are not necessary. Yet it does not hence follow that Christians, as citizens of the temporal commonwealth, cannot wage wars with those from whom they have received injury.
Besides these Erasmus objects several other Fathers, and first Origen, who (Book II against Celsus, a little before the middle) says that Christ took away all wars; and (tract 7 on Matthew, expounding in passing that of Luke 22: “He that hath not a sword, let him sell his coat and buy a sword”) says that this passage is pernicious to those who understand it carnally, who really think a coat must be sold to buy a sword.
I answer: in the former passage there is nothing for Erasmus; for when Origen says that Christ took away all wars, he does not mean that Christ forbade wars, but that by His providence He brought a general peace to the world at the time of His nativity. Nay, in the same place there is something against Erasmus: for Origen says that it was brought about by God’s providence that at Christ’s coming all things were subject to the Roman emperor, because if there had been many kings, wars too would have been necessary, by which some would repel the injuries of others. In the latter passage too nothing is said against war; for we confess that the Lord’s words are not to be understood so crassly that each one must necessarily sell his coat and buy a sword, but only that by that manner of speaking the Lord wished to explain that the Apostles would be in such straits and necessity at the time of the passion as those suffer who, to defend themselves, sell their coat and buy a sword.
But what is concluded from this against war? Is it that, because the Lord in this passage did not command that the Apostles really buy swords, He is therefore to be understood to have forbidden war? Likewise that Origen says (homily 15 on Joshua) that carnal wars are not to be waged by Christians, signifies that the Christian warfare under the emperor Christ is not carnal against men, as was the warfare of the Jews under Joshua, but spiritual against demons; yet it does not hence follow that it is not lawful for Christians, as citizens of the political commonwealth, to wage wars.
In the same way are solved what Erasmus brings from Chrysostom, Basil, and Theophylact out of the chain of Blessed Thomas on Luke 22; for they only teach that the Apostles were not commanded really to buy swords.
Then he objects Ambrose, who (Book X on Luke, expounding that: “He that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword”): “O Lord, why dost thou bid me buy a sword, who forbiddest me to strike? Why dost thou command it to be had, which thou forbiddest to be drawn? Unless perhaps that a defense may be ready, not a vengeance necessary; and that I may seem to have been able to be avenged, but to have been unwilling. The law, however, does not forbid to strike back; and therefore perhaps to Peter, offering two swords, thou sayest, It is enough — as if it were lawful up to the Gospel, so that in the law there is the instruction of equity, in the Gospel the perfection of goodness.” I answer, first, that nothing is here said of war which is exercised by public authority, but of private defense or vengeance. Secondly I say that even private defense, according to Ambrose’s opinion, does not pertain to the prohibition of a precept, but to the perfection of a counsel, as those words clearly indicate: “that in the law there is the instruction of equity, in the Gospel the perfection of goodness.”
Likewise Erasmus objects Augustine, whom he says is not consistent with himself, and, though somewhere he undertook the patronage of war, yet elsewhere wrote against war; for on Psalm 37 he writes: “We ought not to pray that our enemies die, but that they be corrected.” And (letter 5 to Marcellinus) he writes much against war; but (letter 158) and elsewhere he begs the same Marcellinus to punish the Donatist heretics without blood.
I answer: Erasmus seems to have thought those with whom he was dealing to be children; for what do these things make to the purpose? For on Psalm 37 he reprehends the hatred of an enemy, by which some pray to God for the death of enemies. But who denies that it is evil to wish death to an enemy out of hatred and desire of vengeance? Yet to wish death to an enemy, and even to inflict it, according to the order of justice, is not evil, if it be done not out of hatred of the man, but out of love of justice and of the common good. And in letter 5 there is nothing against war, but rather for war, as we cited above; nor do I know what Erasmus dreamed. In letter 158 he begs the judge for the life of criminals who were already held captive and confessed the crime — which bishops too are wont to do even now. But what is this to war? Does everyone who begs that some robber be not hanged thereby forbid war?
He objects also the example of Saint Martin, who, as Sulpicius relates in his life, said to the Emperor Julian: “Let him who is going to fight receive thy donative; I am a Christian, it is not lawful for me to fight.” I answer: Erasmus did not faithfully enough report the words of Saint Martin; for he does not say, “I am a Christian, it is not lawful for me to fight,” but, “Hitherto I have served thee; now suffer that I serve God; I am a soldier of Christ, it is not lawful for me to fight” — by which words he signified himself to be not merely a Christian, but also by vow and purpose a Monk: this is what “suffer that I serve God” and “I am a soldier of Christ” signify. Whence a little before Sulpicius had written that Saint Martin, after receiving Baptism, still served two years as a soldier — not that he did not desire at once to renounce the world, but because the tribune of soldiers, whose messmate he was, had promised that he too, when his tribuneship was ended, would bid farewell to the world, that is, would become a Monk with him. And so he asserted war to be forbidden not to a Christian but to a Monk, since he himself, being a Christian, had already served two years.
