Abstract

The theory of just war, elaborated by theologians and jurists as early as the early Middle Ages, rested on three interdependent elements: causa iusta, legitimate authority, and the pursuit of peace as the war’s ultimate end. This conceptual triad made it possible to construe war — even between Christians — as a permissible instrument for the restoration of social order and violated legality. Yet, notwithstanding the formal parity of these necessary conditions, the legitimacy of authority remained decisive. Whatever the justice of a cause or the nobility of an end, Christian doctrine categorically forbade private bloodshed as a means of settling disputes. Among medieval theologians who addressed war within Christendom, the English church reformer John Wycliffe occupies a distinctive place. In his critique of warfare, he drew a sharp line between Old Testament and New Testament traditions, grounding his argument against war exclusively in New Testament texts. Exposing the sinful character of wars justified as the defense of laws, Wycliffe described vengeance for an injury as an expression of malice, and the recovery of seized property as avarice. Beyond theoretical reflections on wars in the abstract, he also turned to concrete historical circumstances, for example, the conflict waged by English kings for the French crown. Wycliffe insisted that a good ruler ought to care solely for his own subjects rather than seek the conquest of others’ lands. Wycliffe’s radical repudiation of violence and bloodshed is directly connected to the central theme of his philosophical doctrine, namely his understanding of the nature of power. While affirming the divine origin of all earthly authority, he made its legitimacy contingent upon divine grace, which the ruler could preserve only through uncompromising obedience to God. This entailed observance of evangelical commandments: love of enemies and forgiveness of the wrongs they inflict. From this theological premise Wycliffe derived a consequential political conclusion: for a lawful ruler, the declaration of war signified the loss of divine grace and, hence, of legitimacy itself. In such a case, subjects were released from any obligation to obey royal commands that involved violence.