Christian Attitudes To War and Peace PDF

261 Bl62c Cowl 14-75
Bainbon, Roland Herbert, 1S94-

"
Christian attitudes toward

war and peace, Abingdon
Press [1960]
299p.
KANSAS CITY, M0 PUBLIC L BRARY
i
DATE DU'.
MAR 10 6VI11/5
r#>
MAY 8 'R<l
DEC
1
AUG 2870
tf
J>Ej telj
p$^;::^"jr,3
Christian Attitudes
toward
War anH Peace
THE CHILDREN'S TRUCE
PEACE: "I'M GLAD THAT THEY, AT LEAST,
HAVE THEIR CHRISTMAS UNSPOILED."
Copyright 1914 Punch, London
"PUNCH" ON CHRISTMAS, 1914

ROLAND H. BAINTON
Christian Attitudes
Toward
War and Peace
A Historical Survey
and Critical Re-evaluation
Abingdon Press
New York Nashville
CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD WAR AND PEACE
Copyright 1960 by Abingdon Press
All rights in this book are reserved.

No part of the book may be reproduced in any
manner whatsoever without written permission of
the publishers except brief quotations embodied in
critical articles or reviews. For information address
Abingdon Press, Nashville 2, Tennessee,
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 60-12064
SET TTP, PRINTED, AND BOUND BV THE

PARTHENON PRESS, AT NASHVILLE,
TENNESSEE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
To
Cornelius Kruse
COLLEAGUE IN COURSES AND COMRADE IN CAUSES

Contents
List of Illustrations 11
Introduction 13
1. Ideals o Peace in Antiquity 17
2. The Classical Origins of the Just War 83
3. The Origins of the Crusading Idea

in the Old Testament 44
4. War and Peace in the New Testament 53
,5. The Pacifism of the Early Church 66
6. The Theory of the Just War in the

Christian Roman Empire 85
7. From the Just War to the

Crusade and Sectarian Pacifism 101
8. The Renaissance Utopia and the

Revival of the Just War 122
9. Wars of Religion 136
10. The Historic Peace Churches and War

with the Aborigines 152
11. The Enlightenment 173
12. From Waterloo to Armageddon: A

Century of Comparative Peace 190
9
13. From the Outlawry of War to the Atom Bomb 211
14. Past and Present 230
J5. What Then? 252
Notes 269
Guide to Literature 289
Index 291
10
List
of Illustrations
Frontispiece. Christmas number of Punch, 1914.
The Stele o the Vultures, drawn from the photograph in

Ernest de Sarzec, Dtcouvertes en Chaldee (Paris, 1900) ,
Plate 3 19
Greek Warfare, a detail from an Athenian vase, drawn

from the reproduction in Gisela M. A. Richter, Red-
Figures Athenian Vases in the Metropolitan Museum of
Art (New Haven, 1936), Plate 1 25
A coin of Tiberius from A.D. 22, drawn* from the photo-

graph in Harold Mattingly, The Roman Imperial Coinage ,
1
(London, 1923) , Plate VI, 101 58
Constantine's victory at the Milvian Bridge, from the

Church History, drawn from the repro-
earliest illustrated
duction of the miniature in Henri Auguste Omont, Minia-

tures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque
Nationale duVIe au XlVe siecle (Paris, 1929) 86
For the identification see Kurt Weitzmann, 'Illustration
for the Chronicles of Sozomenos, Theodoret and Malalas,"
Byzantion, XVI, 1
(1942-43)
The capture of Jerusalem in 1099 from a miniature of

the thirteenth century, drawn from the reproduction in
Maxime Weygand, Histoire de L'Armee fran$aise (Paris,
1938), p. 45. 113
11
The Battle of Poitiers in 1346 from a miniature of the four-
teenth century in Weygand, op cit., p. 76 118
The Monk in Armor, Holbein's caricature for Erasmus'

Praise of Folly from the facsimile of the Basel edition of
the Encomium Moriae of 1515, 2 vols. (Basel, 1931) 134
Plundering in the Turkish War Geisberg, Die

from Max
deutsche Buchillustration in der ersten Halfte des XVI.
Jahrhunderts. Jahrgang II, 6 (Munich, 1931) , Jorg Breu
der Jungere, Skanderbeg Folge VI, Tafel 285 137
Horrors of the Thirty Years War from Jacques Callot,

Grosse Schrecken des Krieges (1633) from the reproduc-
,
tion in Hermann von Nasse, Jacques Callot (Leipzig,

1919) 173
The Marseillaise in 1792 from the reproduction in Wey-

gand, op. cit., p. 224 187
Opponents of War Pilloried: Ramsay Macdonald from

Punch Almanack for 1915 208, 209
Senator Lafollette from Los Angeles Daily Times (April 6,
1917), reproduced in Peterson and Fite, Opponents of
War, 191748 (Madison, 1957) p. 7. ,
"What Did You Die For?" From The Nation (October 16,
1935), p. 428 213
Punch on Aerial Warfare. (March 25, 1914 and June 15,
1938) 226, 227
Magnitude by Casualties of the Wars of Europe

(France, Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Russia) Pitirim .
A. Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics. Boston: (Porter

Sargent, 1957) ,
p. 548, table 15 237
12
Introduction
IN our time when the atomic bomb threatens to end the atomic era,
the ethical problems of war and peace cry urgently for re-examina-
tion.For the Christian this must mean a restudy of the implications
of the Christian gospel. For Christian behavior this will suffice,
but as a basis for world peace it is not adequate, because all peoples
and religions of the earth are involved. When we seek for an inter-
national ethos, the inquiry must be broadened. This question will
engage us at the end of this book, but our primary concern is with
the stand to be taken by the Christian.
The obvious point of beginning is the New Testament. Yet the
New Testament has so little to say specifically on the subject that
from itspages can be derived only principles rather than precepts.
How those principles are to be applied the Christian must discover
for himself in the light of changing circumstances. A knowledge of
how they have been applied in the past should be of help in the
present because the essential human situation has not altered.
Admiral Mahan in his work on sea power declared that a history of
naval strategy should begin with the days of sailing vessels, because
all the technological advances of modern times have not fundamen-
tally changed the lines which any naval encounter must assume.
Similarly the moral problem of killing masses of men to vindicate
justice and restore peace is not basically different from what it was in
the time of Joshua or Jesus. There is, of course, this difference, that
the destructiveness of war is today greater and less discriminating,
and this difference may invalidate ancient codes. The study of history
IS
may thus prove emancipating if it shows that old rules no longer
apply. It may at the same

time provide guidance if it discloses a
thread of principle running through divergent applications.
For the Christian the New Testament is the natural point o
of the New Testament.
beginning, but there is reason for going back
Otherwise one will not appreciate that which is distinctive in New
Testament attitudes. An even more important reason is that when
the Christian Church, after three hundred years of abstension from
to the assumption of political tasks,
politics, came under Constantine
the gap in the Testament ethic at the point of politics was
New
supplied by borrowings from Judaism
and the classical world, notably
Stoicism. The Christian ethic of war was not specifically Christian,
but either Hebrew or Greek with Christian accommodations, For
this reason, the present sketch of Christian attitudes commences with
the ideals of peace and war in classical antiquity and in the Old
Testament.
Broadly speaking, three attitudes to war and peace were to appear
in the Christian ethic: pacifism, the just war, and the crusade.
Chronologically they emerged in just this order. The early Church

was pacifist to the time of Constantine. Then, partly as a result of
the close association of Church and state under this emperor and
partly by reason of the threat of barbarian invasions, Christians in
the fourth and fifth centuries took over from the classical world the
doctrine of the just war, whose object should be to vindicate justice
and restore peace. The just war had to be fought under the authority
of the state and must observe a code of good faith and humanity. The
Christian elements added by Augustine were that the motive must be
love and that monks and priests were to be exempted. The crusade
arose in the high Middle Ages, a holy war fought under the auspices
of the Church or of some inspired religious leader, not on behalf of
justice conceived in terms of and property, but on behalf of an

life
ideal, the Christian faith. Since the enemy was without the pale, the
code tended to break down.
These three attitudes were not rooted in different views of God and
only to a degree in different views of man, because all Christians
14
INTRODUCTION
recognized the depravity of man. The question

was how to treat his
depravity and the problem came

to be an aspect of the relationship
of the Church and the world. Pacifism has commonly despaired of
the world and dissociated itself either from society altogether, or from
life, and especially from war. The advocates of
the just war
political
restrained by the
theory have taken the position that evil can be
coercive power of the state. The Church should support the state in
this endeavor and individual Christians as citizens should fight under
the auspices of the state. The crusade belongs to a theocratic view

that the Church, even though it be a minority, should impose its
will a recalcitrant world. Pacifism is thus often associated with
upon
withdrawal, the just war with qualified participation, and the crusade
with dominance of the Church over the world.
These three views had already taken shape before the close of the
Middle Ages. Thereafter they were to reappear in various configura-
tions. In the late Middle Ages pacifism was represented by the sects.
In the Renaissance in Italy the just-war theory took on new life

the city-states. At the same time among the humanists there
among
was an extensive propaganda for peace on the basis of a Christian
humanist culture. The Reformation precipitated wars of religion,
in which the three historic positions reappeared: the just war among
the Lutherans and the Anglicans, the crusade in the Reformed
Churches, and pacifism among the Anabaptists and later the Quakers.
The eighteenth century in theory
and in practice resuscitated the
humanist peace ideals of the Renaissance. The nineteenth century
was an age of comparative peace and great agitation for the elimina-
tion of war. The twentieth century has seen two world wars.
In
historic positions have recurred. The
thisperiod again, the three
churches in the United States particularly took a crusading attitude
toward the First World War; pacifism was prevalent between the two
wars; the mood of the Second World War approximated that of the
just war.
The atomic bomb has brought bewilderment and division. The
bomb has divided the bishops and their flocks. There are suggestions
15
of an emergent pacifism, based not on Christian principles but simply
on the desire for survival.
The bulk of this book is devoted to a delineation and an account
of the historical emergence and adaptation of these concepts. At the
close there is a critical appraisal and a defense of a personal position.
Necessarily there is a shift from the objective to the subjective and

not so necessarily from the dispassionate to the passionate. But why
should not a historian be profoundly concerned over behavior
which threatens to bring an end to history?
This book has been over thirty years in the making. Portions have
been delivered as lectures. The earlier portion constituted the Ayer
Lectures at the Rochester Theological Seminary in April, 1939.
The section on the Cromwellian period was given as the Southworth
Lecture at the Andover-Newton Theological Seminary in April, 1943.
A survey of the whole was presented as the Ker Lectures at the
Divinity School of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario in
October, 1958. Sketches of the whole were delivered before the
Washington Conference of Methodist ministers in January, 1959,
and before the New York Conference in June, 1959. To these
institutions and conferences my gratitude is due.
16
Chapter 1
Ideals
of
Peace in
Anticjuity
INASMUCH war
in antiquity was con-
as the ethic of the just
ceived in the framework of peace, the concept and ideal of peace
afford the best point of departure. There were some variations in the
meaning of the term

the three peoples of the ancient world
among
who were chiefly responsible for the formation of our Western tradi-
tion, namely the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the Romans. For the
Hebrews, peace was more than the absence of war. Shalom signified
well-being and was almost synonymous with prosperity. "Peace be
within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces/* x The imagery
of peace was commonly agricultural. "Thy wife shall be as a fruitful
2
vine .
thy children as olive branches . peace be upon Israel/'
. . . .
Peace meant security and for that reason the word shalom could be a
component in the name of an impregnable fortress, Yeru'shalom,
8
Jerusalem.
Among word eirend (from which comes our word
the Greeks the
irenic) was derived from a root meaning "linkage." Peace was thus
a state of order and coherence. 4 The difference from the Hebrew
concept was, however, slight; because if peace were not identical

with prosperity, at any rate, peace begot prosperity and was com-
monly accompanied in artistic representations by the cornucopia.
The mature Greek concept was delineated in these lines of the poet
Philemon:
Philosophers engage in lengthy quest

To know the good and where it may be found.
17
Virtue, reason and much else they say.
I learned it digging up the ground.
Peace it is, born of kindliest goddess,
Bestower, dearest Zeus, of every treasure;
Weddings, kindred, children, friends,
5
Wealth, health, wheat, wine and pleasure.
to being simply the absence

Among the Romans peace came closer
of war. The word pax is derived from the same root as pact an
the association of pax with tran-
agreement not to fight hence
quilitas, quies,
otium (repose) as well as with securitas. Yet with
,
of
the Romans as well as the Greeks, peace was the bestower
abundance. 6
For allthe people of antiquity peace was a religious concept, most
of all for the Hebrews. For them, peace was the gift of Yahweh:
"I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall
make you afraid." The Greeks and the Romans personified and
7
deified peace, which of course the Hebrews could not do, because
of
their monotheism. The pagans had gods for all of man's major
concerns, for as well as for war Eiren and Pax for the one,
peace
Ares and Mars for the other. Altars were erected by the Greeks to
Eiren and by the Romans to Pax, adorned with a bas relief of
Terra Mater with fruit in her lap, children on her knees, and sheep
and oxen at her feet. Some deities, once warlike, grew peaceful.
Hercules developed from the Goliath of the Dorians to be suffering
servant of humanity, enduring colossal labors to free the world of
monsters and befriend mankind. Athena, the protectress of Athens,
appeared at first armed with helmet, lance,
and shield, but with the
cultural development of the city she became the patroness of learn-
battles was transformed into the sedate
ing. The fluttered owl of her
symbol of wisdom, and her favored tree, the olive, gave its branches
as a sign of peace. Even Nik, the goddess of victory, enlarged her
art. She would hand
scope to sponsor any contest whether of sport or
not only arms to the warrior, but also the lyre to the musician. Such
refined deities were able to pass as mythological symbols into Chris-
18
IDEALS OF PEACE IN ANTIQUITY
tian culture, whereas the other gods of the pagan pantheon were
8
relegated to demonology.
Peace was deemed desirable by all the peoples of antiquity in
varying degrees. The Assyrians and their forerunners, the Sumerians,

were perhaps exceptions. Certainly they were ruthless in war and
gloated over carnage. Their art was great only in portraying the dying
agonies of men and of
beasts. But even they
practiced war thus bar-
barously only in order
to ward off attacks from
without and to quell
revolts from within
their empire. In any
THE STELE OF THE VULTURES, EARLIER THAN case, they were excep-
2000 B.C. AND PERHAPS AS EARLY AS 2500 B.C. tionaL Nothing com-
is to be found
parable
*
in ancient art to the 'stele of the vultures*' feeding on the carrion of
the vanquished. 9
Among the Greeks, the Spartans trained the ruling oligarchy for
war and militarized the state, but they were exceptional among the
Greeks. Perhaps in the days of the invasions, war may have been
glorified by the Hellenes. The early Homeric poems exhibit pro-

fusion of gore: brains spattered, bowels protruding, eyes spurting
from their sockets. Such descriptions are not the proof that men
enjoyed what they were doing, however. A modern historian has said:
[The Greeks] fought for land; they fought for trade; they fought to
gratify the vanity or ambition of leaders or kings and they fought to

gratify their own pride; they fought through fear and they fought
for revenge. They never fought, I think, because they liked fight-
10 Such a statement concedes that the Greeks were not
ing." willing
to forego any of these objectives for the sake of peace, but it does
assert that they would have preferred to achieve them without fight-
ing, and particularly, that they did not enjoy fighting

for the fun of
fighting. Nor was war normal

their condition; it occurred chiefly at
19
the time of the harvest when neighboring states sought to steal one
another's crops. A modern historian declares "that in spite of their
wars, they never regarded warfare as anything but a
many tragic
n
interruption of ordinary life."
The Romans manifestly built their empire by war,
but considered
peace their greatest achievement. The Hebrews

were responsible for
the idea of the crusade, which will engage us later; but they too
exalted peace above war throughout most of their history.
Peace in the Age of Gold
All the peoples of antiquity with the exception of the Assyrians

had the myth of a one-time warless world in a lost age of gold, whose
recovery was the object of desire and endeavor. In the Greco-Roman
form of the myth peace was not so much the bestowal of abundance as
itself the result of abundance. In the age of gold, the earth freely
yielded her increase without the toil of man; hence, there was no
need for private property, no temptation to introduce slavery, and
no reason for recourse to war. Peace in this idealistic state obtained
even between men and animals; the lion and the lamb lay down
together. War resulted from a fall of man. In the Hebrew story the
disobedience of Adam and Eve introduced enmity between the
serpent and the seed of the woman, while the murder of Abel by
Cain started bloodshed among mankind.
The first appearance of the myth in Greek literature was in the
poem of Hesiod, who portrayed the golden age of Cronos when men
dwelt in ease, prosperity, and peace. There ensued a progressive
deterioration through the ages of silver and bronze to the present
age of iron in which families were at odds, oaths were disregarded,

and might had come to be regarded as right. 12
The Stoics fitted the myth into their picture of the rational order
of the cosmos broken by a fall.Aratus, a disciple of Zeno, portrayed
the good old time when men "did not yet understand war or
vituperative dispute or the din of battle, but lived simply." In the
degenerate age of bronze the evil sword was forged, the plow ox
eaten, and justice took her flight to dwell among the stars. 18
20
Chrysippus had a rational explanation of the fall in that the gods

introduced war to keep down the population. 14 He verged on the
suggestion that peace is bound to be her own undoing because the
very plenty which she provides breeds too many men.
In Roman literature Ovid popularized the theme with no ra-
tionalistic explanations to tarnish his nostalgia for the Hesiodic idyl.
Witness these lines:
When towns were not by moats begirt,

