[290] CHAPTER XXVI.

Of just Causes for War in those who are under another’s jurisdiction.

I. WE have treated of those who are their own masters. There are others who by their condition are under authority, as sons of families, servants, subjects, even individual citizens, as compared with the whole body of their city.

II. These, if they are either called to counsel, or if a free option is given them of war or peace, ought to follow the same rules as they who by their own decision undertake wars for themselves or others.

III. 1 But if they are commanded to join in a war, as often happens, if they are quite clear that the war is unlawful, they ought to abstain. That God is to be obeyed rather than men, not only the Apostles have said, but Socrates also: and the masters among the Hebrews have a saying indicating that even the king, if he command anything against the law of God, is not to be obeyed. That our obedience is to be limited by our duty to God, is declared by Polycarp at the point of death; Jerome on St Paul, Eph. vi. 1; Tertullian; Sylvanus the martyr; Antigone in Euripides; Musonius.

2 That a father or master is not to be obeyed if he command a crime, as treason, the murder of his mother, false sentence, and the like, is asserted by Gellius, Quintilian, Seneca, Sopater. Stratocles was laughed at in Athens for proposing a law that whatever was thought good by Demetrius, should be reckoned right and pious. Pliny somewhere says that he had laboured to prove that to be ministerial in a crime was a crime.

3 Even the Civil Law, which is facile in giving pardon to excusable offenses, is favourable to those who are under the necessity of obeying, but not to all. It excepts cases of great atrocity, crimes which are naturally abominable, not condemned by the opinion of lawyers only, but by natural feeling.

4 Josephus relates that the Jews, under Alexander the Great, would perform other military works, but could not be compelled to pile up earth to restore the temple of Belus. But we have a closer exception 291in the Theban legion under Julian, who were willing, as Ambrose says, to use their arms for the State, but not against Christians; when required to do this, they obeyed the King of heaven, not the emperor of earth. So we read that, of the soldiers whose office it was to execute the condemned, those who had been converted died rather than lay their hands on the Christians.

5 The rule is the same, if any one be falsely persuaded that what is commanded is unjust. The thing is unlawful for him, as long as he retains that opinion, as appears by what is said above.

IV. 1 But if the subject doubts whether the matter be lawful or not, must he remain quiet or obey [and assist in war?] Most writers think that he ought to obey. And they hold that the rule does not apply, If you doubt do not do it. Because he who doubts speculatively, may not be in doubt in his practical judgment. He may believe that in a doubtful matter he ought to obey his superior. And certainly, that this distinction of a twofold judgment, a speculative and a practical, holds in many actions, cannot be denied. Civil Laws, not those of the Romans only, but of other nations also, in such circumstances, not only grant impunity to those who obey, but also refuse a civil action against them. They say, he does the damage who orders it to be done; he is in no fault who is obliged to obey; the necessity imposed by authority excuses; and the like.

2 So Aristotle enumerates, among those who do an unjust thing, but do not act unjustly, the servant of the master who commands it; he says that he who in such case acts unjustly, is he in whom the origin of the action is. For in the servant, the power of deliberation is not complete. As in the proverb, and in Homer, The day that makes man a slave takes half his worth away. And so Philo, You are a slave, what have you to do with reason? So Tacitus. And the same writer narrates that Tiberius forgave the crime of Piso’s son, who engaged in the civil war: because his father commanded, and the son could not refuse. So Seneca says, The slave is not the critic, but the minister of the command.

3 And especially in this question of acting as a soldier, Augustine so thought. He says, A just man acting as soldier, even under a sacrilegious king, may rightly take a part in war at his command, if he be certain that what is commanded is not against the precept of God, or if he be not certain that it is so; the iniquity of the command may make the king guilty, but the rule of obedience may make the soldier innocent. And elsewhere, A soldier, when he kills a man, obeying legitimate power, is not guilty of homicide. If he had done so without command, he would be liable to punishment; if he do not so under command, he is also liable to punishment. And hence the opinion is everywhere received, that so far as subjects are concerned, there may be wars which are just on both sides, that is, free from injustice. So Lucan.

4 But this matter is not without difficulties of its own. Adrian 292our countryman, who was the last Cisalpine Pope, defends the contrary opinion. And it may be supported, not precisely on that ground which he adduces, but on this, which is more satisfactory, that he who doubts speculatively ought in practice to choose the safer side. And the safer side is, to abstain from war^*. The Essenes are praised for swearing that they would not harm any one, even if they were commanded. And so are their imitators the Pythagoreans, who abstained from war, as Jamblichus says, adding for cause that war produces bloodshed.

