[278] CHAPTER XXIV.

Warnings not to go to War rashly, even for just causes.

I. 1 ALTHOUGH it might seem that we who profess to write about the Rights of War, that is, its justice, have nothing to do with the consideration of what other virtues besides justice commend or recommend; yet we must try to obviate the error which would be committed if any one were to think that when the right was once established, it is forthwith either proper that war should be undertaken, or even that it is always lawful to undertake it. For on the contrary, it is mostly more right and more pious to give up one’s rights. For as we have already said, we may even sacrifice our life in order to further, as much as is in us, the life and eternal salvation of another. And this is especially suitable to a Christian’s character; who in doing this, imitates the perfect example of Christ, who was willing to die for us when we were yet ungodly and hostile. Which is a reason why we should not prosecute our rights or our dues to the inconvenience of others, to so great an extent as war occasions.

2 That war is not to be undertaken for every such cause, both Aristotle and Polybius teach us. Hercules is not praised^* by the ancients for that he took away the arms of Laomedon and Augias, because they did not pay him for his labour. Dio Prusæensis says that the question is to be asked, not only whether an injury has been received from those with whom we think of going to war, but also at what amount it is to be estimated.

II. 1 To pass over offenses without punishment, is a course to which many reasons exhort us. See how many things parents overlook in children: on which Cicero in Dio Cassius treats; so Seneca; and Phineus in Diodorus; and Andronicus Rhodius.

2 Now whoever undertakes to punish another, assumes in a certain degree the character of a governor, that is, of a parent; as Augustine says to Count Marcellinus, Christian judge, fulfil the office of a pious parent. The Emperor Julian praises a speech of Pittacus; who 279prefers pardon to punishment. So Libanius says, that he who wishes to be like God, rejoices more in forgiveness than in punishing.

3 Sometimes the circumstances of the case are such, that to abstain from exercising one’s right is not only laudable, but a duty; taking account of the kindness which we owe even to enemies, either considered in itself, or in the way in which the holy law of the Gospel requires it of us. And thus, we have said that there are some cases in which, even when we are attacked, we ought to prefer the salvation of the assailant, oven to our own life, because we know him to be either necessary or extremely useful to the general interests of humanity. If Christ enjoins that some things are to be given up only to avoid strife, we must still more believe that he would have us give up greater things rather than go to war, since war is so much more hurtful than mere strife.

4 So Ambrose says, that for a good man to relax somewhat of his rights, is not only a point of liberality, but often of convenience. So Aristides persuades cities to pardon and concede, if it be any moderate matter; adding the reason, that even in private persons this is laudable. So Xenophon, and Apollonius in Philostratus.

III. I With regard to punishments, it is, in the first place, our duty, if not as men, at least as Christians, to forgive willingly and freely offenses against us, as God in Christ forgives our offenses. Eph. iv. 32. So Josephus.

2 So Seneca characterizes a prince, that he forgives his own injuries more easily than those of others; so Quintilian; and Cicero of Cæsar, that he forgot nothing but injuries. So Livia in her address to Augustus in Dio: Antoninus the philosopher: Ambrose to Theodosius; Themistius in praise of the same Theodosius.

3 Aristotle makes it a character of the magnanimous man, not to remember evil done to him; which Cicero copies. The Scripture gives us great examples of this virtue in Moses and David. [See.] This holds especially when we are ourselves conscious of some wrong; or when the wrong done us proceeds from some human and excusable infirmity; or when it is evident that he who has done the wrong is penitent. So Cicero, and Seneca. And so far, of the causes of abstaining from war, which arise from the kindness which we either owe to enemies, or rightly bestow upon them.

IV. 1 Often also it is a duty which we owe to ourselves, and those who depend upon us, not to recur to arms. Plutarch, in the life of Numa, says that when the Feciales had decided that war might be undertaken justly, he consulted the Senate whether it was advantageous to enter upon it. In one of Christ’s parables, we are told that when a king, going to make war, finds that his forces are inferior to those of his enemy, he desires conditions of peace. Luke xiv. 31.

