Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T04:04:33.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paris Theologians on War and Peace, 1521–1529

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Walter F. Bense
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The period from 1521 to 1529 marks the transition from the suppression of the personal Protestantism of Luther to the emergence of political Protestantism as a force to be reckoned with. Unavoidably, perhaps, this transition brought with it a change in the general attitude toward war and peace, indeed, in the self-understanding of Europe. The medieval model of a Christendom united under the cross and the papacy, ideally at peace within and at war only with the infidel, was becoming obsolete. Having entered upon its period of dominance with the simultaneous proclamation of the Peace of God and the First Crusade by Pope Urban II in 1095, it may be said to expire with the Peace of Cambrai of 1529. The modern model, of a community of independent states whose autonomy is grounded in natural law and whose bond of union is vaguely cultural rather than specifically religious, is already reflected in Luther's 1529 treatise, On War Against the Turk? The short-range effect of the transformation of 1521/29 was the desacralization of the Turkish war and the redirection of the crusading spirit against the Protestants. The long-range effect would seem to have been the rise of modern Europe—out of the throes of the Wars of Religion—as a system of more or less secular and national states.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 1972 , pp. 168 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1900

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Dana Carleton Munro has concluded that the exhortation to fight righteous wars instead of the usual iniquitous combats was part of the pope's speech, of which no authentic version has survived [ “The Speech of Pope Urban II at Clermont, 1095,” American Historical Review, XI (1906), pp. 239, 242Google Scholar]. For the origins of the “medieval model” see Arquillière, H.-X., L'Augustinisme Politique; Essai sur la formation des theories politiques du Moyen-Age, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1955).Google Scholar For recent literature on the Peace and Truce of God, see the New Catholic Encyclopaedia (New York, 1967), T. XI, pp. 45 f.Google Scholar, s.v. “Peace of God’; for older literature, see The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge (New York and London, 1912), T. XII, p. 27Google Scholar, s.v. “Truce of God.”

2. The text of the treaty and of the commissions of the chief negotiators is given by Du Mont, J., De Carels-Croon, Baron, ed., Corps Universel Diplomatique du Droit des Gens… (Amsterdam and The Hague, 1726), T. IV, Pt. II, pp. 7–17.Google Scholar The documents give about equal weight to the “grandes erreurs et troubles schismatiques qui croissent et pullulent tous les jours, et les invasions que le Turc ennemy de nostre Foy Chretienne a faites…” (p. 7).

3. Luther's Works (hereafter LW) 46, ed. by Schultz, Robert C. (Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 155–205Google Scholar (German text: WA 30:2, pp. 107–148). Throughout this treatise, and esp. pp. 185 f., Luther emphasizes that he is only concerned with Germany and the emperor's duty to defend his subjects. But while Luther accepts the de facto division of Christendom, he clings to the older ideal of a universal Christian empire as somehow de jure (pp. 200 f.). Friedrich August Von Der Heidte, Freiherr, Die Geburtsstunde des souverdnen Staates (Regensburg, 1952), esp. pp. 36–40Google Scholar, has shown that this distinction antedates Luther by more than 200 years.

4. Both developments can be traced in Mont, Du, loc. cit., esp. pp. 87–90Google Scholar, 158, 187 f., 217–221, 252–256, 279–281, 308–311, 314–317, 325. In a treaty of June 26, 1546, Charles V pledged himself to go to war “wider die, so wider das Concilium [Tridentirium] protestiert haben, und wider den Schmalkaldischen Bund, auch wider alle die, so in diesem Missglauben und Irrthumb seyn, im Teutschland, und das mit allem seinen Gewalt und Macht, damit er sie wiederum bringe in den alten, wahrhafften, ungezweiffelten Glauben, und Gehorsam des heiligen Stuls,” while Pope Paul III agreed to furnish 12,000 Italian foot soldiers and 500 horse, to contribute 200,000 crowns and one half-year's income of the Spanish Church towards the cost of the war, and to authorize Charles to sell monastic properties and incomes in Spain to the value of 500,000 crowns, to be repaid later (pp. 308 f.); on July 4, 1546, the pope issued a bull bestowing indulgences on participants in the anti-Protestant crusade (pp. 310 f.).

