I do not ask universally, “Whether wars [in general] are just?” — for that is both foreign to this my design, and has been sufficiently disputed by St Bernard (ch. 3 of the sermon to the Knights of the Temple) and by Bellarmine (controversy 5, bk. 3, ch. 14) — but [I ask] whether THESE wars [were] just. Now the justice of these wars can be weighed in two ways. First, by considering the part of Joshua and of the Israelites themselves: whether they justly brought these wars upon the Canaanites. Secondly, [the part] of the Canaanites themselves: whether the Canaanites defended themselves by a just war. And each [question] can again be disputed in two ways. First, as to all the modes and circumstances which either preserve or violate the justice of wars. Secondly, as to the very cause only of waging or of repelling the war — or, as some call it, the “title” [titulus]. The former mode contains both this latter [one] and several others — for example,
whether it is lawful to slay all the enemies utterly, even weak women and innocent little ones? whether it is just to circumvent the enemy by ambushes? and other similar [questions], which can befall a war otherwise undertaken on a just principle and cause, and can bring some fault upon it. But these [matters] will be explained more conveniently in the individual wars, as they present themselves. And so this only is now to be inquired: WHETHER the Israelites justly bore arms against the Canaanites? — or, whether the reason and cause of warring against them was just? [It was] UNJUST, the Canaanites first said — in Procopius (the book on the Vandal War) [and] Evagrius (bk. 4, ch. 18), as will be said below in another place. Namely, [because] it is a vice in all mortals to assign a just cause to themselves and an unjust one to their enemies. SECONDLY, the Egyptians [said so], in Origen (bk. 3 Against Celsus); and by name the Alexandrian Apion, as Josephus relates (bk. 1 Against Apion). But no wonder [it comes] from these, since the Israelites had afflicted Egypt with such great disasters as they departed. THIRDLY, certain Gentile writers — Alexander Polyhistor (in Suidas), Tacitus (bk. 5 of the Histories), Justinus (bk. 36), Strabo (bk. 16), and the Epicurean Celsus (in Origen, at the cited place). For these, as I have already said in [the commentary on] Exodus, relate that the Israelites — either cast out of Egypt on account of the monstrous foulness of leprosy, or fugitives of their own accord on account of sedition — set up a brigandage [latrocinium] and sought new abodes for themselves. But the lies of these [writers] were long ago refuted by Josephus and Origen at the places already cited, and also by Cyril (bks. 1 & 7 Against Julian) [and] Orosius (bk. 1, ch. 10). FOURTHLY, the Manichaean heretics — in St Epiphanius (heresy 66), St Jerome (on Isaiah, ch. 16), [and] St Augustine (bk. 22 Against Faustus, ch. 12 and following). And although these [objectors] bring forward nothing of arguments, nevertheless these [considerations] can come into someone’s mind. FIRST: The Canaanites were in their own fatherland; they inhabited their own lands and homes peaceably. What right, then, [had] the Israelites to invade them, to seize their cities and fields, [and] to exterminate them? SECOND: Nay rather, the Sowers [progenitors] and first parents of the Israelites — Abraham, Isaac, [and] Jacob — [when] coming into Canaan from elsewhere, [as] unknown [strangers],
(col. 719)
[running head: Iosuæ.]
