For, first, Amalek wished to ward off from his borders the approaching multitude of unknown men. What sin [is there] in this matter? Is it not right to defend one’s fatherland? [Is it] safe not to prohibit from the entrance of the realm so many myriads of strangers, the simultaneous incoming of so many foreign armies — [and] to receive [them] into [one’s] very bowels? 2. If [there] was any sin on the Amalekites’ part, was not punishment enough given by [i.e. exacted from] the same? For they were conquered, afflicted with the greatest slaughter, stripped of their camp and all their goods. And if this was not enough, ought there nevertheless to have been, afterward, so exterminating a war against them? Why was [there] cruelty against women? Why against little ones and sucklings?
What did the oxen deserve — a beast without fraud or guile? [Ovid, Metamorphoses 15.120]
What [of] the sheep, and the other cattle, and even the inanimate [things] themselves? Why was it not permitted even to seize those as booty, and to preserve the cities and houses in their fabric and roofs? Truly [it] seems so great a savagery — and against the custom of all wars, and even against those laws which God himself fixed concerning wars (Deuteronomy 20), where the slaughter of the men is indeed granted, but that of little ones, women, and beasts is forbidden. 3. Let these Amalekites, moreover, be compared with the other nations too which harassed the Israelites with various assaults and wars. The Moabites, Ammonites, [and] Edomites were not utterly rooted out; they were not assailed with such deadly arms — and yet, among their injuries against the Israelites, by what [reason] does this one incursion of the Amalekites outweigh [them all]? The explanation of these arguments can extend widely. For [it] would have to be dealt with, by right, concerning every one of the wars which were waged [in order] that the Hebrews might occupy the promised land. Now [I say] only [this], without the proofs which are to be brought elsewhere: I say first, [that] God is the supreme and true Lord of lands, possessions, and all other goods; and that he can, without injury to anyone, by the best right, give those [things] and take [them] away from whomever he will — even were there no fault of anyone [involved].
(col. 95)
Secondly. When any of those whom he has made possessors of lands or of other goods sin against him — namely by violating his laws, or the laws of nature — they are then most worthy [that] he take all [things] away from them; and [this] the more, the more numerous or the greater their sins are.
Thirdly. If it could be established to men [that] God wills [that] those very goods which they now possess should pass to some other [person], they ought not to resist. For the lawful cause of wars is the defense of justice [and] the repelling of injury. But if it were clear about that divine will, [then] he would suffer no injury who must leave [his] former seats or wealth; nay rather, he would do injury to him who had been constituted and declared by God the true Lord of those [things], if he should try to retain by force and arms what is no longer his own, but is [now] the other’s.
Fourthly. This will of God can be known either by his own declaring [it] — as was done through Jeremiah — or from certain signs, or, lastly, from the event itself. And this last [is] too late (unless perhaps for consolation); the first [is] rarest; but the middle [is] hardest. For even if many and grave sins cleave to some people, it can nevertheless be doubted whether God wills to punish them in this age or in the [age] to come. And if in this [age], whether at this very time; and whether through these [particular] enemies; and whether in that manner [in] which I resist, or immediately hold out the [blade of] grass, as they say [in surrender]. And if I resist, whether by that terror he wills only to move me to penance and to the invocation of himself — [meaning] nevertheless to help me and protect me — or [whether] rather [that] I fall, and be punished with the loss of goods and life.
Fifthly. Yet [there] are sometimes certain signs and arguments which, if men be willing to note and observe [them], they may understand — not rashly — what God wills to do.
