2 An eminent and ancient cause of war, says Sallust, is a deepseated 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.

I.

HAT Aristotle wrote is most them thiet, of which the reason
HAT Aristotle wrote is most true, that certainty is not to be

WHA

is this, that mathematics separate the forms of things altogether from matter: and that the forms are of such a nature that there is nothing intermediate between two of them; as between a straight line and a curve there is no medium. But in moral matters, circumstances, even the least, often vary the matter; and the forms that are treated have often intermediate degrees, of such latitude that the case sometimes approaches nearer to the one extreme, sometimes to the other. Thus between that which ought to be done, and that which is entirely unlawful, there is a medium which is allowable, nearer sometimes to the one, and sometimes to the other: whence an ambiguity often takes place, like twilight between day and night, or cold water gradually heated. And this is what Aristotle says, that it is often difficult to decide which of two things is to be preferred: and so Andronicus Rhodius.

II. 1 In the first place, this is certain [as a point of morality], that if anything be just in itself, yet if it be done by him who, having deliberately weighed, thinks it unjust, the act is vicious: as St Paul says, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin; in which place faith signifies the judgment of the mind concerning the act. For God has given us the power of judging, as the guide of human actions; and if this be despised, the mind is brutified.

2 It often happens that the judgment does not pronounce a certain decision, but hesitates: and if this hesitation cannot be cleared off by an attentive consideration, Cicero's rule must be followed; those advise well who direct you not to do anything of which you doubt whether it is just or unjust: and so the Hebrew masters say, Abstain from doubtful things. But this does not apply in cases where we absolutely must do one of two things: in that case we must choose the part that seems least unjust. For in all cases in which the elec

tion cannot be avoided, the less unjust assumes the character of good. The least of evils is to be chosen. So Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian.

III. But in most cases, in dubious matters, the mind after some examination, does not remain undecided, but is drawn this way or that, by arguments derived from the subject, or by the opinion which it has of other men who deliver their sentiments on the subject. For what Hesiod says is true, that the best thing is to be wise one's self, the next best, to be guided by others. Arguments from the subject are taken from the causes, effects, and other adjuncts of it.

IV. 1 But to know them well, a certain practice and skill is necessary: and those who have not this, in order rightly to frame their active judgment, are bound to listen to the counsels of wise men. For the probable opinion, as Aristotle says, is that which is held by all, or by the greater part, or the most eminent. And this is the way of judging which kings mostly use, who have not leisure to peruse or to weigh the technical descriptions of such matters. The king is wise by the multitude of wise counsellors, as an old proverb says*. So Aristides. And so the ancient Romans undertook wars only after they had consulted the College of Feciales, instituted for that purpose, and the Christian Emperors rarely without consulting the bishops; that if there were any impediment which religion interposed, they might be warned thereof.

V. 1 It may happen, in many controversies, that probable arguments are adduced on both sides, either intrinsic to the subject, or derived from the authority of others. When that happens, if the things in question are of moderate importance, the choice, it would scem, is free from blame, on whichever side it falls. But if there is question of a matter of great moment, as of a capital punishment, then, on account of the great difference between the two sides of the choice, the safer part is to be preferred. It is better to acquit a guilty man than to condemn an innocent.

2 The writer of the Problems which go under the name of Aristotle's, says this: and adds the reason just given. So Antipho.

VI. War is a very weighty matter, being a thing from which great calamities fall upon the innocent. Therefore when opinions are balanced, peace must have the preference. So Silius Italicus praises Fabius.

But there are three ways in which controversies may be prevented from breaking out into war.

VII. 1 The first is, Conference. There are two ways of settling disputed questions, says Cicero; one by discussion, the other by force: and the first being the character of man, the second of brutes, we are to have recourse to the latter, only if the former fails. So Terence, Apollonius Rhodius, Euripides in several places; and Phæneas in Livy

• Quoted by Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic. xIII. 18. J. B.

T

goes further; saying, In order to avoid war we are to yield many things which cannot be gained by war. And Mardonius in Herodotus blames the Greeks for not trying negociation before war, being of the same language.

2 Coriolanus in Dionysius says, If a man asks only for his own, and betakes himself to war only when he cannot get that, all allow that it is just. And in the same writer, Tullus says, that what cannot be settled by discussion must be decided by arms. So the Vologeses in Tacitus: and so king Theodoric.

