[9] CHAPTER II.

Whether War ever be just.

HAVING seen what are the fountains of Jus or of Law, let us come to the first and more general question, which is this: Whether any war be just; or, Whether it ever be lawful to make war.

I. 1 This question, and others which will follow, are first to be treated with reference to Natural Law. Cicero repeatedly speaks of certain First Principles, and certain other truths, the consequences of these, but of higher value than those. There is, according to him, a First Principle of Self-preservation. An animal, from its birth, is urged to care for and preserve itself, to choose the means of preserving its good condition, to shun destruction, and every thing which leads to its destruction. Thus there is no one who does not prefer to have the parts of his body sound and whole, rather than maimed and distorted. The first business of each is to preserve himself in the state of nature; the next, to retain what is according to nature, and to reject what is contrary to it.

2 After this Principle, there follows a notion of the Agreement of things with Reason, which is superior to the body; and this Agreement, in which what is reasonable (honestum) becomes our object, is seen to be of more importance than those things to which alone the first impulse of appetite tended. The first Principle [of self-preservation] commends us to Right Reason; but Right Reason ought to be dearer to us than those things by which we were first led to use it.

This is allowed by all who are of sound mind, without demonstration. Hence in examining what agrees with Natural Law, we must first see what agrees with that first principle of Self-preservation; and afterwards proceed to that which, though subsequent in origin, is of greater dignity; and must not only accept it, if it be offered, but seek it with all care.

3 This object, what is reasonable, (honestum,) has different ranges in different cases, according to the diversity of the matter. Sometimes it lies (as it were) in a point, so that if you depart from it by the 10smallest space, you fall into a fault: sometimes it has a wider field, so that the thing in question may be either done laudably, or omitted or done otherwise without pravity, according as we pass from the existence to the non-existence of certain conditions^*. Between black and white, we find intermediate and mixed degrees, which approach the one or the other. And it is in this latter class of cases that laws, both divine and human, are mainly occupied; aiming at this, that what of itself was only laudable, may become a duty. As we have said above, that when we examine concerning Natural Law, we inquire whether anything can be done not unjustly; and then that is understood to be unjust, which has a necessary repugnance with a rational and social nature.

4 In the first principle of nature [Self-preservation] there is nothing which is repugnant to war: indeed all things rather favour it: for the end of war, the preservation of life and limb, and the retention or acquisition of things useful to life, agrees entirely with that principle. And if force be requisite for this purpose, still there is in this nothing at variance with nature; for all animals are provided by nature with means for the very purpose of self-defence. So Xenophon, Ovid, Horace, Lucretius. Galen observes that man is an animal born for peace and war, not born with weapons, but with hands by which weapons can be acquired. And we see infants, without teaching, use their hands for weapons. So also Aristotle. [See the passages in the text.]

5 Again, Right Reason and the nature of Society, which are next to be considered, do not prohibit all force, but that only which is repugnant to Society; that is, that which is used to attack the Rights of others. For Society has for its object, that every one may have what is his own in safety, by the common help and agreement. Which consideration would still have place, even if property were not introduced: for even then, each one would have a property in his life, limbs, liberty; and these could not be attacked without wrong done to him. And also to use things which lay in common, and to take as much of them as nature should require, would be the right of the person who first took occupation of them; and he who should prevent the exercise of this Right, would do the occupier wrong. And this is much more easily understood now, when property has taken a shape by law or usage: as Cicero says. [See the passage in the text.]

6 Therefore it is not contrary to the nature of Society to take care of the future for one’s self, so that the Rights of others be not infringed: and thus, even force, which does not violate the Right of another, is not unjust. So Cicero, Ulpian, Ovid. [See the passages.]

II. 1 Our doctrine, that all war is not contrary to Natural Law, 11is further proved from the sacred history. Abraham made war upon the four kings who had plundered Sodom, and was thereupon blessed by Melchisedec. This he did without the special mandate of God, as appears by the history: he must therefore have been justified by the Law of Nature: for he was a most holy and wise man, as even heathen authors declare. I do not use the history of the seven people, whom God gave up to be rooted out by the Israelites: for the Jews had a special command for thus dealing with people guilty of enormous crimes; whence these wars are in Scripture called the wars of the Lord, as being undertaken by the command of God, and not by the will of man. An example more to the purpose is that in which the Jews, under Moses and Joshua, resisted the attack of the Amalekites: (Exod. xvii. 8), which God did not command beforehand, but approved when it was done.

2 But further, God prescribed to his people general and perpetual laws concerning the mode of carrying on war (Deut. xx. 10, 15): shewing plainly by this that a war may be just, without a special mandate: for the case of the nations of Canaan is here expressly distinguished from the case of other nations. And inasmuch as nothing is there said as to what are just causes of war, this shews that they are assumed to be known by the light of nature. Thus we have Jephthah’s war against the Ammonites concerning the occupation of land (Judges xi. 13): David’s war against the same people for the insult done to his ambassadors (2 Sam. x. 4): so the Apostle to the Hebrews (xi. 32) speaks of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah and David and Samuel and others, who through faith subdued kingdoms, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens: when, as the context shews, “faith” includes the belief that what is done is pleasing to God. [The quotation 1 Sam. xxv. 28 should have come in earlier.]

III. 1 What we say is proved by the consent of all nations, and especially of wise men. There are the noted passages in Cicero’s Oration for Milo, in which he appeals to the testimony of nature for the right of self-defence. To the same purpose Josephus the historian, Caius and Florentinus the jurists. [See the quotations.]

2 The equity of this is so manifest, that even in brute animals, among which, as we have said, there are no rights, but only a shadow of them, we still distinguish between force used in committing injury, and in repelling it. Thus Ulpian, after saying that an animal which is devoid of reason cannot commit wrong, still adds, that if rams or bulls fight, Q. Mutius had ruled that a distinction was to be made, and that if the one who had been the aggressor was killed, the action would not lie; but if the one who had given no provocation was killed, the action was good. [The misquotation from Pliny adds nothing to the argument.]