5. Zimmerman, Michel (“La crise de l'organisation Internationale a la fin du MoyenAge,” Académie du Droit International, Recueil des Cours 1933:II, T. 44, pp. 319–438)Google Scholar relates the transition from the medieval to the modern model to the relative success of the Hussite movement, and particularly to the peace project of King George Podiebrady [for which see The Universal Peace Organization of King George of Bohemia; A Fifteenth Century Plan for World Peace, ed. by Kavka, F., Outrata, V., and Poliŝensky, J. (Prague, 1964)].Google Scholar The project, which excluded the pope from participation, indeed signaled the coming change; but since it did not succeed, and Hussitism, right up to its suppression, remained confined to the Kingdom of Bohemia, it seems more appropriate to date the change from the Protestation of Speyer, which marked the permanent division of western Europe into Boman and non-Roman segments. In any case, the modern model did not become fully effective until the middle of the seventeenth century; it seems now, since the end of World War II or so, to have lost its cogency (cf. Der Heydte, Von, op. cit., p. 246Google Scholar).

6. Leo's proclamation apparently led directly to a treaty between Maximilian I, Francis I, and Charles of Spain (the later Charles V), and to the Perpetual Peace signed on October 2, 1517, between Francis I and Henry VIII; both treaties looked toward the launching of a crusade against the Turks [ Lange, Christian L., Histoire de l'Internationalisme, I (Oslo, 1919), pp. 118–123Google Scholar]. On Leo's peace efforts, see also Meulen, Jacob Ter, Der Gedanke der internationalnen Organisation in seiner Entwicklung, 1300–1800 (The Hague, 1917), pp. 128–139Google Scholar; and most recently, Setton, Kenneth M., “Pope Leo X and the Turkish Peril,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (December 15, 1969), pp. 367–424.Google Scholar

7. Posner, Johann, Der deutsche Papst Adrian VI (Recklinghausen, 1962), pp. 81–92Google Scholar; cf. Von Höfler, Constantin Ritter, Papst Adrian VI, 1552–1523 (Vienna, 1880), esp. pp. 162–168, 229–235, 333 f., 358.Google Scholar

8. Mont, Du, loc. cit., p. 6.Google Scholar

9. On the creation of the office of the syndic, a kind of executive secretary of the faculty, see Clerval, A.-J., Registre des procès-verbaux de la Faculté de Théologie de Paris, T. I, (Paris, 1917), pp. 265–270.Google Scholar Beda was the first to hold the office and served from 1520 to 1534, except for eight months' exile in 1533.

10. Eppstein, John, The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations (Washington, D. C., 1935), p. 82Google Scholar, contrasts the Decretum's statement that “the enemies of the Church are to be coerced even by war” with the “principle enunciated by Suarez… that there is never a just cause of war other than a violation of natural rights and the conclusion of Vittoria that it is unlawful to make war ‘by reason of diversity of religion’ [which have] become the accepted view of the Church.” The origins of essential aspects of the modern model are traced to the hundred-year period beginning about 1250 by Von der Heydte, who sees the Dominican John Quidort of Paris as first giving them decisive formulation (op. cit., pp. 101–106). He notes that the crusading ideology remained officially dominant for generations after the collapse of the Crusaders' Kingdom in 1291, though it had lost much of its popular appeal even earlier (ibid., pp. 239, 245 f, n. 73).