Nor swords forged, nor helmets wrought,
Nor trumpets straight, nor twisted horns,
Men slept secure with soldiers naught 15
The concept of the golden age of peace was not without practical
import because of the belief that it could be restored. The Hebrews
were confident that the bliss of Eden would return in the Messianic
age to be inaugurated by a Prince of Peace, of whose "government

and peace there shall be no end." The wicked would be slain by
the breath of his lips and men would
beat their swords into plow-
shares. The bow would be broken, the spear cut in sunder, and the
chariot burned in the fire. Villages would have no walls, no gates,
no bars. 16
The plenty which peace bestows was to be restored. "He will
make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of
the Lord." Peace would obtain again between men and the animals.
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie
down with the kid." Yahweh declared, "And in that day will I make
a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of
heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break
the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make
them to lie down safely."
1T
Among the Gentiles the picture of the golden age could convey
less comfort to those who held a cyclical view of history, for though
peace might come again, so also would war. Scipio Africanus, when
he committed Carthage to the flames, wept not out of pity for the
fifty thousand survivors whom he was about to enslave, but only
21
from the reflection that the revolving wheel of time would
long at
last bring the same fate to Rome. Not all of the pagans were of
18
this mind, however: Virgil's Fourth Eclogue combines Greek primi-
tivism, Roman imperialism, and Hebrew messianism. Even before

the accession of Augustus, this poet announced that a child would be
born at whose coming a race would descend from heaven to restore
the age of gold. Certainly no historical determinism impeded the
efforts of the Stoics to ameliorate the social evils of their day,
including war.
The Critique of Wars

The warsof antiquity elicited criticism, which though voiced
only by the minority is not unimportant, because it was later in-

corporated into the writings of the Christian fathers. Even the
Homeric poems exhibited weariness "Were not the Trojans
of war.
insatiate of battle," sang the poet, "Menelaus would enjoy sleep,
Odysseus observed vexation of heart in him

19
love, song and dance."
who, absent from his wife, must spend a single month in a benched
20 At times the men of Homer were on the
ship. verge of composing
their differences when the gods intervened to drive them to their
doom. Aeschylus derided the Trojan war. To be sure, said he,
Menelaus was bereft of Helen, but every soldier who sailed for
vengeance left behind a brooding wife to whom Ares would return
urns and ashes. The epitaph would read "hero fallen in action," but
the secret comment would be "for another man's wife/' 21 Euripides
in The Daughters of Troy retold the story from the sandpoint of
the enemy and caused Andromache to say, on learning that the
Greeks would dash her child against the rocks through fear of rearing
the son of a hero, that the Hellenes were barbarians. 22
Though the war against Persia was celebrated by Aeschylus, who
fought at Salamis, his poem concluded with the lament of the

mother of Xerxes. 23 Aristophanes scoffed at the Athenian war party
in the Peloponnesian conflict. In the drama entitled Peace, this
goddess had been thrown into a pit by the demon of war. The
22
Greek cities were summoned to her help and were scathed by the
dramatist because of their obstructionist assistance.
Alexander, whose conquest actually fostered cosmopolitanism, was
nonetheless berated in the silver age of Latin literature for his
brutality and ambition. Seneca compared Alexander to a beast rend-

24
ing more than he could devour. Juvenal observed that one globe
was too small for Alexander, yet in the end a sarcophagus sufficed. 25
Quintus Curtius had a Scythian ambassador tell Alexander that he
who boasted to have come against brigands was himself a brigand. 26
The conquests of Rome likewise were scathed by the vanquished.
The Gauls lamented that their land was prostrate beneath the victor's
ax. 27 The Britains said, "The Romans are robbers of the world.
After denuding the land, they rifle the sea. They are rapacious toward
the rich and domineering toward the poor, satiated neither by the
East nor by the West. Pillage, massacre and plunder they grace
with the name of empire and where they make a desert, call it
28 Orosius the
peace." Spaniard considered the ravages of the Goths
in the early fourth century to be but flea bites compared to the Ro-
man conquest of Spain when the natives killed their wives and
children and cut their own amid carnage
throats rather than linger
and famine. 29 The conquered Greeks complained, "What manner
of men are the Romans? Are they not shepherds who, unable because
of base blood to secure wives, seized them by violence? who estab-
lished their city by parricide and sprinkled the foundations of their
walls with the blood of a brother?" Among the Romans themselves
80
Horace discovered a virus of corruption in the Roman blood stream,

because the city had been founded on the fratricide of Remus by
Romulus. 31 Sallust traced the degeneration of Rome to the demo-
lition of Carthage. 82
The civil wars of Rome were deemed by some to be particularly

monstrous. After the death of Nero in 69 his generals fought over
A.D.
the succession for a year. During this struggle Tacitus recorded that
a Spaniard enrolled on one side, leaving at home a son who later en
listed on the other. The lad unwittingly struck down his father and,
recognizing the dying man, embraced him and prayed not

to be
23
abhorred for his parricide, since the blame should rest with the state.
The soldiers watched as the son performed the last rites for his father,
while down the line went cries of stupor, grief, and execration of this
most cruel war. It was in this same conflict that Musonius the Cynic
went among the ranks deriding the war. 88 Perhaps he addressed the
men in the words of one of his surviving fragments, "Is not the world
the common fatherland of all men? I am a citizen of the city of
God." *
War as Scourge
In addition to the critique of particular wars there was criticism

of war in general. Pindar summed it up when he said: "Sweet is war
to him who knows it not." s5 The terror of war was described by
Aeschylus as he portrayed the anguish of a siege:
Groaning within: without

A net is spread,
Gripping the towers about.
Man strikes man dead;
And inarticulately
Like beasts in dread,
Mother and infant cry,
And blood runs red.
36
Running, they rob, they fly.
The costliness of war was recognized by Pindar, who said: "Even
by the feeble a city may be shaken to its foundation, but to set it up

87 The
again is a sore struggle." unpredictability of the outcome in
war, the folly of hastening death which comes in any case inevitably
and quickly, are recurrent themes in the passages about to be cited,
The irrationality of war was seen in that it strikes those most en-
titled to live the young and the weak. Herodotus caused Croesus to
excuse himself in the following words for having started a war: "No
one is so foolish as to prefer war to peace in which instead of sons
burying their fathers, fathers bury their sons, but the gods willed it
*8
so." Aristophanes observed the hardship that war inflicted upon
women whose youth withered while the men were absent on the field.
24
GREEK WARFARE, A DETAIL FROM AN ATHENIAN VASE
In the drama Lysistrata, the women conspired on both sides to end

the conflict by refusing all relations with their husbands until peace
should be concluded. The magistrate complained of the impudence
of the women:
"these who have nothing to do with the war . . .
LYSISTRATA: Nothing to do with it, wretch that you arel
We are the people who feel it the keenliest,

doubly on us the affliction is cast;
Where are the sons that we sent to your battle-fields?
MAGISTRATE: Silence! a truce to the ills that are past.
LYSISTRATA: Then and grace of our womanhood,

in the glory
all in the May and
the morning of life,
Lo, we are sitting forlorn and disconsolate,

what has a soldier to do with a wife?
We might endure it, but ah! for the younger ones,
still in their maiden apartments they stay.
25
Waiting the husband that never approaches them,
watching the years that are gliding away.
MAGISTRATE: Men, I suppose, have their youth everlastingly.
LYSISTRATA: Nay, but it isn't the same with a man:
Grey though he be when he comes from

the battlefield,
he can." 39
still if he wishes to marry,
That war is irrational because it is counter to the very grain of the

universe was a theme particuarly congenial to the Stoics, who be-
lieved reason to be immanent in the universe as a principle of har-
mony and cohesion. The heavenly bodies, said Dion of Prusa, move in
weaker stars
harmony. The sun at night graciously gives way to the
and to the moon and even by day suffers himself to be eclipsed or
beclouded. The stars in turn preserve their orbits without collision.
Likewise in the lower world the birds nest beside the birds. The ants
40
assist the ants and the bees do not quarrel over the same flower.
The theme of peace among animals derived from a remark by Aris-

totle, that at least animals o the same species exhibit friendship
toward each other. 41 How
preposterous then, argued
his successors,
that men, being of the same species and endowed also with conscious
reason, should exhibit less amity toward their kind than serpents!
Juvenal wrote in this vein:
Wild beasts are more merciful to beasts spotted like themselves. When
did the stronger lion ever attack the weaker? In what wood did a boar
expire under the tusks of a larger boar?
The fierce tigress of India dwells
in perpetual peace with her fellow; bears live in harmony with bears.
Men formerly made only hoes, harrows, spades and plowshares
but now,
learned to the deadly blade on the impious anvil, are not
having forge
content merely with killing someone but act as if a man's breast, arms
and face were a kind of food. 42
* to Peace
Ways
A number o ways were proposed, and in a
for achieving peace
measure practiced, alike by the Gentiles and the Jews in antiquity.
The approach of the Gentiles was primarily pragmatic. The elimina-
26
tion of the economic causes of war engaged Xenophon who addressed

himself to the economics of peace and considered how Athens might
renounce her empire without impoverishing her citizens. Athens
might then at least eliminate wars of her own making if she could
solve theproblem of production and finance. 43
Another way to peace was by way of concession. The Pax Romana
was actually on occasion preserved in this fashion. The barbarians
were not always repelled, but were admitted into the empire by a
policy of controlled immigration. Constantine settled some 200,000
Sarmatians. Awriter under the empire advocated peace by purchase:
a subsidy should be given to the barbarians that they might be
friendly serve as buffers against more remote tribes. The policy
and
was phrased in the words placed in the mouth of a prince who said,
"I share my wealth with my enemies. The barbarians on my fron-
tierwere perpetually raiding my territory. Now I control them with
money and instead of invading, they serve as a patrol against more
1
troublesome barbarians beyond/ 44
A parallel existed in Hebrew thought, in the retouching of the
stories of the patriarchs by later writers opposed to the extermination
of the Canaanites. Writers of this school portrayed Abraham as so-
journing many days peacefully among the Philistines, though of

course in his day there were no Philistines in the land. 45 The spirit
of the gloss was more fully revealed in Abraham's treatment of Lot,
for when strife arose between the herdsmen of the two, Abraham
proposed that they separate and suffered Lot to take the plain of
46
Jordan, well watered as the garden of the Lord.
Mediation and Magnanimity
If a dispute admitted of no resolution by agreement, mediation

was the next recourse. If that failed, war should not so be waged as
to preclude peace. These points are the subject of the next chapter.
For the avoidance of a future war no means was more expedient
than magnanimity in the making of a peace. The Greeks and the
Romans alike exhibited on occasion a generous spirit. The ideal was
well expressed in an address in the Sicilian assembly when the aged
27
Nikolaos sought to dissuade his countrymen from severity toward the
vanquished Athenians:
Let no one accuse me of softness toward Athens. Have I not lost two
sons in the war? How do I envy those who died gloriously for their country
leaving me to a childless old age. Nevertheless mercy should be extended
to Athens, partly on the grounds of law since the common usage of the
Greeks forbids the slaughter of the vanquished, and partly on the grounds
of humanity. To crush a bruised reed is to despise the common weakness
of mankind. Why did the ancients set up their trophies in wood rather
than in stone? That the memory of their victories might be short. Let
Athens, who first erected an altar to Mercy, find mercy in the city of
Syracuse. In the fluctuations of Fortune the victor of today may be the
vanquished of tomorrow and how can he expect to find mercy if he refuse
it? Magnanimity will be the best way to establish peace and make the
Athenians ashamed of their unjust war. Recall their contributions to

Greek culture and the common loss which will be sustained in the destruc-
tion of their citizens ..
forget not the common soldier who has not to
.
reason why and above all let humanity be exercised toward those of the
same stock. 47
Here one finds a blending of Panhellenism and humanitarianism

plus the prudential consideration that magnanimity is the best way
to insure an enduring peace.
Pacifism
Again there were a few in antiquity who sought peace by a renun-

and war.
ciation of politics
Withdrawal from the state is evidenced by the Essenes who lived
in segregated communities. Among the Greeks the Cyreniacs and
the Epicureans eschewed political entanglements. Said a Cyreniac,
"Where I thrive; there is my
country."
48 Another declared that
reason is opposed to the sacrifice of the sake of fools. One's country is

the world. 49 The Epicureans esteemed military
exploits as the
50 Lucretius
plague. besought glamorous Venus to enchant Mars to
leave Rome in peace. 51
A stronger motive for withdrawal was found in the disparagement
of the body. One finds this in some measure later in Christian mo-
28
nasticism. Tendencies in this direction in pagan antiquity issued in

the Neoplatonism of Plotinus. His political theory was ambiguous.
He had been a soldier, but perhaps before he became a sage. Certainly
he disparaged civic virtue and said that the savior of a state might be
a rascal. 52 He
suggested to the Emperor Gallienus the reconstruction
of a ruined city in Campania as the seat of a platonic republic. 53
But he recognized that not all men should or would adopt the road
of philosophy. In that case peace by withdrawal becomes the privilege
or the vocation of the few.
Peace by poverty was the way of the Cyreniacs who avoided war
by renouncing all that for which men fight. Said one of their mem-
bers, neither I nor any friend of mine have need of silver or
"May
gold, for from the desire of these things, all human evils spring
factions and wars and and murders." 54 Diogenes, when
conspiracies
he saw a boy drinking from his hands, smashed his own cup saying,
"How long have I carried superfluous baggage?" 55 He who had so
little, was able, when the Greeks were at war, to move i$ a perpetual
armistice.
on a belief in metempsychosis was ascribed to
Pacifism based
Pythagoreans whose leader according to Seneca inspired men with
inadvertently they harm a parent.

the fear of killing animals lest 56
Empedocles said expressly that in killing an animal one might be

putting to death the very parent to whom one prayed.
57 Such
opinions were extended to a repudiation of war by Pythagoreans who,

"felt repugnance to killing living things as unlawful and contrary to
nature and they considered it even more unrighteous to kill a man.
For that reason they have given up making war. For war is the author
Actually we have no record of any
and contriver of murders." 58
concerted Pythagorean opposition to war.

There are passages in Seneca and Marcus Aurelius with a pacifist
ring. Said Seneca:
We punish murders and what shall we say of wars and massacres which
we laud because they destroy whole nations? . That which would be
. .
visited with death if done privately is vaunted when committed publically.