Lastly Erasmus insists thus: the arms of the Church are the sword of the word of God, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, the breastplate of justice, the darts of prayers, as the Apostle teaches (Ephesians 6); therefore Christians ought not to fight with iron and arms. I answer, first, that the Apostle describes not a war against men, but against demons, as is plain in the same place: “Our wrestling is not,” and so on. Secondly I say that the chief arms of Christians are faith and prayer, but not on that account are iron arms too unnecessary; for in Exodus 17 we read that, as Moses prayed and Joshua fought, victory was given to Israel by God against Amalek; and we know that the Maccabees fought with prayers and arms; and Augustine writes to Boniface (letter 194): “Take up arms with your hands, let prayer strike the ears of the Author.” And to the same Boniface he writes (letter 205, elsewhere 207): “Others fight for you by praying against invisible enemies; you labor for them by fighting against visible barbarians.”
But, they say, war is opposed to peace; but peace is good, and an effect of charity; therefore war is evil. I answer that war is so opposed to peace that it is also a means to peace; but this is the difference between a just and an unjust war: that an unjust war is opposed to a good peace and leads to an evil peace, and therefore such a war is vicious; but a just war is opposed to an evil peace and leads to a good peace — just as the wounds of a surgeon are contrary to the bad and imperfect health which the sick have, but lead, as to an end, to good and perfect health.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIV. Licere Christianis aliquando bella gerere. lL Sequitur quaestio quarta, quae est de bel¬ lo. Continet autem haec disputatio partes (1) Levit. XIX. 18; Eccl. XXYIII, 1. —(2) Matth. V, 38 et 39. —(3) Rom. XII. 19. CAPUT XIV. 23 tres. Primum enim demonstrandum erit, li¬ cita esse aliquando Christianis bella. Secun¬ do, explicandae causae justi belli. Tertio, propter Lutherum, probandum erit recte Christianos adversus Tureas arma sumere. Ac ut a primo incipiamus, antiqua hoere- sis fuit Manichaeorum, qui bellum ex natura sua illicitum asserebant, et ideo Mosem, Jo- sue, Davidem, et caeteros veteris Testamen¬ ti Patres, qui bella gesserunt, tamquam im¬ pios accusabant, ut B. Augustinus refert lib. XXII. cont. Faustum, cap. 74. et seq. Eamdem hceresim nostro saeculo aliqui exci¬ tarunt; ac in primis Erasmus cum alibi, tum praecipue in annotationibus ad cap. III. et XXII. Luc. prolixa disputatione contendit bellum esse unum ex malis, quae tolerantur, et veteribus Judaeis a Deo permissum, Chris¬ tianis autem a Christo ct Apostolis interdic¬ tum. Cornelius quoque Agrippa in libro de va-1 nitate scientiarum, cap. 79. artem bellandi a Christo prohibitam esse affirmat. Idem etiam secutus est Joannes Ferus lib. IV. commentariorum in Matthaeum, exponens illud XXVI. cap. Qui acceperit gladium , gla¬ dio peribit. Idem docent Anabaptistse , ut testatur Melanchthon in locis Theologicis, capite de Magistratu. Idem etiam tribuit Joanni QEcolampadio Alphonsus a Castro, verbo bellum, quod mirum mihi videtur, cum Zttinglius ejus collega adeo probarit bellum, ut in praelio pugnans perierit, et si¬ militer Calvinus lib. IV. institut. cap. 20. et Melanchthon, ubi supra, et eseteri haeretici hujus temporis, verbo ct opere doceant esse bellandum. Nos autem, ut semper docuit Ecclesia tota et verbis et exemplis, dicimus bellum ex natura sua non esse illicitum, et non so¬ lum Judaeis, sed etiam Christianis fas esse bellum gerere, modo conditiones serventur, de quibus postea dicemus. Id quod probatur Scripturae testimonio, Judicum III : Ihe sunt gentes , quas Dominus dereliquit , ut erudiret in eis Israelem, et omnes qui non noverant bella Chananaorum, et postea discerent f filii eorum, ceidare cum hostibus , et habere