11. The proposition, “The word of Christ, Matthew 5, ‘Whoever smites you on the right cheek etc.’ and Romans 12, ‘Dearly beloved, do not defend yourselves,’ are not counsels, as even many theologians seem erroneously to hold, but a commandment,” and its qualification as “false and contrary to the right understanding of Holy Scripture, making the Christian law too burdensome,” are given by D'argentré, Charles Duplessis, Collectio Judiciorum de Novis Erroribus…, 3 vols. (Paris, 1728–1736; reprinted Brussels, , 1963), T. I, Part II, pp. 372 f.Google Scholar (translation mine). The two “pacifist” propositions had been included in the papal condemnation of Luther, on which see Hillerbrand, Hans J., “Martin Luther and the Bull Exsurge Domine,” Theological Studies, 30 (1969), pp. 108–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. The proposition is a conflation of several phrases from Conclusion 69 of the Resolutiones Disputationum de Indulgentianm Virtute of 1518, WA I, p. 619: “Thus also burdens are to be borne, not because they are rightly imposed and to be approved; but they are to be borne humbly, as chastisements inflicted of God. Hence burdens and unjust sentences are to be feared, not because of the saying, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt bind…,’ but because of this general precept, ‘Agree with thine adversary in the way,’ and this one, ‘Whoever strikes you on the right cheek offer him the left one also,’ and Romans 12, ‘Do not defend yourselves, etc.’ For if this were a counsel (as even many theologians seem erroneously to hold), then it would be legitimate to resist the pope, in regard to his burdens and unjust sentences, with the same freedom with which one might resist the Turk and other enemies; but none of these are to be resisted at all, even though their work is not to be approved, lest one should err in his conscience” (translation mine).

13. The theologians qualified the proposition, “To war against the Turks is to resist God, who visits our iniquity upon us through them,” as, in this general form, false and contrary to Holy Scripture (D'argentré, , loc. cit., p. 373Google Scholar; translation mine).

14. Cf. Conclusion 5 of the Resolutiones cited above: “Some, and these men of stature within the church, now dream of nothing but wars against the Turks; that is, of making war, not against our iniquities, but against the scourge of our iniquity, and thus fighting against God, who says that he visits our iniquities through this scourge because we do not visit them ourselves” (loc. cit., p. 535; translation mine); and LW 46, pp. 162–165.

15. Cf. Hillerbrand, , loc. cit., p. 111Google Scholar; and Douglass, Jane Dempsey, Justification in Late Medieval Preaching (Leyden, 1966), pp. 62 f., 93 f.Google Scholar Beda himself used the term in his controversy with Erasmus: “Quomodo item non occurrit clades famis, pestis et belli, quam matrum Judaeorum… liberis, ob iniuste Christo illatum mortem, per Romanum militem misit deust” [Annotationes, fo 207 ro (vide infra, n. 46)].

16. A comprehensive study of Caroli is a desideratum of Franco-Swiss Reformation studies. Meanwhile, see Bähler, Eduard, “Petrus Caroli und Johannes Calvin,” Jahrbuch für Schweiserische Gesohichte, 1904, pp. 39–168Google Scholar; and Calvini Opera, VII (CR XXXV), pp. xxx-xxxiv, 289–340. Caroli's statement that wars and other calamities are actually signs of God's love, “for whomsoever he loveth he chasteneth,” was one of those censured by the theological faculty on November 7, 1525 (D'Argentré, , op. cit. II:I, p. 28).Google Scholar

17. Clerval, J.-A., De Judoci Clichtovei Neoportuensis… vita et operibus (Paris, 1894)Google Scholar, has now been largely superseded by Massaut, J.-P., Josse Clichtove, I'humanisme et la réforme du clergé, 1472–1520, 2 vols. (Paris, 1968).Google Scholar Hopefully, Massaut will follow this up with a study of Clichtove's later career; meanwhile, see Desrumeaux, E., “Une réputation surfaite? Josse Clichtove,” Mélanges de sciences religieuses, 6 (1949), pp. 253–276.Google Scholar

18. Clichtoveus, Judocus, De vera nobilitate opusculum (Paris, 1512)Google Scholar, esp. Chapter 13: “Quod nobiles fugere debent iniustam rapinam, et in omnes iustitiam servare,” fos 24 ro-27 ro and Chapter 14: “Nobilibus iracundiam vitandam esse: et clementiam observandam,” fos 27 ro-33 ro.

