.
Subsection
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 6+
Book 1
Historical Theology 2
Just Causes of 1
Who may Fight? 2
Latin 1
.
Articles
1500’s
Zwingli, Ulrich – ‘On Mercenary Soldiers’ (1530) 12 paragraphs in The World’s Famous Orations. Continental Europe (380–1906) (1906)
Zwingli (1484–1531) distinguishes the “Holy Warrior” from the mercenary.
Bullinger, Henry – 9th Sermon, ‘Of War; whether it be lawful for a magistrate to make war. What the Scripture teaches touching war. Whether a Christian man may bear the office of a magistrate, and of the duty of subjects’ in The Decades ed. Thomas Harding (1549; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1849), vol. 1, 2nd Decade, pp. 370-93
Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 4
ch. 17, ‘Of War or Battle’ 280
‘Whether unto a just war the authority of the magistrate be always required’ 284
‘Whether it be Lawful for the Godly to have Peace with the Ungodly’ 294
‘Of Spies’ 296
‘Of Treason’ 297
ch. 18, ‘Whether Captives ought to be put to Death or Saved’ 300
‘Of Things which be taken by the Right of War’ 303
ch. 20, ‘Of Nobility’, ‘Of Traffic, or Occupying of Merchandise & Engrossing Wars…’ 317-19
.
1600’s
Turretin, Francis – 17. ‘Are the rights of war and punishment contained under this commandment? Are suicide (autocheiria) and duelling prohibited? The former we deny; the latter we affirm.’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1994), vol. 2, 11th Topic, pp. 112-20
.
1900’s
Bahnsen, Greg – A Christian View of War (1991) 18 pp. with a supplemental reading list These are study notes to his three audio lectures that can be purchased from Cmfnow.com.
While Bahnsen is a Theonomist, much of what he has to say is simply general equity derived from scripture.
.
2000’s
Einwechter, William – ‘A Christian Perspective on Just War’ (2003) 57 paragraphs
Einwechter gives 7 Biblical Principles for Just War.
.
Book
1600’s
Ward, Richard – The Anatomy of War (London: Dalham, 1642; Berit Press, 2024) 46 pp.
Ward (c.1601-1684) was an English, covenanting minister who defended the Parliament and the Solemn League and Covenant (1643) in writing. This work was written when civil war was breaking out between the Parliament and the English king.
.
Preface 1
What war is 2
1. Grounds and causes of war 3
2. Things requisite in war 6
3. Nature and miseries of war, both civil
and foreign 8
4. What we may think of this 10
5. Things justly taxed in war 14
6. Miseries of war 16
7. Nature of civil war 18
8. Miseries of civil war 19
9. When war is lawful 22
10. Whether Christians may make war 28
11. Whether subjects may take up arms against their
sovereign 30
12. The remedies against war 31
13. Means for victory in war 36-44
.
.
Historical Theology
On the Early Church
Mattox, John – St. Augustine & the Theory of Just War (Continuum, 2009) 208 pp. ToC
.
On the Reformation
Larson, Mark J. – John Calvin, the Geneva Reformation & Godly Warfare: Church & State in the Calvinian Tradition Abstract PhD thesis (Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005)
.
.
Just Causes of War
Quote
1600’s
Jean D’Espagne
Anti-duello. The Anatomy of Duels… (London: Harper, 1632), pp. 17-18 D’Espagne (1591-1659) was a French protestant pastor and theologian who lived in London for a significant time.
“I acknowledge that war is one of the scourges of mankind and may be of all others the most horrible: And those which have authority to make war are bound to seek out all ways for agreement before they enterprise war to employ the mediation of their allies, and to bring down their demands to an indifferent equallity.
But when one is forced to enter into war, all lamentable events which accompany war are to be imputed to that party that has compelled the other to such a necessity; especially, if the war is defensive, for he that fights only to defend himself is not guilty of the miseries which may follow.
For offensive war, oftentimes it is not necessary: a prince or estate from whom a duty is detained, have right to regaine by this way. In the first war that was in the world [that Scripture speaks of], the patriarch Abraham armed all his house to set at liberty his friends and kindred: War then is made warrantable by the law of necessity.
Now this necessity proceeds (as we have before specified) here-hence, because sovereign powers are exempt from justifying their actions before any [earthly] tribunal.”