. . . Shameful it is that men, the mildest breed, should delight in mutual
29
bloodshed, even handing on their wars to their children, whereas animals
devoid of reason are at peace. . Man who is sacred to man is even
. .
killed for sport.
In his book on natural history Seneca said that the winds were not
designed to waft men to battle and death without burial. 'Tools, what
59
are you seeking? Death which is everywhere?"
Marcus Aurelius likewise derided military bombast. "A spider/'
said he, "prides itself on capturing a fly; one man on catching a hare,
another on netting a sprat, another on taking wild boars, another
60
bears, another Sarmatians. Are they not all brigands?"
Yet Seneca was the prime minister of Nero, and Marcus wrote his
meditations in the camp defending the empire against the barbarians.
The thought of the Hebrews was so deeply religious that human
devices for achieving peace were seldom proposed. Peace is a gift of
God. Man fulfills the covenant; God bestows peace. A
condition of
peace is righteousness, but the point not plain whether the right-
is
eous will enjoy peace because unrighteousness by its very nature is

productive of strife, or that the righteous will be rewarded with the
gift of peace. "[Those who] shed innocent blood have made them
crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace."
"There is no peace for the wicked." "The work of righteousness shall
be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance."
Only when righteousness and peace have kissed each other will the
Lord speak peace unto His people. 61
Another condition of peace is trust in God, not in the strength of
man: "Rely not on Assyria against those tails of smoking firebrands
Pekah arid Rezin. Lean not upon Babylon against Assyria. Trust
not to Egypt nor to horses and chariots. The Egyptians are men not
God; horses are flesh not spirit." "In returning and rest shall ye be
saved, in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength." e2
Another road to peace was much more prudential. When Israel
was captive in Babylon, Jeremiah recognized the futility of rebellion.
He advised acquiescence in the peace of Babylon 63 and even when
help from Egypt was forthcoming, counseled against such an alliance.

His advice may have been nothing more than political sagacity.
30
There is finally in Israel a suggestion of a redemptive pacificism

which by suffering may usher in peace. This is the picture of the
64 The
suffering servant of the Lord in the book of Second Isaiah.
servant is a governor who "shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
. , . He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment
He is a shephard "a bruised reed shall he not break and
in the earth."
the smoking flax shall he not quench." He was despised and rejected
of men and though he had done no violence "he made his grave with
the wicked." The Lord will vindicate him because he poured out his
soul unto death. Immortality appears to be his reward and the mean-
ing of his suffering is that "with his stripes we are healed." Does this
mean simply that we God or that we are so trans-
are reconciled to
formed by example and
his by God's mercy that we shall be at peace
among ourselves, and will this mean anything for the peace of the
world?
For a mind so religious as that of the Hebrew the answer could
scarcely be any other than that man must do justice, love mercy,
walk humbly, and leave to God the bestowal of his peace.
Peace by Conquest
Actual peace on a wide scale was achieved in antiquity only by

conquest. All of the arbitration among the Greeks did not stop wars,
which were terminated only when Philip of Macedon deprived them
of their freedom. On the death of his son Alexander, the Greeks re-
volted for liberty to destroy each other and continued their con-
flicts until peace was again imposed by the Romans.
The enthusiasm with which the Pax Romana was greeted is evi-
dence alike of war-weariness and peace-mindedness. When Augustus

triumphed over his last rival and closed the gates of the temple of
Janus as a sign of peace, men hailed its advent as the return of the
age of gold. Virgil saw in Augustus that figure of divine descent who
should bring again to Latium the sway of Saturn. On willing subjects
he would bestow the laws of Rome and confer on every race the ways
who tended his own field, unwilling
of peace. 65 Blessed then was he
31
to wreck a city in order that he might drink from a jeweled cup or
66
sleep on Tyrian purple.
The poets of the Augustan age took up the strain. Horace rejoiced
in the return of faith, honor without shame, and peace. Tibullus
the earth. 6 * Propertius
prayed that love might walk unharmed upon
portrayed the soldier's wife cursing
him who first made the trumpet
out of bones. She rejoiced in her husband's triumphs only because
they brought him home:
Love is a god of peace,

And peace is by lovers adored.
Naked thou goest, oh fool,
To ferry the Stygian ford,
Equal to walk among shades,
Be thou vanquished or be thou a lord. 68
Praises of the Pax Romana continued to resound throughout the

years. Toward the close of the second century Aelius Aristides re-
its ancient dress of steel. Cities
joiced that the world had laid aside
no longer required an acropolis, and the name of Rome applied not
to a but to a race. Those who were formerly at war now lived as
city
6 * On the eve of the barbarian
tranquilly as noiselessly gliding water.
debacle Claudian exulted that one might travel "to the drear re-
cesses of the world" and yet find there a fatherland. "Whether we
drink of the Rhine or the Orontes, we are all one people. Of Rome's
70
sway there will be no end."
Chapter 2
The Classical
Origins of
the
just War
JL HE idea of the just war arose in the context of the ideas of peace
already described. The object of such a war was the vindication of
justice and the restoration of peace; of necessity, therefore, peace
had to be esteemed as an ideal, and recourse to war as a very last re-
mediation had failed. The war should be so conducted as
sort after
not to preclude the restoration of an enduring peace. Hence, the
conduct of war would have to be restrained by a code.
The resolution of disputes by mediation if possible, and if not,
then by limited war, presupposed certain practical conditions which
were fulfilled by the Greek city-states. The first was a relative equality
of power; the lion does not arbitrate with the lamb, Rome was a
lion, Israel a lamb. Rome w*ould not submit her own disputes to
arbitration, though willing to enforce it upon her subjects. Israel was
not in a position to ask for arbitration with Rome, nor for that
matter with Egypt or Assyria. The Greek cities, however, were in-
dependent sovereign states of approximately equal strength. To be
sure, Athens first led, then Sparta, then Thebes, but the discrepancy
of power was at no time so great as that between Assyria and Israel or
between Rome and Spain. In the case of the Greeks, with forces so
well matched that neither an easy victory nor certain defeat could
be predicted, wisdom pointed to mediation rather than to the arbitra-
ment of a long and indecisive conflict.
If war did come, and if the opportunity through some freak of
fortune was afforded of liquidating the foe, why not be forever rid
33
of the menacing assailant? What considerations dictated restraint?
They might be prudential: that a state would fare better with

friendly competitors than with sullen vassals or encircling waste
lands. Such mundane wisdom would scarcely have prevailed, save for
the belief that other Greek states had their worth and their right to
live. Some sense of kinship was essential if fratricide were to be
avoided among the peoples of a civilization divided into independent

political units.
The Greeks were in a position to develop such a sense by reason of
a common language despite dialects and a common culture.
Though these of themselves did not unite them at the outset, and
at the Battle of Plateia some fifteen thousand Greeks are estimated
to have fought on the side of Persia, growing awareness of the menace
of the common foe at length generated the sense of a common interest
and a fellowfeeling. The Persian Wars first prompted the distinction
between Hellene and barbarian. Athens presumably inaugurated
the Panhellenic propaganda and Herodotus disclosed its character
when in the seventh book he commenced to use the term "barbarian"
opprobriously in contrast to "Hellene." In the mouth of a Persian
he placed the observation that "The Greeks are wont to wage wars
against each other through sheer perversity. Now surely, since
. . ,
they are of one speech they should compose their differences by any
means rather than battle." *
Obviously Panhellenism had its limitations as a restraint upon war,
because it could only apply to Hellenes. If the scope of the restraint
were to be extended, the range of kinship must be enlarged. Stray
Sophists and Cynics anticipated this development. Antiphon asserted
that by nature all men are equal Greek and barbarian alike* 2
Diogenes, when asked whence he came, replied, "I am a cosmopolites,

a citizen of the world," 8 by which he really meant not so much that
he belonged to the world he did not belong to any particular
as that
state. The great growth of genuine
cosmopolitanism came partly as
a result of the conquests and the program of Alexander the Great,
who has been hailed in our own day as the first to essay the unification
of mankind. 4 In his own time, Alexander was lauded by Plutarch
34
THE CLASSICAL ORIGINS OF THE JUST WAR
because by arms he had imposed what the word had been unable to
in the bowl of friendship he had mingled the lives and customs
effect:
of men; the terms Greek and barbarian had reference henceforth

not to peoples but rather to the cultivated and to the uncouth. 5 Such
a statement, however, is a trifle extravagant, because Alexander
undertook only to blend the Greeks and the Persians. His successors
went farther in their effort to disseminate Hellenism throughout the
whole of what is now called th6 Middle East. The attempt was never
The Copt, the Syrian, the Armenian, and the
altogether successful.
Jew were never thoroughly assimilated and the Byzantine Empire
was eventually to disintegrate through the resurgence of these
peoples. Nevertheless, many persons came to think of themselves as
belonging to a world vastly greater than the cities of their birth. The
poet Meleager in the century before Christ wrote this epitaph:
Attic was I born in Syrian Gadara,

Nurtured in island Tyre, the Hellene Muse employed.
What wonder, friend, that I should hail from Syria!
One world our country, mortals gendered by the void. 6
Coincidentally Stoicism provided a philosophical basis for a cos-

mopolitanism embracing all mankind. Since all men participate in
the rational order of the universe they are able to comprehend the
structure of their world and to order their affairs accordingly. The
basis for world unity here is obviously intellectual rather than bio-
logical and does not of necessity insure unity, for the Stoic could
not deny that some men do not behave reasonably. There are fools as
well as wise men and fools may have to be coerced.
A Hebrew parallel to Stoic universalism is to be found in the
extension of God's covenant to include more peoples than Israel.
Strictly speaking this was not cosmopolitanism in which all the world
is one city, but literally a syn-agogism, a going up together to the
mount of the Lord. The breakdown of Jewish particularism con-
sisted, not in a vague diffusion of cosmic fellowship, but in making
others the heirs of the same promise. Yahweh's exclusive concern for
Israel disappeared. He had brought the Philistines from Caphtor
35
and the Syrians from Kir, just as he had brought Israel from Egypt. 7
"In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria-
even a blessing in the midst of the land: whom the Lord of hosts
shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria
the work
hands, and Israel mine inheritance/' But the promises were

8
of my
still to Israel and through her "the people that
walked in darkness
have seen a great light/' 9 Obviously here also there was still a line of
of the Covenant, however much en-
cleavage between the children
larged, and the Gentiles, not of the flesh indeed but of the spirit.
Mediation
Among peoples who looked upon themselves as akin, war was con-
sidered a hideous extremity. Attempts at mediation must come first,
and among the Greeks they did. Their record of successful arbitration
isremarkable, for during the years from 740 B.C. to 798 B.C. eighty-one
cases occurred, with frequency increasing toward the end of the
period. Not all were voluntary, nor did the sum of them prevent the
Greeks from mutual decimation. Nevertheless the record is impres-
sive. 10 In various other ways the Greeks obviated conflicts; the
Olympian games, the Amphictyonic councils, and the Delphic oracle

all contributed.
The Olympic games served as a focus for Panhellenism. Here all
the Greeks came together peaceably. Elis, the city of the games, was
to enjoy perpetual immunity from war, nor could any of the partici-
pating states engage in hostilities during the time of the festival. At

such assemblies treaties were made and local rivalries satisfied by
11
sport.
The Amphictyonic councils were
assemblies for political purposes,
of which the most famous was the Delphic. Members swore not to
demolish any towns of the association and not to cut off running
water in peace or in war. Any members violating the rule should be
cities. The league had teeth.
punished by the destruction of their
The council served repeatedly as a court of arbitration, though it
could not be characterized as a permanent court of international
justice.
36
The Delphic oracle was consulted alike by Hellene and barbarian.
Apollo the god of light and humanity, responded to all save the cruel,
as for example the Milesians, who were refused a
response because
they had not expiated their excesses in the civil wars. Here was a
form of excommunication. An order to a city to take down and bury
an impaled head was obeyed. Athens was refused a response for failure
to pay a fine to the Eleans. She complied. Again, having expelled the
Delians in 422 B.C., she restored them at the behest of the god. The
oracle both recommended arbitration and acted as an arbitrator, 12
Peace the Object of War

If all other means of adjusting a difference had failed and war
ensued, then it should be waged with an eye to the restoration of
peace. Such was the view of Plato who, without using the expression,
first gave formulation to the code which came to be called that of
the "just war/' 1S He

could not employ this expression because his
rules were intended to apply only among the Hellenes whose con-
flicts he would not dignify by the name of war. Rather, they were
factions or feuds; such conflicts should be conducted always with an
eye to reconciliation. The conquered were not to be enslaved; by the

same token they were not to be exterminated. 14 Plato's word was not
a Utopian counsel, but had already been actually exemplified in the
contests of the Greeks. At the close of the Peloponnesian War,
Lysander the Spartan had caught the Athenian fleet at anchor while
the crew were foraging. Only a remnant escaped to bear the news.
No man in Athens slept that night, fearing that Sparta would raze
the city and enslave the populace. The Corinthian and Theban allies
of the victor recommended such a course, but Sparta declined to
efface the glory of Greece and did no more than raze the walls to
the music of flute 15
girls.
On a notable occasion Rome did not treat her vanquished foe in
this magnanimous fashion. Carthage was destroyed. Significant, how-
ever, was the protest which preceded and the condemnation which
followed the demolition. The circumstance was that Carthage, having
been disarmed after the first Punic War, rearmed herself in con-
37
travention of the treaty in order that she might defend herself against
the Numidian Massinissa. Rome saw here a threat to herself and Cato
reiterated: Carthago delenda est. Scipio Nasica opposed on prudential
grounds, arguing thatRome's western dependencies such as Spain
would be less submissive if relieved of the menace of invasion by
another great power; and Rome herself would succumb to dissension
if not united by the fear of a rival. 16 His advice went unheeded.
Carthage was levelled and her people enslaved. When subsequently

Rome was rent by civil wars, later Romans reproached the ruthless-
ness of their sires.
Limited Violence
Since according to Plato the object of the Hellenic feud was the
restoration of peace, the amount of violence should be restricted to
the minimum necessary to obtain satisfaction from the enemy. The
houses of the Greeks should not be burned. The land should not
be scorched. Only the annual harvest might be confiscated. The sensi-
bilities of the foe were not to be outraged by despoiling the dead of
anything but weapons, nor by erecting trophies of victory in temples.

Indiscriminate destruction would harm the innocent because in any
conflict the whole population, consisting of men, women, and chil-
dren should never be regarded as an enemy. Those really responsible
for the quarrel would always be few. 17 Plato was here verging on the
distinction between the combatant and the noncombatant, but used
rather the terminology of the guilty and the innocent and did not
suggest that they could be segregated during the course of the conflict.
His warning was simply against indiscriminate violence in which
all alike would suffer.
Justice and Natural Law

The restoration of peace was indeed the object of the just war, but
it was called
just primarily because its first object was the vindication
of justice. Only thereafter would peace be proper. If justice, then,
were the object, the concept of justice demanded definition, and
nothing very precise was proposed. Plato defined justice as "giving
38
to each his due." What then was his due? The answer, rather assumed
than expressed, was conceived in terms of a static society resting on
the basis of social inequality. 18 That was why Aristotle could apply
the term, a "just war" and he first coined the expression to a war
whose object was to enslave those designed by nature for servitude
but who resisted their proper assignment in the social scale. 19 Be-
tween states justice meant the inviolability of harvests and the in-
tegrity of boundaries. It meant that each state should be content

with what it had. Such a formula obviously had to be expanded or
circumvented by casuistry were to cover wars of imperialism.
if it
The concept of justice received a deeper base and a wider scope

when incorporated into the system of natural law, a universal morality
binding upon all peoples. The concept of natural law has had a
venerable history. It was adopted and adapted by the Christian
Church to undergird the political ethic alike of the Scholastic theolo-
gians and of the Protestant reformers. It was to enjoy an enormous
vogue in the age of the enlightenment. Though obscured in the
nineteenth century by the romantic movement, it continues today
in large measure to provide the presuppositions of the Western de-
mocracies. In content it is vague and therein may lie, in part, the
secret of its
popularity. To be applied it must be rendered concrete,
and concretion produces divergent interpretations. Its value lies in
the assumption that a universal moral code exists. Such a faith in-
spires the quest in our day for an international ethos.