IV. 1 By Natural Law, then, [Jure naturali or Jure gentium] it is plain that all wars are not condemned.

12 2 That by the voluntary or instituted Law of nations [see Chap. i. § ix. 2) wars are not condemned, we have evidence enough in the histories, laws and customs of all nations. Indeed Hermogenianus has said that wars were introduced Jure gentium, by Natural Law: which we are to understand thus: that by the Jus gentium a certain form of war was introduced, so that wars which take this form, have, jure gentium, certain effects. And hence we have a distinction, of which we shall afterwards make use, into a war formal according to Jus gentium, which is also called a just or legitimate war, a complete war; and informal war, which may still be legitimate or just [in a more general sense,] that is, agreeable to justice. Informal wars, if there be a reasonable cause for them, are not supported by Jus gentium, but neither are they resisted by it, as will hereafter be shown. Livy end Florentinus say that Jus gentium directs us to repel force by force. [See the passages.]

V. 1 Concerning Instituted Divine Law [Chap. i. § xv. 1] there is more difficulty. Nor is the objection valid, that Natural Law is immutable, and therefore cannot be changed, even by God: for this is true as to what is commanded or forbidden by Natural Law, but not as to what is only permitted. Things of that kind are not properly under Natural Law, but extraneous to it, and may be forbidden or commanded [by Instituted Law].

2 The first passage usually brought from Scripture, to shew that wars are unlawful, is the law given to Noah (Gen. ix. 5, 6). What is there said, Your blood of your lives I will require, at the hand of man will I require it, some understood in the most genoral sense; and what is said afterwards, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, they regard as a threatening, not an approval. I cannot assent to either opinion. The interdict concerning the shedding of blood is not of wider extent than the command, Thou shalt not kill: and this, it is plain, does not prohibit either capital punishment or wars. And the one law, as well as the other, does not constitute any new offence, but only declares and repeats the Natural Law, obliterated by evil custom. Whence the words [sheddeth man’s blood] are to be understood as including criminality in the act: as the word homicide does not mean any killing of a man, but the intentional killing of an innocent man. What is added, his blood shall be shed in turn, appears to me to imply, not the mere fact, but the Law of justice.

3 My explanation of the matter is this. It is naturally equitable that whatever evil any one has inflicted, the same he shall suffer, according to what is called the Law of Rhadamanthus. So Seneca. Cain, with a sense of this natural equity said (Gen. iv. 14), Every one that findeth me shall slay me. In the earliest times, however, for various reasons, this was not enforced; the manslayer was indeed shunned by men, but not put to death: as Plato directs in his Laws: and as Euripides states the usage of Greece in his Orestes. So Thucydides; Lactantius.

13 4 The example of Cain was regarded as establishing a law, so that Lamech (Gen. iv. 24) promised himself impunity, from this example, after the like deed.

5 But since before the deluge, in the age of the giants, violence had become general, when after the deluge, God restored the race of man, he provided by increased severity against the recurrence of the evil: and repressing the lenity of the former time, he gave his permission to that which was naturally equitable, that he who slew a homicide should be blameless. Which afterwards, when tribunals for high crimes were instituted, was confined to the judges. Yet a vestige of the ancient usage remained in the Right of the avenger of blood, even under the Law of Moses, of which we shall hereafter speak.

6 We have a strong confirmation of this interpretation in Abraham, who, though he must have known the law given to Noah, took arms against the four kings. So Moses directed the Israelites to fight against the Amalekites, not specially consulting God on this point. Add to this, that capital punishments are applied not only to homicides, but to other criminals, not only among other nations, but in the chosen people of God. Gen. xxxviii. 24.

7 In fact men had proceeded from like to like, by the light of reason, in their conjecture of the divine will, and had judged that what was the appointed punishment of homicides was equitable also towards other great criminals. For there are things which are to man of no less value than life, as good fame, virginity, conjugal fidelity: and things without which life cannot be safe, as a reverence for the sovereign authority which holds society together: so that those who assail these objects are held as no better than homicides.

8 Connected with this is the tradition extant among the Jews, that there were given by God to the sons of Noah several laws; which are not all recorded by Moses, because it was enough for his purpose to give them afterwards as included in the particular law of the Hebrews. Thus it appears, Lev. xviii. 6, that there was an ancient law against marrying persons near of kin, though no such law is previously mentioned by Moses. And the Jews say that among the laws given to Noah, were precepts that not only homicide, but adultery, incest, and robbery should be punished with death. And this is confirmed by Job, xxxi. 11; This is an heinous crime: yet it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges.

9 Moreover the law given by Moses gives reasons for capital punishments, which are valid among other nations as well as the Jews: as Lev. xviii. 24, &c., Defile not yourselves, &c. Psal. ci. 5, Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off. Prov. xx. 8, A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his eyes. And especially concerning homicide, it is said, Num. xxxv. 33, that the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it.

Further, it is absurd to suppose that the Hebrew people were in14dulged with the privilege of protecting public and private interests by capital punishments, and defending themselves by war, and that other kings and nations at that time had no such privilege: and that, this being so, those kings and nations were yet never rebuked by God for the practice of capital punishment and of war, as they were often rebuked for other offences.

10 On the contrary, we must suppose that, as the law of Moses was the expression of the divine Will, the other nations would do well and piously to take example by that law: which it is probable that the Greeks, and especially the Athenians, did: whence arises the so great similarity of the old Attic Law, and the Laws of the Twelve Tribes therefrom derived, with the Laws of the Hebrews.

VI. 1 The arguments adduced against war from the gospel are more specious: and in examining these, I shall not assume, as many do, that there is in the Gospel nothing, besides the precepts of belief and institution of the sacraments, which is not matter of Natural Law: for that, in the sense in which it is commonly understood, I do not believe.

2 I willingly acknowledge that nothing is commanded us in the Gospel which has not a natural reasonableness: but I do not see why I should grant that we are bound to nothing by the Laws of Christ beyond what we are bound to by the Law of Nature. And when men maintain the contrary, it is wonderful to see what pains they are compelled to take to prove that some things which are forbidden by the Gospel, are also unlawful by the Law of Nature; as concubinage, divorce, plurality of wives. These things are such that reason itself dictates that it is better to avoid them; but not such that they are seen to be criminal without the divine law.