.
Who may Fight in a Defensive War: Good Christians, Professing Christians or all Citizens?
See also ‘On Civil Relations with Idolaters’.
.
Order of
Intro to Quote
Quote 1
Article 1
Intro to Quote
The below comes from the Resolutioner-Protester Controversy in Scotland. James Sharp in this work, the most prominent leader of the Resolutioners (the more moderate side) at the time (1657), speaking on behalf of them, publicly defends the establishment, Resolutioner interpretation, view, history and practice. The issue was very relevant in that era with King Charles I’s, and then later Oliver Cromwell’s invasion of Scotland.
Much of the argumentation from the Protester side considered Scotland being civilly established as Christian, with fundamental Christian laws and as having nationally covenanted unto godly ends in the various national covenants (1580, 1638, 1643). Hence a prime consideration is the relationship of covenants to natural law, and whether covenants override natural law, or whether, when natural law and covenants conflict, natural law may override positive covenants in the circumstances.
Another point of dispute was how “scandalous”, “covenant-breakers” and “enemies” were defined, specifically whether such terms might apply to anyone falling short of the most consistent Christian walk (as interpreted by some), or to persons who went against the other side’s interpretation and application of the covenants in their circumstances, or whether some of these terms applied only to those who committed proven civil perjury and treason. If persons did do such things, there was a difference about whether their repentance and satisfaction (and how much) to the authorities was sufficient for them to fight for, and/or lead the nation and its army.
Given that some individuals were let into the army and civil leadership positions that others objected to, there were calls (by Protesters) for all honest, godly citizens to refuse to serve in the army at all. This is the issue, not only of separating from doing evil, but of the necessity of separating from persons looked upon as having a deficient character or themselves not separating from evil, but of double separation, in a case where plain necessity calls, and that in civil matters.
.
Quote
1600’s
James Sharp
A True Representation of the Rise, Progress & State of the Present Divisions of the Church of Scotland (London, 1657), pp. 13-18
§15… the country was really in that low condition supposed in the resolution… which could not but put State and Church into great straits, and warrant them in their stations to improve all ordinary means not prohibited by the Word of God, and the use whereof is not in itself sinful, for necessary self-preservation…
§16. First, if we look upon all nations and states throughout the world, it may justly seem a strange paradox, and of dangerous consequence if once admitted amongst them, that it is not lawful for the civil magistrate in the case of foreign invasion to raise an army, as is qualified in the Resolution,¹ for defense of the nation; and much more, that it is not lawful for godly subjects to join with an army so constituted.
¹ The Resolution: “…provided they be men who have satisfied the Kirk for their former offences, have renewed or taken the Covenant, and be qualified for such places, with the qualifications required in the Word of God… That they be men of known good affection to the cause of God, and of a blameless and Christian conversation…” – p. 12
Yea, albeit that resolution was more limited and straight [as to who could be put into civil leadership], upon grounds and reasons of expediency, yet we doubt not but that in the case of the invasion of a nation by foreign force, and when the whole nation is in common hazard, all subjects and compatriots, as well these that are orthodox Christians as others, though they were idolaters, Jews, Turks, or heathens, may be called forth; and that a conjunction of them in arms, for the defense of the commonwealth and their own mutual preservation is lawful, yea, and a necessary duty, to which the magistrate ought to call them and wherein they ought to concur, especially when their conjunction altogether is in rational prudence a mean necessary in ordinary providence for their preservation from the violence of the invading powers.
§17. As this is the universal and constant principle and practice of all states and kingdoms wherein there are such differences amongst subjects (as most part of nations have some one or other of these mixtures, and where there is most unity in religion, yet most of the subjects are carnal and profane) and without which it were no great difficulty for an invader to make a prey of any such kingdoms, as suppose the Turk should invade Germany; so we find Christians and godly men in all ages and times have never questioned the truth of it, but by their practice have gone along with it.