19. Ibid., fo 28 ro.

20. Clichtoveus, Judocus, De Regis Officio opusculum: quid optimum quemque regem deceat, ex sacris literis et probatorum authorum sententiis historiisque depromens (Paris, 1519)Google Scholar, Preface, fos 2 ro-3 vo; cf. Chapter 7: “Regem diyini cultus studiosum esse debere: et honorem nominis ipsius zelare, ecclesiasticamque libertatem tueri,” fos 25 ro-26 vo; Chapter 10: “Mansuetudinem in rege pariter et clementiam, magnopere laudari: abhorrentem et omni odio et vindictu,” fos 36 vo-37 ro; and Chapter 16: “Amicitiam et pacem a rege summopere esse expetendam: ut bellum non nisi necessitate coactus suscipiat,” fos 56 ro-58 vo. The young king, together with most of his army, was killed by the Turks in the battle of Mohácz (1526).

21. Ibid., fo 58 ro; “Porro nulla iustior censeri debet belli causa: quam pro sancta religione tutanda contra hostes fidei, aut amplificanda per ipsorum ab occupatis Cristianorum sedibus expulsionem. Tale siquidem bellum: ob divini nominis geritur honorem.”

22. Clichtoveus, Judocus, De Bello et Pace opusculum, Christianos principes ad sedendos bellorum tumultus et pacem componendam exhortans, Paris, 1523.Google Scholar In the Preface, Clichtove cites Galatians 3:28 and confesses that he feels no particular loyalty to Upper or Lower Germany, Britain, Spain or any other nation. He only considers himself a Christian. Hence he feels constrained to be well disposed toward the rulers of all these countries, which include bodies of men that worship God sincerely and whom the undivided Spirit of Christ binds together in one.

23. Ibid., fos 3 ro-4 vo; cf. fo 14 vo: “Nempe haec [Exodus 17:8–16 and I Chronicles 5:18–22] et consimilia scripturae dicta: de bello iusto sunt accipienda, quod sane deo praecipiente atque efficiente committi: ingenue fatemur. Quae vero hactenus de bello sumus prolocuti, et quae adhuc subiiciemus: de iniusto, nefarioque bello intelligi duntaxat volumus: quod permittente quidem deo, at non efficiente neque cooperante, committi censemus.” Arquillière, H.-X. (op. cit., p. 196)Google Scholar points out that this view characterizes the political Augustinianism of the Middle Ages, beginning with Pope Nicholas I (856–867), rather than the thought of St. Augustine himself: “Cette paix … de l'ordre naturel, politique… saint Augustin… lui accorde une certaine valeur… bien qu'elle ne soit pas la ‘vraie’ paix, qui n'existe qu'en Dieu. Mais pour Nicholas Ier, comme pour l'augustinisme, il n'y a que cette deraière qui compte. En dehors de la paix surnaturelle, il n'y a place que pour le mal.”

24. Ibid., fos 7 ro;-9 vo; 16 v°-17 vo.

25. Ibid., fos 15 vo-16 ro.

26. Ibid., os 14 vo-15 ro and 9 ro-ll ro, where Clichtove concludes: “We see therefore that we have been shown no way by which we may have eternal peace unless we cultivate peace here on earth…. Whence it is greatly to be feared that in the sight of God we are Christians in name only, and bear the name in vain since we are far from what it stands for, not exhibiting the works that befit true Christians” (translation mine).

27. Ibid., fos 5 ro-6 ro, esp. 6 ro.

Likewise, what does the emotion of sympathy with which we are endowed, the sweet proclivity of our spirit to shed tears over the calamities that befall others, testify, but that we should be benign and humane toward all, and commiserate the hardships that befall others? But who would do this, if there were no natural love and sincere affection among us? Behold, all nature cries: Man was begotten for friendship, born for benevolence, destined to preserve the peace.28

28. Ibid., fo 6 ro;vo (translation mine).

29. Ibid., fos 11 ro-14 vo; 22 ro.

30. Ibid., fos 17 vo-22 ro; cf. fo 19 vo: “… all these things are said to be done by right of war (iure belli); which right, as they use it, is a supreme and extreme wrong (in-iuria), diametrically opposed to the laws of God and men” (translation mine).