as strangers and guests — these same Canaanites not only tolerated [them] with great kindness, but received [them] even into their own sepulchres, marriages, and kinships, into leagues and friendships — into the very bowels, in short, of the region, and into the bosom of its most excellent sky and soil. What equity, then, [is it] that the natives, so well deserving of the newcomers, should have this thanks returned to them by the [newcomers’] posterity — that they be assailed by a most unworthy war, overthrown in their fortunes, [and] cast out of [their] homes, fatherland, and life? THIRD: If the Israelites were oppressed in Egypt by the heavy yoke of servitude, why did they not shake it off there, so as to remain in that very [land]? What need was there to attack the harmless Canaanites, so far removed by [such] an interval, [and] suspecting nothing of the kind? Was not the soil of Egypt most fertile? Was not [its] air most healthful? If they had the right to despoil the Egyptians of gold, silver, and precious clothing, to vex [them] with the cruelty of so great, so many, and so manifold most bitter plagues, and to drown the King himself with so many thousands — could the cause for seizing Egypt [itself] have been lacking? But if nevertheless it pleased [them] to desert the unlucky lands in which they had first served [as slaves], was there too little of land between Canaan and Egypt for this people to settle in? Why did they not begin — [why] did they not strive — to cultivate the vast solitudes in which they had continued for 40 years, to dig wells in them, to sow fields, to plant vineyards and trees, to raise villages and cities? But if [land] already cultivated and inhabited pleased [them] more, why did they not go eastward into most delightful Susiana, into most fertile Mesopotamia, or the other provinces of those parts abounding in all delights? Why did they not betake themselves into Arabia Felix [the Happy]? What need was there to come to Canaan through so many trackless places, by so great a journey, [through] so many bends and windings? What reason, what right [is it], that a friendly nation — certainly not hostile, [but] once so benevolent and beneficent toward their forefathers, tranquil, secure in its own home, minding its own affairs, having no disagreement or business whatever with the Israelites — should by them be attacked, laid waste, and, as far as could be done, utterly destroyed, by so unexpected, so grievous, and [so] intestine a war?
Nevertheless it must be said that these wars were MOST JUST, [and that] this region was most justly entered and possessed by the Israelites. And there are indeed THREE causes of this matter given at ch. 1, quest. 5 — but concerning which, with the order however a little changed, [there is] still something to be said. The FIRST is the iniquity and impiety of the Canaanites themselves. For they were most defiled with idolatry, and with the filth of various other sins, Gen. 15 & Lev. 18. This cause, however, if it were the only [one], could not justly enough arm the Israelites for their devastation and slaughter. For, FIRST, it is not lawful for just anyone to rush upon just any wicked person, [even one] otherwise most worthy of death: but it is the charge of magistrates, and of those to whom this business is delegated by them. For [what], otherwise, [of] human society? What [place would] not [be] everywhere [full of] slaughters and deaths? SECONDLY: The Canaanites [were] not the only sinners. The crime of very many other nations was equal; equal [was their] perversity in the worship of God and in the manner of life — and indeed [of] those nations which [the Israelites] could have reached eastward and southward as conveniently as the Canaanites. Why, then, should the Israelites spare the others, and
[running head: Iosuæ.]
demand for punishment and destruction the Canaanites alone? THIRDLY: But be it so — [suppose] the Canaanites were to be punished before others: [was it to be done] in that manner [Israel’s war]? For the Lord could have taken vengeance on them by sending a contagious plague, or by some sharp famine, or by some other torment. And if indeed a war too had to be applied, other nations were not lacking, by whom this very [war] could have been stirred up and waged. FOURTHLY: And do the Israelites themselves reckon [themselves] free from sin? Were not all the elders taken away from the midst [i.e., died in the wilderness] on account of the crimes and offenses committed in the Egyptian exodus? Was there not always some wickedness in their [own] camp too, and — as [clung] to most [of them] (about which, however, elsewhere) — the one [sin of] idolatry clinging [to them]? Therefore the wickedness of the Canaanites alone — which brought no injury to the Israelites — did not hand a just sword into their hands.