To pass the example of the primitive Church, wherein Christians were so far from making question of this that a great part of the forces of the Roman Empire consisted of Christians, as Tertullian does affirm: As also of orthodox Christians in other nations, who being joined in civil society with others corrupt in religion, do make no scruple of joining in arms with them, and who may justly resent the scandal cast upon Protestant Churches by the starting of such a debate:
We shall only mention the example of our own worthy reformers, who in the case of foreign invasion made no scruple to join in arms with those who had been in bloody opposition to the people of God, so soon as they were willing to come off from the contrary party and profess repentance for their former courses. Witness their joining with the Duke of Chatellerault [who had converted from Romanism to protestantism] and his followers [in the 1550’s and 1560’s in Scotland], who had been in opposition to the [Lords of the] Congregation [Scottish protestant nobles] as they were then called. Yea, after some disaster received by the [Romanist] French at Lieth after that conjunction, they did not look upon the receiving of him as a cause of that sad stroke, as some would make the world believe from Mr. [John] Knox’s sermon at Sterlin: For in the heads of that sermon (printed in the History of the Church of Scotland, p. 217, ed. Edinburgh, 1644, in 4) there is no mention of any such thing, but only of their carnal confidence, that possibly they had not sincerely repented their former opposition, and that they who were late come in were made to feel in their own hearts how bitter a cup they had made others to drink before them: nor does he (as our [Protester] Brethren’s tenets now lead them) press them to purge out such as were lately admitted, but does only press repentance upon all of them.
§17. But we need not insist on this, to instruct what was the judgement of our first reformers in this matter, seeing before that time they invited even the very Papists, remaining yet Papists, to conjunction in arms with them against the [staunch Romanist] Queen Regent [Mary of Guise, d. 1560] and the French party, as will appear from the Declaration recorded in the History of the Church of Scotland, p. 179 etc. Wherein as there are many things remarkable to our present purpose, so their exhortatory close speaks thus, pp. 182-83:
‘If you tender true religion (i.e. if ye be Protestants) ye know her Majesty bears herself [a] plain enemy thereunto. If religion be not persuasive unto you (i.e. if ye be Papists), yet cast not away the care ye have over your commonwealth, which ye see manifestly and violently ruined before your eyes. If this will not move you, remember your dear wives, children and posterity, your ancient heritages, etc. Then brethren, let us join our forces and both with wit and manhood resist their beginnings; let no man withdraw himself; and if any will be so unhappy and mischievous (as we suppose none to be), let us altogether repute, hold and use him (as he is indeed) for an enemy to us and to himself, and to his commonwealth.’
All which does make it clear that they made no scruple of joining with Papists, being their countrymen and compatriots, and that even when the quarrel with the enemy was complex, both for the liberty of the country and the interest of true religion, they were content and desirous that their country-men, though disaffected to religion, should join with them upon the account of their common civil interest, as they also afterward express in another declaration recorded in the same History, p. 197, at the beginning.
§18. Unto this judgment of our worthy ancestors speaking so clearly to the point in controversy, we shall only add the testimony of a late learned writer [Samuel Rutherford], who in his treatise (entitled Lex, Rex, Question 37, p. 379), speaking of their opinion who think, if the king command Papists and prelates to rise against the parliament of England, that we are obliged in conscience and by our oath and [Solemn League and] Covenant [1643] to help our native prince [Charles I] against them: He subjoins: ‘to which opinion with hands and feet I should accord, if our king’s cause were just and lawful.’
And a little after in the same page he adds:
‘I see no reason but the civil law of a kingdom does oblige any citizen to help an innocent man against a murdering robber, and that he may be judicially accused as a murderer who fails in his duty, etc.’
And afterward, p. 382, after this supposition and assertion, ‘If an army of Turks and pagans would come upon Britain… one part of Britain would help another,’ which includes more than the conjunction of fellow-subjects of one kingdom [as Brittain had three kingdoms]: He adds, ‘as Jehoshaphat the King of Judah did right in helping of Ahab and Israel [2 Chron. 18; 1 Kn. 22], so the Lord had approved of the war;’ which may give a dash to the many objections mustered up from the Lord’s reproof to Jehoshaphat [2 Chron. 19:1-2] against the Commission’s Resolution.