31. Ibid., fos 23 vo-24 vo: “Sed quid nune machinas illas tartareas, aut ut modestius loquar, tonitruarias memorem: quibus in mutuam perniciem, stragem immanissimam, ut necem utuntur Christianit… Verum primus horrendae huius machinae tonitrariae (quam vulgo bombardum dicunt) fabricator et artifex… mulctari debuit poena…. Satius quidem esset meo iudicio… Christianos ab illarum feralium machinarum usu temperare… aut illis tantum uti: in ferocissimos Christianae fidei hostes, ob capitale religionis Christianae odium omnimoda (nisi resipuerint) dignos.”

32. Ibid., fos 31 ro-39 vo; for Clichtove's view of the alterum genus pugnae that must be waged against Luther and Lutheranism, see fos 27 vo-28 ro.

33. Ibid., fo 38 rovo (translation mine).

34. Ibid., fos 39 vo-44 ro.

35. The connection was made, however, by Pope Adrian VI, in a letter to Charles V dated March 3, 1523. Cf. J. Posner, op. cit., p. 87: “Die Gefahr erscheine noch grösser, wenn man bedenke, das manche christliche Fürsten ihre Untertanen ärger bedrückten als der Sultan die seinigen.”

36. Be Bello et Pace, fos 24 vo-27 ro. But the next chapter (XII) urges: “Christian Princes Should Rather Be Animated to Take up Arms Against the Enemies of the Faith” (translation mine).

37. Ibid., fo 44 vo.

38. Ibid., fos 37 ro-39vo.

39. Ibid., fos 44 vo-45 ro.

40. Ibid., fo 44 rovo.

41. Ibid., fos 45 ro-46 ro.

42. Ibid., fos 28 vo-29 ro; ef. fos 27 vo-28 ro.

43. Ibid., fos 46 vo-49 vo. For terminology very similar to the first appeal, emanating from the circle of St. Vincent of Beauvais, see Der Heydte, Von, op. cit., pp. 65f., n. 47.Google Scholar

44. On Beda, see my unpublished dissertation, “Noel Beda and the Humanist Reformation at Paris, 1504–1534” (Harvard, 1967; available on microfilm)Google Scholar, or the short summary of it in the Harvard Theological Review, 60 (1967), pp. 485 f.Google Scholar I plan to publish parts of it under the title, “Champion of Discipline: Noel Beda at the University of Paris, 1504–1534.”

45. Beda recounts these efforts in his Preface to the Annotationes and in his Apologia… adversus clandestinos Lutheranos, Paris, 1529, which also includes his correspondence with Erasmus. The latter work was reprinted by D'Argentré, , op. cit., T. III, Part II, pp. 2–80Google Scholar; the correspondence and some other materials were reprinted by Allen, P. S. and Allen, H. M., eds., Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, T. VI, (Oxford, 1926), pp. 65 ff.Google Scholar

46. Beda, Natalis, Annotationum…in Iacobum Fabrum Stapulensem libri duo et in Desiderium Erasmum Boterdamum liber unus, qui ordine tertius est (Paris, 1526).Google Scholar The work was suppressed by the king some three months after publication and re-published at Cologne.

47. Ibid., Props. 75 and 76, and Confutatio, fos 63 ro-64 ro (translation mine).

48. Ibid., fos 63 vo-64 vo (translation mine); Beda correctly cites The City of God, Bk. IV, Ch. 6.

49. Ibid., fo 64 rovo (translation mine); ef. Der Heydte, Von, op. cit., pp. 103f.Google Scholar, for the very similar argumentation of John Quidort of Paris.

50. I am here following the typology of Bainton, Roland, Christian Attitudes toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation (New York, 1960), pp. 14 f.Google Scholaret passim.

51. Beda, , AnnotationesGoogle Scholar, Props. 94 and 95 and Cpnfutatio, fosa 76 vo-79 ro; (translation mine).

52. Ibid., Prop. 26 and Confutatio, fo 127 ro; cf. Confutatio Prop. 81, fo 147 vo: “… haud recipiendum est: quod de consiliis Christi absolute praecepta faeit Iacobus.”

