2 And to the same practice we must refer the conditions which the king of Sodom proposes to Abraham, that he should give up the captives, and keep the goods for his labour and danger (v. 21). Abraham indeed, a man not only pious but magnanimous, refused to take anything for himself (v. 23): but from the property restored (for those are the goods spoken of) he gave a tenth to God, he deducted the expenses of the young men, and requested a portion to be given to his allies. IV. As property is to be restored to its owner, so too are peoples and parts of peoples to be restored to those who had rightful authority over them; or to themselves, if they had been their own masters, before the unjust violence. Thus Sutrium was recovered and restored to the allies, at the time of Camillus. The Eginetans and Melians were restored to their cities by the Lacedæmonians: the Greek cities which had been invaded by the Macedonians were restored to liberty by Flaminius. And the same general, in his conference with the ambassadors of Antiochus, urged that it was just that the cities in Asia which were of the Grecian race, and which Antiochus had recovered, should be made free; for that Greek colonies were not sent into Æolia and Ionia to be slaves to the king, but to extend the race, and to diffuse over the earth the Greek nation. V. A question is sometimes raised, concerning the length of time by which the internal obligation of restoring a thing may be extinguished. This question, between citizens of the same government, is to be determined by their own laws: (provided such laws recognize an internal [that is, an equitable] as well as an external [or strictly legal] right; which is to be collected from the words and design of the laws, by a careful consideration of them :) but between those who are foreigners to each other, it is to be determined by a probable judgment as to dereliction: on which subject we have elsewhere said as much as is necessary for our purpose. VI. If the right of war be very ambiguous, it will be best to follow the counsel of Aratus of Sicyon; who in part persuaded the new possessors to accept money and give up the possessions; and partly induced the old owners to be paid for what they gave up, as more convenient than to attempt to recover it. CHAPTER XVII. Of Neutrals in War. I. SECT. I. From parties at peace no IT thing is to be taken without T may appear superfluous for us to treat of those who are extraneous to the war, since it is evident that there are no rights of war against them. But since many liberties are often taken with them, especially when they are neighbours, on the pretext of neces sity, we may here briefly repeat what we have already said :—that Necessity, in order to give a person a right to another's property, must be of the extremest kind ;—that it is further requisite, that there be not a similar necessity on the part of the owner;-that even when the necessity is plain, more is not to be taken than it requires ; that is, if keeping the thing is sufficient, it is not to be used; if using it is sufficient, it is not to be destroyed; if destroying it is requisite, the price is to be repaid. II. 1 When Moses was under an extreme necessity of passing with the people through the land of the Edomites, (Num. xx. 17,) he says, first, that he will go by the king's highway, and will not turn aside into the fields or vineyards; and that even if he have to drink of the water of the wells, he will pay the price of it The same was done by Greek and Roman generals, who are mentioned with praise. So the Greeks, in Xenophon, who were with Clearchus, promise the Persians that they will pass without doing any mischief: and that if they supply them with food to purchase, they will not take by force meat or drink. 2 So Dercyllides acted, according to Xenophon: Perseus in Phthiotis, &c.; Agis in Peloponnesus; Sulla in Calabria and Apulia; Pompeius in Asia; Domitian in the country of the Ubii; Severus in his Parthian expedition; the Goths, Huns, and Alans of Theodosius's army, of which latter the Panegyrist says; There was no tumult, no confusion, no plunder, as you might expect from barbarians. If the supply of provisions was at any time more difficult, they bore the deficiency with patience, and made up for the scarcity by spare diet. Claudian ascribes the same merit to Stilico, and Suidas to Belisarius. 3 This was brought about by an exact care in the supply of necessaries, punctual pay, and vigorous discipline, of which you find the rule in Ammianus: The lands of neutrals are not to be trampled: and in Vopiscus: Let no one take a fowl which is not his, or touch a sheep ; or pluck a bunch of grapes; or cut the corn, or demand oil, salt or wood. So the same writer in Cassiodorus: Let the soldier live with the provincials according to the civil law, and shew no military insolence. The shield is for the protection of the countrymen. So Xenophon, in the Anabasis. 4 And hence we see the meaning of that which was said to soldiers by a prophet, and one that was greater than a prophet (Luke iii. 14): Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages. And so Aurelian said, Let them live on the spoil of the enemy, not on the tears of the provincials. And we are not to think that this is fair talking, but what cannot be done in fact: for the inspired man would not exhort to such a course, and wise expositors of law enjoin it, if they thought it could not be done. And in short, we must allow that that can be done, which we see is done. And on this account, we have adduced examples; to which we may add that eminent case which Frontinus mentions, of Scaurus; that an appletree which was included within the lines of the camp, was found next day, when the camp was broken up, with its fruit untouched. 