In antiquity the theory of the law of nature assumed shape in
response to the divorce by the Sophists of law from nature. Some
of them affirmed by nature all men are equal, by law they have
that
been made unequal. Other Sophists declared that by nature the strong
should rule, whether they be strong individually or collectively; laws
were held to be the conspiracy of the weak to deprive the strong of
their natural due. Nature was held to justify the strong in recourse to
ruthlessness for the recovery of their right. Against such unabashed
brutality, Socrates steadfastly set his face. Better, said he, to suffer
wrong than to inflict it. 20 Plato agreed. Law and nature were not
thus to be divided; they were reassociated as the law of nature.
39
what was the law of nature? The answer depended on
Precisely
how the source of nature and the nature of nature were conceived.
If nature were rooted in the transcendental, as in Plato's realm of
ideas, or if nature were the will of the God of Israel,

then the law
of nature could be viewed as a fundamental norm for the laws of the
at variance with the stand-
state by which they could be corrected if
ard. If nature were a cosmic, rational principle immanent in the
universe, as the Stoics claimed, then again it had a force far beyond
statutes. But if nature were only that which is empirically observed
to be universal in human experience, it might serve indeed to correct
a particular constitution, but could not support a radical transforma-
tion of the social structure of the ancient world for this reason
Aristotle's law of nature was conservative.
and sanction for nature,
Apart from the question of the source
there was the problem of the nature of nature. Some defined it as
the intrinsic, the core after the accidental had been stripped away.
Others understood nature in terms of origins, as that which was there
at the commencement; these therefore evaluated human institutions
in terms of primitivism, as to whether they conformed to the condi-

tions of the golden age without property, slavery, or war. Here plainly
was a very radical concept which served well to justify the revolt of
the Gracchi and the republican opposition to the empire. This radical
natural law was blunted through the idea of the fall of man which
necessitatedan accomodation. The distinction between two varieties
of natural law the one radical, corresponding to the age of gold,
the other conservative, corresponding to the behavior of fallen man
was first clearly formulated by the Roman jurist Ulpian in the second
century of our era. Both varieties were to reappear in Christian social
21
thought.
Despite all these attenuations, natural law was conceived as a uni-
versal and self-vindicating morality. Applied to war, the concept
meant that this institution must be judged in a wide ethical context,
in terms of a law which enjoyed at least the weight of universal usage,
and was commonly believed to enjoy a religious or a cosmic sanction.
Yet in spite of all these imposing speculations, justice in antiquity was
40
usually construed quite simply as the rectification of injury to life
and goods, and this was deemed a proper ground for war.
Roman Adaptations; The State
When the notion of the just war was taken over by the Romans
certain modifications were introduced by reason of the altered circum-
stances. Cicero was to transform the just war into a code for con-
querors an ethic for empire. His life span encompassed the last
days of the republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire in the
first century of the Christian era. Behind him lay the extension of
Rome's sway well-nigh to the confines of the then known world. His
version of the just war contained certain elements derived from old
Roman practice. 22 To be just, said he, a war must be conducted by
the state. A soldier not inducted by oath could not legally serve. This
formula excluded the possibility of a revolution against the govern-
ment. Cicero went so far as virtually to personify the state when he
said that individuals die but the state should live forever. 23 One state,
he continued, should not make war upon another without a formal

declaration of hostilities. This stipulation was in accord with Roman
practice which required that the Fetiales, a college of priests, should

first deliver an ultimatum, allowing thirty days for a reply. If satis-
faction were not given hostilities would be solemnly announced to

the enemy. These Petioles presided also over truces and treaties. 2 *
In all dealings with the the code required that good faith
enemy
be observed and every oath fulfilled, whether sworn by the citizen
or by the state. The classical example was the case of Regulus, a
Roman prisoner at Carthage, who was released on oath to return, so
that he might go to Rome and plead for a negotiated peace. Instead he
informed the senate of the depleted state of Carthage and urged
implacable prosecution of the war. Then, faithful to his promise, he
went back to Carthage to die of torture.
Cicero, like Plato, distinguished between the guilty and the in-
nocent among the enemy, but he did not specify that noncombatants
were to be spared. His greatest concern was with the treatment of the
vanquished, because only a liberal peace was a sound basis for the
41
building of an empire. Reviewing the history of Rome until his time,

he rendered the verdict that she had conquered the world by means
war and the generous peace. 25 Her enemies after defeat
of the just
were incorporated unless they had been barbarous like Carthage.
(Cicero justified her demolition.) Through incorporation the van-
quished enjoyed all the benefits of Roman civilization.
In war and peace the conduct of rulers and peoples should be

guided by the principle of humanitas. This ideal had been elabo-
rated by a Greek Stoic, Panaitios, who joined the circle of Scipio
Africanus; the philanthropia of Panaitios became the humanitas of
Cicero. The concept was based upon that which is congruous with
the nature of man, himself a being endowed with excellence and
dignity inspiring reverence. Decorum, civility, and refinement are

becoming to him and should govern his deportment. In his dealings
with others he should exhibit benevolence, magnanimity, and mercy.
Harmony and concord should prevail in his society. Pompey exempli-
conquering the pirates he did not crucify
fied the ideal, in that after
them but settledthem inland where they might satisfy their needs
without gratifying their habits. (One of Virgil's finest descriptions of
nature was inspired by the garden of an ex-pirate.) Julius Caesar
likewise broke with the proscriptions of Sulla and instead erected
a temple to Clemency, sculptured as a goddess holding the hand of
Julius the Conqueror. Such was the ideal in war and peace of those
who established the Pax Romana.
Old Testament Parallels
These concepts were the more readily appropriated later by Chris-

tian writers because certain parallels were to be discovered in the
Old Testament. Natural law had its counterpart in the covenant
between Yahweh and his people. His will was seen as a universal
morality binding not only upon Israel but upon all peoples. It came
close to the Greek logos,
pervading the universe, for the covenant was
even with the beasts, as well aswith day and night and even with
the very stars. It was graven on hearts like the unwritten law of the
.Greeks. "I will put my law in their inward
parts and and in their
42
hearts I will write it." 2T The covenant was vindicated by Yahweh
who could use even the very Assyrians as the rod of his anger.
An obvious parallel was to be found between the golden age of
the Stoics and the Garden of Eden, and in both myths there was the
notion of a fall.
A code of war was elaborated in Deuteronomy 20. Enemy cities

within the confines of Israel were subject to extermination, but if
they were situated beyond the borders and would submit, they were
to be incorporated as tributaries. If they refused to submit, only the
males were to be put to the sword. Women, children, cattle, and goods
were not subject to the ban, but might be enjoyed as spoils. Even if
the city lay within the confines of Israel, though the people were to
be killed, the fruit trees should be spared.
Another rule of warfare became prominent in the Maccabean
28 When conse-
struggle the Jews would not fight on the Sabbath.
quently they were butchered, the rule was relaxed until it prohibited
attacks but not defense upon that day. The Romans, discovering no
resistance on the Sabbath desisted from warfare until the morrow
and spent the intervening time in erecting earth works with which
the Jews did not interfere but adhered to their scruples to their own
hurt.
Chapter
3
The Origins of
the
Crusading
Idea
In the Old Testament
L HE crusade differed from the just war primarily in its intensely

religious quality. The just war, tobe sure, was not devoid of religion,
and to disregard its conditions would be to incur the displeasure of
the gods, but it was fought for mundane objectives, albeit with a
religious sanction, whereas the crusade was God's war. As such it
could scarcely have originated in antiquity save among the Jews.
The
crusade stemmed out of the holy war which sought to ensure
the favor of Yahweh by observing the conditions conducive to his
good pleasure. An inspired religious leader sent out pieces of flesh

to summon the tribes as yet only loosely consolidated. The men vol-
unteered. They were dedicated to the Lord together with their
weapons. Sacrifices were offered and a religious leader inquired as

to the will of Yahweh. Then came the announcement to the people
that their God had already delivered the enemy into their hands,
that Yahweh was with them on the field of battle; later the ark came
tobe the sign of his presence. As the ark advanced, Moses cried "Rise
up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered/'
*
One instance of a primitive holy war isrecorded in the song of

Deborah, who was awakened by Yahweh into a frenzy of religious
ecstasy and fanned the fever of war, visiting curses on Reuben who
abode in the sheep fold and Asher who remained in the ships. With-
out their help the mighty Sisera was brought low. 2
The crusade went beyond the holy war in the respect that it was
44
THE ORIGINS OF THE CRUSADING IDEA IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
fought not so much with God's help as on God's behalf, not for a
human goal which God might bless but for a divine cause which God
might command. The sincerity of the warriors was evidenced by the
consecration of the booty to the Lord. The power of God was made
manifest by the fewness and the weakness of the troops. The leader-
ship of God was revealed in that the war was inaugurated not by a
government organized with reference to earthly security but by a
God-filled leader, the mouthpiece of the Lord.
Before the period of the Maccabees one may doubt whether a
crusade ever really took place in Israel. The conquest of the land is
held by some archaeologists to have been rather a gradual infiltration
punctuated by conflict. 3 The nomadic invaders had pastured first
their flocks on the hillsides. If molested by lowlanders they would

annex a city as a precaution. When
they were fairly well established,
a serious rival appeared in that the Philistines, coming by way of
the sea, gained a footing on the coastal plain. In order to hold ground
against them, the Israelites began to develop those institutions con-
genial to the just war, namely national consolidation, monarchical
government, and military defense. Saul, the first king, had a body-
4
guard, and David had his pretorians, the Gibborim, six hundred in
number. 5 Solomon had a regular standing army with 1,400 chariots
and 12,000 horsemen, 6 The primary role of the farmers thereafter
was not to wield the sword but to pay the taxes. Prophets ceased to
be the inspired instigators of war and became instead the chaplains
of kings, still with the function of inquiring as to Yahweh's pleasure.
The establishment of the monarchy made possible the fulfillment
of the condition of the just war that it be waged under the auspices
of the ruler. The citizen served at the behest of the king rather than
volunteered in response to the summons of the prophet. The con-
interpreted these changes

servatives Yahweh.
as defection from
Samuel warned the people that the king "will take your sons, . . .
for his chariots, and to be his horsemen. . . . And will set them to
plow his ground, and reap his harvest, and to make his instruments
of war, and instruments of his chariots. . . . And he will take the
tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and
45
to his servants." 7census of the land ordered by David in order
The
to learn the military potential was undertaken against the advice of
his captain Joab. When the numbering was done, David's heart smote
the land with a
him, because the Lord was sore displeased and visited
8
pestilence in which
there died seventy thousand men.
Then arose a much more serious question in which David the
statesman acted in the material interest of the nation against the
of the ardent prophets. The
scruples of the devout particularly
with the Canaanites who still
question was what should be done
dwelt in the land. They had not been exterminated. The Book of
Judges explained that they had

been left to give Israel exercise in
war. 9There they were, and their presence was a sore offense because
of Yahweh. The Book of Judges
they seduced Israel from the worship
confessed with dismay to fraternization and corruption: "The chil-
dren of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites,
and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites: and they took their
daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons,
and served their gods/' 10

The Purists called for their extermination. Saul thought to slay
the "Gibeonites ... the remnant of the Amorites."
" Prophets like
Elijah and Micah were for a root and
branch extermination because
the Canaanites worshiped local fertility deities the Baalim and
Ashtaroth, male and female with drunken orgies and sexual ex-
12
cesses. Elijah smote four hundred of the priests of Baal. Jehu be-
headed seventy of the sons of Ahab and destroyed "Baal out of
Israel." "
David saw the weakening the land by wiping out so many
folly of
of the inhabitants, and even made expiation to the Gibeonites by
14 Hosea dis-
turning over to them seven of Saul's sons to be hanged.
countenanced the violence of Jehu and predicted that Yahweh would
15
avenge the blood of Jezreel upon his house.
The Crusade Proper

In the course of these controversies the implacables formulated the
the Canaanites, on
policy of a genuine religious crusade against
46
behalf of the faith of Israel. They were not concerned as to all the
features of the holy war and were not necessarily averse to having
the king as leader, but felt that an aggressive war should be under-
taken to purify Israel of the abomination. The program was an-
achronistically placed into the mouth of Moses, as though he were in-
structing the people prior to the conquest of the land. The book of
Deuteronomy records his alleged instruction:
When Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou
the
goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the
Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and
the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater
and mightier than thou: And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them
before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt
make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them.
Thou shalt surely smite that [faithless] city with the edge of the
. . .
sword . and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof

. .
[thou] shalt
. . .
burn with fire the city . and it shall be an heap for ever. 16
. .
The Deutefonomists then constructed the account of the conquest

and in the books of Numbers, Joshua, and Judges represented their
ideal as having been actualized in the taking of the land. An ex-
ceedingly important point in their rationale was that Israel had in-
vaded at the behest of Yahweh and advanced under the protection of
his outstretched arm.
A change in the character ascribed to Yahweh is observable in the
course of these developments. We have already noted that Yahweh
was the giver of peace. That he should also be the author of war need
not surprise us because in a monotheistic system the one God has to
do everything. Functions cannot be distributed among the gods of
peace and the gods of war. Yahweh gives peace, and Yahweh gives
war. Yahweh bestows victory, and Yahweh may inflict defeat as a
chastisement.
Historically speaking, his warlike characteristics were magnified

in the course of the descriptions of the conquest. Originally Yahweh
appears to have been regarded as the deity of natural catastrophe

47
of sirocco, hail, earthquake, and pestilence. If he fought, it was
through the instruments of nature: the sea closed upon Pharaoh; the
ground clave asunder to devour Korah; the sun stood still upon
Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon until Joshua was
avenged of the Amorites; the stars in their courses fought against
Sisera. 17 Later Yahweh acquired the characteristics of a man of war.
In the Song of Moses he was disclosed as whetting his glittering
sword and as declaring "I will make mine arrows drunk with blood,
and my sword shall devour flesh." 18 The army of Gideon was re-
duced by 22,000 leaving only three hundred men, that at the blow-
ing of the trumpet the Lord might set the sword of every man in the
'
19
enemy camp against his neighbor. David slew Goliath with a
20 At the sound of the
pebble. Jael smote Sisera with a tent pin.
21 Not
trumpets the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. by the
conscript armies of kings, but by the weak instruments of the Lord
of Hosts were his enemies put to confusion.
The disinterestedness of the warriors was evidenced in the ob-
servance of the ban, which entailed the destruction of everything
among the enemy which the victor might have retained and enjoyed.
Israel had vowed a vow unto the Lord and said, "if thou wilt indeed
deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their
cities." 22 When Achan laid hand upon the spoils and took for himself
a goodly Babylonian mantle and silver and gold, the anger of the
Lord was kindled against the children of Israel and could not be
appeased until Achan was stoned, together with his sons and daugh-
28
ters, his oxen and his sheep and his tent. Though Saul slew the
Gibeonites, yet he offended by saving some of the booty devoted to
Yahweh, and Samuel had to expiate the offense by hewing Agag in
24 As for the
pieces before the Lord, Israelites at Jericho,
they "utterly
destroyed that
all was in the city, both man and woman, young and
'
old, and ox, and sheep, and ass with the edge of the sword." 25 Ai was
taken by strategem and twelve thousand men and women wiped out.
And Joshua "burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a deso-
lation unto this day. And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until
48
eventide/' The summary of several exploits was that Joshua "smote
all the country of the hills and of the south, and of the vale, and of
the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly
destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

2e
One how ill fared the code for humane conduct required
observes
by the just war when the conflict became a crusade. War is more
humane when God is left out of it.
The Problem of Defeat

Not only was the program of the crusading exterminists not real-
ized, but Yahweh even permitted the great empires of the East to
swoop down upon his people. "The Assyrian came down like a wolf
on the fold." Hezekiah entrenched himself in Jerusalem. Whereas
the biblical account says that the host of Sennacherib was smitten
by the Lord and withdrew, the Assyrian records reveal that Sen-
nacherib actually overran the land, captured forty-six villages and
earned off 200,000 men, besides the cattle, and caged Hezekiah in
Jerusalem. All the king's horses and all the king's men had been of
no avail. Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, at first submitted, then re-
sistedand was deported. His successor Josiah, more as prophet than
king, revived the Deuteronomic ideal and rebuilt the army, presum-
27 Political resistance to
ably on the basis of voluntary recruitment.
Assyria appeared feasible, because of the emergence of Babylon as
a rival. When Egypt then rallied to the support of Assyria, Josiah
assayed to impede the passage of Pharaoh's army, but was defeated

and killed at Megiddo in 609 B.C. Thenceforth Israel was to be a
subject people.
How could such defeat be explained? Had not Josiah fulfilled the
Word Lord in relying on no standing army, nor on alliances
of the
with Egypt and Assyria? He had withstood them both, but Yahweh
had performed no miracle and the king had been brought back "in
a chariot dead from Megiddo/' 28 Long since, the Assyrian Rabshekah
had taunted the men on the walls of Jerusalem with the folly of
trusting to their God. "Where/' he jeered, "are the gods of Hamath
49
and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Who are they among
allthe gods of these lands that have delivered their land out of my
*
hand that Yahweh should deliver Jerusalem?'