53. Ibid., fo 127 vo (translation mine); the reference is to Luke 3:14.

54. Ibid., fo 128 ro; Beda's argumentation is based largely on Augustine's Epistle to Marcellinus (No. 138; old style: No. 5).

55. Ibid., Prop. 27 and Confutatio, fo 128 vo; (translation mine).

56. Ibid., fo 128 rovo (translation mine).

57. Ibid., fo 128 vo (translation mine); Confutatio Prop. 162, fo 171 ro: “Non sunt igitur haec duo dilectionis mandata, alterum vetus, alterum novum: ceu somnians putavit Faber, verum idem ipsum unum….”

58. Ibid., fo 129 ro; (translation mine).

59. Ibid., Props. 28 and 29 and Censurae, fo 189 ro; cf. fo 229 ro, sub lit. V.

60. Ibid., Prop. 69 and Censura, fo 199 rovo (translation mine); cf. Apologia (1529), fos 2 vo, 9 ro, 36 vo-38ro, 45 rovo.

61. Ibid., Props. 76–78 and Censura, fos 202 vo-203 ro.

62. Ibid., Prop. 94 and Censura.

63. Ibid., Prop. 69, fo 199 ro (translation mine).

64. Ibid., Prop. 94 and Censura, fos 207 vo-208 ro (translation mine).

65. Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. Nouv. Aequis. 1782, fo 172 ro.

66. The propositions, with the faculty's censures, are given by D'Argentré, , op. cit., II:I, pp. 45 f.Google Scholar; cf. p. 42. The date given by D'Argentré (p. 46) appears to be incorrect.

67. Determinato Facultatis Theologicae in Schola Parisiensi super quampluribus assertionibus D. Erasmi Roterodami (Paris, 1531), Sect. V: De Reparations Iniuriae, fo B 1 rovo; reprinted by D'Argentré, , op. cit., II:I, p. 56.Google Scholar The condemnation was confirmed by the University as a whole on June 23, 1528; cf. Renaudet, A., Études Érasmiennes (1521–1529), (Paris, 1939), p. 295.Google Scholar With the year 1529, we reach the terminus ad quem of our study. Luther88

68. Vide supra, n. 3; ef. “Heerpredigt wider den Türken” (1529), WA 30:2, pp. 160–197. Luther's later writings against the Turks and their religion are listed by Kunst, Hermann, Martin Luther und der Krieg: Eine historische Betrachtung (Stuttgart, 1968), pp. 38 f.Google Scholar For Luther's attitude on wars, insurrections, and crusades, see Zahrnt, Heinz, Luther deutet Geschichte (Munich, 1952), pp. 68–133.Google Scholar See also: Forell, G. W., “Luther and the War against the Turks,” Church History 14(1945), pp. 256–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buchanan, Harvey, “Luther and the Turks, 1519–1529,” Archivo für Reformationsgeschichte 47(1956), pp. 145–160.Google Scholar

69. “De Bello Turcis inferendo consultatio” (March 1530), Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opera omnia, ed. by Clericus, J. (Leyden, 1703–1706), T. V., pp. 345–368.Google Scholar

70. To Beda, Annotationes, Erasmus had replied with a large volume of Supputationes Errorum in Censuris Natalis Bedae…cum aliis (Basel, 1527)Google Scholar, in which he repeats that “every war comes from evil,” and explains that when he wrote to Archduke Ferdinand, “it was rumored that there were certain ones in France who from the pulpit were blowing the trumpet for war; one even twisted a psalm [Ps. 92:7,13,5,6] to the point of applying it to the king…. There was also one who prophesied evil against our side: ‘Only persevere in this thy piety,’—he was speaking of prayers and Masses—‘and God will fight for you’ “ fos 52 ro-53 vo; 27 vo-28vo (translation mine). To Beda, Apologia of 1529 he replied with Notatiunculae quaedam extemporales ad Naenias Bedaicas, appended to his Responsio ad Epistolam… Alberti Pii (Basel, 1529)Google Scholar, in which he denies being an absolute pacifist: Has he not elsewhere outlined the moderation with which warfare is to be carried on? Would someone unequivocally opposed to war have done so? And yet it is true, he adds, that if one regards Christ and the words of the apostle and the origins of the church, Christians are forbidden to make war (pp. 98 f.).

