historical and political thought in the seventeenth - RePub - Erasmus ...

Chapter 8. The science of politics. The Institutiones politicae
The fear of dissent also brings Boxhorn to judge as dangerous the introduction
of new religions or ‘innovations’ in religions that are already established.
Since the two spheres, religion and politics, are so closely intertwined,
the smallest changes in matters of religion can lead to the greatest
political upheavals. As example Boxhorn refers to the calamities that had
recently plagued the British Isles; there the attempts of the archbishop of
Canterbury William Laud (1573-1645) to introduce changes in religion in
Scotland had almost resulted in a war between the English and the Scots.
The final result was the execution of king Charles I and a ‘change of the
commonwealth’. 144
How, then, are we to deal with new, upcoming religions or religious diversity?
Boxhorn’s stand is ambivalent. On the one hand, he advocates the
oppression of new religions if that is a feasible option. 145 On the other, ‘nothing
is more contrary to religion and the public peace, than to use force, and to
strike those people with the severity of death penalties, who do not share our
own religion’. Man’s conscience falls directly under the command of God and
thus outside the jurisdiction of the magistrate. However, if the public peace is
disturbed ‘under the pretext and practice of a new and diverse religion’, the
magistrate is allowed to impose a penalty, although, if he is wise, he will not
do so in the name of religion. 146
All in all, Boxhorn’s treatment of religion reveals an instrumental and utilitarian
approach to the subject. The fact that Boxhorn finds it acceptable that a
law. Anti-trinitarians, such as Socinians, were excluded from this arrangement. Karin Friedrich, “Poland-
Lithuania”, in Lloyd, Burgess and Hodson (eds.), European Political Thought, pp. 208-10, 223-24, 229-42.
144 Ibidem, I.7, p. 90. ‘Ultimo §. diximus etiam nihil temerè in sacris esse mutandum, quia quicquid
novum cum mutatione veterum & saepè Reip. conjunctum est, quae interdum ex minimis oritur, ut
testatur experientia. Recens hujus exemplum habemus in Anglia. Dum enim Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis
quaedam in Religione mutare voluit, Scoti & Angli tantum non commissi sunt inter se. (Imò
tempora procedentia ostenderunt, inde & Episcopo mortem illatam, & pòst occiso rege Remp. esse
mutatam).’ The sentence in brackets is probably added by Franckenstein/Hanwaker. Here, however,
Franckenstein/Hanwaker closely follows the explanation given by Boxhorn in the Historia universalis, a
book that, as we have seen (see footnote 12 above), at least Franckenstein knew and had read. ‘Inter haec
Angliae, Scotiae, Hiberniaeque Rex Carolus I, regnorumque Proceres, subditique, in contraria scissi
studia, maximi terroris motibus bellisque domi inter se committuntur. Ex quibus, capto tandem rege, &
securi ab Anglis publice percusso, regiâque omni sobole regio nomine ac jure exutâ, magna conversio
rerum ac mutatio facta est.’ Boxhorn, Historia universalis, pp. 99-107, with quote on p. 107. See also idem,
Metamorphosis Anglorum, pp. 300-4.
145 Ibidem, I.7.19, p. 83. ‘Adeò ut cautè agendum sit, initiis, si fieri possit, oppressis, si tamen vires
acceperint, abstinendum.’
146 Ibidem, I.7.20, p. 84. ‘Et nihil magis Religioni & paci publicae est adversum, quàm vim usurpare,
& acerbitate suppliciorum in eos grassari, qui non ejusdem nobiscum sunt religionis. Nam in negotio
religionis divino juri, & privatae unius cujusque conscientiae, in quam solus sibi Deus imperium servavit,
cedere oportet jus dominationis. Ubi tamen, praetextu ac usu novae, diversaeque religionis, pax
publica turbatur, poenam necesse est imponere. Sed prudenter imponetur, si titulus non tam novae &
diversae Religionis, quàm turbatae Reipublicae imponatur, sic enim in conscientias hominum Magistratus
grassari non videbuntur.’
275