Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Laity or Secular Persons (Book III)
Chapter 16: That It Is Lawful for Christians to Wage War Against the Turks
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).
Now indeed the question of war against the Turks could have been omitted, had not Luther, among his other paradoxes, put forth even this, and tried to defend that it is not lawful for Christians to wage war against the Turks, as is plain from article 34, condemned in the Bull of Leo. With Luther seems to agree Theodore Bibliander (in his Chronology, table 13), where he says thus: “Urban, or rather a most savage whirlwind, driven by an evil spirit rejoicing in murders, stirred up a war for the recovery of Judea.”
But it is to be observed that Luther does not deny that war against the Turks is lawful because he thinks in general that all war is unlawful; for in the assertion of the same article he urges war against the Pontiff, whom he calls the most Turkish Turk. Nor because he thinks the Christians have no just cause; for it is established to all that the Turks have occupied the kingdoms of Christians by no right, and daily wish to occupy more. It is established also that he desires to extinguish all religion, and gives all effort that men may become, from Christians, Mohammedans. Finally, it is established that the ancient Pontiffs — as Urban II, Paschal II, Eugene III, and many others — and also the general Councils — as the Lateran, Lyons, Vienne, and others — declared a general war on the Mohammedans, and that Saint Bernard and other holy men stirred up the peoples to this war by public sermons, and confirmed their preaching by miracles, as Blessed Bernard himself modestly indicates at the beginning of Book II On Consideration; nor does Luther deny any of these. But there are three other causes why he held that it is not lawful to war against the Turks.
The first, because it seems to be the will of God that we be punished by the Turk as by a certain scourge, and it is not lawful for us to resist the will of God; and that this is the will of God he proves, in the assertion of article 34, from experience, which has taught that hitherto war against the Turks has profited the Christians nothing.
But this first cause avails little; for although it be the will of God that our sins be punished by the Turk, yet it is not His will that we not resist the Turk; nay, His will is that we resist — which is proved from the end. For God does not permit the Turk to rage against us that we may perish, but that we may be converted; and we are brought to conversion when we strive to resist the Turk attacking us, by resisting we labor, by laboring we acknowledge our weakness, and thence return to God with our whole heart and implore His aid. And so from the end for which God permits the Turk to rage against us, it manifestly follows that He wills us to resist the Turk. Besides, the war of the Turk is a scourge of God just as are the plague, famine, heresy, the tinder of sin, and the like; but no one is so foolish as to think on that account that medicines are not to be sought against the plague, nor the earth to be tilled lest we die of famine, nor heresy and concupiscence to be resisted.
Nor is it true what Luther says, that experience teaches that war against the Turks profits us nothing; for — to pass over the very many victories reported over the Turks — certainly when arms were first carried into the land of promise, by a most happy event Jerusalem was recovered by our men, and the Christians reigned for 88 years, and always recovered more and more, until contentions began to arise among the Christian princes themselves — just as now too the Turk occupies more by the discord of our men than by his own valor; and the chief cause of these discords was Luther himself. For, as is plain from John Cochlaeus (in the acts of Luther for the year 1526), Hungary perished because the Germans, called by the king of Hungary to his aid, chose rather to obey Luther, then preaching against war on the Turks, than to consider what the common good required. At least the war has this good, that the Turk is hindered from harming as much as he would; for unless he had hitherto been fought against, he would long ago have gained all.
His second cause is that tribulation and persecution are more useful to the Church than victory and tranquillity; whence in the sermon on matrimony he reprehends the custom of the Church, by which it prays for peace and quiet, when rather it ought to pray for tribulations. But we answer that tribulation and persecution are indeed useful, but dangerous, and therefore not to be sought, but to be borne when it cannot be otherwise. Whence (Matthew 6) we are bidden to pray: “And lead us not into temptation.” And (1 Timothy 2) the Apostle bids us pray for kings, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life. And Blessed Augustine (Book X of the Confessions, chapter 28) says that miseries are to be borne, not loved, nor desired and asked for.
