[265] CHAPTER XXII.

Of Unjust Causes of War.

I. 1 We have said above, when we began to treat of the causes of war, that some are justiflcatory or justifying, some suasory or impelling. Polybius, who first noted this difference, calls the former pretexts, the latter, causes; Livy sometimes calls the former titulus^*.

2 Thus in the war of Alexander against Darius, the pretext was revenge for the injuries which the Persians had done to the Greeks; the cause was the desire of glory, empire, wealth, added to a great hope of the facility of the conquest, proved from the expeditions of Xenophon and Agesilaus. So the pretext of the second Punic war was the controversy concerning Saguntum, the cause was the indignation of the Carthaginians excited by the terms which the Romans had imposed upon them in their evil times, and their courage exalted by their successes in Spain; as Polybius notes. In the same way Thucydides judges that the true cause of the Peloponnesian war was the strength of the Athenians, increasing and drawing the suspicion of the Lacedæmonians; the pretext, the controversy of the Corcyreans, of the Potideans, and others things: where however be uses the terms pretext and cause (πρόφασις and αἰτία) indiscriminately. [See Lib. v. c. 53. Gron.] The same distinction occurs in the oration of the Campanians to the Romans, when they say that they fought against the Samnites, nominally for the Sidicini, really, for themselves; because they saw that when the Sidicini were consumed, the conflagration would spread to them. So Livy says that Antiochus made war upon the Romans, having, as a pretence, the death of Barcillas, and other matters, but really, because he had conceived great hope from the relaxed discipline of the Romans. So Plutarch notes that it was not truly objected to Antony by Cicero that he was 266the cause of the civil war; since Cæsar was already resolved upon war, and only took his pretext from Antony.

II. Some there are who rush into war not actuated by either of these kinds of cause, being, as Tacitus says, greedy of danger for its own sake^*. These men are of a temper which does not lie within the proper limits of humanity, of a ferine nature. So Seneca, On Clemency, says, it is not mere cruelty but a ferine disposition, which delights in human blood and butchery. So Aristotle says that that is a sanguinary character, which makes a man break with his friends for the sake of fighting and shedding blood; and Dio Prusæensis says it is mere madness. So Seneca, Epist. XIV.

III. 1 However, most parties, when they go to war, have impelling causes, either with or without justifying causes. There are some who frankly do not trouble themselves about justificatory causes; to whom we may apply the maxim of the Roman jurists, that he who, when he is asked by what claim he possesses a thing, can assign no other than that he does possess it, is a robber. Aristotle speaks of those who give no care to the question whether it is just to enslave unoffending neighbours.

2 Such a man was Brennus, who said that everything belonged to the stronger: such in Annibal in Silius, whose sword is the measure of right and justice: such Attila; and those who say, as in Seneca, Our thought the fortune not the cause of war; or as in Lucan, This day will make the conquered part the guilty; or as in Tacitus, that In the highest fortune what is strongest is most just. Yet as Augustine says, To make war on unoffending neighbours and to harass and subjugate them out of mere love of honour, what name does it deserve, except that of a huge robbery? Of such wars, Velleius says they are wars not entered into for justice, but for gain. So Cicero says that Courage without justice not only is not a part of virtue, but is an inhuman extravagance. And Andronicus Rhodius speaks to the same effect.

IV. Other parties, in going to war, allege justificatory causes, which, when brought to the standard of right reason, turn out unjust; And then it appears, as Livy says, that what is aimed at is, not a trial of right, but of strength. Most kings, says Plutarch, use the two names, peace and war, only as coins, to procure, not what is just, but what is expedient. What are unjust causes, may be known in some measure from the just causes which we have been explaining: the straight line is the index of what is oblique. But for the sake of perspicuity we shall make some general remarks.

V. 1 That fear from a neighbouring power is not a sufficient cause, we have said above. For, that defense may be just, it must be necessary; and it cannot be this, except there be clear evidence, 267not only of the power, but of the animus of the party; and such evidence as amounts to moral certainty.

2 Hence we can by no means approve the opinion of those who hold it to be a just cause of war, if a neighbour, being prevented therefrom by no pact, establish a fortress on his own ground, or any other munition of war, which may possibly at some time be mischievous to us. For the proper remedies against such fears are opposing munitions, and the like, not force of arms. Therefore unjust were the wars of the Romans against Philip of Macedon, and of Lysimachus against Demetrius, except there were some other reason. I am much pleased with what Tacitus says of the Chauci: The most noble people among the Germans, and a people that prefers to secure its greatness by its justice; not greedy, not passionate, but quiet and retired. They provoke no wars, they practise no robbery or plunder of their neighbours; and the great proof of their virtue and their strength is that it is not by wrong-doing that they preserve their superiority. Yet they can promptly use arms, and if need be, raise armies: they are numerous in infantry and cavalry, and retain their reputation even in inaction.