The SECOND cause [is] the reclaiming of an ancient possession and inheritance. For the Canaanites had once, by force, cast out the posterity of Shem — that is, the forefathers of the Israelites — from this very region, as is shown copiously by St Epiphanius (heresy 66, against the Manichaeans who slander the Old Testament), and as already said above at ch. 1, quest. 5; in which [place] Serapion, in Cassian (Conference 5, ch. 24), says: and the most righteous judgment of God is approved, who both expelled those [Canaanites] from the alien places which they had wrongly seized, and restored to these [Israelites] the ancient possession of the fathers, which had been assigned to their stock in the division of the world. But neither does this seem, perhaps, a sufficiently suitable ground for a just war. FIRST: because it would have happened at least 500 years before, as is gathered from Gen. 15, Exodus 12, and from the 40 years which were passed in the desert. But to possess some region for so long a time, without anyone’s disturbance, in peace and tranquility — does it not give a just title of possession, and therefore [make] it unjust for all others to snatch it away and lay claim [to it]? For this is a prescription [præscriptio] of more than the longest time, and utterly beyond memory. And the force of this in law is such that it makes [them] true Lords of the property who otherwise were not [so] in the beginning. For although those who first seized an alien dominion were not possessors of the good faith which is required for prescription, and although their generations did not receive a just title from them, nevertheless, after so many centuries, the descendants of these began to have good faith, and to transmit a good and just title to [their] posterity. SECONDLY: If this ground of prescription, continued for so many years, did not make the Canaanites just possessors of that land, many kingdoms of Christians today would be unjust. For by what right did the Germans of old seize Germany, the Franks France? By what [right did] the Saxons [seize] England? By what [right did] some remaining families of the Goths and Suevi [seize] a certain part of the Spains? But of this prescription in wars [there will be] more [at] Judges 11. THIRDLY: There were many other descendants of Shem in the East; to them, therefore, Canaan would have belonged by the same right [equally].
The THIRD cause, finally, is the AUTHORITY OF GOD, which alone contains all the measure of justice, and alone suffices. FIRST: because he willed to punish the abominable impiety of the Canaanites at this time, in this manner, and through these [the Israelites]. SECONDLY: because he himself permitted arms [to be borne] against the Canaanites by the Israelites only [so far as…]
(col. 721)
[running head: ad caput VI.]
arms to be turned [against the Canaanites], and their lands to be seized — nay, [God] even commanded and enjoined [it]. THIRDLY: because he himself frequently made his own will manifest to the Israelites, and affirmed [it] by various signs and portents before the war, in [it], and after it. And who would doubt that God, as the supreme Judge, most justly inflicted these penalties on them [the Canaanites] through these [the Israelites]? If some King justly drives [men] guilty of treason [perduellio] or of other crimes out of all [their] possessions and [their] life, and gives those [possessions] to whom he pleases — why not also the King of kings, the Lord of lords? FOURTHLY: Nay rather, even if there were no fault in the Canaanites, [if] no offense clung to that nation, [God] can nevertheless most justly snatch away life, wealth, possessions, and regions from whom he pleases, and bestow [them] on whom he pleases — because he is the supreme and independent Lord of all. For so he did when he made man himself, and assigned Paradise to him; and when afterward he dispersed the sons of Noah into various parts, and circumscribed their own boundaries for each. Since, however, he always has the best reasons of his divine will, and
[running head: ad caput VI.]