consuetudinem praliandi. Haec sane verba non permissio¬ nem, sed absolutam Dei voluntatem osten¬ dunt. Item I. Reg. XV : Hcec dicit Dominus exercituum, recensui quacumque fecit Amalech Israeli; nunc ergo vade et percute Amalech , et demolire universa ejus. Non parcas ei etc. Ilie etiam non permissionem, sed praeceptum videmus, et similium plenum est Testamen¬ tum vetus. Item Luc III : Interrogabant eum et milites, dicentes ; Quid faciemus et nos ? Et ait illis : Neminem concutiatis , neque calum¬ niam faciatis, et contenti estote stipendiis ves¬ tris (I). Anabaptistae apud Melanchthonem dicunt Joannem permisisse bellum Judaeis, ut imperfectis : Christum autem longe aliter docuisse. At contra; nam Joannes praeparabat viam Domino, non ergo debuit permittere id quod Christus mox ablaturus erat ; nam nec illi potuissent uti ea concessione, cum eodem anno venerit Christus, et prohibuerit bellum, ut ipsi volunt ; et praeterea poterant suspi* cari homines Christum et Joannem non con¬ venire inter se, quod absurdissimum fuisset. Respondet aliter Erasmus, haec dici militi¬ bus, non ut ea servantes bene viverent, sed ut minus male viverent, ut videtur etiam explicare Theophylactus. At contra ; nam Joannes praemiserat : Facite fructus dignos pandentia, et omnis arbor non faciens fructum bonum, in ignem mittetur etc. (2). Inde compuncti publicani et milites petierunt, quis esset fructus bonus, quem facere deberent : vel ergo Joannes eos dece¬ pit, vel possunt milites salvari, si servent quod Joannes illis praecepit. Ad Theophylactum dico duo. Primo, eum non dicere bellum esse malum, sed solum dicere Joannem hortatum esse turbas, quae erant innocentes, ad opera bona, id est, ad communicanda bona sua cum aliis : Publi¬ canos autem et milites, qui non erant capa¬ ces hujus perfectionis, et non poterant facere bonum supererogationis, hortatum esse ut desisterent a malo. Putavit enim Theophy¬ lactus dare tunicam non habenti , ei qui habet duas, esse opus consilii, et superero¬ gationis, alioqui non vocaret turbas, quibus hoc dicitur, innocentes, nec distingueret hoc opus tamquam bonum a malo, nam si prae¬ ceptum sit non retinere duas tunicas, reti¬ nere erit malum. Dico secundo, Theophylactum non recte exponere hunc locum ; nam vocat turbas innocentes, quibus Joannes dicit : Genimina viperarum; Et : Facite fructus dignos panden¬ tia. Et praeterea habere duas tunicas, est retinere superflua , ut Hieronymus dicit (1) Judic. III, 1 ; I. Reg. V, 2; Luc. III. 14. — (2) Luc. III. 8. 24 LIBER III. quaest. I. ad Hedibiam, peccatum autem est retinere superflua. Praeterea Matth. XXII. Dominus docuit tributum Caesari esse sol¬ vendum ; at certum est tributum non deberi Regibus, nisi ut possint alere milites in defensionem Reipub. quod exponit Aposto¬ lus Rom. XIII : Ideo , inquit, et tributa 'praes¬ tatis, ministri enim Dei sunt in hoc ipsum ser¬ vientes, nimirum, ut gladio puniant pertur¬ batores publicae pacis, id enim praemiserat : Non sine causa gladium portat, Dei enim minis¬ ter est, vindex in iram (1). Probatur secundo exemplis Sanctorum, qui bella gesserunt; nam si bellum esset malum, certe a Sanctis non gereretur. In veteri Testamento Abraham, Mosem, Josue, Gedeonem, Samsonem, Davidem, Josiam, Machabaeos magna cum laude bella gessisse legimus. In novo Testamento Matth. VIII. Centurio cum diceret Christo : Habeo sub me milites, et dico huic, vade, et vadit etc. (2) ejus fidem Dominus laudavit, non ut militiam desereret pra:cepit. Actor. X. Cornelius item Centurio dicitur, Vir justus, et timens Deum (3). Ita ut etiam Angelum videre meruerit, nec postea cum a S. Petro viam salutis doceretur, dictum est ei, ut militiam desereret. Deinde post Christi in ccelum ascensionem semper fuisse Christianos, aliquos vere Sanc¬ tos et Deo gratos in militia, etiam sub Eth¬ nicis principibus, docet Tertullianus in Apo¬ loget. c 5. ubi refert miraculum insigne a Christianis