Again, who can say that such a Precept as that, 1 Joh. iii. 16, We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren: is binding by the Law of Nature? Justin Martyr says that to live according to nature is the condition of him who has not yet come to believe.

3 Nor shall I follow those who make another large assumption, that Christ in delivering the precepts, Matt. v. et sqq. is only speaking as the interpreter of the law given by Moses. For a different notion is suggested by the words so often repeated: Ye have heard it said by them of old time. But I say unto you. Where the apposition shows, what the Syriac and other versions express, that veteribus rather means to them of old time than by them; as vobis means to you, not by you. And these men of old time were those who lived at the time of Moses: for what is ascribed to them is not the dogmas of doctors of the law, but the doctrines of Moses, either in words or in sense: as appears by the examples. Thou shalt not kill, &c. An eye for an eye, andatooth for a tooth. Thou shalt love thy neighbour (the Israelite), and hate thine enemy, the seven expelled nations, to whom the Jews were forbidden to shew mercy: to whom are to be added the Amalekites. [See the references.]

15 4 To the understanding of the words of Christ, it is to be observed that the Law given by Moses is taken in two senses: first, according to that which it has in common with other laws established by men, as restraining grave crimes by visible punishments, and keeping the Hebrew people in a state of civil society; in which sense, by it, every tranagression and disobedience received a just reward, Heb. ii. 2; and in which sense, Heb. vii. 16, it is called the law of a carnal commandment; and Rom. iii. 27, the law of works: and secondly, as requiring also purity of mind, and some acts which may be omitted without temporal punishment, in which sense it is called the spiritual law, Rom. vii. 14, rejoicing the heart, Psalm xix. The Lawyers and Pharisees, contented with the former part, regarded not the second part, which is better, nor inculcated it on the people. That this is true, we learn not only from the New Testament, but also from Josephus and the Hebrew doctors.

5 Yet even with regard to this second part, it is to be observed that the virtues which are required of Christians were either recommended or enjoined to the Hebrews; but they were not enjoined in the same degree and with the same breadth as to the Christians. And in both these respects [degree and breadth] Christ opposes his interpretation to that of the ancients; whence it appears that his words do not contain a bare interpretation.

It is useful to know this, not only with reference to the point now in hand, but also to many other points, that we may not exaggerate the authority of the Hebrew law.

VII. 1 To proceed then to the passages which show that war is not made unlawful by the law of Christ.

(1) The first is 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 3, I exhort, therefore, that first of all supplications, &c. We are here taught three things: that it is agreeable to God that kings be made Christians; that kings when made Christians continue kings; and that Christian kings enable other Christians to lead a quiet and peaceable life. So Justin Martyr mentions prayer for kings and princes; and in the Constitutions of Clement the Church prays for Christian Magistrates.

2 But how do kings secure peace and tranquillity to their subjects? This he teaches, Rom. xiii. 4, He is the minister of God to thee for good, &c. The sword implies all controlling power, as also sometimes among the Jurists; but still, in such a manner that the highest kind of that power, the actual use of the sword, [that is, capital punishment and war,] is not excluded. This place is illustrated by Psalm ii., which though verified in David has a fuller accomplishment in Christ. (See the passages in Acts and Hebrews.] That Psalm exhorts the kings of the earth to kiss the Son lest he be angry: that is, to do him service in their capacity of kings. [See the passages quoted from Augustine.]

3 (2) The second passage is, that already partly cited, Rom. xiii. There is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God, &c.: whence the apostle infers that we are to obey and honour the 16powers that are ordained; and that, from our hearts; and that he who resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. By ordinance we cannot understand merely what God will not prevent, as he permits bad actions: for such permission would not impose any obligation of honour or heartfelt obedience. On this supposition the Apostle, in speaking so highly of the powers that be, would give a reason which is equally true of thefts and robberies. It follows then that the powers thus ordained, are approved by God; and since God cannot approve contradictory things, that this power is not at variance with the will of God revealed by the Gospel, and obligatory on all men.

4 Nor is this argument refuted by the consideration, that the powers that be in St Paul’s time, were not Christian. For in the first place, this is not universally true. Sergius Paulus, the Proprætor of Cyprus, had become a Christian; not to mention the ancient story concerning the king of Edessa, perhaps distorted, but yet with a foundation of truth^*.

But in the next place, the question is not whether the persons were impious, but whether their office was impious; which the Apostle denies, when be says that even at that time it was ordained of God, and therefore was to be honoured from the heart, which is God’s peculiar dominion. And thus Nero and king Agrippa might have submitted themselves to Christ, and have retained respectively the imperial and the royal power; which could not have subsisted without the power of the sword and of arms. And thus as under the Old Law, sacrifices were pious, though celebrated by impious priests, so government is a pious office, though it be held by an impious man.

5 (3) The third argument is taken from the words of John the Baptist; who, when he was asked by the Jewish soldiers, (of which nation there were many thousands in the Roman army, as is manifest from Josephus and other writers,) What they should do, to avoid the wrath of God; did not tell them to cease to be soldiers, which he ought to have done if such were the will of God; but told them to abstain from extortion, and to be content with their wages.

Since the words of the Baptist contain a manifest approval of a military life, many answer, that the exhortations of the Baptist and the precepts of Christ are widely different; so that the one might teach one thing, the other, another. This I cannot admit; for

John and Christ announced their doctrine in the same manner; Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, Matth. iii. 2; iv. 17. Christ says that the kingdom of heaven, (that is the new law, for it is the Hebrew manner to call a law a kingdom,) is taken by force, from the times of John the Baptist, Matth. xi. 12. John is said to have preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins: Mark i. 4. The Apostles are said to have done the same in the name of Christ, Acts ii. 38. John requires fruits worthy of repentance, and threatens them with destruction who do not bring forth 17such, Matth. iii. 8 and 10. He requires works of love beyond the law, Luke iii. 11; He that hath two coats, &c. The law is said to have endured until John, that is, a more perfect doctrine began with him, Matth. xi. 13. The beginning of the Gospel narrative is John: Mark i. 1. Luke i. 77. John was on this account greater than the prophets, Matth. xi. 9, Luke vii. 26; being sent to give knowledge of salvation unto the people, Luke i. 77; and to preach the Gospel, Luke iii. 18. Nor does John anywhere distinguish Jesus from himself by the difference of their precepts, (though what is indicated in a more general and confused and rudimentary manner by John, Christ, the true light, delivers clearly,) but by Jesus being the Messiah that was to come, Acts xix. 4, John i. 29; that is, the king of the kingdom of heaven, who was to give the Holy Spirit to them that believed on him, Matth. iii. 11. Mark i. 8. Luke iii. 16.

