Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

51 A fraternal warning to all Christian brethren, who have been ordained by God to elect the authorities and magistrates in the towns of the united provinces, in which the Holy Gospel is preached and the reformed religion is exercised, 6 August 1581 ¹

The fraternal warning was published by dedicated adherents of the reformed religion shortly after the abjuration of Philip II. The author discourses in a seemingly democratic spirit upon the way local government committees are to be chosen.

Each man called to take part in the urban elections must remember God's words. Then he will not restrict his choice to nobles or notables, to people exercising a particular craft or trade, to burghers of the town or men born in the country. He will make his choice out of the whole population, out of

1 Broederlijcke waerschouwinghe aen allen Christen broeders, die van Godt veroordent sijn tot de verkiesinghe der overicheyt ende magistraten in de steden der gheunieerde provincien, daer het heylich Evangelium vercondicht ende die ghereformeerde religie gheexerceert wort (Knuttel, no. 577).

[p. 232]

all God-fearing men, who observe God's law and shun Mammon's commandments, who trust in Christ alone in true faith, ardent love and firm hope and despise the Antichrist, who are adherents of the reformed religion and hostile to the popish heresy, who cherish virtue, abhor vice, are gentle and not resentful nor envious, but peaceful and meek, not bumptious nor ambitious, but friendly and merciful, not hard nor cruel, but steady, not wavering nor double-hearted, but truth-loving and liehating, not miserly nor avaricious, but who are faithful, not false swearers nor grasping, not frequenters of laden tables, but who seek the prosperity of the town and its inhabitants more than their own profit, in short people who are not tainted by any evil passion.

Undoubtedly some will object to this statement and say that we started this war to maintain the privileges and that I would be wrong if I wished to neglect or abolish these. I agree that we do indeed wage our just war for the sake of the privileges. However I make a clear distinction between privileges and abuses. I call it a privilege to be toll-free, exempt from taxes, benevolences, excises and similar matters. I call a privilege the right which exists in some countries according to which all fiefs are inherited by the oldest child, or that of other countries where they all go to the youngest. It is a privilege that makes it illegal to torture a burgher without the court's permission, for this does not apply to foreigners; it is a privilege when - as is the case in some towns - the house of the burgher is so free that no officer is allowed inside that house to seize anyone unless that person has not paid his debts; it is privileges that guarantee payment of certain kinds of debts before others; and there are many more exemptions of this nature. I also call privilege the rule that the duke of Brabant may not raise new taxes without the consent of the States of the province and that the States may choose another lord should the duke not treat them in accordance with the regulations laid down in the Joyeuse Entrée; and it would be possible to enumerate many other instances of this kind of privilege but that would take us too long.² On the other hand I call abuses those usages which have been allowed to creep in over a long period of years owing to the cunning of ambitious, greedy people, avid of high rank and driven on by insatiable thirst for power.

In my view - and I claim that my opinion on this matter is correct - one of these abuses is the old-established practice of restricting eligibility for the magistracy to a number of private persons, or to the old families of the city, or to some guilds, and to exclude foreigners. Rules like these cause

2 See Documents 47 and 50.

[p. 233]

disputes, sedition, discord and quarrels between the citizens and between towns and provinces; they are far from forwarding and sustaining unity among the burghers. It is not only permissible to abolish such trivial regulations, it is just and necessary to do so.

But so as not to leave the impression that I am speaking without reason and foundation I ask those people who are so deeply attached to these so-called privileges that they think it verging on sacrilege to criticise or attack them, whether it is profitable for the country and the common cause to maintain privileges which restrict eligibility to some private persons and thus to accept that all the others are discontented, without any firm opinion or openly hostile. Would it not be better to abolish these abuses (at any rate during the turbulent times we are living through), to declare all inhabitants without exception eligible and then to elect God-fearing men of the calibre I have already described? Any man in his senses will, I think, readily admit that need knows no law and that, if it is required by the circumstances, one should make a virtue of necessity. It is therefore better for the country and our common cause to make the choice of candidates for elections free than to restrict it. If one does restrict the choice the situation may arise when one is compelled to elect and admit to the magistracy persons who are bitterly opposed to the policies of the town and States; in many guilds only three or four persons are eligible for office, all of them hostile to our cause. If they change their attitude in view of the elections they do so only to acquire and keep their seats in the States.

It is often said that there are as many loyal papists as members of the reformed church but, with respect, I say that is not true. No one is so foolish as to take his own life in order to help some one else, particularly if the other person is his enemy. Is it conceivable that an adherent of the Holy See would help sharpen the sword with which to kill the pope, the life of his soul? It may be that the papists trim their sails to the wind, but that is mere hypocrisy and dissimulation for how (humanly speaking) can anyone favour those who seek to injure that which alone can ease his sorrowful conscience? I cannot be hot and cold at the same time; and so a man cannot be both a good patriot and a papist.

It is also often said, that the people in question have already been magistrates for a long time; they have been through the mill and know all the secrets. Yet it does not follow that for that reason they should be elected. Where would we be if (as may happen and has happened) God were to let all of them die all at once? In that case a virtue should be made of necessity (as I have said afore) and newcomers be appointed; and

[p. 234]

really no persons will be employed who cannot tell good from bad or just from unjust, and are unable after some study to understand the old books, registers, charters and forms.

To conclude briefly, it is unreasonable in turbulent times to stand so much on privileges, old traditions and persons. Even if all the arguments I have advanced are false (which they are not) one should realise that in the times of the pope the magistracy was composed of people known to be the most fanatical zealots for the religion of the Antichrist. Therefore, now that another reigns, to wit Christ, let us ensure that only ardent adherents of the reformed religion, faithful to their church unto death, are appointed to the magistracy. Then all magistrates and authorities will work together in perfect harmony; God's glory will be spread; the Gospel will be preached and the country will be safe from riots, seditions and hostile attacks. These are the most important things to be striven for in all states and under all forms of government, for they are the sinews which bind the citizens together in unity.