militibus factum, cum subM. Au¬ relio in Germania bellum gererent; qui certe vel non militassent,si hoc esset malum, vel si militassent non ita Deo grati fuissent, ut etiam miracula facere possent. Vide his- tor. Eusebii lib. VIII. cap. 4. et lib. IX. cap. 10. Docet etiam Basilius in oratione de laudibus 40. militum Martyrum, fuisse mul¬ tos Sanctorum in castris gentilium Impera¬ torum, et similiter Gregorius Nazianzenus orat. I. in Julianum ultra medium. Denique Constantinum, Theodosium, Valentinianum, Carolum Magnum, S. Ludovicum Regem Galliae, S. Mauritium cum sua legione The- baeorum, aliosque plurimos SS. Christianos bella gessisse constat, quos S. Episcopi num- quam reprehenderunt , imo Theodosius consulebat de eventu belli Joannem Abba¬ tem, ut Augustin. refert lib. V. de civit. Dei, cap. 26. Tertio probatur, quia Deus saepe justa bella adjuvat, quod nullo modo faceret, si bellum esset illicitum; nam mala permitti possunt, sed non etiam ad ea facienda auxi¬ lium dari. Gen. XIV. Abrahae, cum debel- lasset quatuor reges cum solis 318 famulis suis, dictura est a Melchisedech : Benedictus Deus excelsus, quo protegente hostes in mani¬ bus tuis sunt (4). Exod. XVII. ad preces Mo¬ sis Deus dedit victoriam Hebraeis contra Amalech. Josue X. pugnante Josue sol stetit, et Dominus pluebat de coelo lapides magnos, et plures occidit Deus lapidibus grandinis , quam filii Israel hastis, et gladiis. II. Ma- chab. X. Angeli in specie equitum pro Ma- cliabaeis pugnabant, et cap. XV. legimus Deum non secundum armorum potentiam, sed prout ipsi placet, dare dignis victoriam. Constantinum Dei auxilio miraculis evi¬ denter ostensis, vicisse in bellis testatur Eusebius in vita Constantini, et lib. IX. hist. c. 9. Cum Theodosio S. Joannem, et S. Phi¬ lippum Apostolos palam pugnasse contra hostes ejus testatur Theodoretus lib. V. hist. c. 24. pro Theodosio juniore pugnasse Ange¬ los contra Saracenos scribit Socrates lib. VII. cap. 18. De Clodoveo vide Gregorium Turonicum, lib. II. hist. Francorum, cap. 30. Honorii exercitum divino miraculo victo¬ riam incredibilem de Gothis retulisse, scribit B. Augustinus lib. V. de civit. Dei, cap. 23. Innumerabilia exempla similia referri pos¬ sent. Probatur quarto ratione : Licet Reipub. defendere cives suos ab internis hostibus pacis, eos necando variis generibus suppli¬ ciorum, ergo etiam licebit bello atque armis, quando alia via non potest, defendere eos¬ dem suos cives ab hostibus externis : quia ut possint conservari Respublicae, necessa¬ rium est ut omnes hostes tam internos, quam externos arcere possint; et cum hoc sit jus naturae, nullo modo credibile est, per Evan- gelium esse sublatum. Probatur ultimo testimoniis Patrum. Ter¬ tullianus in Apolog. cap. 42 : « Navigamus, inquit, et nos vobiscum, et militamus, et rusticamur, et mercamur. » S. Gregorius Nazianzenus orat. 3. de pace: « Licet, inquit, utriusque temporis habenda sit ratio, quandoquidem juxta illius legem, atque auctoritatem praeclare interdum bellum suscipitur, quamdiu tamen licet, propen- (1) Rom. XIII, 6. — (2) Matth. VIII, 9. — (3) Act. X, 22. — (4) Gen. XIV, 20. CAPUT XIV. 25 siores ad pacem esse debemus, hoc enim sublimius est, et divinius. » S. Joannes Chrysostomushomil. in Evang. de nuptiis, Joan. II. ex variis : « Militiam, inquit, praetexis, et dicis, non possum esse pius : Centurio nonne miles erat, nihilque nocuit illum sua militia? » B. Ambrosius serm. 7 : « Non militare, delictum est, sed propter praedam militare, peccatum est. » Et lib. I. de officiis, cap. 40. et 41. numerat inter virtutes, bellicam for¬ titudinem, et eam nostris non defuisse mul¬ tis exemplis probat. Item in oratione de obitu Theodosii, vehementer Theodosium a laude bellica commendat. B. Augustinus epist. 