6 (4) In the fourth place, there is this argument, which appears to me to have no small weight. If the right of inflicting capital punishments, and of defending the citizens by arms against robbers and plunderers, was taken away, there would follow a vast license of crime and a deluge of evils; since even now, while criminal judgments are administered, violence is hardly repressed. Wherefore if the mind of Christ had been to induce such a state of things as never was heard of, undoubtedly he would have set it forth in the clearest and most special words, and would have commanded that none should pronounce a capital sentence, none should wear arms: which we nowhere read that he did: for what is adduced to this effect is either very general or obscure. Equity and common sense teach us that, in order to avoid that sense of passages which would lead to extreme inconveniences, we may limit the range of general terms, and explain ambiguities, and even depart in some degree from the propriety and received use of words.

7 (5) In the fifth place, it cannot be shewn by any argument that the law of Moses concerning the judgments of tribunals ceased to be in force before the city of Jerusalem was destroyed, and with it, the existence and the hope of the Jewish nation ceased. For there is neither in the law of Moses any term appointed for the force of the law, nor do Christ or his Apostles anywhere speak of the cessation of that law, except in so far as such an event may, as we have said, be comprehended in the destruction of the Jewish State: on the contrary. Paul says that the high priest was appointed to judge persons according to the law, Acts xxiii. 3. Christ himself, in the preface to his precepts, says, that he was not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it, Matth. v. 17. Now in what sense this is to be understood of the Ritual Law, is plain enough; for the lineaments which shadow out an object are fulfilled when the perfect form of the thing is exhibited. But how can this be true of the Judicial Law, if Christ, as some hold, took it away by his coming? But if the obligation of the Law remained as long as the Jewish State continued, it follows that Jews, 18even though converted to Christianity, if they were summoned before a magistrate, could not refuse, and ought not to judge otherwise than Moses had commanded.

8 Weighing the whole case, I do not see the slightest reason for thinking that any pious men, at that time hearing the words of Christ, could think otherwise. I acknowledge that before the time of Christ some things were permitted, either as matters of impunity, or as not destroying purity of mind, (a distinction which we need not dwell upon here,) which Christ did not permit to his followers; as, to put away a wife for every cause, to sue one at law for satisfaction; but between the precepts of Christ and those permissions, there is a diversity, not a repugnance. For he who does not put away his wife, or who remits a satisfaction due to him, does nothing against the law: on the contrary, he conforms to the Law in the highest degree. But the case of a judge is altogether different; for him the Law does not permit, but commands him to punish the homicide with death; and he himself is guilty before God if he does not do this. And if Christ forbids him to punish the homicide with death, he commands what is altogether contrary to the Law; he destroys the Law.

9 (6) The sixth argument shall be from the example of Cornelius the Centurion, who both received from Christ the Holy Ghost, the undoubted sign of justification, and was baptized in the name of Christ by the apostle Peter: but we do not read that he gave up the military life, nor was exhorted by Peter to do so.

Some reply that when he was instructed by Peter in the Christian religion, he was also instructed of the unchristian character of his military life. This would be to the purpose, if there were any plain and certain interdiction of a military life in the precepts of Christ. But when there is nowhere such a thing in any clear form, it was plainly necessary that something should have been said on the subject in this place, where it was specially required; in order that the ages to come might not be ignorant of the rules of its duty. And that Luke, when conversion led to any special change in the occupation of the converts, did not omit to state it, we see elsewhere, Acts xix. 19, Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books, &c.

10 (7) A seventh argument of a like kind we draw from what is said of Sergius Paulus, as already partly noticed. For in the history of that convert there is no indication of his having abdicated the office of magistrate, or having been admonished to abdicate. Now what is not narrated, when, as we have said, it was highly important that it should be narrated, must be supposed not to have happened.

11 (8) An eighth argument is, that the Apostle Paul, when he was apprized of the Jews lying in wait for him, directed the fact to be made known to the captain, and when the captain had furnished soldiers, as a guard for him in his journey, he made no opposition, and did not warn the captain or the soldiers that it was displeasing to God to repel force by force. And yet Paul was one who neither 19omitted nor allowed others to omit any occasion of teaching men their duty, 2 Tim. iv. 2.

12 (9) A ninth argument is, that if a thing be good and right, the end to which it tends cannot be otherwise than good and right. Now to pay taxes is right, and is a thing even binding on the conscience, as the Apostle Paul explains: but the end to which taxes are subservient, [that is, one end among others,] is that the government may be able to maintain forces for the purpose of defending good citizens and restraining bad men, Rom. xiii. 3,4,6. Tacitus and Augustine both make this remark. [See the text.]

13 (10) We have a tenth argument from Acts xxv. 11, where Paul says, If I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die. Whence I collect Paul to have been of the opinion, that even after the publication of the Gospel-law, there are some crimes which equity allows, or even requires, to be punished with death; which also Peter teaches, l Epist. ii. 19, 20, If when ye be buffeted for your faults ye shall take it patiently. If the will of God had then been that there should no longer be capital punishments, Paul might have cleared himself indeed; but he ought not to have left men to think that then, no less than previously, it was lawful to put criminals to death. But when we have proved that capital punishment may lawfully be practised after the coming of Christ, we have also proved, as I conceive, that war may be made lawfully, for example against an armed multitude of evildoers; who must be overcome in battle that they may be dealt with by justice^*. For the power and the number of the evildoers, though it may have its weight in prudential deliberation, does not affect the question of what is right.

