Medieval theologians used scriptural exegesis to justify killing heretics and sinners

Evidence

Among arguments rejected by Holcot are that God desires not the death of the sinner but his conversion; that God is as merciful now as in the Passion when He prayed for the Jews and bade Peter put up his sword; that Aristotle warned Alexander to shed no blood because when creature kills creature the heavenly powers are moved to vengeance; again, vengeance is mine, saith the Lord; pagans ignorant of Christian law deserve better than bad Christians; pagans cannot believe till God takes away the veil from their hearts. Against these points he argues that the death that God does not desire is that of the soul, not that of the body; Christ rebuked Peter because he chose the wrong time to draw the sword; what Aristotle reproved was taking pleasure in cruelty, and the Christian must not delight when he sheds blood; the Lord may take His vengeance through His servants; we daily see bad Christians, thieves, traitors, heretics and many others killed by proper authority; God will remove the veil from the heart of whoever desires it. Thus the right to kill remains intact. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 2510

Categorization

• QUESTION: Holcot’s casuistry on killing invites comparison with what other medieval scholastics said about just war and execution — worth tracing the pattern of argumentative moves.
• XREF: connects to: Medieval Christian theology could glorify enemy deaths as service to Christ; Medieval theologians reframed Scripture to justify killing infidels in war