VI. Nor does utility generate a right, in the way in which necessity does.

VII. Thus when there is no want of opportunity of marriage, any marriage denied cannot supply a cause for war; though Hercules formerly took occasion to make war on Eurytus on such grounds, and Darius on the Scythians.

VIII. Neither is the desire of migrating from one place to another a just ground of war; that a nation leaving marshes and deserts, may become possessed of a more fertile soil; which Tacitus mentions as the reason of making war among the old Germans.

IX. It is no less unjust to claim lands on the ground of having discovered them, when they are occupied by another, even though the possessors be bad men, with wrong notions of God, and dull intellects. For those lands only can be discovered which belong to nobody.

X. 1 Nor is there required for ownership [to exclude such claim] either moral virtue, or religion, or perfection of intellect: except that this may, it would seem, be defended; that if there be any people altogether destitute of the use of reason, such may not have ownership, but out of charity those things ought to be given them only which are necessary to life. For what we have said above, concerning the sustentation of ownership, which the law of nations performs for infants, and persons out of their mind, pertains to those peoples with whom others have an intercourse of pacts; and if there be any people altogether irrational, they are not such: but I much doubt the fact.

2 Therefore it was unjust on the part of the Greeks to say, that the Barbarians were their natural enemies, merely on account of the diversity of manners, or because they seemed to be inferior in intel268lect. How far dominion may be taken away from a people on account of grave offenses, impugning nature or human society, is another question, and must soon be treated by us, when we speak of the right of punishing.

XI. Nor again can we say of the liberty, either of individuals, or of cities, or states, (that is, autonomy or self-government,) that it is either by natural law, and at all times, an attribute of all, or that in the cases in which it is, it furnishes just ground for war. For when we say that liberty by nature belongs to men or to peoples, we are to understand that, of a natural right preceding all human pacts; and of liberty by negation of slavery, not of liberty in opposition to slavery; so that man is not a slave by nature, but he is not by nature a creature that cannot be a slave. For in this latter sense, no one is free. And to this view pertains what is said by Albutius, that No one is born free, and no one is born a slave; these names came afterwards to belong to men by their fortune. So Aristotle says, that it is a result of law that one man is free, another a slave. Therefore they who have, by a legitimate course, come into slavery, either personal or civil, ought to be content with their condition; as St Paul teaches, Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it. 1 Cor. vii. 21.

XII. Nor is it less unjust to wish to subjugate any by arms, as being worthy to be slaves, or as philosophers sometimes speak, naturally slaves. For even if there be anything which is fit for me, it does not follow that any one has a right to impose it on me by force. For those who have the use of reason, ought to have a free election left them of what is useful to them and what is not, except another have a right over them. The case is plainly different with infants, the government of whom, since they themselves have not the right of independent action and self-direction, nature gives to those who have a claim to it, and can exercise it.

XIII. 1 It would hardly be necessary to notice that the title given by some to the Roman Emperor is absurd, as if he had the right of ruling over the most remote and hitherto unknown peoples; except Bartolus, who was long held the prince of jurists, had ventured to pronounce every one a heretic who denies it; namely, because he sometimes calls himself the Lord of the World; and also, because in scripture, the empire is called the empire of the whole inhabited earth, an œcumenical empire, according to the Greek word; Romania in some later writers. And so Petronius speaks of the victor Roman having orbem totum, the whole globe. And many the like things are said, when we use comprehensive, or excessive, or emphatic expressions: as when in the same scripture, Judæa is called the inhabited earth: in which sense we are to understand the saying of the old Jews, that Jerusalem is in the middle of the earth, that is, in the midst of Judæa; as Delphi was called the navel of the world. Nor should any one be moved by the argument of Dante, in which he tries to prove that such a right be269longs to the emperor, because it is for the advantage of the human race. For the advantages which he adduces are outbalanced by disadvantages. For as a ship may be so large that it cannot be steered, so the number of subjects and the distance of places may be so great that they cannot subsist under one government.

2 But even if we grant that such a government is expedient, there does not follow any right of empire, for that can arise only from consent or from punishment. The Roman emperor has not now any right over even all those places which were formerly under the Roman people; for many of these, as they were won by war, so have they been lost by war; some have passed by compacts, and some by dereliction, under the authority of other nations or kings. Again, some cities, formerly entirely subject, have since become subject in part only, or have become merely federate parts of the empire. For all these ways either of losing, or of changing the rights of rulers, are valid against the Roman Emperor, as against any other party.

