|
Whether Tyrannicide is lawful or unlawful was a question on which
different views were held by theologians. The murder of the Duke of
Orleans by orders of the Duke of Burgundy (1407) helped to stir
up the controversy. Amongst the dependants of the Duke of Burgundy
was a priest, John Parvus (Petit or Le Petit), who accompanied
the Duke to Paris, and in a public assembly defended the Duke of
Burgundy on the ground that it was lawful to murder a tyrant
(1408). Nine propositions selected from this speech were
condemned by the Bishop of Paris, by the Inquisition, and by the
university (1414). The Duke of Burgundy appealed to Pope
John XXIII, while the representatives of France at the
Council of Constance were instructed to seek the opinion of the
assembly. The discussion of the subject was complicated by political
issues. As the Council of Constance was anxious to avoid all
quarrels with the King of France, the Duke of Burgundy, or the
Emperor, it contented itself with issuing a very general condemnation
of Tyrannicide. Before the council closed, however, the question
was raised once more in connexion with a book published by the
Dominican, John of Falkenberg, who was a strong partisan of the
Teutonic Knights in their struggle against the King of Poland, and
who maintained that it was lawful to kill the King of Poland. He
undertook the defence of Petit's work, and wrote strongly against the
representatives of the University of Paris. The Poles demanded his
condemnation, but though he was arrested and detained in prison his
book was not condemned by the council. A Dominican chapter held in
1417 repudiated Falkenberg's teaching.
For a long time the subject was not discussed by Catholic theologians
though Tyrannicide was defended by the leading Reformers, including
Luther and Melanchthon, but during the religious wars in France and
in Scotland it was advocated in theory by some of the French
Calvinists such as Languet and Boucher as well as by the Scotch
leader, John Knox, and put into practice by their followers against
the Duke of Guise and Cardinal Beaton.[168] The Jesuits in
France were accused of sympathising with this doctrine during the reign
of Henry IV, but there was not sufficient evidence to support such
a charge. Some of their theologians may have defended the legality of
rebellion in certain circumstances, but this was a doctrine in no way
peculiar to the Jesuits. The only serious argument brought forward by
the opponents of the Jesuits was drawn from a work published by a
Spanish Jesuit, Mariana (1536-1624). It was written for
the instruction of some of the princes of Spain, and was dedicated to
Philip III. In many respects it was an exceedingly praiseworthy
work, but the author's reference to the murder of Henry III of
France and his defence of Tyrannicide, hedged round though it was by
many restrictions and reservations, gave great offence in France, and
provided the enemies of the Society with a splendid weapon for a
general attack upon the entire body. As a matter of fact Mariana's
book did not represent the views of the Jesuits. In 1610 the
general, Aquaviva, forbade any of his subjects to defend the teaching
on Tyrannicide it contained.
|
|