5. ad Marcellinum : « Nam si Christiana disciplina, inquit, om¬ nia bella culparet, hoc potius militibus con¬ silium salutis petentibus in Evangelio dice¬ retur, ut abjicerent arma, seque militiae omnino subtraherent : dictum est autem, neminem concusseritis, nulli calumniam fe¬ ceritis, sufficiat vobis stipendium vestrum. Quibus proprium stipendium sufficere debere praecepit, militare utique non prohibuit. » Et epist. 205. alias 207. ad Bonifacium : « Noli, inquit, putare neminem Deo placere posse, qui armis bellicis ministrat etc. » Idem docet lib. XXII. contra Faustum, cap. 74. et sequent, et lib. VI. quaestionum in Josue quaest. 10. B. Gregorius lib. I. epist. cap. 72. ad Gennadium : « Sicut, inquit, excellentiam vestram hostilibus bellis in hac vita Dominus victoriarum fecit luce fulgere, ita oportet eam inimicis Ecclesiae ejus omni vivacitate mentis, et corporis obviare etc.» Et cap. 73: « Si non ex fidei merito, ex Christianae reli¬ gionis gratia, tanta excellentiae vestrae belli¬ corum actuum prosperitas eveniret, non summopere miranda fuerat, sed cum futuras (Deo largiente) victorias non carnali provi¬ dentia, sed magis orationibus praevenitis, sit ut hoc in stuporem veniat, quod gloria vestra non terreno consilio, sed Deo desuper largiente descendat. » Gregorius Turonicus, lib V. hist. cap. I : « Utinam et vos, o reges, in his praelia, in quibus parentes vestri, exerceretis, ut gen¬ tes vestra pace contentae vestris viribus pre¬ merentur. » B. Bernardus in serm. ad milites, cap. 3. « At vero Christi milites, inquit, securi prae- liantur praelia Domini sui, nequaquam me¬ tuentes, aut de hostium caede peccatum, aut de sua nece periculum, quandoquidem mors pro Christo vel ferenda, vel inferenda, et nihil habeat criminis, et plurimum gloriae mereatur. » At contra objiciunt. Primo Scripturas, ac primum Deut. XXXII : Mea est ultio , et ego retribuam. Et Rom. XII: Non vos defendentes charissimi; scriptum est enim , mihi vindicta , et ego retribuam (-1). Respondeo, vindictam, quam exercent publi-cae personae, recte vo¬ cari vindictam Dei, Dei enim ministri sunt in hoc ipsum servientes, unde Paulus post¬ quam dixerat in fine cap. XII. ad Rom. Mihi vindicia, et ego retribuam, Subdit in prin¬ cipio cap. XIII : Si male egeris, time , non enim sine causa gladium portat, minister enim Dei est, vindex in iram ei, qui male agit (2). Addunt deinde illud Isaiae II : Conflabunt gladios suos in vomeres, et lanceas suas in /al¬ ces, non levabit gens contra gentem gladium, nec exercebuntur ultra ad prcelium (3), quae de tempore Christiano praedicta sunt. Respon¬ deo, solum hoc loco praedicitur altissima pax futura, eo tempore, quo nasceretur Christus, ut B. Hieronymus exponit, et im¬ pletum esse scimus tempore Augusti Caesa¬ ris. Illud enim (ultra) non significat, in aeter¬ num , sed in longum tempus. Praeterea etiamsi non esset hoc impletum, nihil inde concluderetur; nam non prohibet Isaias bel¬ lum, si sint hostes, qui nos infestent, sed praedicit futurum, ut nulli sunt hostes. Do¬ nec igitur sunt hostes, etiam bellum geri potest. Potest etiam dici praedictum esse regnum Christi fore regnum pacificum, quandoquidem non est de hoc mundo, nec temporalia curat, et in hoc distingui a regno Judaico, quod bello, et caedibus firmandum, et conservandum fuit. Denique objiciunt illa verba Matth. V : Si quis te percusserit in unam maxillam , prcebe ei et alteram : et diligite inimicos vestros : bene¬ facite his, qui vos oderunt. Et Matth. XXVI : Qui acceperit gladium, gladio peribit. Quibus similia sunt illa Rom. XII: Nulli malum pro malo reddentes, et non vosmetipsos vindicantes charissimi etc. (4). Respondeo , eadem argumenta objecisse Julianum apostatam olim Christianis, ut « (1) Deut. XXXII, 25; Rom. XII, 19. — (2) Bom. XII, 19; XIII. 4. — (3) Isai II, 4. — (4) Matth. V, 39; XXVI, 52; Rom. XII, 17. 