14 (11) An eleventh argument is, that in the Revelation, wars of the righteous against the wicked are predicted with manifest approval, xviii. 6, and elsewhere.

15 (12) A twelfth argument may be this: that the law of Christ took away only the law of Moses in so far as it separated the Gentiles from the Jews: Ephes. ii. 14. But such things as are reckoned good by nature and the assent of the most civilized nations, it was so far from taking away, that it comprehends them under the general precept of all virtue, everything of good report, Phil. iv. 8. 1 Cor. xi. 13, 14. Now the punishment of criminals, and defensive war, are held praiseworthy by their nature, and come under the virtues of justice and beneficence.

And hence, in passing, we may note the error of those who deduce the right of the Israelites to make war from the fact alone, that God had given them the land of Canaan. That indeed was a just cause, but not the only cause. For before that time pious men, acting by the 20light of reason, had made war; and the Israelites themselves did so for other causes, as David, for the insult done to his ambassadors. For the possessions which any one has by human right are his no less than if God had given him them: and this right is not taken away by the Gospel.

VIII. Let us now see what arguments are offered in support of the opposite opinion, that the pious reader, judging fairly, may see which side preponderates.

1 (1) First, it is usual to adduce the prophecy of Isaiah, ii. 4; that the people shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; that nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But either this prophecy is to be received conditionally, like many others;—namely, that we are to understand that this would be the state of things, if all nations should receive and fulfil the law of Christ; to which end god declares that nothing is wanting on his part. For it is certain that if all be Christians, and live as Christians, there will be no wars: as Arnobius and Lactantius remark. [See the text.]

Or it may be understood absolutely; in which case the facts shew that it is not yet fulfilled, and that its fulfilment, like the conversion of the Jews, is still to be looked for. But in whichever way you take it, nothing can be inferred from it against the justice of ware; so long as there are persons who do not allow the lovers of peace to live in peace, but use force against them.

2 From the fifth chapter of Matthew, many arguments are usually drawn; and in order to estimate the value of these, we must repeat what has been said already; That if the intention of Christ had been to take away all capital punishment, and the right of making war, he would have done this in the most express and special words, in consideration of the magnitude and novelty of the thing: and all the more on that account, that no Jew could think otherwise than that the laws of Moses which concerned the Jewish State and tribunals were to retain their authority over Jews, as long as the State existed. With this previous remark, let us consider in order the force of the particular passages.

3 (2) The second argument, then, in favour of the opposite opinion is taken from these words: Ye have heard that it hath been said An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not the evil man: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Hence some infer that no injury is to be resisted or satisfaction for it to be required, either publicly or privately. But this is not what the words say: for Christ is not here addressing magistrates, but those who are assailed: nor does he speak of wrongs of all kinds, but of such as a blow on the cheek; for the subsequent words restrict the generality of the preceding.

4 So in the following precept, If any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also: it is not every appeal 21to a judge or an umpire which is forbidden, according to the interpretation of Paul, who does not forbid men having matters at law, 1 Cor. vi. 4: only he forbids the Christians to go to law before the heathen tribunals: and this he does by the example of the Jews, among whom this maxim was current; He who refers the concerns of the Israelites to the judgment of strangers, pollutes the name of God: but Christ, in order to exercise our patience, directs us that with regard to matters which may easily be replaced, as our coat, or if need be, our cloke along with our coat, we should not contend at law; but though our right be indisputable, abstain from prosecuting it judicially. Apollonius Tyanæus said that a philosopher ought not to quarrel about paltry pelf. Ulpian says, The prætor does not disapprove the act of him who thought it a good thing to have nothing, that he might have nothing to go to law about. For this temperate notion of those who hate lawsuits i. not to be condemned. What Ulpian here says is approved by good men, is what Christ makes his command, choosing the matter of his precepts from the most approved and becoming examples. But you cannot infer from this that even a parent or a guardian is not to defend before the judge, if he be compelled, the means of subsistence of a child or a ward. A coat and a cloke are one thing, but the necessary means of subsistence another. In the Clementine Constitutions it is said of a Christian, If he have a lawsuit, let him try to bring it to an end, even he have thereby to suffer loss. What is commonly said of moral rules applies here also, that right dealing does not lie in a point, but has a certain appropriate latitude.

5 So in what follows, Whosoever will impose service as for one mile, go with him two: our Lord does not speak of a hundred miles, a distance that would carry a man quite away from his business, but of one, and if need be, two; which is a trifling amount of walking. The meaning then is this; That in matters which are not very inconvenient to us, we are not to insist upon our right, but to give up even more than is asked, that our patience and kindness may appear to all.

6 It is added, Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. If you carry this to an indefinite extent, nothing can be more harsh. He who does not care for his own is worse than an infidel, says St Paul, 1 Tim. v. 8. Let us then follow Paul, the best interpreter of his master’s law, who, when exciting the Corinthians to beneficence towards those of Jerusalem, says, 2 Cor. viii. 13, Not that other men may be eased and ye burdened, but that your abundance may be a supply for their want. The like expressions are used by heathen authors, as Livy, Xenophon. [See the text.]

7 As the Hebrew law allowed a liberty of divorce, to moderate the harshness of men towards their wives; so to restrain private revenge, to which the nation was very prone, the law allowed the injured man to require from the injurer compensation or satisfaction, not with his own hand, but before the judge. This was followed in the law of the Twelve Tables, which authorized retaliation. But Christ, a teacher 22of a better patience, is so far from approving the injured man who demands such satisfaction, that he will have some injuries not even repelled either by force or judicially. But what injuries? Such as are tolerable: not that the same course of action may not be laudable in more atrocious attacks: but because he contents himself with a patience within certain limits. And thus he takes as his example a blow on the cheek, which does not endanger the life or maim the body, but only expresses a contempt which does us no harm.

In like manner Seneca, Pacuvius, Cæcilius, Demosthenes, distinguish between contumely and injury. [See the text.] And Seneca says that the pain of contumely is the feeling of the humiliated mind recoiling from an act or deed which assails our honour.