§20. Secondly, as the judgment and practice of Christians and Churches, in former and latter ages, at home and abroad does justify this resolution, so the Law of nature does strongly plead for us in this matter: For as in the natural body, nature has put an instinct in all the members to put forth themselves for the preservation of the whole, and one of another; So the practical principles of nature, lay a moral obligation upon the members of a political body to join mutually together for the defense of the whole, and their own necessary self-preservation, when they are involved in a common hazard. So that in such a case, if the magistrate do not put them to it, he betrays his trust; and the subjects, if they concur not, become guilty of the ruin of the whole; and as the apostle, 1 Cor. 12, makes use of this beam of the light of nature, to enforce that there ought to be no schism in the mystical body of Christ, or his Church, but all the members ought have a care of the whole body, and one of another; so by parity of reason it may be as strongly applied to the political body and incorporation of a commonwealth, in things necessary for the preservation of its being and safety, and to repel unjust violence.
Nor will it suffice to say that, as the Law of nature, when it obliges us to defend ourselves for self-preservation, does not allow us to make use of every mean for that end, but only of lawful means, which cannot be said of conjunction and association in arms with men corrupt in religion or ungodly in their conversation: For we reason not from the Law of nature obliging to self-preservation and defense, simpliciter, but from the Law of nature’s obligation lying upon members of one and the same body, such as is the incorporation of one city, kingdom or commonwealth in relation to the preservation of the whole and of one another, when under the hazard of unjust violence and invasion. And so the argument speaks not only for the lawfulness of the end or the defense and preservation of the political body, but for the lawfulness also of the means, or the concurrence of all the members for that effect, which does strongly infer our conclusion.
§21. Thirdly, as this is the verdict of the Law of nature, so we cannot see anything in the Scriptures contrary to this; and no wonder, seeing God’s Laws (such as the Law of nature also is) cannot be contradictory one to another. Yea, we will find in the Word clear warrant for this assertion. But not intending a treatise, we shall only touch a few generals which may clear it.
§22. And to begin with the Old Testament, albeit, it need not be thought strange that we bring no testimonies so directly speaking of conjunction and association in arms betwixt the professors of the true religion and others of a differing religion as members of the same civil incorporation, considering that the Church of God being restricted to that one people of Israel, their Church and commonwealth were materially the same by divine institution, so that none could be members of the commonwealth but such as were also members of the Church, and so professors of the true religion, as now under the Gospel it may be otherwise;
Yet even then we will find this truth, that albeit oft-times many of that Church did make defection to wicked and (to speak so) malignant courses, yet were they never refused or rejected from Church or camp-fellowship when they professedly returned from their evil courses, although there was no real evidence of true repentance and godliness appearing in them. How often in the time of Moses did they turn aside? and albeit he knew well the generality of them continued graceless, notwithstanding their professions of returning, Deut. 29:2-4, yet were they never excluded from joining with the rest in their military undertakings.
So also in the days of David, when ten tribes had for seven years shed much blood in cleaving to the house of Saul and opposing his kingdom (which was an opposing of the kingdom of the Messiah in the type, and a fighting against the cause of God) and afterward, when they joined in the unnatural rebellion with Absolom, yet, upon relinquishing their former course they were readmitted into fellowship of council and arms with the rest who had adhered to the cause of God. Many such instances might be produced from the history of the Judges and by succeeding kings of Judah which might abundantly clear this truth, which we pass as studying brevity.
§23. The New Testament does speak more clearly to this point, but we shall content ourselves to touch a few things only:
1. It is evident these soldiers who came to John Baptist were professors, either proselytes, or (as some think) native Jews under the Roman pay; And as orthodox divines do from John’s preaching to them, and not enjoining them to quit their military employment, strongly argue against Anabaptists for the lawfulness of war to Christians; so it will as strongly conclude the lawfulness of Christians’ conjunctions in arms with men of another religion, yea, even heathens, such as many of the Romish soldiers were. The like also may be concluded from the instance of Cornelius and Peter’s preaching to him.
2. It is an undoubted truth that now under the Gospel it is lawful for godly, sound and orthodox Christians to be of, and abide in one civil incorporation with wicked idolaters, heathens and pagans; We say not that it is lawful for honest Christians to associate and embody themselves voluntarily, and of new, with such people, being before free and distinct from them; But that it is lawful to abide in such an incorporation, we believe no orthodox Christian (though Anabaptists and Fifth Monarchy men may) will deny: as being agreeable to the tenor of the epistles of the apostles concerning marriage-fellowship to be kept betwixt a Christian and an infidel, if they be not forced from it by violence, though it were not lawful for a Christian being free, to enter into that fellowship; and Christians’ continuance in servitude to heathens, unless they be made free.