2 So the Tusculans, bearing everything and refusing nothing, obtained, by their merit, peace from the Romans. So Tacitus says of the Eduans, that a cause of war against them was sought in vain, for 280they did more than was demanded of them. So queen Amalasuntha told the ambassadors of Justinian that she would not contend with him in arms.

3 There may be also a moderation exercised in such cases, as Strabo relates of Syrmus king of the Triballi, who forbad Alexander of Macedon to enter the island of Peuce, and at the same time sent presents to him; showing that what he did was done from a reasonable fear of the consequences, not from dislike or contempt of him. What Euripides said of the Greek cities, you may apply to any other parties; that if men could foresee the evils which war produces to themselves, they would avoid such a course. So Livy, and Thucydides.

V. 1 Those who deliberate in such cases, deliberate partly concerning the ends, not the ultimate, but the intermediate ones, and partly, concerning the means which lead to the ends. The end is always some good, or at least the avoidance of evil, which may stand in the place of good. The means which lead to ends are not sought on their own account, but as they lead to the end. Therefore in our deliberations we must compare ends with one another, and the efficacy of the means to produce the end: as Aristotle says of the motions of animals.

There are three rules for such comparisons.

2 The first rule is, if the thing in question seems, in moral estimation, to have an efficacy both for good and for evil; it is to be chosen only if there is more of good in the good consequences than of evil in the evil. So Aristides and Andronicus Rhodius.

3 The second rule is, if the good and the evil which may proceed from the thing be equal; it is to be chosen if the efficacy be greater for the good than for the evil.

The third rule is, if the good and the evil be unequal, and the efficacy to the one and the other also unequal; the thing is to be chosen, if the efficacy to good compared with the efficacy to evil be greater than the evil is compared with the good; or if the good compared with the evil be greater than the efficacy of the means for evil compared with its efficacy for good.

4 We have stated this somewhat formally. Cicero comes to the same result by a plainer way, when he says, that we are to avoid incurring danger without cause, than which nothing can be more foolish; wherefore, in incurring dangers, we are to imitate the practice of physicians, who, when men have a slight disease, cure them by slight means; but in more grave diseases, are compelled to apply dangerous and doubtful remedies. Whence, he says, the wise man must watch the occasion, and the more so, if you gain more good by the plain way than you can avoid evil by the doubtful way.

5 So Cicero in an Epistle to Atticus, Dio Prusæensis, Aristides.

VI. 1 Let us take an example from a deliberation which, as Tacitus relates, was held among the cities of Gaul, whether they would 281try for Liberty or for Peace: where, by Liberty, we are to understand Civil Liberty, that is, the right of governing themselves: which right is plenary in a popular state, limited in an aristocracy, especially in one in which no one of the citizens is excluded from honours; and by Peace, we are to understand such a one as is the alternative of an internecine war, or as Cicero says, quoting Greek, where the question is about endangering the whole fortunes of the State; where nothing less than the destruction of the whole people is portended; as was the condition of Jerusalem besieged by Titus. In such a case, what Cato would have said, who chose to die rather than submit to the rule of one man, every one knows: as Lucan says in that case, It is an easy exercise of virtue to escape slavery by our own hand; and many other things in the same strain.

2 But right reason dictates another course; namely, that life, which is the foundation of all temporal and the occasion of eternal good, is of more value than liberty; whether you take the alternative in a single man or in a people. And so God himself speaks of it as a benefit, that he does not destroy men, but delivers them into slavery; 2 Chron. viii. 7, 8, [of the remnant of the Canannites spared by Solomon.] And in another place he, by the Prophet, persuades the Jews to submit to servitude under the Babylonians, that they may not die of famine and pestilence, Jer. xxvii. 11. And therefore the act of the Saguntines [who destroyed themselves in their city rather than yield it], though praised by the ancients, is not to be praised by us; nor the courses which lead to it.

3 For the destruction of a people, in questions of this kind, is to be held as the greatest of evils. Cicero puts this as an example of necessity, that it was necessary for the Casilinenses to surrender to Annibal; although they had the alternative of perishing by hunger. We have this judgment of Diodorus, concerning the Thebans of the time of Alexander of Macedon, that they were more brave than prudent, in bringing destruction upon their country.