Yahweh did not he even suffered his peo-
deliver Jerusalem. Later
ple to be taken captive to Babylon. Yet such events did not shatter
faith nor prove the futility of crusades. Defeat was explained as
chastisement. Israel stood in covenant relationship with Yahweh,
who would perform what he had sworn, but only provided that
Israel observed his precepts to do them. The moral, then, was that
Israel should rend her heart and not her garments.
Though Israel strove to obey, the chastisement of the Lord was

grievously prolonged. Surely she had received double for all her sins.
Not so much resignation before the Lord as bitterness against the
enslaver began to invade the hearts of many, who predicted vengeance
upon the foe. "Oh daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed;

happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy
shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Babylon shall be as Sodom and Gomorrah. "The wolves shall cry in

their castles and jackals in their pleasant places." Why did Yahweh
delay? Nineveh he had laid waste; why not Babylon? Could it be that
he was impeded by foes in the heavenly places whom he must first
overthrow before vindicating his people on earth? Lucifer had as-
cended to heaven and exalted his throne above the stars of God. He
had shaken kingdoms and overthrown cities and would not loose
his prisoners to their home. 29 Likewise Gog of Magog was more than
an earthly adversary. The conflict had assumed cosmic proportions
and only after an apocalyptic denouement would the Redeemer suc-
cor his people. This is a transfer of the crusading idea to the heavenly
places. The result of this shift may be quietism with everything left
to God. Yet frequently those who believe in an apocalyptic war are
ready if the opportunity comes to initiate it

by earthly effort.
Resurgence of the Crusade
Unexpectedly, in the case of Israel, there came at long last another

chance for a crusade on earth. It was in the days of the division of
50
Alexander's empire, when the Seleucids controlled Palestine. They
desired to promote the blending of cultures and looked with favor
on the Hellenizing of Judaism. Many of the Jews were not averse.
They saw no infidelity to Yahweh in treating Melkart as his colleague.
"Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen who are round
about us," said they. "For since we departed from them, we have had
much sorrow/ 80 The Hellenizers were ready to abandon circum-
1
cision and the Sabbath. Jason, the high priest of Yahweh, sent a
present to the sacrifices of Hercules of Tyre, and all of this without

any thought of abandoning the Temple and the Law. 31 Rigorist Jews
would not tolerate such fraternization, however. The struggle was
between Jews and was peaceful until at Jerusalem insubordi-
at first
nation was penalized by the forbidding of circumcision and the re-
quirement of heathen gods alongside of Yahweh.

sacrifices to the
When a Jew complied, the Maccabees flared up and slew the apostate.
The days of Deborah and Gideon then returned: Judith slaying Holo-
fernes was the new Jael. The covenant
again became the oath which
the Lord swore unto the fathers to destroy the host of their enemies.
Bands of frenzied enthusiasts, sometimes without armor and sword,
trusting in the God, who turned the Red Sea waters, leaped like
lions upon the defilers of their laws, and the Lord came down from
heaven once more to the field of battle, discomfiting their enemies
before their faces. Resisting cities were fired when taken and all
males put to the sword. Those who took refuge in temples were
burned together with the sanctuaries, while the Maccabean warriors
sang psalms and hymns as they went through the land. The crusade
had returned.
The Christian Church for centuries was unaware of the stages in
the historical development of the rise, fall, and, revival of the cru-
sading ideal, and the early Fathers never so much as suspected that
the wars of the conquest of Canaan might have been only the ro-
mancing of reformers whose program was never attained. The books

of Deuteronomy, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, and Maccabees were
taken over into the Christian canon of Scripture. Thereafter the wars
51
of Yahweh might be allegorized but they could not be omitted; not
until the rise ofmodern biblical criticism did anyone suggest that
they had never occurred. The architects of the Christian crusade,
therefore, drew their warrant from the books of the conquest and of
the Maccabean revolt.
52
Chapter 4
War and Peace in the l^ew Testament
JL HEthree attitudes to warfare already delineated in antiquity

were to reappear in Christian thinking with modifications. The
crusade curiously received the least alteration because it was so
thoroughly religious. The just war of pagan origin was baptized by
sprinkling. But the pacifism of antiquity was subjected to the most
drastic revision because it became a program of action. Prior to the
advent of Christianity there is no record of anyone suffering death
for a refusal of military service. The Stoics had not lived in accord
with the pattern of the golden age of no slavery, no property, and
no war. The Christians did reject war, however, and of these three
only war. Private property was freely shared but not abandoned by
Christians, and slavery was ameliorated but not abrogated. War
alone was repudiated until the time of Constantine, for until then
no extant Christian writing countenanced Christian participation in
warfare.
Christian Attitudes
The rejection of military service on the part of the early church

was not however derived from any explicit prohibition in the New
Testament. The attitude of the Gospels to the soldiers' calling was
neutral. The centurion was commended for his faith rather than
for his profession, but was not called upon to abandon his profession.
The pacifism of the early church was derived not from a New Testa-
ment legalism, but from an effort to apply what was taken to be
53
the mind of Christ. Christianity brought to social problems, not a
detailed code of ethics or a new political theory, but a new scale of
values. The quality of Christian love transcended the highest in
Judaism and Hellenism. Christian agape was utterly other-regarding
love. There was an approximation of agapd in the Old Testament
in the love of David for Absalom, of Hosea for Corner, and of Yahweh
for Israel; but love there was attenuated by legalism, inasmuch as
the Lord bestowed his favor upon those who remembered his pre-
cepts to do them. The characteristic Greek word for love was eros,
a lofty aspiration for union with the beautiful and the good by which
the self was fulfilled and transformed. It tended to inspire rather
composure than compassion, for even Seneca regarded sympathy as

a disease of the soul, 1 and Marcus Aurelius counseled compassion
only on the ground that injury is unworthy of notice since it cannot
foul the inner shrine. 2 Juvenal grounded the tenderness betokened
by tears upon reverence for the nature of man as capable of divine

3
things. But Christian love was directed toward the prodigals of the
world. It was a love which sought the wayward and stooped to suffer
and to share.
The whole scale of the classical virtues was thereby altered. Martial
valour disappeared from the pages of the New Testament. Cicero
would have said "By valour Moses refused to be called the son of
Pharaoh's daughter." In the New Testament the victory which over-
is faith. 4
comes the world Many Hebrew concepts were transformed.
The covenant, which God swore to the fathers to destroy their ene-
mies from before their face 5 became in the mouth of Jesus "the new
testament in my blood." 6 The
apocalyptic doomsday of Judaism,
when God would annihilate the enemies of Israel, became the day
when wrath would be pronounced upon those who had not clothed
the naked. 7
The distinctive quality of Christianity was nowhere more evident
than in transformation of the concept of peace. 8 In the New
its
Testament peace was still well-being and security, but the physical
characteristics disappeared. The Kingdom of God consisted not in
food and drink but in righteousness and peace. The recovery of Eden
54
WAR AND PEACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
was not a return to toilless bliss, but the restoration of the image o
God in fallen man. Peace was victory, as with the Greeks, but it was
victory over the powers of darkness. Peace in the New Testament had
9
of course a certain negative aspect. It was naturally the absence of

its opposite, but the opposite was not only war but contention.
Christians were exhorted to display lowliness, meekness, longsuffer-
ing, and forbearance," endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit

in the bond of peace." 10 Peace was more deeply religious than even
among the Hebrews, because it was not in the first instance the cessa-
tion of hostilities between nations. 11 It was peace with God, a rare
note in the Old Testament. 12 "Being justified by faith, we have peace
1
with God/ Enmity was thereby broken down between man and
13
man, for the peace of God proclaimed by Christ made the Gentiles
fellow citizens with the saints. 14 He who was at peace 15 was able to
bestow peace. 16 The Christian peace was creative and dynamic, ac-
companied not by the cornucopia but by joy, life, hope, and power.
"Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing,
that ye may abound in hope, in the power of the Holy Ghost." 1T
Because Christians were peacemakers, they would be called the sons
of God. 18
These attitudes were plainly not irrelevant to the issues of peace
and war. The more specifically political problems, however, were not
posed, let alone answered, in the New Testament.
The Political Situation
During the first century A.D. three political situations confronted

Christians. The first was that of the early period in Palestine, when
the question was whether Judea should revolt against Rome. The
answer of Christians was clearly "No." The second was that of the
Pauline missionary journeys in the Gentile world, when Christians
could avail themselves of the Pax Romana for the dissemination of
the gospel and when they enjoyed the protection of the Roman state
against violent Jewish interference. The question then might have

been whether Christians could take arms in defense of the Roman
peace, but to our knowledge the question was not raised. A
decision
-
55
was, however, necessary as to whether the Christian might avail him-
self of the protection of the Roman government. The answer in this
instance was affirmative, but war was not here involved. The third
situation emerged after the death of Paul,when the Roman govern-
ment began to persecute the Christians. Then the book of Revelation
reverted to the imagery of the Jewish apocalyptic war in which
Babylon, symbolizing Rome drunk on the blood of the saints, should

in one hour be made desolate. War on earth was not suggested for
Rome's would have been futile, but had a
extinction, however. It
Christian then been asked whether he would defend Rome, his reply
might well have been in the negative.
Texts for the Crusade
Despite all the ambiguities in the New Testament, every one of

the subsequent Christian attitudes to war and peace has relied on
New Testament texts. Support for the crusade has found its most
congenial passage to be Jesus' cleansing of the temple with a whip
of cords, a detail mentioned only in John's gospel. 19 Here was un-
deniably an instance of fiery indignation against the profanation of

the sacred, but the whip of cords, if genuine, was no hand grenade,
and the success of Jesus in routing the hucksters was scarcely due to
physical prowess. For what was one man, even with strands of rope,
against such a company? They must have dispersed because they
were cowed by a wrath which they recognized as right.
Another crusading text is the pronouncement, "I came not to send
20
peace, but a sword," Evidently here the word "sword" was used
metaphorically, because in the parallel passage in Luke we read in-
stead the word "division." 21 More puzzling is another favorite cru-
sading passage, "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and
22 The
buy one." difficulty here is that the verse has a double focus.
It is placed in the midst of directions for a new missionary journey
where Jesus' followers would no longer be freely entertained. Hence
he that had a purse was advised to take it. Then follows this text. The
immediate sequel was the scene in the garden where one of the
56
disciples smote the High Priest's servant and was rebuked on the
ground that they who take the sword will perish by the sword. 23
One is
tempted to feel that the deed of violence arose from the mis-
understanding of a metaphor. If, however, the passage is to be taken

literally, it does not go beyond permission to imitate the Essenes, who
forbade the manufacture of arms in their communities but allowed
their members when on journeys to carry arms against brigands. Such
a practice was obviously not nonresistance, but neither was it interna-
tional war let alone a crusade.
Texts far the Just War

The concept of the just war has been validated by reference to
those passages in the Gospels and the Pauline writings which in some
measure endorse government. Among the words of Jesus the
civil
classic text has been "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." 2 *
This pronouncement was actually a rejoinder to a question posed by
the Herodians and Pharisees on the propriety of paying tribute. A
more incriminating question could not have been contrived. Palestine
was an occupied country. The tribute was a device of exploitation
and therefore the symbol of imperialism. To facilitate the collection
of the tax at the very time when Christ was born a census had been
instituted by Augustus. Three parties had developed in Judaism with
reference to the occupation and the tribute. The Herodians were
ready to fraternize; the Zealots to rebel. They had in fact done so

at the time of the census, under the leadership of Judas of Galilee, but
the insurgents had been crushed and crucified. The Pharisees would
neither fraternize nor rebel, but would keep the law and await God's
vindication. They quarreled with Jesus over his interpretation of the
law and For that reason they were
his claim to divine authority.
willing to join with the Herodians in the captious question, embar-

rassing to Jesus however answered. If he said that the tribute should
not be paid he could be denounced to the Roman authorities as a
new Judas of Galilee; but if he counseled payment, he would lose
face with the numerous Zealots.
57
The reply of Jesus was adroit. He asked to
be shown a specific coin, a denarius.25 This
was a silver coin minted outside of Palestine.
The time was the reign of Tiberius. His de-
narius bore a bust of the emperor crowned
with laurel as the sign of his future divinity
and bore the inscription "Augustus son of the
divine Augustus." On the reverse was the title A CQIN QF TlBERIUS *
Pontifex Maximus and sometimes an image A D> 22
of the emperor's mother seated upon the
throne of divinity. The emperor was thus celebrated as the head of
the pagan religion and as the divine son of divine parents. The coins
were Rome's best device for popularizing in the provinces the cult
of the deified ruler. The Jews would have none of it, however, and
when Pilate introduced in Jerusalem military standards bearing sym-
bols of the imperial cult, the Jews made such a stout protest that he
yielded. Purists were equally averse to the coins and later, during
the revolt of Akiba, hainmered them flat and stamped them afresh
with Hebrew characters. But many of the Jews, while adamant as
to the Roman standards, were pliant in regard to the coins. Jesus
accordingly asked to be shown a denarius and inquired whose head
and inscriptionbore. His questioners answered simply ''Caesar's."
it
His reply might be paraphrased, 'If then you trifle with your scruples
and carry the tainted coins, give back to Caesar what he has given to
you, but remember your prime allegiance is to God." No wonder
Mark commented "and they were amazed at him"!
Jesus had parried skillfully, but what was his own position? The
point of his words might have been that neither were the coins to be
carried nor the tribute to be paid; but we do know that Jesus paid
tribute, for so Peter informed the tax collectors. 26 We
may infer that
Jesus was traduced before the Romans as a Zealot, otherwise they
would not have but equally we may assume that he
crucified him;
was not a Zealot, for otherwise his countrymen would not have pre-
*
Tifberivs]
Caesar Divi
Augfvsti] FpHvs] Avgvstfvs] Impferator] VIII.
On the reverse:
Pontif[ex] Maxim [w]. The shape is irregular because the coin has been clipped to steal
metal.
58
ferred Barabbas. To derive from these few conclusions a complete
political philosophy, make vast assumptions. Payment
however, is to
might have been regarded simply as submission under tyranny rather

than as the endorsement of a regime. When the Devil offered Christ
all the kingdoms of the world, our Lord
apparently agreed that they
were under Satan's control.
The apostle Paul was more explicit than the Gospels with regard
to the role and authority of the state. In the famous passage in Ro-
mans 13 he said "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
. . . The powers that be are ordained of God .
[the ruler] beareth
. .
not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God. . . . Wherefore ye

must needs be subject ... for conscience sake.
Pay , . , tribute also. 27
This passage in later ages received three interpretations. The
first was that the coercive power of the state was ordained
by God
because of sin and should be administered by sinners. The saints
should submit to all commands not contrary to conscience but should
not collaborate. So said the Anabaptists in the age of the Reformation.
The second position was that the state was indeed ordained because of
sin; but Christians, though they would not need the state for them-
selves, should nevertheless assume political responsibilities, because
otherwise in a nominally Christian society the state would collapse
without their help. So said Luther. The third view was that the state
was ordained not only because of sin but also to foster righteousness
and faith. Such had been the view of the Old Testament theocracy,
and was espoused again by Calvin.
it
In the New Testament these positions did not clearly emerge, but
there were suggestions of all three. The first might be inferred from
the sharp differentiation of the Church from the world. The Church
was called the new Israel of God, 28 and Christians were described as
an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. 20 Christ purchased
"us to God by [his] blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and
people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings
and priests:
and we shall reign on the earth/' 80 The Church encompassed the
earth, but more than the earth, for her membership included the
81
immortal dead, 82 and her head was the Risen Lord. 88 Her citizenship
59
was in heaven. 34 She could not, therefore, identify herself with any
earthly community and must stand in some measure aloof. "Come
out from among them, and be ye separate/' The world was rejected
s5
because it was transitory. Christians were but strangers and pilgrims

86 Marcus Aurelius confessed one
seeking an abiding city. world, one
God, one reason, and one truth. 37 Paul could not confess one world
because the world passes away. He confessed one Lord, one faith, and
one baptism. 88 The world was rejected because it was evil. "From
whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence,
even of your lusts that war in your members? ... ye fight and war
. . . know
ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with
God?" Paul enjoined Christians not to appeal to the Roman
3S>
courts. Such injunctions and affirmations disclosed an aloofness from

social participation and political involvement.
On the other hand, Paul did accept an escort of soldiers to conduct
him from Jerusalem to Caesarea,and one might infer that he would
have been willing to serve in a police capacity. A passage in II Thessa-
lonians has been interpreted as an indorsement of the police action
of the Roman government. It is the passage in which Paul was dis-
couraging extravagant expectations with regard to the nearness of

the Lord's coming, because first a man of sin must be revealed who
would himself forth in the temple as God. This would not take
set
place immediately, however, because of a power which restrained.