[Augustine, Contra Faustum, bk. 22:] “…but the order of serving shows [him] an innocent soldier: how much more innocently is he engaged in the conduct of wars who wages war at God’s command — since no one who serves him is ignorant that he [God] cannot command anything wrongly.” And [at] chapter 78: “By a slanderous ignorance is Moses (and likewise Joshua) blamed for having waged wars — [Moses], who ought to have been blamed less if he waged them of his own accord than if he did not wage them at God’s command. But to dare to blame God himself for having commanded such things, or not to believe that God, [being] just and good, could command such things, is [the mark] of a man who — to speak more gently — is not able to consider [this]: that to the divine providence, which reaches through all things highest and lowest, it is neither new that [anything] arises, nor [a real] perishing that [anything] dies, but that each single thing, in its own order — whether of natures or of merits — either gives way, or succeeds, or remains; and that the right will of men is joined to the divine law, while inordinate desire is restrained by the order of the divine law: so that neither does the good [man] will anything other than what is commanded, nor can the evil [man do] more than what is permitted — so, indeed, that he cannot [do] with impunity what he has willed unjustly; and thereby, in all the things which human weakness dreads or fears, only iniquity is justly condemned: the rest are either the tributes of natures, or the deserts of faults.” And, a few [words] being interposed: “But what the distribution of the judging and pitying God may be — why one [is dealt with] thus, another thus — comes about by hidden causes, yet just [ones]. Not for that reason, however, do we [fail to] know that all these things happen by the judgment or the mercy of God — though by measures and numbers and weights set in secret, by which all things are disposed by God, the creator of all things that naturally exist, [who is] not the author, yet nevertheless the orderer, even of sins: so that those things which would not be sins unless they were against nature are so judged and ordered [that], assigned to the places and conditions of their own deserts, they are not permitted to disturb or defile the nature of the universe. Since these things are so — and since, through this secret of God’s judgments and [through] the motions of human wills, some are corrupted by the same prosperities [while] others use [them] temperately, and by the same adversities some fail [while] others advance; and since human and mortal life itself is a trial upon the earth — who among men knows what profits or harms [him]: in peace, to reign, or to serve, or to be at leisure, or to die; but in war, to command, or to fight, or to conquer, or to be slain? — since nevertheless this is established, that [it profits] the one whom it profits only by a divine benefit, and [it harms] the one whom it harms only by a divine judgment. Why, therefore, do we leap into rash reproaches — and would that [they were reproaches] of men, and not of God?” And, onto this book [in his Questions on Joshua], question 10: “Those wars are wont to be defined [as] just which avenge injuries — if some nation or state, which is to be attacked by war, has neglected either to punish what has been wickedly done by its own [people], or to restore what has been taken away by injuries. But even this kind of war is, without doubt, just, which God commands — in whom there is no iniquity, and who knows what ought to be done to each. In which war the army, or the people itself, is to be judged not so much the author of the war as the minister [servant].” And hence, using this one right as the weightiest and most certain of all, the Israelites always gladly [warred], Judges 11, Isaiah 15, [and] elsewhere. And indeed it is implanted by nature in all nations, that [the war] which they undertook with a deity as its author [numine auctore], they reckoned that a most just expedition. So in Herodotus (bk. 2), the Ethiopians would at once take up the arms which Jupiter had commanded by oracle; in Xenophon (bk. 4), the Spartans [did likewise]; and [Aeneas] himself in Virgil, who [reckons] himself sufficiently [justified], and — by the admonitions of I-know-not-what gods — into [war]
(col. 723)
[running head: Iosuæ.]
[Aeneas himself in Virgil, by the admonitions of I-know-not-what gods,] was saying [that he] made for Latium:
— [there] where the fates show quiet abodes, there [it is] right that the kingdom of Troy should rise again. [Aeneid 3.393–4, adapted]
Whence [comes] that Ausonian [verse]:
If Gradivus [Mars] bid the Leader take up arms, to trust [him] is as much a right [fas] as to doubt [is] a wrong [nefas]. — Mortal [things] seek counsel; [but the man] sure [of his course hastens] to lay hold of the commands of God.
So blind, insane, and mad, however, is the mind of our Calvinists, that they reckon this most firm conclusion — [furnished] by nature itself — [to be] infirm: “God commanded this, therefore it is just” — because, by their tenets, he [God] commands even sins. O the madness! — which not only have Catholics always execrated, but, out of that very heresy, now in England almost all the Academics [university men] too [execrate it], as an English heretic (or heresiarch, about whom [I shall speak] elsewhere) has often affirmed to me; who related that by that [doctrine] he had un-taught a certain Count of Hanau, our neighbor — [a Count] worthy indeed of saner masters. And, conveniently, there came into my hands these [past] days, from England, a disputation “On War” [De iure belli] of the Italian heretic Gentili [Alberico Gentili], printed at Hanau, in whose book 1, chapter 8, he pronounces the Canaanite wars just, by God’s command. And to those [arguments] which have been disputed for the Canaanites against the martial justice of the Jews, there is no obscure answer [to be found] from what has been said. For the one will and command of God is equivalent to all causes and rights.