Sixthly. Of this kind I would reckon these to be some signs: if [those] who are held [as] enemies do not [aim] to snatch away the true religion from others, [and] do not wish to oppress the true worship of God among some people. If God clearly seems to stand with them, following them with a certain singular zeal and favor, even working miracles for them. If [they] are otherwise good men, and fearing God — especially as to their princes and heads. If they act by the lawful manner of human right — for example, if [the things] which they say are owed them they seek modestly at first, and peaceably; if they truly desire peace more than war; if, finally, they seem to handle all [things] in good faith. So far, indeed, as these [things] can be known and discerned by this human prudence and judgment. These [things] being thus noted, I answer, to
the First. [That] the Amalekites knew well enough — partly from the signs already set down, partly from certain messengers sent ahead, as [it] seems — [that] the people of the Israelites was led out of Egypt by God, [and] guarded by his singular protection; [that they] were not enemies to the Amalekites themselves, [but] wished only to proceed further; and [that they] were contriving nothing of guile and fraud, [were] abstaining from all thefts and robberies, [and], finally, [were] willing to inflict no harm at all, and were promising [this] with holy oaths. And therefore [it] is said, in that [passage of] Deuteronomy 25, [that] “Amalek feared not the Lord.” But unless he had known [God’s] will, [that he] was free from fear of him cannot be said. Although, therefore, [it] might otherwise be lawful to hold such an incoming multitude of strangers [as] suspect, not to trust it, [and] to hinder it from the entry of [one’s] borders — [yet] to these [Israelites], for the said causes, it was not…
(col. 96)
…lawful. And so [there was] here that Plautine [saying]:
He who takes care not to be deceived scarcely takes care even while he takes care. [Plautus, Menaechmi] Even when he thinks he has taken care, often the wary one himself is caught.
To the Second [objection]. Who could establish [anything] about the amount of penalties better and more justly than God? And indeed there is — as I think — no sin which could not be avenged by the pains of this world, even very great and bitter [ones], if God, mercy being set aside, willed to exercise justice alone. But because [it] is his goodness, he does not act by that supreme right. And therefore [it is] to be understood [that], besides this one [sin] which appears, [there] were in the Amalekites many other and greater [sins] which God willed to avenge — but by the occasion of this [one]. For just as the Lord did not take away the Canaanites only because they resisted the Israelites [as they were] coming into the promised land, but much more on account of many other and graver crimes with which they were contaminated and bound (as [is] handed down [in] Genesis 15, v. 16) — so also the Amalekites, among whom there still clung that grudge of which [I spoke] above, question 4. Therefore [it] was fitting to unfix the common laws in [dealing with] singular outrages — or rather to fix somewhat sterner [ones].
To the Third. Although in that one sin of the Amalekites there may not appear so great a gravity that it behooved them to pay penalties as heavy [as those] of the aforementioned nations, three [things] nevertheless seem [true] to me. 1. That sometimes equal sins can most justly be punished with unequal penalties, and lesser [sins] with greater [ones]. For some necessity or public utility can demand this — as we see in nearly every commonwealth. A slight theft is checked with a greater penalty than a grave perjury; and a light sleep — and perhaps [one] compelled — on military watch [is punished more] than some theft, drunkenness, or wantonness of the same soldier. And sometimes prudence commands [that] a sin of its own nature be chastised more severely in a certain place, among certain men, [and] at a certain time, than elsewhere and among others and at other times. 2. [That] who could more wisely, more carefully, more equitably discern such circumstances, and weigh [them] by all their moments, than that supreme Judge? 3. In the other sins of the Amalekites, of which I was speaking [in reply] to the second [objection], [that there] were moments [warranting] a graver penalty of this kind, I scarcely doubt; but also in this very sin with which we are dealing, some [aggravations] can be noted by us. For, first, how great [a thing] is it that they, first of all [nations], willed to provoke the Israelites to war and to harass them — [a people] peaceable, harmless, going their way most modestly, most humbly begging passage, [and] swearing most religiously [to] abstinence from others’ [goods] and the highest innocence? [And] that [they attacked] those whom they knew to have been freed by God, by so many and so wondrous portents, from the Egyptian tyranny; whom they saw still marvelously led by the same [God] through those wildernesses; whom they understood to be [an object] of his highest care, by the arguments of the most clear cloud set over [them], and of the manna daily gliding down from heaven? For therefore, as I said, [it] is so pointedly noted [in] Deuteronomy 25, “Amalek feared not the Lord.” One might also not without reason suspect [that] the Amalekites made a show of peace and friendship to the Israelites, when they sent to them certain men, who [were] to treat about the passage — and yet afterward, unexpectedly, from ambush, from behind, all promise and faith set aside, [fell] upon the hindmost of the column, the weary and the weak: men, women, little ones,…
(col. 97)
…little ones — [that they] rushed [upon them]. For these and similar [things] those words of the Lord — so grave, taken at the beginning of the question from Deuteronomy and from 1 Kings [Samuel] — seem to insinuate. On these matters too Abulensis may be read (1 Kings [Samuel] 15, questions 2, 3, 6, 7, 8).