8 In such circumstances Christ commands patience: and that he may not be met by the common objection that By bearing one injury you incite another, he adds, that we are rather to bear a second injury than to repel the first; since we thereby receive no evil except what has its seat in a foolish persuasion.

To give the cheek to the smiter, is a Hebraism implying to bear patiently, as appears, Isaiah l. 6, Jerem. iii. 3. Tacitus uses a similar expression.

9 (3) A third argument is usually drawn from that which follows in St Matthew, Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy; But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you, and persecute you. There are who think that such love to enemies and assailants is inconsistent both with capital punishments and with war.

But this is easily refuted if we consider this precept of the Hebrew law more nearly. The Hebrews were commanded to love their neighbour, that is, the Hebrew; for so the word neighbour is there taken, as we see, Levit. xix. 17, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart thou shall in anywise rebuke thy neighbour; compared with verse 18, Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But notwithstanding this, the magistrate was commanded to put to death the manslayer and other great criminals: notwithstanding this, the eleven tribes justly made war upon the tribe of Benjamin for a heinous crime, Judg. xx.: notwithstanding this, David who fought the battles of the Lord, rightly won by arms from Ishbosheth the kingdom promised to him. [2 Sam. iii. 1.]

10 Let it be granted then that the word neighbour is now to be extended more widely so as to include all men: for all nations are now received under one common rule of grace; no people is cut off from God; still there will be the same permission for all nations which there then was for the Israelites, who were then commanded mutual love, as all men now are.

But if you allege that a greater degree of lore is enjoined in the 23Gospel-law, this also may be conceded, provided we make this reserve, that all are not to be loved equally, but, for example, a father more than a stranger: and thus, the good of the innocent is to be preferred to the good of the guilty, public good to private good. Now capital punishments and just wars arise from our love of the innocent. See Prov. xxiv. 11, If thou forbear to deliver then that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain, &c. And thus the precepts of Christ respecting loving and helping all are to be fulfilled in such a way that a greater and juster love do not interfere. There is a noted ancient saying, It is as great a cruelty to be indulgent to all as to none.

11 Add that we are commanded to love our enemies by the example of God, who makes his sun to rise on the unjust. Yet the same God punishes some evil deeds in this life, and will hereafter punish them in the heaviest manner. And the same argument solves what is said on this subject about the injunction to Christians to be merciful. For God is called merciful, gracious, longsuffering, Jonah iv. 2, Exod. xxxiv. 6; and yet Scripture everywhere speaks of his wrath, that is, of his intention to punish, in reference to the rebellious, Num. xiv. 18, Rom. ii. 8. And of this wrath, the magistrate is constituted minister, Rom. xiii. 4. Moses is praised for his extreme gentleness; yet Moses inflicted punishment, even capital punishment, on the guilty. We are everywhere commanded to imitate the gentleness and patience of Christ. Yet Christ it was who inflicted the most severe punishment on the disobedient Jews; Matth. xxii. 7. [In the parable, He destroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city.] The Apostles imitated the gentleness of their master; and yet they used their divinely-given power for the punishment of evil-doers: 1 Cor. iv. 21, Shall I come unto you with a rod? v. 5, To deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh; 1 Tim. i. 20, Whom I have delivered unto Satan.

12 (4) The fourth passage which is objected is Rom. iii. 17, Recompense no man for evil, &c. But here too the same answer as above is evidently applicable. For at the very time at which God said, [as here quoted by St Paul,] Vengeance is mine, I will repay, [Deut. xxxii. 35] capital punishments were practised and laws concerning war were given. So again they are commanded to do good to their enemies, Exod. xxiii. 5: If thou meet thine enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, &c. (that is, among their fellow-citizens;) and yet this did not prevent, as we have said, either capital punishments, or wars among the Israelites themselves. And therefore the same words, or similar precepts, though at present having a wider application, are not now to be wrested to such a sense. And this the less, because the division of chapters, as we now have it, was not made by the Apostles, nor in their age, but much later, for convenience of reading and reference: and therefore what now begins chapter xiii. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, and what follows, must be taken in connexion with the precepts against recompensing evil for evil.

24 13 In this part of his teaching, St Paul says that the public authorities are the ministers of God, and avengers to execute wrath (that is to inflict punishment,) upon evil-doers. And thus he already distinguishes between punishment for the sake of the public good, which the magistrate inflicts in the place of God, and which is to be referred to the vengeance reserved to God; and the vengeance of the passion of revenge, which he had before interdicted. For if that punishment which is inflicted for the sake of the public good is to be comprehended in that interdict, what would be more absurd than, that when he had said that capital punishments are not to be inflicted, he should add, in this the public powers are ordained by God, to require punishment in God’s place?

14 (5) A fifth passage alleged by some is 2 Cor. x. 3, For though we walk after the flesh, we do not war after the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, &c. But this passage is nothing to the purpose. For both what precedes and what follows shown that St Paul intends by the term flesh the weak condition of his own body, as it appeared to the eye, and on account of which he was despised. To this he puts in opposition his weapons, that is, the power given him to coerce the refractory, such as he had used against Elymas, the incestuous person at Corinth, Hymenæus and Alexander. This is the power which he says is not carnal, that is, weak, but on the contrary, most mighty. What has this to do with the right of capital punishment or of war? Rather on the contrary, because the Church at that time was destitute of the aid of the public authorities, therefore God had raised up for its defence that miraculous power; and this accordingly began to fail as soon as there were given to the Church Christian Emperors; as the manna failed when the Jews came into a land that bore fruit.

15 (6) The passage adduced from Eph. vi. 11, Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, (supply only, after the Hebrew usage,) but against principalities, &c.: refers to the warfare which Christians have to carry on as being Christians; not that which they may have in common with other men under certain circumstances.

16 (7) The passage of St James which is adduced in the seventh; place, iv. 1, Whence are wars and fightings among you, &c.: contains nothing universal. It only says that the mutual wars and fightings, by which the Hebrews were then universally plagued, (a part of which history we may see in Josephus,) arose from causes not laudable; which is the case even now, as we grieve to know. That avarice and ambition are the causes of wars, has often been remarked. [See the passages from Tibullus, Strabo, Lucan, Plutarch, Justin, Cicero, Maximus Tyrius, Jamblichus.]