26 LIBER III. Gregorius Nazianzenus refert oratione prima in Julianum, procul a medio. Dicimus autem primo, haec omnia, sive praecepta, sive con¬ silia dari privatis hominibus; non enim Do¬ minus vel Apostolus praecipit judici, ut non puniat eum, qui alteri fecit injuriam, sed praecipit unicuique, ut proprias injurias aequo animo ferat : bellum autem ad publi¬ cam justitiam, non ad privatam vindictam pertinet : et sicut dilectio inimici, ad quam omnes tenentur^ non impedit judicem, aut carnificem ab officio suo ; ita etiam non im¬ pedit milites et Imperatores a suo. Dico praeterea, etiam privatis haec non semper esse praecepta, sed interdum prae¬ cepta, interdum consilia; praecepta sunt semper in animi praeparatione, ita ut sit homo paratus praebere alteram maxillam, et auferenti tunicam dare etiam pallium potius, quam Deum offendere, sed re ipsa hoc praes¬ tare praeceptum est, quando necessitas ho¬ noris Dei id exigit, alias solum est consilium, et aliquando ne consilium quidem, ut si ex eo quod praebeam alteram maxillam nulla sequitur utilitas, nisi quod ille iterum pec¬ cat. Ita respondent Gregorius Nazianzenus loco notato, et Augustinus epist. 5. ad Mar- cellinum. Secundo objici possunt tria decreta Ec¬ clesiae. Primum est in Concilio Nicaeno, can. II. ubi gravissima injungitur poenitentia iis, qui militiam , cui renuntiaverant, repetie¬ rint. Secundum est in epistola B. Leonis 90. ad Rusticum, et habetur etiam canon. Con¬ trarium, de pcenit. distinet. 5. « Contrarium’, inquit Leo, est Ecclesiasticis regulis post poenitentiae actionem redire ad militiam saecularem. » Et infra : « Non est liber a Diaboli laqueis, qui se militiae mundanae vo¬ luerit implicare. » Tertium est Gregorii, eadem distinet, canone, Falsas, ubi dicitur eos, qui exercent negotium quod sine pec¬ cato non potest exerceri, non esse capaces poenitentiae, nisi negotio ejusmodi renun¬ tient , et ponit Gregorius exemplum de mi¬ lite. Respondeo ad primum, agi de iis, qui ob confessionem fidei privati fuerant cingulo militari a Diocletiano, vel a Licinio, et pos¬ tea repetebant cingulum, parati negare fi¬ dem. Vide Zonaram, et Balsamonem in eum canonem, et Ruffinum lib. X, hist. cap. 6. et quae nos scripsimus de hac re lib. II de Conciliis, cap. 8. Ad secundum et tertium dico, agi de iis, qui occasione militiae multa peccata commi¬ serant, quique propterea poenitentiam ege¬ ram t. Isti enim male faciunt, si ad militiam redeunt, in qua experti sunt, se sine peccato vivere non posse, non ex vitio militiae, sed ex proprio, et tunc praecipue male faciunt, quando imperatum eis fuerat a sacerdote, ne ad militiam redirent. Et quod revera isti canones non prohibeant absolute militiam, patet ex fine illius canonis, Falsas, ubi postea- quam dictum fuerat male facere eos, qui post poenitentiam ad militiam redeunt, sub¬ ditur, nisi consilio religiosorum Episcoporum pro defendenda justitia. Tertio objiciuntur ab Erasmo plura loca Patrum, quibus addimus duo, unum Tertul¬ liani, alterum Hieronym. Tertullianus lib.de corona militis, ultra medium, quaerit an Christiano militia conveniat ? et respondet : « Credimus ne, inquit, humanum Sacramen¬ tum domino superinduci licere ? et in alium Dominum respondere post Christum? licebit in gladio conversari. Domino pronuntiante, gladio periturum, qui gladio fuerit usus ? et praelio operabitur filius pacis, cui nec litigare conveniet? » Respondeo, Tertullianum non damnare militiam tamquam per se malam. Quod patet primo, ex locis supra citatis, ex Apologetico cap. 5 et 42. Secundo, quia in hoc libro de corona mi¬ litis fatetur eos, qui milites erant ante Bap¬ tismum, posse manere milites etiam post Baptismum, et solum docet non debere ad militiam accedere post Baptismum eum qui liber est : « Plane, inquit, si quos militia praeventos fides posterior invenit, alia con¬ ditio est, ut eorum, quos Joannes admitte¬ bat ad lavacrum, ut Centurionum fidelissi¬ morum, quem Christus probat, et quem Pe¬ trus catechizat, dum tamen suscepta fide, atque signata, aut deserendum statim sit, ut multis actum, aut omnibus modis cavillan¬ dum, ne quid adversus Deum committatur.» Tertio