Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

being the first person in the Trinity, though they deny the

rest.

At which speech when Martius made some pause, Zebedæus replied with a countenance of great reprehension and severity:

ZEBEDEUS. We must take heed (Pollio) that we fall not at unawares into the heresy of Manuel Comnenus, Emperor of Græcia, who affirmed that Mahomet's God was the true God: which opinion was not only rejected and condemned by the synod, but imputed to the Emperor as extreme madness'; being reproached to him also by the Bishop of Thessalonica, in those bitter and strange words as are not to be named.

MARTIUS. I confess that it is my opinion, that a war upon the Turk is more worthy than upon any other gentiles, infidels, or savages, that either have been or now are, both in point of religion and in point of honour; though facility and hope of success mought (perhaps) invite some other choice. But before I proceed, both myself would be glad to take some breath; and I shall frankly desire that some of your lordships would take your turn to speak, that can do it better. But chiefly, for that I see here some that are excellent interpreters of the divine law, though in several ways; and that I have reason to distrust mine own judgment, both as weak in itself, and as that which may be overborne by my zeal and affection to this cause; I think it were an error to speak further, till I may see some sound foundation laid of the lawfulness of the action, by them that are better versed in that argument.

EUPOLIS. I am glad (Martius) to see in a person of your profession so great moderation, in that you are not transported, in an action that warms the blood and is appearing holy, to blanch or take for admitted the point of lawfulness. And because methinks this conference prospers, if your lordships will give me leave, I will make some motion touching the distribution of it into parts.

Unto which when they all assented, Eupolis said:

EUPOLIS. I think it would not sort amiss, if Zebedæus would be pleased to handle the question, Whether a war for the propagation of the Christian faith, without other cause of hostility, be lawful or no, and in what cases? I confess also, I would be glad to go a little further; and to hear it spoken to 1 veluti insania species quædam,

concerning the lawfulness, not only permissively, but whether it be not obligatory to Christian princes and states to design it; which part, if it please Gamaliel to undertake, the point of the lawfulness taken simply will be complete. Yet there resteth the comparative: that is, it being granted that it is either lawful or binding, yet whether other things be not to be preferred before it; as extirpation of heretics, reconcilements of schisms, pursuit of lawful temporal rights and quarrels, and the like; and how far this enterprise ought either to wait upon these other matters, or to be mingled with them, or to pass by them and give law to them as inferior unto itself? And because this is a great part, and Eusebius hath yet said nothing, we will by way of mulct or pain, if your lordships think good, lay it upon him. All this while, I doubt much that Pollio, who hath a sharp wit of discovery towards what is solid and real and what is specious and airy, will esteem all this but impossibilities, and eagles in the clouds: and therefore we shall all intreat him to crush this argument with his best forces: that by the light we shall take from him, we may either cast it away, if it be found but a bladder, or discharge it of so much as is vain and not sperable. And because I confess I myself am not of that opinion, (although it be an hard encounter to deal with Pollio) yet I shall do my best to prove the enterprise possible, and to shew how all impediments may be either removed or overcomen. And then it will be fit for Martius (if we do not desert it before) to resume his further discourse, as well for the persuasive, as for the consult touching the means, preparations, and all that may conduce unto the enterprise. But this is but my wish, your lordships will put it into better order.

They all not only allowed the distribution, but accepted the parts: but because the day was spent, they agreed to defer it till the next morning. Only Pollio said:

POLLIO. You take me right (Eupolis); for I am of opinion, that except you could bray Christendom in a mortar, and mould it into a new paste, there is no possibility of an Holy War. And I was ever of opinion, that the Philosopher's Stone, and an Holy War, were but the rendez-vous of cracked brains, that wore their feather in their head instead of their hat. Nevertheless believe me of courtesy, that if you five shall be of another mind, especially after you have heard what I can say, I shall be ready to certify

with Hippocrates, that Athens' is mad and Democritus is only sober. And lest you should take me for altogether adverse, I will frankly contribute to the business now at first. Ye, no doubt, will amongst you devise and discourse many solemn matters: but do as I shall tell you. This Pope is decrepit, and the bell goeth for him. Take order, that when he is dead, there be chosen a Pope of fresh years, between fifty and threescore; and see that he take the name of Urban, because a Pope of that name did first institute the cruzada, and (as with an holy trumpet) did stir up the voyage for the Holy Land.