Now if it be lawful to abide in one civil incorporation with such, it is also not only lawful for them, but their duty which they may not neglect when need requires, to join and concur with their co-members in such actings as are for their kind lawful, which essentially belong to the relation, and are necessary for the preservation of the incorporation, and the just, common interests thereof, such as conjunction in arms to repel invasion is.
3. As Christ never came to a people with his Gospel to make that unlawful which was lawful before to them by the Law of nature (as this conjunction in arms in the case already mentioned must be acknowledged to be before a people embrace the Gospel), so we doubt not but understanding Christians will find that the Scriptures speaking to Christians living under heathenish powers and commanding them to perform to them all things lawful and competent to the relations wherein they stood to them, does positively warrant them to join with their fellow-citizens in this case.
And particularly, that passage, Rom. 13:5-8, does clearly evince this, where the apostle commands Christians to be subject to heathenish magistrates, not only for wrath, but conscience sake, and to pay tribute to them (whereby they maintained their wars) and that is a voluntary and active way, upon the account that they are the [civil] ministers of God, attending upon that very thing, even to protect subjects and commonwealths.
§24. Fourthly, the other branch of our brethren’s assertion, concerning godly men’s not joining with an army so constituted, it so gross that all who condemn withdrawing from exercises of divine worship agreeable in the matter of divine institution as a sinful separation, will abhor it: seeing by their denial of the lawfulness of concurrence in a lawful necessary duty, because of the personal sin to fellow actors in it, they homologate with the tenet and practice of Separatism; yea, we believe that they who are most strict in the matter of ecclesiastic communion will deny that such strictness is requisite in military conjunction; especially in the case of invasion.
And we are the more confirmed in this judgement that some of the great sticklers in our debates have separated from the communion of this Church, and that (as they professed) upon the very principles whereby they were led with the rest of our dissenting brethren. Yea, one of our brethren, now at his rest in the Lord, being desired by them to handle the controversy against the Separatists, after he had studied it accurately for a time, did profess ingenuously before his removal (as is known to some of us and others who were ear-witnesses), that he found it impossible to maintain the truth against Separatists [while] retaining their principles upon which they had gone against the Commission of the Church.
§25. We are not ignorant that not only against this assertion as we have propounded it, but even against the Resolution, which was more strict, a great noise is made of objections from places of Scripture gathered together in heaps. And as to us, this Resolution is charged upon us as a defection from our former principles and a violation of our Covenant and engagements. As to this last challenge we shall add nothing to what is said in the observations upon our differences, pp. 34-36. Neither shall we enter upon a particular examination of these Scriptures.
Only this in the general: most part of them are out of the Old Testament, spoken to the people of the Jews then by divine institution, as in their religion, so in their state, separated from all other people of the world; and relate to entering into voluntary and elective confederacies and associations with other kingdoms or nations: Yea, and some of them for active assistance unto the nations with whom the confederacy was made; and so do not at all touch our case of joint acting in arms for just and necessary defense of subjects of one nation, habitually and antecedently incorporated and now in common hazard.
And for these alleged from the New Testament, they are such as are alleged by Separatists for separation from churches for the sin of fellow-members (as that 2 Cor. 6:14-15, etc.), which yet we believe judicious Separatists themselves will judge to be impertinently applied to a separation in the case now in hand.
As for that passage, Dt. 23:9 [“When the host goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing.”], which was continually in their mouths in this debate, it would be considered that it was spoken in the first instance to people so separate from all nations, as has been said: And insofar as it may contain a moral rule for all ages, it does not hold out any rule for regulating the constitution of an army, but only the conversation and carriage of a people in an army going forth against an enemy, that they should then especially keep themselves from sin and provoking God when they are carrying their life in their hand, as the Scripture speaks. This appears from vv. 10-11,¹ where purity is required not only from gross open and formally voluntary sin, but also from secret sins and the involuntary issues of natural corruption; which we believe fall not under the trial of men, nor can be followed or looked unto in constituting of armies.
¹ “If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of uncleanness that chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp: But it shall be, when evening cometh on, he shall wash himself with water: and when the sun is down, he shall come into the camp again.”