patet, quia causce praecipuae, quas reddit, cur Christiani non debeant militare, sunt propter periculum idololatriae , tunc enim omnes fere principes Gentiles erant. Itaque per accidens judicabat Tertullianus malum esse bellum eo tempore : « Excuba¬ bit, inquit, pro templis, quibus renuntiavit? et coenabit illic ubi Apostolo non placet? et quos interdiu exorcismis fugavit, noctibus defensabit? vexillum quoque portabit aemu¬ lum Christo, etc. » Porro aliae rationes ejus CAPUT xrv. 27 supra positae solum congruentiae sunt, ut patet. Hieronymus in epist. ad Ageruchiam de Monogamia : « Olim, inquit, bellatoribus dicebatur , accinge gladium tuum super femur tuum potentissime : nunc Petro dici¬ tur, converte gladium tuum in vaginam etc.» Respondeo, vult dicere, in Testamento ve¬ teri bella fuisse imperata a Deo, et necessa¬ ria ad terram promissionis capiendam, et conservandam : in Testamento novo non esse imperata bella, sed potius pacem, quia ad regnum coelorum acquirendum non sunt arma necessaria. Non tamen hinc sequitur, non posse Christianos, ut cives temporalis Reipubl. bella gerere cum iis, a quibus inju¬ riam acceperunt. Praeter haec objicit Erasmus aliquot alios Patres, ac primum Origenem, qui lib. II. cont. Celsum paulo ante medium dicit, Chri¬ stum omnia bella sustulisse ; et tract. 7. in Matth. exponens obiter illud Luc. XXII : Qui non habet gladium , vendat tunicam, et emat gladium (I). Dicit perniciosum esse hunc lo¬ cum iis qui carnaliter eum intelligunt, qui revera putant esse tunicam vendendam ad emendum gladium. Respondeo : in priore loco nihil esse pro Erasmo ; cum enim Origenes dicit, Christum sustulisse omnia bella, non intelligit Chris¬ tum prohibuisse bella, sed providentia sua generalem pacem mundo attulisse tempore nativitatis suae. Imo ibidem aliquid est contra Erasmum : dicit enim Origenes, propterea Dei providentia factum esse, ut veniente Christo omnia Romano Imperatori subjecta essent, quia si multi fuissent Reges, necessaria etiam fuissent bella, quibus alii aliorum injurias propulsarent. In posteriore etiam loco nihil dicitur contra bellum : fa¬ temur enim non ita crasse verba Domini in- telligendo, ut debeat unusquisque necessario vendere tunicam, et emere gladium, sed solum modo illo loquendi Dominum expli¬ care voluisse, in talibus angustiis, et neces¬ sitate Apostolos futuros tempore passionis, qualem patiuntur ii, qui ut se defendant, vendunt tunicam, et emunt gladium. Sed quid hinc colligitur contra bellum? v An quia Dominus hoc loco non jussit , ut Apostoli vere gladios emerent, ideo intelli- getur prohibuisse bellum ? quod item Ori¬ genes ait homil. 15. in Josue, non esse Chri¬ stianis carnalia bella peragenda, significat militiam Christianam sub Imperatore Christo non esse carnalem contra homines, ut luit militia Judaeorum sub Josue, sed spiritualem contra Daemones, non tamen hinc sequitur non licere Christianis, ut sunt cives politica; Reipubl. bella gerere. Ad eumdem modum solvuntur, quae Eras¬ mus affert ex Chrysostomo, Basilio, etTheo- phylacto ex catena B. Thomae in eap. XXII. Lucae, solum enim docent non j ussisse Apos¬ tolis, ut vere gladios emerent. Deinde objicit Ambrosium, qui lib. X. in Lucam exponens illud : Qui non habet , vendat tunicam , et emat gladium : « 0 Domine, in¬ quit, cur emere me jubes gladium, qui fe¬ rire me prohibes ? cur haberi praecipis, quem vetas promi? nisi forte ut sit parata defensio, non ultio necessaria, et videar po¬ tuisse vindicari, sed noluisse ; Lex tamen referire non vetat, et ideo fortasse Petro duos gladios offerenti, sat est, dicis, quasi licuerit usque ad Evangelium, ut sit in lege aequitatis eruditio, in Evangelio bonitatis perfectio.» Respondeo primo, nihil hoc loco dici de bello, quod publjca auctoritate exer¬ cetur, sed de privata defensione, vel ultione. Secundo dico etiam privatam defensionem, secundum Ambrosii sententiam, non perti¬ nere ad prohibitionem praecepti, sed ad per¬ fectionem consilii, ut illa verba clare indi¬ cant, ut sit in lege aequitatis eruditio , in Evangelio bonitatis perfectio. Item objicit Erasmus Augustinum, quem dicit non sibi constare, et si alicubi belli pa¬ trocinium susceperit, tamen alibi contra bel¬ lum scripsisse ; nam in Psalm. XXXVII. scribit ; « Non orare debemus, ut moriantur inimici, sed ut corrigantur. » Et epist. 