VIII. 1 Another way is Compromise, or Arbitration, between parties who have no common judge. As Thucydides says, It is wicked to proceed against him as a wrong doer, who is ready to refer the question to an arbitrator. So Adrastus and Amphiaraus referred the question concerning the kingdom of Argos to the judgment of Eriphyle. So to decide the question concerning Salamis between the Athenians and the Megareans, five Lacedæmonian judges were chosen. So the Corcyreans signify to the Corinthians that they are ready to discuss their respective claims before the cities of Peloponnesus which they might agree to appoint. And Aristides praises Pericles, because to avoid war, he was willing to appoint arbiters. And so Eschines praises Philip for being willing to submit his controversies with the Athenians to any city equally just to both parties.

2 So the Ardeates and the Aretians in old time, and the Neapolitans and the Nolans later, referred their controversies to the decision of the Roman people. And the Samnites in controversy with the Romans appeal to common friends. So do the Carthaginians in their controversies with Masinissa to avoid war: and the Romans themselves concerning their controversy with the Samnites, refer to their common allies. Philip of Macedon in his controversy with the Greeks, says that he will take the judgment of Peoples who are at peace with both. At the request of the Parthians and Armenians, Pompey gave arbiters to settle their boundaries. Plutarch says that this was the main office of the Roman Feciales, not to allow recourse to be had to arms till all hope of a peaceable decision was gone. And Strabo says of the Druids of the Gauls, that formerly they were arbiters between hostile parties, and often made them part without fighting, who were drawn up in warlike array against each other. The same writer testifies that the priests in Iberia had the same office.

3 But especially are Christian kings and states bound to try this way of avoiding war. For if, in order to avoid being subject to the judgments of persons who were not of the true religion, certain arbiters were appointed both by the Jews and by the Christians, and the practice is commanded by Paul; how much more is this to be done, in order to avoid a much greater inconvenience, namely, war. So in one place Tertullian argues that a Christian must not go as a soldier, since he may not even go to law; which latter, however, as we have already shewn, is to be taken with a certain limitation.

4 And both for this reason and for others, it would be useful, and indeed it is almost necessary, that certain Congresses of Christian Powers should be held, in which the controversies which arise among some of them may be decided by others who are not interested; and in which measures may be taken to compel the parties to accept peace on equitable terms. This was the office of the Druids of old among the Gauls, as Diodorus and Strabo tell us: and we read that the Frankish kings left to their nobles the judgment of questions concerning the division of the kingdom.

IX. The third way is by Lot; which method is commended for this purpose by Dio Chrysostom, and much earlier by Solomon, Prov. xviii. 18. [The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty.]

X. 1 Closely related to the practice of casting Lots, is the practice of Single Combat: of which the use does not appear to deserve altogether to be repudiated, if two persons whose controversies would otherwise involve two peoples in great evils are prepared to decide the question by arms, as formerly Hyllus and Echemus fought for Peloponnesus; Hyperochus and Phemius for the region on the Inachus; Pyræchma the Etolian and Degmenus the Epean for Elis; Corbis and Orsua for Ibas. For we may grant that if that be not done by the parties without blame on their part, yet that it may be accepted by the states in question as the lesser evil. So in Livy Metius says to Tullus, Let us take a course by which we may decide without great bloodshed in each people which shall govern the other. Strabo says that this was an ancient custom of the Greeks, and in Virgil, Eneas says it was right that the question between him and Turnus should be so decided.

2 Among the other customs of the Franks, this is especially the object of Agathias's praise. He says that if their kings have any quarrel, the armies on each side are assembled and brought face to face, and then the kings are told to fight the matter out between themselves, and the two armies lay down their arms and mix like friends.

XI. But though in a doubtful case, both parties are bound to seek for conditions of compromise by which war may be avoided, the party which makes a claim is more bound than the party which is in possession. For that in parity of case, possession is a presumption, to be accepted as favourable, is a matter which agrees not only with civil but with natural law: of which we have given the reason from the Problems ascribed to Aristotle, [cap. v. § 12.] And we may here add, that he who knows himself to have a good cause, but has not sufficient documents to convince the possessor of the injustice of his possession, cannot lawfully make war; because he has not the right of compelling the other to give up possession.