§26. We shall add no more concerning this Resolution, but this one word; However our brethren charge this upon us as a defection from our former principles; yet we profess, we never knew any such principle owned in our Church, so encroaching upon the power of civil magistrates, and so dangerous to all Christian nations; And we do for ourselves disown and disclaim it before the world; humbly obtesting all civil powers and Churches abroad, that they entertain no such thoughts that ever such a principle or doctrine was or is owned by this Church, whatever has been the judgement or practice of some particular men as to this matter.”
.
Article
1600’s
Dickson, David – ‘No Separation of the weill affected from the Army of the Covenanters’ (1651) This is in manuscript.
Holfelder: “Throughout the remainder of February [1651], the controversy intensified as the factions engaged in an intense polemical dispute. This contest began when a manuscript copy of a paper which the moderate minister David Dickson had written to clear the doubts of a wavering minister about the lawfulness of the Resolution, came into the hands of
the Remonstrants.
James Guthrie answered Dickson’s paper in a series of four letters. In these, he reiterated and expanded upon the arguments which he had set forth in the “Stirling Remonstrance”, maintaining that the Resolution was contrary to the Word of God, the Covenants and the kirk’s former declarations and principles. In an attempt to clear the regime from these “foule aspersiounes”, Dickson then responded at length with a paper entitled No Separation of the weill affected from the Army of the Covenanters. In this, he took particular exception to Guthrie’s accusation that the Resolution was contrary to the Word of God. He countered this charge by arguing that it was the Remonstrants, and not the moderates, who were guilty of wresting the Scriptures to make them fit their agenda.
To prove this contention, he engaged in a detailed analysis of the way in which Guthrie used Deuteronomy xxiii 9-14 to condemn the Resolution and levy. He maintained that this passage did not contain any specific rules for the consitution of the Israelite army, but merely enjoined the people going forth against an enemy to keep themselves from sin and provoking the Lord. Dickson then gave an exegesis of another Pentateuchal passage, the flight of the children of Israel from Egypt, in order to prove that the promiscuous readmission of Engagers and malignants was not contrary to Scripture. He maintained that Moses called the Israelites out of Egypt “upon the solemne profession of repentance and purpose to serve the Lord only”. After complying, the Israelites constituted “a reformed visible kirk and wer admitted to the Comunion of the passover”. This was accomplished, even with “the most part of them being still unregenerate.” These same people were then “drawn up into ane army, and the ungodly did march among the rest.”
The present case of the Scottish nation was much the same; men had been called upon to serve their nation and had bound themselves with solemn vows to maintain the Covenants. They were, as the children of Israel, a “mixed multitude”. Yet, this was by no means an evil thing. Indeed, all the reformed Protestant churches acknowledged that the “visible kirk” included those who were unregenerate. How then could the Remonstrants “without sinne, keep kirk fellowship and comunion fellowship with these persons” when they could not “without sinne, have camp fellowship?” Moreover, unregenerate people were not to be excommunicated until they were discovered to be unrepentant. In the same manner, the new army recruits “who had been received according to the rules of preceding Assemblies”, were to be looked on as penitents “until they evidenced the contrary
either by word or deed.”
Guthrie quickly responded to Dickson’s No Separation with a detailed paper entitled Some Animadversions upon a paper Intituled No Separation from the Anny. In this paper he engaged in a point by point analysis of Dickson’s argument. He declared that Dickson’s use of Israel’s flight out of Egypt as a justification for admitting malignants into the army was completetly spurious. This was a unique situation and not “a paterne for constituting all armyes.” Indeed, there was “a hudge difference betwene their camp or army and all other modelled armyes” found in Scripture. The syllogism Dickson used to equate the composition of the army with that of the kirk was also dismissed as erroneous. In drawing such parallels he was guilty of confusing the criteria for church membership with that of army membership.
With the emission of Guthrie’s Animadversions the controversy deepened even further. Other ministers and ruling elders soon joined the fray.” – pp. 95-97
.
Latin Articles
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Select Theological Disputations, vol. 4 (Utrecht, 1667), 50. ‘A Syllabus of Questions on the Decalogue’, ‘On the 6th Commandment’
On war in general 804
Of the opposites of war, namely tumult, sedition, rebellion, robbery, piracy, peace and judgments 806
Of the Belgic War 806
On acquisition through the right of a treasury, also through right of war and victory 813
.
.
.
Related Page