XIV. 1 There have also been persons who have asserted the right of the Church, even over the peoples who occupy the hitherto unknown parts of the earth. And yet St Paul plainly says, that he does not judge those who are outside the boundary of Christianity. What have I to do to judge them that are without? 1 Cor. v. 12. And the right of judging which pertained to the Apostles, though in its own way it pertained to the things of earth, yet was, as I may say, of a heavenly not of an earthly character; it was to be exercised, not by arms or by scourges, but by the word of God generally set forth, and adapted to peculiar circumstances; by the exhibition or denial of the seals of divine grace [communion and excommunication, G.] according to each one’s case: and in short, by a mode of punishment not natural, but super-natural, and proceeding from God; as appeared in the cases of Ananias, Elymas, Hymenæus, and others.

2 Christ himself, from whom all Ecclesiastical power flowed, and whose life is proposed as the pattern of the Church, so far as it is the Church of Christ, said that his kingdom was not of this world; that is, of the same nature as other kingdoms; adding, that if it had been, it would, like other kingdoms, have been defended by its fighting men. But no: if he had asked for legions, they would have been legions of angels. And what he did on the part of his authority, he did, not by human, but by divine agency, even when he drove the money-changers out of the temple. For the scourge which he then used was a sign, not an instrument, of divine wrath; as in other cases, the oil and the spittle was not the remedy, but the sign of cure. And to this purpose Augustine speaks on that passage of St John.

3 A bishop is required by St Paul, among other things, not to be a striker. So Chrysostom says, that to rule by force, that is human force, belongs to kings, not to bishops. And elsewhere, such power is not given to us that we can constrain men from offending by the 270authority of our judgments, (such, that is,) as include a right of execution of the judgment by the hands of kings, or soldiers, or by the deprival of any human right: and he says also, that a bishop discharges his office, not by coercing, but by persuading. From this it appears sufficiently, that bishops, as such, have no right of ruling men in a human manner. So Jerome, comparing a king and a bishop, says, that the king rules unwilling subjects, the bishop, willing ones.

4 Whether Christian kings may make war on kings who reject Christianity, on that ground, as a punishment, we have sufficiently discussed above.

XV. I will also give a warning not superfluous, but because, comparing old speculations with new, I foresee a great evil if it be not averted. A just cause of war cannot be derived from any explanation of the divine prophecies. For besides that unfulfilled prophecies can hardly be interpreted with certainty without the spirit of prophecy, even if the events are certain, we may be wrong as to the time. And lastly, the prediction, except there be an absolute command of God, gives no right, since the events which are predicted by God are often brought to pass by wicked men or wicked actions.

XVI. This also must be observed; that if any one has a claim upon him, which is not a claim of justice, but of some other virtue, as liberality, kindness, mercy, charity; as this claim cannot be prosecuted in a court of justice, so also it cannot be asserted by arms. For neither the one nor the other of these can be resorted to, in order that what is demanded may be done for a moral reason: it is requisite besides, that there be in us some right to that very thing: which right sometimes divine and human laws give with respect to the claims which rest upon other virtues [than justice]; and when this happens, then there is introduced a new reason of obligation, and the matter belongs to justice. When that is wanting, the war is unjust for that reason: as was, for instance, the war of the Romans against the king of Cyprus, because he was ungrateful. For he who has bestowed a benefit has no right to require a return: if he had, it would be a contract, not a benefit.

XVII. 1 We must remark also that this often happens; that there is a just cause really existing for the war, but that the putting it in action becomes vicious from the intention of the agent: either because something else, not in itself unlawful, incites him more than the right, as for instance, the desire of honour, or some advantage, public or private, which is expected from the war, distinct from the justificatory cause; or because there is introduced some affection plainly unlawful, as a pleasure in doing mischief to another without respect of good. So Aristides says that the Phoceans were deservedly destroyed; but that Philip was not in the right when he destroyed them, as not being really in earnest in defense of religion, but seeking to increase his empire.

271 2 An eminent and ancient cause of war, says Sallust, is a deep­-seated desire of empire and of wealth. So Tacitus, Gold and riches, a principal cause of war. And so in Seneca’s tragedy of the Hippolytus. And so Augustine.

3 But these causes, in which a justifying cause of the war is not wanting, do indeed imply a fault in him who makes the war; but yet the war itself is not thereby unjust: and, therefore, for such a war, no restitution is due.