Now who was the man of sin and what the power that restrained?
Early commentators identified the man of sin with the deified Roman
emperor and the power that restrained with the Roman empire.
The point was obviously not that the empire was restraining the
emperor, but that the empire was restraining all the forces of
chaos which would be let loose in the final debacle. The empire in
other words was a force for order. Whether this interpretation was
actually Paul's meaning cannot be positively determined; his words

might be so understood and would then lend countenance to the
assumption by Christians of political tasks. Whether they might go
to the length of war would still be debatable.
The third view that the state and particularly the Roman empire
60
had was to play a great role in the
positive functions in God's plan
age of Constantine, but in the New
Testament there were only pre-
monitory hints. The Lukan writings were the most favorable to the
Roman government, which they portrayed as the protector of the faith
against Jewish and pagan turbulence. The pronouncement that God
must be obeyed rather than man was addressed only to the Jewish
authorities.Luke alone observed the synchronism between the gospel
and the empire, that Christ was born under Augustus Caesar 40 and
that John the Baptist began his ministry under Tiberius. 41 In matters
military Luke was also the most favorable. Only he had the soldiers
come to John the Baptist 42 and he alone told the story of the king
who prepared for war. 43 Luke omitted the injunction, 'Tut up the
sword," 44 and only he recounted the enigmatic statement about buy-
ing the sword. The nuances of Luke point to the Constantinian view
that Christianity and the Roman empire were conjoint works of God
for the advancement of his kingdom. 45
Pacifist Texts
Pacifism has been supported out of the New Testament chiefly by

texts found in the Sermon on the Mount: "Resist not evil, turn the
other cheek, go the second mile, love your enemies." 46 Several of
these sayings demand a word of explanation. The first one reads in
full "whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek/' Among the
Jews of that day a slap on the right cheek was not a case of assault but
an extreme insult administered with the back of the hand. The point
here was not that one should not defend one's life, but that one
should not resent indignity. 47 The
injunction to go the second mile
had reference to impressment for service by the government: if re-
quired to carry the mails for a mile, go two. Far from resisting Rome,
Jesus thus counseled service in excess of the levy. The meaning of
"love your enemy" has been debated as to whether the enemy was
public or private. The text is preceded by the statement "Ye have

heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate
thine enemy." Now no Jew had ever said that a private Jewish enemy
should be hated. The reference must therefore have been to the
61
public enemy who was to be loved. The remaining text, "Resist not
1
evil/ is clear enough.

Taken together, these texts enjoined so great a degree of submissive-
ness that many devices have been employed to obviate their
apparent
intent. One method has been to take them in a theological rather
than in an ethical sense. These precepts are said to have been enjoined
because they cannot be kept. They demand the imitation of God and
the imitation of God is impossible. Thus reason some modern the-
ologians; but the Jew of Jesus' day did not consider the imitation of
God be impossible, for did not the book of Leviticus say "Ye shall
to
be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy"? 4S
Another proposal for obviating the apparent
meaning of these
texts is to refer them not to outward acts but to an inner
disposition
of the heart. These
precepts plainly tell us to love our enemies but
do not say that we may not constrain or kill. The distinction is not
without point, but inwardness cannot be used as the sole clue to the
ethic of the Sermon on the Mount. The command not to look
upon
a woman to lust after her called indeed for an inward disposition, but
not for a disposition at variance with outward behavior.
Some interpreters have restricted these precepts in another
way:
namely at the point of the time to which they apply. The method is
twofold, referring either to the short time prior to the Lord's

coming
or to the indefinite period after his return. In the first instance we
have an ad interim ethic. The injunctions are then binding only
until the coming of the Son of Man within the lifetime of Jesus own
1
generation. This was practically to say "give away your cloak because
there will never be another winter/' Yet in the Sermon on the Mount
such a motive was never assigned. Rather the
appeal was to the imita-
tion of God. One must bear in mind also that the
expectation of a
divine intervention did not
coming of necessity make for pacifism.
In Judaism it served rather to messianic war. More than the
inspire
temporal factor is to
required explain why the messianism of Jesus
repudiated armed revolution. 40
The second variant of the temporal device
posits a post interim
62
ethic. The assumption is that the
precepts on nonresistance were not
expected to go into effect until after the coming of the Son of Man,
when the whole structure of society would be altered and such sub-
missiveness would then become feasible. Paul certainly did not so
interpret Jesus. He exclaimed "Now it is high time to awake out of
sleep . . . The ... let us walk honestly as in the
night is far spent
B0
Observe that the day had not yet come. Before it arrived
day"
Christians were even then enjoined to walk honestly.
The failure of the eschatological hope is by some in our
offered
own day as a reason for discarding Jesus' precepts on nonresistance.
We are reminded that even in the Gospels God is portrayed as exer-
cising great severity at the last judgment. Since that day a long way is
off,however, we are in the meantime to act on God's behalf and
practice a like severity. If this view be defended as constituting the

mind of the New Testament, it forgets that we are there called upon
to imitate the mercy but not the wrath of God. "Be ye therefore
merciful as your Father also is merciful." "Dearly beloved, avenge
not yourselves . . .
vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." 51
The Catholic Church has done better than Protestantism in taking
these sayings at face value, though it has avoided their universal appli-
cation by relegating them to the monastery. Restricted in scope, they
remain intact as to meaning.
One other mode of delimiting these precepts has greater validity
than the rest. It is the way of constricting the circumstances under
which they apply. One observes that nowhere in the Sermon on the
Mount is there any confrontation with the problem of protection.
Throughout it is said, if one take away thy cloak, if anyone compel
thee to go a mile, if anyone strike ihee, and so on. The question was
not so much posed as to what the Good Samaritan should have done
had he arrived a little earlier while the thieves were still on the spot.
Should he have gone no further than to deliver the sort of denuncia-
tion which we find in the New Testament against extortioners and
devourers of widow's houses? The answer can be derived only from
New Testament principles. There are no specific precepts.
63
Peacemaking
The pacifism of the New
Testament centers on the yielding spirit
rather than on plans or philosophies of world peace as in the classical
tradition. But the pacifism of the New Testament is not exhausted by
counsels of submission. There is a positive role for the peacemaker.
The beatitude, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called
the children of God" is an extremely striking saying, if one bears in
mind Roman Empire of that day the only persons else-
that in the
where to be called Sons of God because they were peacemakers were
the Roman emperors, the upholders of the Pax Romana. The very
same Greek word for peacemaker, eirendpoios, is to be found upon
the emperors' coins. 52 Of this Jesus was presumably unaware, yet how
amazing it is that a wandering Galilean rabbi, talking to a handful of

fishermen, should have committed to them the role ascribed to
emperors! Perhaps unwittingly he was saying that the peace of Rome

had provided only an external framework which Galilean peasants
must make real by setting within it the peace of God.
The meek in the New Testament were to be anything but mild in
their conflict with demonic foes, "the spiritual forces of evil in the
heavenly sphere."
5S The New Testament begins with the proclama-
tion of peace on earth and ends with the announcement of war in
heaven. Paul delighted to dwell on the Christian's battle, and his
epistles abound in military imagery. "We do live in the flesh but we
do not make war as does the flesh; the weapons of our warfare are not
the weapons of the flesh, but divinely strong to demolish fortresses,
to cast down
reasoning, and every rampart erected against the knowl-
edge of God, to take prisoner every conception for obedience to
Christ and to courtmartial every insurbordination." 5 * Even Christian
love could be described as a breastplate, 55 and the spirit as a sword
and faith as a shield, 50 The use of military metaphors was a part of
the Romanizing of the gospel. The Oriental understood what it was
to bear the cross. The Roman responded better iftold "to fight the
good fight."
5T More than once, wrote James Moffatt, we feel that the
early Christians were sensible of the paradox and even delighted in
64
the use of such language. To state the
gospel of peace in terms of war-
fare was a telling as well as an intelligible method of self-expression.
To say that their faith was "the victory that conquers the world" or
that by bearing persecution and suffering, they were "more than
conquerors" was to put a new edge on language. Besides, the princi-

ples of these early Christians were so well known that these militant
terms could be employed without the slightest risk of misconcep-
tion. 58
We may conclude that the Christian religion makes in some re-
spects for the reduction and in other respects for the intensification
of strife. Many of the cleavages which divide men are removed. There
isno longer Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Hel-
lene nor barbarian, bond nor free. A racial war, a cultural war, a
national war, a servile war, are unthinkable if Christianity be taken
seriously. But there are new divisions. The believer stands over
against the unbeliever, and Paul's anathema upon any who should
preach another gospel foreshadows, however dimly, the wars of ortho-
doxy. There is also the distinction between the elect and the non-
elect. It maycoincide with the other cleavage, though not necessarily
at a given moment, because the Saul who persecutes the faith today
may tomorrow become Paul, the apostle and martyr. But if any way
is discovered for the identification of the elect and the nonelect, then
they may be set against each other even in military array.
65
Chapter
5
The Pacifism of
the Early Church
JL HE three
Christian positions with regard to war, already briefly
delineated, matured in chronological sequence, moving from pacifism
to the just war to the crusade. The
age of persecution down to the
time Constantine was the age of pacifism to the degree that during
this period no Christian author to our knowledge approved of Chris-
tian participation in battle. The position of the Church was not

absolutist, however. There were some Christians in the army and
they were not on that account excluded from communion.

This period will receive a more detailed and documented treatment
than many of those which follow, because the early Church is fre-
quently regarded as the best qualified to interpret the mind of the
New Testament. The history of the Church is viewed by many as a
progressive fall from a state of primitive purity,
punctuated by refor-
mations which seek a return to pristine excellence. The first church
fathers are thus held to have been the best commentators, and if the
early Church was pacifist then pacifism is the Christian position.

This conclusion is not to be assumed too blithely, for one recalls
that slavery was abolished only by the conscience of the nineteenth,
not by that of the first, second, or third centuries. There were, to be
sure, attenuating circumstances in the early period. Slavery in the
ancient world was not so inhumane as in the modern and has in fact
been called an enforced induction into Roman civilization. The ac-
ceptance of slavery by the apostle Paul was colored by his belief that
in view of the shortness of the time it mattered little whether one
66
THE PACIFISM OF THE EARLY CHURCH
were bond or free. Yet when the time proved not to be short the
church fathers were not alert in revising their ethic.
There is a sense, however, in which the thought of these fathers
was closer to the New Testament than to that of succeeding periods,
namely, that they operated almost exclusively with New Testament
concepts without drawing so heavily as did later generations on classi-
cal and Old Testament themes. If at times a classical motif was
it was radically transformed in the
borrowed, process. For example,
the Cynic cult of poverty reappears in several of the fathers; not with
the intent of achieving emancipation from the fickleness of fortune
nor with the thought of promoting peace, but rather as a daily dis-
cipline in preparation for possible martyrdom.

The second reason for treating the stand of the early Church in
detail isin order to take account of controversy. Precisely because of
the high evaluation placed upon primitive practice the attempt has
been made by every confession to interpret the facts in favor of its
own ethic. For example, Catholics today usually strive to bring the
position of the early Church into line with the later Thomistic formu-
lation, by ascribing the pacifism to nonpacifist considerations. The
fathers are said to have objected to military service because of the
danger of idolatry in the army or because of aversion to Rome, the

persecutor. If there was genuine pacifism, it was due to heresy, Prot-
estant nonpacifists frequently assign eschatology as the reason for the
early Christian abstention from warfare. Pacifists, on the other hand,

explain the nonexcommunication of soldiers by the early congrega-
tions on the ground that these soldiers were engaged in police rather
than military duties. 1 These various contentions are not to be dis-
missed simply because they support the views of those who propose
them. Some may be right.
Abstention from Military Service
The best point of departure is a consideration of the factual ques-

tions, whether and how many Christians were in the army prior to
Constantine. From the end of the New Testament period to the
decade A.D. 170-80 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the
67
army. The subject of military service obviously was not at that time
controverted. The reason may have been either that participation was
assumed or that abstention was taken for granted. The latter is more
probable. The expansion of Christianity had taken place chiefly
among civilians in the urban centers. Few as yet were converted while
in the army. Converts not already in the ranks had many reasons
against volunteering, and they were not subject to conscription. As
slaves or freedmen many were ineligible. The danger of idolatry in
the army was greater than in civilian life. Add to these considerations
the rigorism of the Church which throughout the second century
would not readmit to communion penitents guilty of apostasy, adul-
tery, or bloodshed, and the likelihood appears greater that the Church
withheld its members from military service than that they were per-
mitted to serve without a single reproach or penalty.

The decade A.D. 170-80 affords two pieces of evidence pointing in
opposite directions. The first is the reproach of Celsus, the pagan
critic of Christianity: "If all men were to do the same as you, there
would be nothing to prevent the king from being left in utter solitude
and desertion and the forces of the empire would fall into the hands
of the wildest and most lawless barbarians/' 2 Such words are so ex-
plicit as to warrant the assumption that Celsus knew of no Christians

who would accept military service. But he was mistaken. In the very
decade in which he wrote, we have our first testimony of Christians in
the army, in the so-called Thundering Legion under Marcus Aurelius
in the year A.D. 173. From that day forward the evidence of Christians
in the ranks increases. Tertullian in his Apology, written in A.D. 197,
refuted the charge of misanthropy leveled against the Christians by
pointing to their presence in the palace, the senate, the forum, and
the army. 3 His stern rebuke in the De Corona (A.D. 211) to voluntary
enlistment is a witness to the practice which he condemned. 4 During
the persecution of Decius in A.D. 250, we have a reference in Cyprian
to two soldier martyrs. The number
5 of Christians in the army must
have increased during the latter part of the third century, because
even before the great persecution of A.D. 303-4 Galerius sought to
weed Christians out of his forces. 6 When the storm broke the brethren
68
in the ranks suffered the first shock. 7 A number of soldier Christians
died for their faith, not for casting off their weapons.
8 How numerous
were the Christians in the army at the commencement of the fourth
century we have no means of knowing. The historian Cadoux has
conjectured that they must have been relatively few because no
sovereign would readily deprive himself of a tenth or even of a
twentieth of his military power. 9
The inscriptions referring to Christian soldiers offer very little
assistance. Leclercq compiled a list of 176, chiefly from Latin sources.
He pointed out that these figures were minimal because the sources
had not been fully exploited and because many early Christians did
not see fit to record any profession. A more serious difficulty for the
present purpose is that the inscriptions in most instances cannot be
dated with sufficient precision to assign them with confidence to the
pre-Constantinian period. Out of Leclercq's total only six belong
incontestably to the age of persecution; two belong to the second
10 To this number Cadoux added an-
century, and four to the third.
other couple, making a total of eight. 11 These inscriptions do, how-
ever, witness to something more than the mere existence of eight
Christian soldiers. The
inscriptions are epitaphs and as such prove
that the Christian communities where these men were buried did
not prohibit the recording of the military profession upon their
tombs.
Our data, albeit scanty, permit of more geographical classification
than has hitherto been attempted. The results indicate that pacifism
best flourished within the interior of the Pax Romana and was less
prevalent in the frontier provinces menaced by the barbarians. The

section most disinclined to military service appears to have been
the Hellenistic East. Such may be inferred in a general way from
the testimony of Celsus, whose provenance we do not know, but who
wrote in Greek. Origen of Alexandria, replying to him in A.D. 248,
revealed that in the territory of his acquaintance the situation had
not altered. "We do not fight under the emperor," he testified, "al-
though he require it." 12 Origen through his travels was able to speak
not only for Egypt, but also for Palestine, Greece,and Asia Minor.
69
The situation must have been on the point o change at the time
of his death in A.D. 251, because we have one inscription from Phrygia
disclosing Christian soldiers about the
middle of the century. 18
In nothern Africa there is evidence alike of acceptance and rejec-
tion of military service. Tertullian, who is our witness for the pres-
ence of Christians in the army, also affirmed that many upon con-
Cyprian, as we have seen,
14
version withdrew from military service,
mentioned two soldier martyrs, yet close to the grave of Cyprian was
buried a youth, Maximilianus, executed for his conscientious objec-
tion to wearing the soldier's badge. 16
Of the pre-Constantinian inscriptions mentioning Christian
soldiers, one is from Besan^on, one from Phrygia, and six from Rome
the Church notorious for its leniency toward offenders. Rome
under Callistus first let down the bars in granting forgiveness to sexual
offenders (A.D. 220) and under Cornelius
to apostates (A.D. 250) . We
cannot be certain, but the assumption is plausible that Rome may
have been ahead of other Christian communities in relaxing opposi-
tion to the military profession.
of Christian sanc-
The most indisputable and persistent tradition
tion for participation in warfare comes from the eastern provinces.
The Thundering Legion, which contained Christian soldiers in
A.D. 173, was recruited in the province of Melitene in southern
Armenia. In that same the fourth century when a
district, early in
the Armenian
persecuting emperor attempted to enforce idolatry,
16
Christians took up arms and defeated him. In Syria, Abgar IX, the
in A.D.
king of Edessa (A.D. 179-216) was converted to Christianity
,
202 and for the remainder of his reign made this religion the official
cult of Osrhoene. The Constantinian revolution was thus anticipated