4 Concerning Cato, of whom we have spoken, and Scipio, who after the victory of Pharsalia would not yield to Cæsar, we have Plutarch’s judgment, that they were to be blamed for having caused the destruction of many brave and excellent men in Egypt, for no valuable purpose.

5 What I have said of liberty, I would have understood also of other desirable objects, if the expectation of a greater opposite evil be more just, or be equal. As Aristides said, men are accustomed to save the ship by throwing overboard, not the passengers, but the cargo.

VII. Again, in exacting punishment, that is especially to be observed; that we are never on such ground to engage in war with one who is as strong as ourselves. For as a civil judge ought to be much more powerful than the criminal, so must he be who undertakes to punish crimes by arms. And not only does prudence and charity for those who are dependent upon us require us to abstain from a 282perilous war, but often justice also, that is, rectorial justice; which, from the very nature of government, binds the superior to care for the inferiors, no less than the inferiors to obey the superior. From which it follows, as theologians have observed, that a king who undertakes wars for light causes, or for the purpose of exacting punishments which are not necessary, and which bring great danger with them, is bound to his subjects for reparation of the loss thence arising to them; for if he do no injury to the enemy, he does one to his own subjects, when, for such causes, he implicates them in so great evils. As Livy says, war is just, when it is necessary; their arms are pious, who have no hope left except in arms. This is what Ovid wishes:

No arms be borne save those which put down arms.

VIII. Thus the cases are rare, in which war either may not or ought not to be avoided; in cases only when, as Florus speaks, the enforcement of rights is worse than arms. Seneca says, Wemay run into danger, when we have as much to fear we sit still: so Anstides. This Tacitus puts, by saying that A miserable peace is well changed for war; where, as he also says, Liberty may crown the attempt, and defeat will leave them no worse. So Livy: but not when the pretence is as Cicero describes it; If you are conquered you are proscribed; if you are victorious you are a slave.

IX. Then only is the time for war, when we have right on our side, and, what is of the greatest consequence, strength also. This is what Augustus said, that war was not to be undertaken except when there could be shewn more hope of gain than fear of loss. What Scipio Africanus and Emilius Paulus said of a battle, may be applied to war in general; that We ought never to fight except there were either the greatest necessity or the greatest occasion. And this is especially true, when there is a hope that the matter may be brought to an issue merely by terror and by the reputation of strength, with little or no danger. Pliny says, He gained the most brilliant kind of victory, conquering by terror.

X. 1 War, says Plutarch, is a dire business, and brings with it an accumulation of injuries and cruelty. And Augustine says wisely, that this being so, the wise man will not be satisfied merely if the war is just; he will grieve that there should be a necessity for just wars; since, except they were just, he would not go to war; and in this very way, there would be no wars. The iniquity of men may make wars just, and even necessary; but this iniquity is a thing to be lamented, even if it did not lead to war. Whoever considers the evils of war, must confess the miseries of the case; who suffers it without grief, is more miserable in his joy, because he has lost the sense of humanity. And in another place, Thebad think war a pleasure, the good, a necessity. So Maximus Tyrius.

2 To which we must add what Seneca says, that man is not to use man prodigally. Philiscus admonished Alexander, that he might 283consult his glory, but on condition that he did not make himself a pestilence or a plague: meaning that he must not bring about the destruction of populations and the desolation of cities, such as a pestilence produces: while nothing more becomes a king, than to provide for the safety of all, as peace does provide.

3 When we consider that by the Hebrew law he who had slain a man, even without intending it, was obliged to fly; that God forbade his temple to be built by David, who is related to have carried on pious wars, because he had shed much blood; that even among the ancient Greeks, those who had stained their hands with manslaughter, even without fault, had need of expiation; how can any one fail to see, especially any Christian, what an unhappy and disastrous thing, and how strenuously to be avoided, is a war, even when not unjust? Certainly among the Greeks who professed Christianity, the Canon was long observed, by which those who had killed an enemy in any war whatever, were for a time excluded from participation in sacred offices.