17 (8) What was said to Peter, He that smiteth with the sword shall perish with the sword, since it does not properly refer to war in its common aspect, but to private war, (for Christ himself gives this reason 25for prohibiting or neglecting his defence, that his kingdom was not of this world, Joh. xviii. 36,) will be better discussed in its own place.

IX. 1 When we have to inquire into the sense of any writing, we commonly assign great weight both to subsequent usage, and to the authority of the learned: and this is to be attended to also in the sacred writings. For it is not probable that the Churches, which were constituted by the Apostles, should either suddenly or universally have gone astray from the precepts which, being briefly expressed in writing, the Apostles had more fully explained in their oral instructions, or by the usages which they had established. Now those who argue against war are accustomed to adduce some sayings of the ancient Christians; on which I have three remarks to make.

2 (1) The first is, that from these passages, nothing more can be collected than the private opinion of certain individuals, not the public judgment of the Church: add to which, that the persons whose sayings are quoted are mostly writers who like to go in a path of their own, and to teach in a very high strain; such are Origen and Tertullian. But even those writers are not consistent with themselves. For the same Origen says that bees are an example appointed by God to shew that just wars may be carried on if it be necessary: the same Tertullian who in other places seems to disapprove of capital punishment, says also, Nobody but a criminal will deny that it is a good thing when criminals are punished. And as to a military life, he hesitates. In the treatise De Idololatria, he seems to incline against it; but in the treatise De Corona Militis he distinguishes in favour of the condition of those who were soldiers before they were Christians. He knew that such had continued soldiers, which they would not have done if they had understood that a military life was forbidden by Christ; any more than soothsayers, magicians, and other professors of forbidden arts were permitted to practise their art after baptism. In the same book he addressee a certain Christian soldier, O glorious soldier in God.

3 (2) The second observation is, that the Christians often avoided or disparaged a military life on account of the circumstances of the time, which scarcely permitted a soldier’s life to go on without some acts inconsistent with the Christian law. We see in Josephus that the Jews asked, and in some cases, received excuse from military duties on the ground of their interfering with their national usages. [See the passages in the text.] Very similar are the difficulties which Tertullian objects to the military profession of his time; as in the book De Idololatria, There is no consistency between the military oath (sacramentum) and the divine sacrament: namely, because the soldiers had to swear by the heathen gods, Jupiter, Mars and others; and in the book De Corona Militis, he says, Shall he keep guard in front of the temples which he has renounced, and sit in places such as the Apostle condemns, and be the defender by night of those powers which his exorcisms have driven away in the day? And again, How many other things an there in the duties of a soldier which the Christian must intepret as transgressions?

26 4 (3) The third remark which I make is this, that the Christians of the first times were animated by so ardent a desire to do what was best, that they often accepted the divine counsel, as if they had been commands. Thus Athenagoras says that the Christians do not resist by the law those who plunder them; Salvian says that we are commanded to give up that which is the subject of a suit, that we may be rid of litigation. And, speaking generally, such is perhaps the tendency of Christian counsel, and the scheme of the highest Christian life; still it is no command. In like manner, many of the early fathers disapprove of oaths altogether, without making any exception; though Paul himself on an important occasion used an oath. In this way Lactantius says that a righteous man (by which he means a Christian) will not be a soldier; but he also asserts that he will not be a sailor. How many of the ancient Christian writers exhort their followers against second marriages! And all these things are laudable, excellent, very agreeable to God, but are not required of us by any law of necessity. And these remarks will suffice for solving the objections to the lawfulness of war taken from the early Christian writers.

X. 1 But now to confirm our case, In the first place there are not wanting writers on our side, more ancient than those just quoted, who assume that both capital punishments and wars may he lawfully used by Christians. Clemens Alexandrinus says that the Christian, if he is called to empire, will be like Moses, a living law to his subjects, will reward the good and punish the bad. And in another place, describing the dress of the Christian, he says he will go barefoot, except he happen to be a soldier. And in the Constitutions which bear the name of Clemens Romanus, it is said that, Not all putting to death is unlawful, but only that of an innocent man: but that which is right in this case, it is for the magistrates alone to judge.

2 But setting aside private authorities, let us come to the public authority of the Church, which ought to be of the greatest weight. I say then that soldiers were never rejected from baptism, or excommunicated, on that account; which should have been done and would have been done, if a military life had been at variance with the Christian covenant. In the Constitutions already quoted we read, A soldier seeking baptism is to be taught to abstain from violence and extortion, and to be content with his wages. If he conform to this, let him be admitted. Tertullian, in his Apology, speaking in the character of the Christians, says, We act with you as sailors, as soldiers. A little before he had said: We are strangers to you, and yet we have filled all the departments of your society; your cities, islands, castles, towns, councils, even your camps. In the same book be had narrated that a shower was sent in answer to the prayers of Christian soldiers in the army of M. Aurelius. In the de Corona, he says that the soldier who had cast off the crown was a more stedfast man than his brethren, and he shews that he had many Christian fellow-soldiers.

3 Add to this, that some soldiers, who suffered torments and death for Christ, received from the Church the same honour as the other 27martyrs: among these are recorded three companions of St Paul; Cerialis under Decius; Marinus under Valerian; fifty persons under Aurelian; Victor, Maurus, and Valentinus, soldier-master under Maximian; about the same time Marcellus the Centurion, and Severianus under Licinius. Cyprian writing concerning Laurentinus and Ignatius, two African Christians, says, They formerly served in the armies of men, but being true and spiritual soldiers of God, they overthrew the devil by the confession of Christ, and by their suffering obtained as their reward, the palms and immortal crowns given by their divine Master. And hence it appears what the Christian community thought of a soldier’s profession, even before the emperors were Christians.