on the eastern fringe of the empire by fully a century. We can scarcely
suppose that the ruler of a frontier province
would have embraced
the faith if by so doing he deprived himself of military resources.
In Palmyra in A.D. 278 Paul of Samosata was the first Christian bishop
to hold the postof civil magistrate and to employ a bodyguard."
In the fourth century Bishop James of Nisibis inspired the defense
against the Persians by calling upon the name
of the Lord, who sent
70
clouds of mosquitoes and gnats to tickle the trunks of the enemy's
elephants and the nostrils of his horses. 18 These examples indicate

a continuous tradition of military service on the part of Christians
on the eastern frontier.
The Constantinian revolution was anticipated in this region in
another respect. When the state favored the Church and the Church
sanctioned warfare, a cleavage took place within the Church itself
and the more rigorous spirits adopted a strenuously ascetic and even
a monastic life, repudiating military service. Syrian Christianity in
the third century already had its solitaries dedicated to chastity and
abstinence from wine and flesh. 19 In such circles we find also a
rejection of military service. Tatian as early as the second century

was a forerunner. His provenance is commonly thought to have been
Mesopotamia. He was an ascetic and a founder of the Encratites.
Military service appears in a list of his aversions: "I have no desire

to rule. I crave not riches. I decline military command. I hate forni-
cation." 20The Bardesanic Book of the Laws, composed in Syriac
early in the third century, by way of disproving astrology pointed
out approvingly that among the people known as the Seres Mars the
planet of war had not sufficient power to "compel a man to shed the
blood of his brother with an iron weapon." 21 A
case of the rejection
of military service by Christians in the region of Mesopotamia is
recorded in the closing years of the fourth century, when a large
number of soldiers, having been converted while on garrison duty,
"threw off the belt of military service." 22 Even
the story be
if
legendary, it testifies to an aversion to participation in warfare on

the part of its author, writing on the eastern frontier in the early
fourth century.
The evidence, then, for Christians in the armed forces before the
time of Constantine adds up to this: until the decade A.D. 170-80 we
are devoid of evidence; from then on the references to Christian
soldiers increase. The numbers cannot be computed. The greatest
objection to military service appears to have been in the Hellenistic
East. The Christians in northern Africa were divided. The Roman
church in the late second and third centuries did not forbid epitaphs
71
recording the military profession. The eastern frontier reveals the
most extensive Christian participation in warfare, though concur-
rently we find there a protest against it among groups tending to
ascetic and monastic ideals.
The attitude of ecclesiastical writers toward military service on

the part of Christians during the same period shows a correlation
with the data on actual practice. The period in which we have no
evidence of Christians in the ranks the period in which there
is also
is no specific prohibition of such service. The pronouncements of
the Fathers up to A.D. 180 are general. Athenagoras said that Chris-
tians "do not do not go to law when robbed; they give to
strike back,
'
them them and love their neighbors as themselves.' 23
that ask of
Justin Martyr was more specific: "We who were filled with war and
mutual slaughter and every wickedness have each of us in all the
world changed our weapons of war swords into plows and spears
. . .
into agricultural implements." 24 "We who formerly murdered one

another now not only do not make war upon our enemies, but that
we may not lie or deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing
Christ."
The period from A.D. 180 until the time of Constantine exhibits
both in the East and West a number of more or less explicit con-
demnations of military service. In the East we have
already observed
the witness of Celsus and Origen to tptal abstinence for the period
up Clement of Alexandria was less precise. When his plea

to A.D. 250.
for an equal code of conduct for women and for men met the objec-
tion that women, unlike men, are not trained for war, he preserved
the equality by denying to men also military exercises. 26 "In peace,
not in war, we are trained. War needs great preparation but peace
and love, quiet sisters, require no arms nor extensive outlay." 2T
Various peoples incite the passions of war by martial music; Chris-
employ only the Word of God, the instrument of peace. "If

tians 28
the loud trumpet summons soldiers to war, shall not Christ with a
strain of peace to the ends of the earth gather up his soldiers of
peace? A
bloodless army he has assembled by blood and by the word,
to give to them the Kingdom of Heaven. The trumpet of Christ is
72
his gospel. He has sounded, we have heard* Let us then put on the
armor of peace." 29 Irenaeus, despite his residence in Gaul, may be
reckoned by origin, language, and ideas to the East. He referred the
prophecy of beating swords into plowshares to the Christians who
do not know how to fight, but when struck offer the other cheek. 30
In the West, Tertullian was the most unambiguous when he said
that "Christ in disarming Peter ungirt every soldier." 31 In his
Apology he averred that Christians were sufficiently numerous to

offer successful resistance to persecuting emperors did they not count
it better to be slain than to 32 Elsewhere he
slay. inquired, "Shall the
Son of peace, for whom it is unlawful to go to law, be engaged in
battle?" 33 Minucius Felix said that Christians cannot bear to see
a man killed. 34 Cyprian remarked that homicide is considered a
crime when committed by individuals, a virtue when carried on
35 not for 36
publicly. God, however, designed iron for tilling, killing.
Arnobius, in a work composed A.D. 304-10, assumed that the tran-
quillity of the Pax Romano, was the result of the peaceableness of
Christians:
For since we in such numbers have learned from the precepts and
laws of Christ not to repay evil withevil, to endure injury rather than to
inflict it, to shed our own blood rather than to stain our hands and
conscience with the blood of another, the ungrateful world now long
owes to Christ this blessing that savage ferocity has been softened and
hostile hands have refrained from the blood of a kindred creature. 37
Lactantius, writing A.D. 304-5, asserted: "God in prohibiting killing

discountenances not only brigandage, which is contrary to human
laws, but which men regard
also that as legal. Participation in war-
fare therefore will not be legitimate to a just man whose

military
service is
justice itself*" 38 Thus
of the all
outstanding writers of the
East and the West repudiated participation in warfare for Christians.
On what grounds? Some modern interpreters assert that the pri-
mary reason was the danger of idolatry in military service. The
danger was real. The cult of the deified emperor was particularly
prevalent in the camps. Officers were called upon to sacrifice; privates
75
39
participated at least by their attendance. Origen listed idolatry
and robbery as sins common in the army. 40 On the other hand,
Tertullian indicated that the problem was not so acute for the private
soldier, who was not called upon actually to perform a sacrifice.
41
Moreover one cannot well understand how the Church could have
permitted its members as it did to remain in the service even
in peacetime in the pre-Constantinian period, if idolatry had been
unavoidable.
Attitude to Rome
A further reason commonly adduced for the aversion of Christians
to military service in the age of persecution was their hostility to
Rome as a persecuting power. Why should they fight for the main-
tenance of an empire which threw them to the beasts? The situation

at this point was complex.
All of the attitudes to Rome implicit in the New Testament be-
came more explicit in the next century. The main line continued
to be that of Paul in Romans and II Thessalonians. The antipathy
of Revelation reappeared only in the writings of Commodianus, who
would have welcomed a Gothic invasion for the overthrow of Rome. 42
The favorable attitudes of the Lukan writings were more pronounced
in Melito of Sardis, 48 and other Asiatic bishops, who looked on Rome
and Christianity as two conjoint works of God for the benefit of
mankind. But these voices were a minority until the time of Con-
The fathers in the main followed the view of Paul that the
stantine. 44
deification of the emperor was to be resisted to the death, but that
the empire was to be regarded as a force restraining disorder, 48
The Patristic judgment upon the empire was qualified. The Chris-
tians neither condoned its sins nor despised its benefits. The Church
addressed to Rome all the imprecations of the conquered, together
with the encomia of the panegyrists. 46 Christian apologists, in order
to parry the charge of calamity-bringing so often leveled against their
religion, quarried in the classical literature which recorded and

bemoaned Roman decadence. Tertullian and Minucius Felix 47
took over from Horace the contention that the fratricide of Romulus
74
had injected a virus of corruption into the Roman blood stream,
while Lactantius 48 borrowed from Sallust the theme that Rome by
destroying Carthage lost the stimulus of rivalry and fell a prey to
dissension, cruelty, ambition, pursuit of luxury, and debauchery. The
process by which Roman rule had been acquired was subjected to

scathing denunciation. Rome
grew great, averred Tertullian, not
by religion, but by wars which always injure religion. 49 Lactantius
was scornful of the Roman "just war," since entirely in accord with
its rules Rome had subjugated the world.
50
At the same time, the early Church did not follow the book of
Revelation in identifying Rome with Antichrist. 51 The blessings of
the Roman peace were appreciated. Irenaeus rejoiced that the roads
were free from brigands and the seas from pirates. 52 Tertullian was
Origen saw in the Roman

53
glad that Carthage enjoyed tranquillity.
peace a providential provision for the dissemination of the gospel. 54
Christians did not wish to see the empire overthrown. Their opposi-
tion to war cannot therefore be explained on the grounds of hostility
to the empire.
Eschatology
Some modern interpreters would say that the ground for early
antimilitarism was indeed not hostility but rather indifference, be-
cause of the belief that the empire would pass away with the im<-
minent coming of the Lord. In the period when pacifism was preva-
lent in the early Church, however, the expectation of the Lord's
speedy return was long since waning. Even at the beginning of the
second century Christians were asking, "Where is the promise of his
coming, for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they
were?" 55 In the second century the Montanists, who sought to keep
alive the eschatological hope, were repudiated by the Church at
large. Tertullian however joined them, and the attempt has been
made to ascribe his pacifism to their eschatology. The proper inter-
pretation hinges on the chronology of his writings.

The common
Catholic view is that when Tertullian wrote the Apologia in A.D. 197
75
he was a Catholic and not a pacifist.
When he wrote the De Idolatria,
however, he had become a Montanist and was therefore a pacifist.
The argument is faulty at two points. In the first place the Apologia
isnot nonpacifist. Tertullian, in order to refute the charge of social
aloofness, did indeed say that there were Christians in the army, but
in the same tract declared that Christians were sufficiently numerous
to resist persecution by force of arms were it not that they would
rather be slain than slay. The other error lies in circuitous reasoning
in the dating of the De Idolatria; if pacificism must o necessity be
Montanist, then the pacifist De Idolatria must be dated in the
Montanist period. As Harnack rightly pointed out, rigorism as
such was not Montanism. On literary grounds he placed the tract
56
prior to Tertullian's conversion to Montanism in A.D, 202.
In the third century we discover that among pacifist authors the
eschatological hope had already diminished. Some blunted the sub-

versiveness of the expectation of the return of the Lord by advancing
the date. Hippolytus placed it three hundred years ahead of his time
and Lactantius, writing a century later and using the same chro-
nology, had still two hundred years to go. The Alexandrians, Clement
and Origen, achieved the same end by a spiritualization of the entire
57 Still more
concept. significant is the shift in the Christian perspec-
tivefrom hope to fear of the consummation because it would be
preceded by calamities. Christians could not quite make up their
minds whether to pray "Come quickly, Lord Jesus," or to pray for
the "delay of the end/* Even Tertullian, whose pacificism has been
attributed to his expectation of the imminent advent, found himself
praying at times pro mora finis.**

Belief in the limited duration of earthly society was, in fact, by
no means so significant for the political and social thought of the
early Church as was the universal subjection of the temporal to the
eternal. On earth Christians were but pilgrims and strangers. 59 A
reason more definitely assignable for their unwillingness to take up
arms against their persecutors, though they could have done so, was
their certainty of vindication in the life to come. 80
76
Love Versus Bloodshed

Yet they were not indifferent or irresponsible toward life in the
present. Living as strangers, they yet more than fulfilled the laws of
their community. The primary ground of their aversion was the
conviction of its
incompatibility with love. Thequality of love set
forth by Jesus and by Paul had not been lost in the early Church.
Tertullian asked, "If we
are enjoined to love our enemies, whom
have we to hate? If injured we are forbidden to retaliate. Who then
1 '
can suffer injury at our hands? 61 Clement of Alexandria said to the
heathen: "If you enroll as one of God's people, heaven is your country
and God your lawgiver. And what are his laws? . . . Thou shalt not
kill. . . . Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. To him that strikes
thee on the one cheek, turn also the other." 62
Cyprian reminded
his brethren of Paul's hymn of love, "And what more that you
should not curse; that you should not seek again your goods when
taken from you; when buffeted you should turn the other cheek; and
forgive not seven times but seventy times seven That you should . . .
love your enemies and pray for your adversaries and persecutors?" 63
Dionysius of Alexanderia declared: "Love is ever on the alert to do

good even to him who is unwilling to receive it." 6 * Tertullian called
love of enemies the "principal precept." 65
Justin inquired: "If you
love merely those that love you, what do you that is new?" 66
Concretely, the early Church saw an incompatibility between love

and killing. In later times the attitude and the act were harmonized
on the ground body does not entail the
that the destruction of the
annihilation of the soul. The early Church had an aversion to blood-
shed, however. To some extent this was due to the Western text of
the Apostolic Decrees, recorded in Acts 15. The Eastern text which
came to prevail enacted abstention from "things sacrificed to idols
and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication." 6T
In this context blood was taken to mean the eating of blood. The
Western text, as known to a long series of Latin authors from Ter-
tullian to Augustine, read: "To abstain from things sacrified to
77
idols, from and from blood," plus the Golden Rule. In
fornication,
that context blood was taken to mean bloodshed. Whichever text
is historically correct, and many scholars regard the Western as the
more defensible, the form containing bloodshed was early and widely
received. It was applied alike to murder, capital punishment, and
killing in war. On the basis of this verse Tertullian formulated the

three irremissible sins as idolatry, a4ultery, and homicide. 68 Au-
gustine testified that many regarded these three as crimina morti-
9 This
fera.* is not to say of course that the aversion to effusio
sanguinis rested solely upon the Western form of this text. The
Easterners equally shrank from bloodshed.
Examples of opposition to killing are extant from various sections

of the empire. In the West, Tertullian declared that the Christian
would rather be killed than kill. 70 For Minucius Felix, "It is not
right for us either to see or hear a being killed." Cyprian man 71
lamented that the world was wet with bloodshed and homicide
esteemed a virtue if 72
Arnobius thought it better
practiced publicly.
to pour out one's own blood than to stain one's hands and con-
science with the blood of another. 73 Lactantius declared that when
God forbade killing he forbade not only brigandage but also that
which is regarded as legal among men. 74 Vitricius described his re-
jection of military service in the words, arma sanguinis obiecisti.
In the East Athenagoras said that the Christian cannot bear to see
a man put to death even justly. 76 Origen averred that "God did not
deem it becoming own divine legislation to allow the killing
to his
of any man whatever." The Canons of Hippolytus enacted that "a
77
soldier of civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse
to do so if he is commanded." 78
Even after the objection to warfare
was abandoned by the Church, the aversion to bloodshed remained.
Basil the Great wrote: "Killing in war was differentiated by our
fathers from murder nevertheless perhaps it would be well that
. , .
those whose hands are unclean abstain from communion for three
79 In Syria the Bardesanic Book of the Laws asserted that Mars
years."
cannot compel a man "to shed the blood of this brother." 80
78
Police Function Sanctioned
That the objection to war lay in the scruple against killing rather
than in social indifference is borne out by the
willingness of a number
of early Christian writers to sanction even military service provided
it were restricted to
police functions and did not entail bloodshed. A
soldiermight serve for a lifetime without killing in an empire at
peace where the army was vested with the functions of a police force.
For example, in the city of Rome fire protection and the keeping of
the peace were assigned to a military unit known as the Vigiles.**
We have evidence of Christian participation in two branches of the
service devoted primarily to police work. The beneficiarii were troops
assigned to the governors of provinces as aids in the administration