5. ad Marcellinum multa scribit contra bellum, in epist. vero 158. et alibi supplicat eidem Marcellino, ut haereticos Donatistas citru sanguinem puniat. Respondeo : videtur Erasmus pueros pu¬ tasse, cum quibus agebat, quid enim haec ad propositum faciunt? nam in Psalm. XXXVII reprehendit odium inimici, quo aliqui Deum orant pro morte inimicorum. Quis autem negat esse malum optare mortem inimico ex odio, et cupiditate vindictae ? Tamen optare mortem inimico, et etiam inferre, secundum ordinem justitiae malum non est, si fiat non odio hominis, sed amore justitiae, eteommu- (1) Luc. XXlf, 36. 28 LIBER III. nis borii. In epistola vero 5. nihil est contra bellum, sed potius pro bello, ut supra cita¬ vimus, nec scio quid Erasmus somniaverit. In epist. 158. supplicat judici pro vita scele¬ ratorum, qui jam tenebantur captivi, et cri¬ men fatebantur, quod Episcopi etiam modo facere solent. Sed quid hoc ad bellum? Num quicumque supplicat, ne latro aliquis sus¬ pendatur, continuo bellum prohibet? Objicit etiam exemplum S. Martini, qui ut Sulpitius in ejus vita refert, Juliano Impe¬ ratori dixit : « Donativum tuum militaturus accipiat, ego Christianus sum, mihi pugnare non licet. » Respondeo, non satis fideliter verba S. Martini Erasmus retulit, non enim ait : « Ego Christianus sum, mihi pugnare non licet, » sed, «hactenus militavi tibi, nunc patere ut militem Deo, Christi ego miles sum, mihi pugnare non licet ; » quibus verbis non significavit se tantum esse Chris¬ tianum, sed etiam voto, et proposito Mona¬ chum : id significat illud, patere ut militem Deo, et, Christi ego miles sum. Unde paulo ante Sulpitius scripserat, S. Martinum post Baptismum susceptum adhuc duos annos militasse, non quod, non cuperet statim sse- culo renuntiare, sed quia tribunus militum, cui ipse contubernalis erat, promiserat se etiam exacto tribunatu saeculo valedicturum, id est, cum ipso Monachum futurum. Itaque non Christiano, sed Monacho bellum inter¬ dictum asseruit, cum ipse Christianus exis- tens duos jam annos militavisset. Postremo sic Erasmus instat, arma Eccle¬ siae sunt gladius verbi Dei, scutum fidei, ga¬ lea salutis, lorica justitiae, jacula orationum, ut Apostolus docet ad Ephes. YI. non ergo ferro et armis Christiani pugnare debent. Respondeo primo, Apostolus non describit bellum contra homines, sed contra daemo¬ nes, ut patet ibidem : Non est nobis collucta¬ tio etc. Secundo dico, praecipuae Christiano¬ rum arma esse fidem et orationem, sed non propterea etiam arma ferrea non esse neces- aria; nam Exodi XVII. legimus Mose oran- e, et Josue pugnante victoriam Israeli a Deo donatam contra Amalec ; et Machabaeos sci¬ mus orationibus, et armis pugnavisse, et Augustinus scribit ad Bonifacium, epist. 194. « Arripe manibus arma, oratio aures pulset auctoris. » Et eidem Bonifacio scribit epist. 205. alias 207 : « Alii pro vobis orando pug¬ nant contra invisibiles inimicos, vos pro eis pugnando laboratis contra visibiles barba¬ ros. » At, inquiunt, bellum opponitur paci, sed pax est bona, et effectus charitatis, igitur malum est bellum. Respondeo, bellum sic paci opponi, ut sit etiam medium ad pacem, sed hoc interesse inter bellum justum et in¬ justum, quod bellum injustum opponitur paci bonae, et ducit ad pacem malam, et ideo tale bellum vitiosum est : at bellum justum opponiturpacimalae,et ducit ad pacembonara sicut vulnera Chirurgi contraria sunt sanitati malae, et imperfectae quam habent aegroti, sed ad bonam et perfectam sanitatem, tamquam ad finem perducunt.