5 Nor is it a sufficient objection to this, that on the other side there is the danger of disobedience. For when the right and wrong is uncertain (for if the war be unjust, there is no [moral] disobedience in declining it,) then disobedience is free from sin, and this is the less of two evils. Disobedience in such a case is a less evil than homicide, and especially, than the homicide of many innocent persons. So the ancients say that the gods would not absolve Mercury for the death of Argus, though done by the command of Jupiter^†. And so Martial condemns Pothinus the attendant of Ptolemy, who put him to death, as worse than Antony who commanded the act. Nor is that of much weight which is alleged on the other side; that if such a rule were adopted, the state would often be damaged, since generally it is not expedient to publish to the people the grounds of public acts. For however true this may be of the impelling causes of war, it is not true of the justificatory causes, which should be clear, and such as both may and ought to be openly expounded.

6 What Tertullian says, somewhat indistinctly, of laws in general, is very just with regard to laws or edicts for making war: A citizen does not obey the laws faithfully if he be ignorant at what crime the punishment of the law is aimed. The law may not be content with its own conscience; it owes a justification to those for whom it claims obedience. A law is suspected, which does not seek moral approbation; it is bad, if, being examined, it is not approved. So in the Achilleïs of Statius, Achilles requires Ulysses to instruct him of the justice of the Greek cause. And in his Thebaïs, Theseus bids his followers to go forwards, confiding in their just cause. So Propertius had said that the soldier’s courage rises and falls with his cause; and that if that be not just, his arms are blunted. And so that Panegyrist says, that conscience has so great a power in arms, that victory depends more upon integrity than upon courage. And so some learned men interpret what is said of Abraham’s arming his servants, to imply that he instructed them of the justice of his cause, Gen. xiv. 14.

7 And in fact, declarations of war used to be made, as we shall have to say hereafter, accompanied by a declaration of the cause of the war; that the whole human race, as it were, might judge of its 293justice. And as Aristotle says, prudence is properly the virtue of a ruler, but justice is a virtue which belongs to man as man.

8 But undoubtedly the opinion of Adrian which we have mentioned seems fit to be followed, if the subject not only doubts of the justice of the cause, but, induced by probable arguments, rather inclines to believe the war unjust: especially if the question be of attacking others, not of defense.

9 It is also a probable opinion that an executioner who is to put a man to death, ought to know that there is a cause in his deserts for doing so; either as having been aware of the trial and proofs, or by the confession of the criminal. And this is observed in some places; and to this the laws of the Hebrews seem to have regard, when, in the stoning of a condemned person, it directs the witnesses to begin the execution.

V. 1 But if the minds of the subjects cannot be satisfied by the exposition of the cause, it will by all means be the part of a good magistrate rather to impose extraordinary contributions upon them, than military service; especially as it is to be supposed that persons willing to serve as soldiers will not be wanting; whose acts, not only if they are morally good, but even if they are bad, a just king may use; even as God makes use of the spontaneous acts of the devil and of impious men; and as he is free from fault, who being in pecuniary distress, takes money from a wicked usurer.

2 And even if there can be no doubt as to the justice of the war, it does not seem at all equitable that Christians who are unwilling should be compelled to act as soldiers; when we consider that to abstain from military service, even when such service is lawful, is the course directed by especial holiness, such as was long exacted of ecclesiastical persons and penitents, and strongly recommended to all others in many ways. Origen, answering the objection of Celsus to the Christians, that they declined military service, says: Those who require this, we remind of the priests of the heathens, who were bound to keep themselves pure from the shedding of human blood; and this ought still to be the rule for those who are all priests of God. They in their prayers to God wrestle for them who fight justly, and for him who reigns justly: where he calls all Christians priests, following the Scriptures, Rev. i. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 5.

VI. 1 I think however that it may happen, that in a war not doubtful, but even manifestly unjust, there may be a just defense of the subjects who take a part in it. For since the enemy, though carrying on a just war, has not a true and intrinsic right to kill innocent subjects, who have nothing to do with the fault of the wars, except either for necessary defense, or by consequence and extrinsically to his purpose; (for they are not liable to punishment;) it follows that if it be clear that the enemy comes with such a purpose that though he could save the lives of the subjects of his adversary, 294he will not; those subjects may defend themselves by the law of nature, which they are not divested of by the law of nations.

2 Nor shall we then say that the war is just on both sides; for the question is not concerning the justice of the war, but concerning a certain and definite action of the enemy. And this action, though it be the action of a person having in other respects a right of making war, is unjust, and therefore may be justly repelled.