5 When Livy speaks of the Romans, in the camp at the Sucro, behaving irregularly [in the absence of S. Scipio], and some of them going on plundering expeditions into the neighbouring neutral ground, he adds, that everything was given up to a licentious and greedy soldiery, nothing done according to military rule and discipline. And again, in the same writer, where the passage of Philip through the land of the Denthelatæ is described, it is said that The army, being in great want, treated the country as if it had been an enemy's, plundering towns and villages; much to the king's mortification, who heard his allies imploring him and the gods for help in vain. In Tacitus, the fame of Pelignus is tarnished by his preying upon friends rather than foes. The same writer speaks of the Vitellians, as, in all the towns of Italy, idle, and formidable to their friends only. So in Cicero against Verres; You authorized the insulting and plundering of friendly towns. 6 And here I cannot omit the opinion of theologians, which I think perfectly true; that a king who does not pay his soldiers their wages, is not only bound to satisfy the soldiers for the damage so done them, but also to make compensation to his subjects and neighbours, whom the soldiers, under the impulse of want, have treated ill. III. 1 On the other hand, it is the duty of neutrals to do nothing which may strengthen the side which has the worse cause, or which may impede the motions of him who is carrying on a just war, as we have said above; and in a doubtful case, to act alike to both sides, in permitting transit, in supplying provisions, in not helping persons besieged. The Corcyreans say, that it is the duty of the Athenians, if they will be neutral, either to prevent the Corinthians from raising soldiers in Attica, or to allow them to do so. To Philip king of the Macedonians it was objected, that the league was doubly violated by him: inasmuch as he had done injury to the allies of the Romans, and helped their Ꭰ Ꭰ enemies. The same is urged by T. Quinctius, in his conference with Nabis. 2 In Agathias, we read, that he is an enemy, who does what the enemy wishes and in Procopius, that he is reckoned to be in the army of the enemy, who helps the enemy's army in matters which are properly of military use. So Demosthenes had said before. M. Acilius, in speaking to the Epirotes, who were accused of sending money to Antiochus, says that he does not know whether he is to regard them as enemies or neutrals. L. Emilius, Pretor, condemns the Teians, because they had supplied the enemy's fleet with provisions, and had promised it wine; adding, that except they did the same to the Roman fleet, he should hold them as enemies. So Augustus said that A city lost the rights of peace when it received an enemy. 3 It may be of use for a neutral party to make a convention with each of the belligerents; so that it may be allowed, with the good will of both, to abstain from war, and to exercise towards both the common duties of humanity. So in Livy. So Archidamus king of Sparta, when he saw that the Eleans inclined to the Arcadians, wrote to them, It is well to be quiet. CHAPTER XVIII. Of acts done by Private Persons in a Public War. I. 1 WHAT HAT we have hitherto said, pertains, for the most part, to those who either have the supreme authority in war, or hold public offices. We must now consider what is lawful for private persons, according, respectively, to Natural Law, Divine Law, and the Law of Nations. Cicero relates that Cato's son served in the army of Pompilius till his legion was dismissed: that he then remained with the army as a volunteer: and that Cato wrote to Pompilius, that if he wanted to keep him in the army, he must make him take the military oath again; because the former oath being cancelled, he could not lawfully fight with the enemy. He adds also the very words of Cato's letter to his son, warning him not to take part in the fighting. So we read that Chrysas, a soldier of Cyrus, was praised, because, when he had raised his sword to cut down an enemy, he lowered it on hearing the signal for a retreat. So Seneca. 2 But they are mistaken, who think that this rule comes from the external Law of Nations: for if you look at that, as any one has a right to seize an enemy's property, as we have shewn above, so has he a right to kill the enemy: for in the eye of that law, enemies are held for nobodies. And therefore Cato's doctrine comes from the military discipline of the Romans: of which the rule was, as Modestinus has noted, that he who did not obey orders, should be capitally punished, even if the act turned out well. And he was understood not to have obeyed orders, who had, out of the regular ranks, without the command of the general, fought with the enemy; as the orders issued by Manlius prove to us: on this account namely; that if such conduct were permitted, either posts would be deserted, or even, as the license went further, the army, or a part of it, would be implicated in casual combats, which was by all means to be avoided. So Sallust, speaking of the Roman discipline, says, In war those are often punished who, contrary to orders, have fought the enemy, or who, being ordered to |