4 That the Christians at that time did not like to be present at capital punishments, ought not to seem strange, since Christians were often the subjects of such punishments. Add to this that the Roman laws were too harsh to agree with Christian kindness, as the Silanian Law may serve to shew^*. But after Constantine had begun to favour and encourage the Christian religion, capital punishments were still not discontinued. Constantine himself established a capital punishment of a peculiar kind for parricides and child-murderers; though in other respects very merciful, so that he was blamed by many for his excessive lenity. Also he had in his army many Christians, as history teaches us, and inscribed his banner with the name of Christ. From that time also the military oath was changed into the form, which is extant in Vegetius, By God, and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and by the majesty of the Emperor, which next to God is to be reverenced and beloved by mankind.

5 Moreover, out of so many bishops who had braved the extremest sufferings for religion, there was not at that time a single one, who tried to scare Constantine from capital punishments and war, or Christians from military service, by the prospect of the divine anger: though many of them were most strenuous guardians of religious discipline, and not at all given to pass over what concerned the duty, either of the Emperor, or of others: such as was Ambrose in the time of Theodosius, who in his seventh Sermon says: It is not soldiering which is a sin, but soldiering for plunder: and in his Duties: The courage which defends our country from barbarians abroad, or the helpless from harm at home, or society from robbers, is mere justice. This argument seems to me so strong that I require nothing more.

6 Not that I am ignorant that bishops and Christian men often interposed with their instructions to avert punishment, especially capital punishment; nor that a practice was introduced that those who had taken refuge in the Church, should not be given up except on the assurance that their lives would be spared; and also that at the time of Easter, criminals who were in prison were set free. But any one who examines these circumstances with care will see that they are the marks of Christian kindness, seizing every occasion of clemency; not 28manifestations of an opinion condemning all capital punishments; and accordingly the places and times and interposition which procured such indulgence were limited by certain exceptions.

7 (1) Here some object to us the twelfth Canon of the Council of Nicæa, which directs that, If persons called by grace, have first renounced the military profession (cingulum militiæ deposuerunt,) and then returned to it, as dogs to their vomit; let them, after being Hearers for three years, be Penitents for ten years^*; with power in the bishop to modify their sentence according to the evidence of their repentance.

Here the mention of a penitence of thirteen years indicates at once that there is question not of some slight and ambiguous, but of some grave and undoubted crime.

8 And in fact there is no doubt that Idolatry is the crime in question; for what had been said before in the eleventh Canon, must be understood as tacitly repeated here: as is customary in Canons. Now Licinius, as we learn from Eusebius, made men quit the military profession except they would sacrifice to the heathen gods, which Julian afterwards imitated; on which account Victricius and others are said to have given up the military profession (cingulum abjecisse) for Christ. The same thing had before been done in Armenia under Diocletian by one thousand one hundred and four persons, of whom there is mention in the Martyrologies; and by Menna and Hesychius in Egypt. And thus at the time of Licinius many renounced the military profession; among whom was Arsacius, who is named among the Confessors, and Auxentius, who was afterwards bishop of Mopsuesta. And thus those who, pricked by conscience, had once left the military profession, could not return to it under Licinius, except by renouncing the faith of Christ; and this transgression was the more grievous, inasmuch as their former act showed that they had knowledge of the divine law; wherefore those defaulters are punished even more severely than they who are mentioned in the preceding Canon, who, without danger to their life or fortune, had renounced Christianity. But to interpret the Canon which we have quoted as referring to a military life in general. is contrary to common reason. For history clearly testifies that those who under Licinius had renounced military life and had not returned to it under Licinius, in order that they might not violate the Christian faith, had the option given them by Constantine, whether they would be excused military service or enter the army; and no doubt many of them did the latter.

9 (2) Some object to us the epistle of Leo, which says, It is contrary to ecclesiastical Rule, to return to a military life after act of penitence. But we are to recollect that penitents, no less than clerical persons and ascetics, were required to lead a life not only Christian, but of eminent purity, that as great an example might be given for correction as had been given for sin. In like manner in the record of the ancient usages of the Church, which, to give it authority, is com29monly called the Apostolic Canons, it is directed: No Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, shall be a soldier, or shall have the characters of a Roman officer, along with his sacred function. The things which are Cæsar’s are for Cæsar; those which are God’s are for God. Which passage shews that those who did not seek the honour of the clerical profession were not forbidden to be soldiers.

10 More than this; those were forbidden to be admitted to the clerical order who after baptism had either held a magistrate’s office, or a command in war; as we may see in the epistles of Syricius and Innocentius and in the Council of Toledo. In fact, clerical persons were taken not from Christians of every kind, but from those who had given an example of a most correct life. Add to this, that the obligations of military service and of some magistracies was not perpetual; but those who were devoted to the sacred ministry, were not allowed to be drawn from it by any other daily care and labour. On which account the sixth Canon also directs that No Bishop, Priest, or Deacon should administer secular cases, and the eightieth, that he shall not even involve himself in public administration; and the sixth of the African Canons, directs that he shall not undertake a trust or advocacy in the affairs of others; as Cyprian thinks that they should not even undertake the office of guardian.

11 We have the express judgment of the Church on our side in the council of Aries, held under Constantine: for the third Canon of the Council says thus: Those who cast away their arms in peace shall abstain from the communion: that in, those who leave the army in a time when there is no persecution raging; for that is what the Christians meant by peace, as appears in Cyprian and others. Add to this the example of the soldiers under the Emperor Julian, Christians of no common proficiency, who were ready to render testimony to Christ by their deaths: they were willing to fight in defence of the State, but when commanded to use their weapons against Christians, they acknowledged the Emperor of Heaven. Of like character had before been the Theben Legion under Diocletian, of which we shall speak hereafter.

12 At present it may suffice to quote their expressions, which describe the office of the Christian soldier with compact brevity: We offer to you our arms as ready to use them against any enemy, though we refuse to stain them with the blood of the innocent. Our right hands know the way to fight against the impious and the adversary, but they have not the art of butchering the good man and the fellow-citizen. We recollect that we have taken arms for our citizens rather than against them. We have always fought for justice, piety, the protection of the innocent; those have hitherto been the rewards of our labours. We have fought for our faith: and how shall we preserve our faith towards thee (meaning the Emperor), if we do not shew our faith towards God ?

[The quotation from Basil seems an after-thought.]