The third cause, and this seems to have been the chief, was hatred of the Pontiff; for with so great a hatred did Luther sometimes persecute the Pontiff that he plainly wished to see the Turk occupying all the kingdoms of Christians, that at least in that way the name of the Pontiff might be extinguished. Nor do we divine that this was his wish and desire, but we gather it from his own words; for in the book to the nobility of Germany, chapter 25, he says that there is nowhere any fairer government than among the Turks, who are governed by the laws of the Koran, but none baser than among the Christians, who are ruled by the canon and civil law. And in the assertion of article 34 he says that the Pontiff and the papists are much worse and more truculent than the Turks, and that it is foolish to fight for the worse — the Turks — against the better; and in a certain letter against two Imperial edicts: “I beg,” he says, “all pious Christians, that in no way we follow, either to go to war, or to give anything against the Turks, since the Turk is ten times more prudent and more upright than are our princes.” By which words what else did he try to persuade than that the Turks are to be aided against the Christians?
But this opinion contains so great an absurdity and impiety that the same Luther afterward, when that ardor had somewhat cooled, wrote plainly the contrary. For thus he says in the book On the Saxon Visitation: “Some preachers rashly cry that the Turk is not to be resisted. This saying is seditious, which ought neither to be borne nor permitted. The powers, therefore, are bound to resist the Turks, who not only desire to devastate provinces, to violate and kill wives and children, but even to abrogate and take away the laws of the province, the worship of God, and every good ordinance. Therefore the princes ought chiefly for this to make war,” and so on. And in the same place: “It would be much more tolerable for a good man to see the destruction of his sons than that they be imbued with Turkish manners; for the Turks neither know nor care for any honesty at all.” Thus he.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI, Licere bellum gerere Christianus contra Tureas, Jam vero quaestio de bello contra Tureas omitti potuisset, nisi Lutherus inter alia sua paradoxa etiam hoc protulisset, aedefendere conatus esset, non licere Christianis contra Tureas bellum gerere, ut patet ex art. 34. in Hulla Leonis damnato. Luthero videtur as- sentiri Theodorus Bibliander in Chronologia tabui. 13. ubi sic ait : « Urbanus, seu potius turbo saevissimus, a spiritu malo homicidiis gaudente impulsus, bellum pro recuperanda Judaea commovit. » Est autem observandum, Lutherum non negare bellum contra Tureas esse licitura, quia putet in genere omne bellum esse illi¬ citum; nam in assertione ejusdem articuli suadet bellum contra Pontificem, quem Tur- cissimum Tuream esse dicit; neque quia existimet non habere Christianos justam causam; constat enim omnibus Turoas nullo jure occupasse regna Christianorum, et quo¬ tidie plura occupare velle. Constat etiam eum extinguere cupere omnem religionem , et dare omnem operam, ut homines ex Chris¬ tianis fiant Mahumetani. Denique constat et antiquos Pontifices, ut Urbanumll.Pasohalem II.Eugenium III, et alios_'multos,necnon'gene- ralia Concilia, ut Lateranense, Lugdunense, Viennense, et alia, generale bellum indixis¬ se Mahumetanis, et S. Bernardum, aliosque sanctos viros concionibus publicis excitasse populos ad hoc bellum, et sermonem mira¬ culis confirmasse, ut ipsemet B. Bernardus modeste indicat initio libri. II. deconsidera- tione, nec aliquid horum Lutherus negat; sed sunt aliae tres causae cur senserit non li¬ cere contra Tureas bellare. Prima, quia voluntas Dei esse*videtur, uf a Turea, tamquam flagello quodam punia¬ mur, neque licet nobis Dei voluntati resiste¬ re, quod autem ista sit voluntas Dei, probat in assertione art. 34. ab experientia, quae docuit hactenus nihil Christianis profuisse bellum contra Tureas. Sed haec prima causa parum valet ; nam etsi voluntas Dei sit ut peccata nostra per Tuream puniantur , tamen non est voluntas ut Tureae non resistamus ; imo voluntas ejus est ut resistamus; id quod ex fine probatur. Non enim Deus per¬ mittit Tuream in nos saevire ut