Texts concerning the Revolt of the Netherlands

62 Discourse of a nobleman, a patriot partial to public peace, upon peace and war in these Low Countries, 1584 ¹

This discourse dates from about the same time as Document 61. P.A. Tiele² may well be right in ascribing it to Marnix of St Aldegonde who at the time was burgomaster of Antwerp which was beleaguered by Parma's troops.

We know that the only reason why this war was started was to ensure that

1 Discours d'un gentil-homme amateur de la patrie et du repos publicq, sur le fait de la paix et de la guerre en ces pays-bas (Knuttel, no. 705).

2 P.A. Tiele, Bibliotheek van Nederlandsche pamfletten, 1, p. 36.

[p. 265]

the liberties of the country would be respected so that no one might in violation of law and justice be oppressed on the pretext of religion. Undoubtedly to invoke the pretext of religion is the right way to go about abolishing all a country's liberties, rights and privileges. The example of the kingdom of Naples, the Indies and Spain itself bears this out. And we know that in the Netherlands the introduction of the inquisition disturbed first liberty and then the entire state of the fatherland. For as long as he has one single enemy who would destroy him none of us or of our posterity can be confident of not becoming a victim of the false accusations which the inquisitors use. This is as clear as daylight, and does not need proof, for every one sees it and experience daily shows it.

I know that they promise freedom of conscience provided there is no public worship and no offence is given, but this is only to trap and ensnare us. For it is well known that conscience which resides in people's minds, is always free and cannot be examined by other men and still less be put under their control or command. And in fact, no one has ever been executed or harassed merely on grounds of conscience, but always for having committed some public act or demonstration, either in words, which are said to be an offence, or in acts which are described as exercise of religion. There is no difference between so-called freedom of conscience without public worship, and the old rigour of the edicts and the inquisition of Spain. Moreover, it is ridiculous for the Catholics to grant freedom of conscience when they so firmly prohibit public worship. For it is well- known that they differ from the Huguenots not so much with regard to ceremonies or public worship as in doctrine, and in matters pertaining to faith and conscience. There is no Catholic theologian who dares to or can in truth maintain that the ceremonies practised by those of the religion concerning baptism and the Lord's Supper, or that the invocation of God's name through the intercession of Jesus Christ only, without altars, without images, without invocation of the saints and without innumerable other things ordained either by the Church or by the popes in Rome, are not in accordance with the ceremonies which have existed from the beginning of the primitive Church established by Jesus Christ and observed by His apostles in all simplicity. They would not of course dare to condemn the apostles, for they maintain that their ordinances were given to the Roman Church at the time of the apostles through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But if this is so, it ought to be no more difficult for them to permit the public exercise of a religion which they confess to be in accordance with the ordinances of the apostles, than to give freedom of doctrine and inner faith which they maintain to be

[p. 266]

entirely erroneous and pernicious. How is it then possible to grant freedom of conscience without exercise of religion? For what are the consequences for people who wish to enjoy the benefit of this freedom? If they have no ceremonies at all and do not invoke God to testify to the piety and reverence they bear Him, they are in fact left without any religion and without fear of God. But if they do have ceremonies and want to show openly that they honour God, their religious services must be conformable to their conscience as this is allowed to be free.

If neither religion, nor divine worship nor the opportunity to invoke God and to respect Him, are permitted to them they will necessarily become extremely profane, atheistic and wicked.³ Instead of advancing or planting the Roman Catholic religion, the authorities will succeed only in abolishing it and in its place they will release a torrent of impiety.

If the authorities grant or prescribe to the Protestants a form of religious service which the conscience of these men makes them regard as impious (as undoubtedly is intended under the conditions of this fine peace⁴) this is not freedom, but compulsion and restraint of man's conscience. In that case conscience will not even be free to omit what it judges to be against God and His word.

For if any one should fail to hear mass on holy days, or receive Holy Communion at Easter or go to confession, or does not bow down to the sacrament of the altar or the chrism, or does not have his children baptised in the manner of the Roman Church, or is not married by a priest, the authorities will take this as an offence. In fact this so-called freedom of conscience forces people to act against conscience to avoid causing scandal. Wise men can decide whether this is liberty. And I have not even mentioned that one will not of course be allowed to state what one thinks; any one who says any word detrimental to the dignity of the ecclesiastical state or the Roman religion will be accused of acting scandalously or of desecrating human and divine majesty. But this is only the start. The authorities will go further and search books and cabinets and coffers, they will eavesdrop on private conversation, a father will not be allowed to teach his children how to call on God, nor will we be allowed to use our mother-tongue in our prayers. Soon, as I have said before, it will be thought necessary to restore the edicts and the inquisition in their full severity everywhere, to re-erect the scaffolds, gallows and wheels, to

3 For a similar argument see Document 2.

4 Similar peace-terms were imposed by Parma on towns captured at the same time in Flanders, with the object of maintaining the Roman Catholic religion exclusively.

[p. 267]

relight the fires, to prepare new graves, and to do all that the cruelty of the ecclesiastical order ever devised to maintain its domination.

I do not exaggerate or use rhetorical language. Indeed I think it is impossible to find words for the evil and calamities which the so-called freedom of conscience represents to every one endowed with some understanding, and who pictures to himself a powerful king, victorious, and extremely angry, wanting to maintain the Roman Catholic religion to the utmost of his power and to destroy the other completely, not only inclined himself to do so, but spurred on by the pope, who has absolute power to force him to it and to absolve him of all oaths and contractual obligations, however solemn they may be...