71. Ceneau attended’ Beda's Montaigu College, receiving his doctorate in 1513. In 1528 he and his brother were instrumental in conveying Beda's articles against heretics to the king. In 1537 he held a memorial service for Beda in Paris. He published his comments on the Augsburg Interim, and (in 1559) on proposals for talks with the French Protestants. A comprehensive study of Ceneau is a desideratum of Franco-Swiss Eeformation studies. Meanwhile, see Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2 (1905)Google Scholar, cc. 2100 f., and Vautier, A., “Etude sur la vie et les oeuvres de Robert Cenalis, 1483–1563,” Positions des Thèses… [of the École Nationale des Chartes] (Toulouse, 1893), pp. 91–93.Google Scholar

72. Vide supra, Note 2.,

73. Loraison de la paix faicte et prononcee a Cambray le IXe daoust Mil cinq cms vingt neuf… (Paris, 1529).[A non-theologian, Nicole Bérault, also composed, at the request of the chancellor Antoine du Prat, an Oratio de pace restituta… apud Cameracum, (Paris, 1529).]

74. Ibid., fo A ii rovo

75. Ibid., fo A iii rovo. Ceneau recounts how two hostile armies were reduced to concord by an object lesson put on by a wise noble: two dogs were put forth, which straightway attacked each other; but when a wolf was brought on the scene, they instantly ceased from their struggle and unitedly turned against the wolf.

76. Ibid., fo A iiii rovo.

77. Ibid., fo B i rovo.

78. Erasmus, , Supputationes (1527)Google Scholar, Part II, “Divinationes,” fo 28 ro. On Erasmus’ peace efforts, see The Better Part of Valor; More, Erasmus, Colet, and Vives on Humanism, War and Peace, 1496–1535 (Seattle, 1962)Google Scholar, and the bibliography given there.

79. “Docuit enim centies experientia, quod literis [Margin: In Clemen, dudum sepulturis] tandem mandatum est: scilicet quod non nisi in pacis tempore bene colitur pacis author,” Annotationes, Censura Prop. 78, fo 202 vo; see also his defense of St. Bernard's image of Christ's coat of many colors, ibid., Cohfut. Prop. 89, fo 71 ro.

80. LW 46, pp. 184–187.

81. In 1527, Erasmus not only accepted the distinction but retrojected it into the Old Testament: “Non igitur pugnat sibi lex dicens, odio habebis inimicum tuum, et si esurierit inimicus tuus, cibum dato illi. Hoc enim praecipitur perfectis, illud, ut dixi, conceditur imperfectis” (Supputationes, Prop. 29, cited by Beda, , Apologia (1529), fo 66 ro).Google Scholar

82. Cf. The Political Writings of st. Augustine, ed. by Paolueci, Henry (Chicago, 1962), p. 167Google Scholar (Contra Faustum, XXII, 76): “Peter's sword He orders back into its sheath… He must drink the cup which His Father's will had given Him. He sets the example of drinking this cup, then hands it to His followers, manifesting thus, both in word and deed, the grace of patience” (emphasis added).

83. See Williams, George H. magisterial The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia, 1962)Google Scholar, passim.

84. Since both John Calvin and Peter Viret studied at Beda's Montaigu College in the 1520s, it is tempting to speculate on whether they acquired these Augustinian views at that time.

85. Cf. Gaudemet, Jean, “Le rôle de la Pápauté dans le règlement dea conflits entre états aux XIIIe et XlVe siècles,” La Paix, II (1961), pp. 79–106Google Scholar; Arquillière, H.-X., op. cit., esp. pp. 188–196Google Scholar; and Eppstein, John, op. cit., pp. 187–222, 463–474.Google Scholar

86. Much of the relevant information is given in Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Seign of Henry VIII, ed. by Brewer, J. S. (London, 1875–1876,)Google Scholar, T. IV, items 6109, 6147, 6169, 6449, 6458, 6459, 6562, 6563, 6565.