pereamus, sed ut convertamur, tunc autem ad conversionem perducimur, cum Tureae nos oppugnanti re¬ sistere conamur, resistendo laboramus, labo¬ rando nostram infirmatem agnoscimus, atque inde ad Deum toto corde revertimur, et ejus auxilium imploramus. Itaque ex fine, quo Deus permittit Tuream in nos saevire, sequi¬ tur manifeste ipsum velle ut Tureae resista¬ mus. Praeterea, ita flagellum Dei est bellum Tureae, sicut pestis, fames, haeresis, fomes peccati, et similia ; riemo autem tam est stul¬ tus, qui ideo putet non esse quaerenda medi- 32 LIBER III. camenta contra pestem, neque terram co¬ lendam, ne moriamur fame, neque haeresi et fomiti resistendum. Neque verum est quod Lutherus dicit, ex¬ perientiam docere nihil nobis prodesse bel¬ lum contra Tureas ; nam ut omittam pluri¬ mas victorias de Tureis relatas, certe cum primum arma illata sunt in terram promis¬ sionis felicissimo eventu Hierusalem a nos¬ tris recuperata fuit, et regnaverunt Christia¬ ni annis 88. et semper plura, et plura recu¬ perabant, donec oriri coeperunt inter ipsos Christianos Principes contentiones, quemad¬ modum et nunc Turea plura occupat ob discordiam nostrorum, quam sua virtute, et harum discordiarum potissima causa fuit Le- therus ipse. Nam ut ex Joanne Cochlaeo pa¬ tet in actis Lutheri anni 1526, Iiungaria pe¬ riit, quia Germani a rege Hungariae vocati in auxilium, maluerunt Luthero parere tunc concionanti contra bellum in Tureas, quam cogitare quid bonum commune postularet. Saltem hoc boni habet bellum, quod impe¬ ditur Turea ne tantum noceat quantum vel¬ let. Nisi enim hactenus cum eo pugnatum esset, jamdudum ille omnia obtineret. Secunda causa ejus est, quia Ecclesia; uti¬ lior est tribulatio, et persecutio, ^ quam vic¬ toria, et tranquillitas; unde in sermone de matrimonio reprehendit Ecclesiae consuetu¬ dinem, qua orat pro pace, et quiete, cum potius pro tribulationibus orandum esset. Sed respondemus, tribulationem, et perse¬ cutionem esse quidem utilem, sed pericu¬ losam et ideo non expetendam, sed toleran¬ dam, cum aliter fieri non potest. Unde Mat- th. VI. jubemur orare : Et ne nos inducas in tentationem. Et I. Tim. II. Apostolus jubet orare pro regibus, ut quietam, et tranquil¬ lam vitam agamus. Et B. Augustinus lib. X. Confessionis, cap. 28. dicit, miserias tole¬ randas, non amandas, nec desiderandas, et petendas. Tertia causa, eaque praecipua fuisse vide¬ tur, odium Pontificis, tanto enim odio Pon¬ tificem aliquando Lutherus persequebatur, ut plane optaret videre Tuream occupantem omnia regna Christianorum, ut saltem eo modo nomen Pontificis extingueretur. Neque hoc fuisse votum, ac desiderium ejus nos di¬ vinamus, sed ex verbis ejus colligimus, nam in libro ad nobilitatem Germaniae, cap. 25. dicit, nullum esse pulchrius regimen usquam quam apud Tureas, qui legibus Alcorani gu¬ bernantur, nullum autem turpius, quam apud Christianos, qui jure canonico, et civili re¬ guntur. Et in assertione articuli 34. dicit, Pontificem et Pontificios esse multo pejores, et truculentiores Tureis, et stultum esse pu¬ gnare pro pejoribus Tureis contra meliores, et in epistola quadam contra duo mandata Imperialia : « Oro, inquit , cunctos pios Christianos, ne ullo modo sequamur, vel in militiam ire, vel dare aliquid contra Tur¬ eas, quandoquidem Turea decies prudentior, probiorque est, quam sunt Principes nostri.» Quibus verbis quid aliud suadere conatus est, quam esse juvandos Tureas contra Christianos? Sed haec sententia tantam absurditatem, et impietatem continet, ut ipse idem Luthe¬ rus postea, cum ille ardor nonnihil defer¬ buisset, plane contrarium scripserit. Sic enim ait in libro de visitatione Saxonica? « Cla¬ mant, inquit, aliqui praedicatores temerarie, non resistendum esse Tureae. Hic sermo se¬ ditiosus est, qui neque ferri, neque permitti debet. Tenentur igitur potestates resistere Tureis, qui non solum cupiunt provincias devastare, uxores ac liberos violare, et in¬ terficere, verum etiam jura provinciae, cul¬ tum Dei, omnemque- ordinationem bonam abrogare ac tollere. Idcirco debent Princi¬ pes ob id praecipue belligerare etc. » Et ibi¬ dem : (i Multo, inquit, tolerabilius foret viro bono videre filiorum suorum interitum , quam Turcicis eos moribus imbui : Tureae enim nullam prorsus honestatem vel sciunt, vel curant. » Haec ille.