EUPOLIS. You say well; but be, I pray you, a little more serious in this conference.

The next day the same persons met, as they had appointed; and after they were set, and that there had passed some sporting speeches from Pollio, how the war was already begun, for that (he said) he had dreamt of nothing but Janizaries and Tartars and Sultans all the night long, Martius said:

MARTIUS. The distribution of this conference, which was made by Eupolis yesternight, and was by us approved, seemeth to me perfect, save in one point; and that is, not in the number, but in the placing of the parts. For it is so disposed, that Pollio and Eupolis shall debate the possibility or impossibility of the action, before I shall deduce the particulars of the means and manner by which it is to be achieved. Now I have often observed in deliberations, that the entering near hand into the manner of performance and execution of that which is under deliberation hath quite overturned the opinion formerly conceived of the possibility or impossibility. So that things that at the first show seemed possible, by ripping up the performance of them have been convicted of impossibility; and things that on the other side have showed impossible, by the declaration of the means to effect them, as by a back light, have appeared possible, the way thorough them being discerned. This I speak, not to alter the order, but only to desire Pollio and Eupolis not to speak peremptorily or conclusively touching the point of possibility, till they have heard me deduce the means of the execution: and that done, to reserve themselves at liberty

1 So both the printed copy and the MSS. The Latin translation has Athenienses. It ought to be Abdera,

2 The remainder of this speech is not in the MS. Eupolis's answer is illegible from the fading of the ink. The words, I think, are "at your pleasure."

for a reply, after they had before them, as it were, a model of the enterprise.

This grave and solid advertisement and caution of Martius was much commended by them all; whereupon Eupolis said :

EUPOLIS. Since Martius hath begun to refine that which was yesternight resolved, I may the better have leave (especially in the mending of a proposition which was mine own) to remember an omission, which is more than a misplacing. For I doubt we ought to have added or inserted into the point of lawfulness, the question how far an Holy War is to be pursued, whether to displanting and extermination of people? And again, whether to enforce a new belief, and to vindicate or punish infidelity; or only to subject the countries and people; and so by the temporal sword to open a door for the spiritual sword to enter, by persuasion, instruction, and such means as are proper for souls and consciences? But it may be, neither is this necessary to be made a part by itself; for that Zebedæus, in his wisdom, will fall into it as an incident to the point of lawfulness, which cannot be handled without limitations and distinctions.

much preand we are It is there

ZEBEDÆUS. You encourage me (Eupolis), in that I perceive how in your judgment (which I do so much esteem) I ought to take that course which of myself I was purposed to do. For as Martius noted well that it is but a loose thing to speak of possibilities without the particular designs; so is it to speak of lawfulness without the particular cases. I will therefore first of all distinguish the cases; though you shall give me leave in the handling of them not to sever them with too ciseness; for both it would cause needless length, not now in arts or methods, but in a conference. fore first to be put to question in general, (as Eupolis propounded it,) whether it be lawful for Christian princes or states to make an invasive war, only and simply for the propagation of the faith, without other cause of hostility, or circumstance that may provoke and induce the war? Secondly, whether, it being made part of the case that the countries were once Christian and members of the Church and where the golden candlesticks did stand, though now they be utterly alienated and no Christians left, it be not lawful to make a war to restore them to the Church, as an ancient patrimony of Christ?

Thirdly, if it be made a 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?1 But there is a point that pre

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.

[ocr errors]

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

« ElőzőTovább »