of their territories; 82 several Christian epitaphs record this title. 83
While these inscriptions cannot be dated as distinctly pre-Constan-

tinian, we do have the testimony of Tertullian in A.D. 21 1 to Christian
association with this branch. 84 A number of undated inscriptions also
describe certain Christians as protectores^ proctertores domestic^ or
86 These titles in the late third
simply domestici. century were con-
ferred on those who
previously had been denominated centurions.
Their functions included the guarding of the emperor's person, the
custody of prisoners, care of public transport and the mails, super-
vision of ordinance, and even secretarial duty the two latter both
in military and civilian administration. 86 An example of the type
of service sanctioned for Christians even in Alexandria in the late
third century is found in the case of Philoromus, a layman who
served as a judge attended by a military guard. 87
In view of the diversified functions of Roman soldiers, there were
Christians who did not condemn military service as such, but only
the taking of life. The Canons of Hippolytus in the early third
century required as noted above that "a soldier of the civil
authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he

is commanded." 88 The
injunction has greatly puzzled historians,
who could not well understand how a Christian could be a soldier at
all if he were under obligation not to kill. A recognition of the
79
distinction between wartime and peacetime service is apparent in
writings of Tertullian who, however, rejected both. He inquired:
"How will a Christian take part in war, nay, how will he serve even
in peace?" 89
The understanding Clement of Alexandria is clari-

of a passage in
fiedby between
this distinction types of service. The translation by
Butterworth in the Loeb Library is as follows: "Were you a soldier
on campaign when the knowledge of God laid hold on you? Then
" 90
listen to the commander who righteousness.
signals Plainly
Clement did not call upon the Christian convert to leave the ranks.
The nature of the restriction laid upon him depends in part on the
interpretation of the word "commander.*' Some of the translators take
itto mean an earthly general issuing orders in a just war. Comb&s,
for example, translates: "La foi chretienne t'a saisi dans le metier des
91
armeSj obeisau capitaine qui t'ordonne des choses justes." Eppstein
represents Clement as treating "the soldier's profession on a level with
92
Such an interpretation is difficult
any other legitimate calling.'*
to square with the above citations from Clement in condemnation of
warfare. The present passage needs to be interpreted in its context.
It is the third in a series. The two preceding are these: "Till the
ground, we you are a husbandman; but recognize God in your
say, if
husbandry. you who love seafaring; but ever call upon

Sail the sea,
the heavenly pilot," Then comes this passage. Can we suppose that
Clement, having mentioned God in the first and the heavenly pilot
in the second couplet, should be talking about an earthly commander
in the third, particularly since in another passage he referred to "our
great General, the Word, the Commander-in-Chief of the uni-

verse"? He was saying that if a soldier were converted while in the
9S
army he might remain, but he became subject to a divine commander.

Plainly there is here no express statement that police functions alone
were permissible to a Christian, but such an interpretation would
harmonize this passage with those from Clement in which warfare
was condemned.
The distinction of police service likewise makes sense of the baf-
fling canon of the Council of Aries, which in A.D. 314, decreed that
80
thosewho laid down their arms in peace should abstain from com-
munion:De his qui arma proiciunt in pace placuit abstineri eos a
communione (Canon III) 94 The injunction has given great difficulty
.
for commentators, partly because it appears so

completely to reverse
the previous position of the Church. The words in pace are partic-
uarly troublesome. Most scholars have referred them to the peace of

the Church. The meaning then is that a Christian may leave the army
under a persecuting emperor, but not under a tolerating sovereign
like Constantine. Such is certainly not the natural sense of the words.
The normal antithesis to in pace is in bello. The meaning then is
that the Christian is not to lay down his arms in time of peace, when
he may be called upon only for police duty, but he is still at liberty
to withdraw in case of war. This interpretation is strengthened by
the example of Marin of Tours, who on conversion remained in
the army for two years, until an actual battle was imminent, and
95
only then declined longer to serve. This was in the year A.D. 336.
We may say, then, that ecclesiastical authors before Constantine
condemned Christian participation in warfare, though not necessarily
military service in time of peace.
Varieties of Pacifism
All varieties of early Christian pacificism had in common an em-

phasis on love and an aversion to killing. Within this set of assump-
tions there were varieties. The first may be called legalistic and escha-
tologicaL Tertullian was its representative. His legalism was more

significant than his eschatology, as we have noticed, though the latter
was undeniably present, "Shall the son of peace," he demanded, "be
96
engaged in battle when for him it is unlawful to go to war?"
Tertullian did not inquire as to the social consequences of absten-
tion. Not for the Christian to ask whether the barbarians would over-
come the empire. The Christian must obey Christ and leave to him
the outcome. Vindication would be meted out at the last judgment.
Observe that this eschatology looked forward not to a millennial
reign of Christ on earth but only to a reversal in the life to come.
A second variety of pacifism was a combination of Christian love
81
with Gnostic repugnance to the physical, a position which is not
Christian.Marcion represented this view in conjunction with Chris-
tian elements. In the name of Christian love he rejected the God of
the Old Testament together with all his wars. Had not Yahweh sent
the flood upon mankind, consumed Sodom and Gomorrah with
fire,plagued the Egyptians, hardened Pharaoh's beart, blessed the
murderer Moses and the ruthless conqueror Joshua, burned the
priests of Baal, and brought bears to devour the children who mocked
Elisha? Paul said, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." But
97
Joshua had kept the sun up till his wrath went down.
These passages in the Old Testament were very troublesome for
the pacifist church fathers. Doubly so because Christians in the army
appealed to these examples for their own justification. The fathers

98
had two methods of disposing of such texts. The was chronologi-

first
cal. War belonged to a former historical dispensation. In this way

Tertullian took care of the lex talionis. "
Origen said that wars had
been necessary for the preservation of the Jewish state, but since such
wars were no longer allowed, God had suffered the dissolution of
that state. 100 The
other escape was by way of allegory and to this
Origen normally had recourse, declaring that the disciples of the
peaceful Christ would never have been permitted to read the histori-
cal books of the Old Testament unless the horrible wars there re-
counted were to be spiritually understood. 101
Marcion's pacifism arose, however, from a deeper root than the
incongruity between New Testament love and Old Testament
terror. He was Gnostic in his adverse judgment as to the goodness of
life in the body. The world, said he, is fundamentally bad because
it contains wars, flies, fleas, and fevers. 102 The body which is subject
to their torments should not be allowed to continue as a prison for
the spirit. For that reason marriage was rejected. 108 In view of this
theory one might assume that the killing of the body would have
been regarded as advantageous, but presumably the objection was
to the carnal character of a struggle between body and body. This
type of pacificism was not Christian.
The third type of pacifism might be called pragmatic or redemp-
82
tive. Ittook cognizance of life on earth and of social consequences
and responsibilities, but objected to war in part because there was a
more excellent way. The most outstanding representative of this type
was Origen. The problem was set for him very pointedly by Celsus
who claimed that Christians should either assume the full burden of
citizenship or else cease to have children and withdraw from the
world. 104 The Church was eventually to agree with Celsus, in that it
allowed some Christians to take the one course and some the other.
But Origen did not agree and argued that Christians might reject
war and yet remain in society, because their prayers and their dis-
ciplined lives were of more service than soldiers to kings, since wars
are fomented by demons who inspire the violation of oaths and dis-
turb the peace. 105 "Men fight," said he, "sometimes because of hunger
and more frequently because of avarice, the lust of power, an insane
108
craving for vain glory and absence of a tranquil disposition."
The greatest warfare, in other words, is not with human enemies but
with those spiritual forces which make men into enemies.
Christian warfare should supplant political warfare. Implicit in
the concept of Christian warfare was a parallelism between the
Church and the state. Both had similar objectives justice and peace
but the Church had a better and more effective way of bringing
them to pass. The state had created the external peace of the Pax
Romana. The Church must give to it reality by overcoming dissen-
sion within. Even the barbarian foe without could be tamed by the
persuasiveness of the Winsome Word which is Christ.

107 Irenaeus
looked upon the Church as the restoration of the lost paradise. 10 *

Justin Martyr believed that the Church rather than the empire was
the force restraining the powers of chaos. 109 For these reasons Origen
considered office in the Church more challenging than office in the
110
empire.
What then of the empire? Did it also have a place? In view of
Romans 13, no Christian could deny that the empire was ordained
of God, but the view that it was ordained because of sin and should
be left to sinnerswas the position of Tertullian. Nothing, said he,
is more alien to the Christian than political life. 111 Origen compared
83
the state to a chain gang composed of criminals engaged in useful
work. 112 Two levels of ethical conduct were here implicitly recog-
nized, in which the lower had also its rules. Even convicts might have
a code. For those who fought courage was better than cowardice.
Hence Tertullian, the pacifist, prayed that the imperial armies might
be brave. 11 * Humane conduct in war was superior to cruelty, and
Clement of Alexandria commended the humanity of the code of war
in Deuteronomy 20. 114 Origen proposed that if men fight they should
imitate the bees in observing the rules of the just war. 115
At one
point Origen hinted a solution of this double ethic by way of a
functional division of society according to which pagan emperors
and their armies should fight while all Christians, like the pagan
priests, should be exempt in order to pray. 116 Origen was not far-
removed from the position of his contemporary Plotinus, that the sage
should abstain from conflict, whereas common folk might participate.
The Christian Church was in the end to find a vocational resolution
by way of monasticism, involving a division of function not between
the Church and the world, nor between the Church and the state,
but between differing levels within the Church itself. Eusebius,
writing in A.D. 313, posited two grades of Christian conduct, the first
for the laity who might participate in pure marriages, in just wars,
in farming, in trade, and in civic pursuits; and the second for the
clergy, requiring celibacy, poverty, aloofness from the world, and

11T But with Eusebius we are
complete dedication to God. already in
the age of Constantine.
Chapter 6
The Theory of
the
Just War
In the Christian Rowan Empire
JL HE accession of Constantine terminated the

pacifist period in
church history. A change apparently so abrupt prompts a doubt
whether the earlier pacifism had actually been as widespread and pro-
found as here portrayed. One must realize, however, that the tran-
sition was not achieved by the single battle of the Milvian Bridge.
Constantine attained sway over the entire empire only after twenty
years of civil war in which Christianity was itself an issue. There were
at one time seven contestants for the purple, each with a policy of
persecution or toleration. Inevitably the hopes, prayers, and fre-

quently also the arms of Christians gravitated to their champion, and
when Constantine with the standard of the cross discomfited the
enemies of the faith, he was hailed as the Lord's Anointed. He could
the more readily be accepted by the Church because already in the
popular mind a fusion was taking place between Rome and Chris-
tianity as over against the barbarian and the pagan. The alignment
was rendered plausible by the provenance of the great persecutors
of the third and fourth centuries, who had come from the half-
barbarian provinces in the Danubian area: Maximinus Thrax,
Decius, Diocletian in a measure, Galerius, and Maximinus Daza.
A Christian author saw in Galerius a "barbarity foreign to Roman
blood/' and Constantine was lauded not only as the champion of the
faith but as the restorer of Rome. 1
85
At the same time one cannot but marvel that neither the emperor
nor the Church an impropriety in placing the cross upon the
felt
military labarum. Constantine tacitly ranged himself in the succes-

sion of the martyrs in that he was the first emperor to bestow upon
himself the title Victor. This designation, which the pagans gave only
THE VICTORY OF CONSTANTINE AT THE MILVIAN BRIDGE

THE CIRCLE IN THE SKY HAS THE GREEK WORDS "BY THIS SIGN CONQUER*'
IN THE FORM OF A CROSS
to the gods and the Christians only to the martyrs, was assumed by
the Christian emperor on the ground that what the martyrs had com-
menced with their blood, he had completed with his sword. 2
The Christian Peace and the Roman Peace

Christian authors could the look upon the empire and
more easily
the Church as partners because Constantine had restored the Pax
Romana. The minority view of Melito and the Asiatic bishops in
the second century that Rome and
Christianity were conjoint works
of God became under Constantine the prevailing position. The
theologians recognized that the empire had pacified the world, estab-
lished universal communication, and madepossible the proclama-
tion of the gospel to all nations. Christianity, they claimed, had co-
incidently tamed belligerent peoples by overcoming the demons
86
THE THEORY OF THE JUST WAR IN THE CHRISTIAN ROMAN EMPIRE
which incited them to war. The Roman peace and the Christian
peace
thus supported each other, and the prophecy that swords should be
beaten into plowshares had received fulfillment in the Pax Romana.
Christ by these Christians was turned into a Roman citizenand
Augustus well-nigh made into a Christian. The religion of the one
God and the empire of one ruler were recognized as having been
made for each other. Polytheism was a religion appropriate for a
congeries of city-states perpetually in strife, but monotheism and
universal monarchy were congruous, and to the confession of one
faith, one lord, and one baptism could now be added that of one
empire and one emperor.
These themes were struck by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Oration
on Constantine, in which the Stoic ideals of harmony and concord
were held to have been realized by the partnership of the Roman
Empire and the Christian religion, so that the human race from East
to West appeared as a well-ordered and united family and that
ancient oracle was fulfilled that "Nation should not take up sword
war anymore." s
against nation, neither should they learn
The Eastern theologians echoed the strain. Diodor of Tarsus de-
clared that through Christianity and Rome God had caused wars to
cease to the ends of the earth and had mingled cities and peoples
4
through the preaching of the city of God. Chrysostom more realisti-
cally saw the fulfillment of the prophesies of Isaiah in that the greater
part of the world was at peace with only a few soldiers doing the
5
fighting for the others.
The theme was not confined to the Easterners. Jerome, who might
be reckoned both to the East and to the West, saw realized in the
Pax Romana all the pacific hopes of the Old Testament and of the
New spears beaten into pruning hooks, the beatitude on the peace-
makers, the dream of every man under his own vine and fig tree. 6
Ambrose wrote in a similar vein 7 and Orosius made the Redeemer
of the world into a Roman citizen by virtue of his birth during the
time of the census, when the gates of Janus were closed and the world
8
rejoiced in the most blessed tranquillity of peace.
87
The classical expression of the fusion of the Pax Romana and the
Pax Christiana is found in the lines of Prudentius:
When God desired that men asunder rent

By tongue and dress should own a single sway,
With gentle bonds of concord were they drawn
Till love of piety all hearts conjoined . . .
Mortals by rage of Bellona embroiled,

Wild armed hands inflicting mutual wounds
By God were curbed and taught the laws of Rome,
Joined by one right, one name, one brotherhood , . .
Triumph on triumph gave to Rome the earth,

And laid the road on which the Lord should tread . . .
And now, O Christ, a world prepared takes Thee,

Linked by the common bond of Rome and Peace. 9
Pacifism: Its Collapse and Survival

The practice of early Christianity was so far reversed by the early
fifth century that under Theodosius II those polluted by pagan rites
were excluded from the army only Christians could serve. 10 Most
surprising is the bearing of arms on occasion even by the clergy. We
have already noticed the case of Bishop Jacob of Nisibis, who, while
not himself in arms, yet inspired the war against Sapor. 11 Synesius of
Gyrene organized the defense of his island against barbarian inroads.
He was not yet a bishop, but he recorded the exploits of clerics in the
fray. An unarmed deacon, leading hastily recruited peasants, on
sighting the enemy picked up a stone, leapt upon one of the foe, and
struck him dead. To the valor of this deacon Synesius attributed the
12
Clerical participation was, however, unusual and long after
victory.
18
lay service was sanctioned, clerical service was censured.
The debacle of the earlier pacifism was not absolute, and some in-
stances of refusal of military service are to be found among Christians
in this period. We have noted the cause of Martin of Tour who stayed
in the army only until a battle was imminent, then refused longer to
serve, saying, "Iam a soldier of Christ; I cannot fight.'* To prove his
sincerity he offered on the morrow to face the barbarian foes with
88
no arms save a cross. The conclusion of peace without battle saved
him from the ordeal and he was allowed to retire from the ranks. 14
A similar example was recorded by Paulinus of Nola in the case of
a soldier who on
conversion immediately refused further service on
the ground, as he said, that he had exchanged the weapons of iron
for the weapon of Christ. Paulinus tells us that he was saved from
15
decapitation because the executioner was stricken blind.
The prime transmitters of the nonmilitary tradition of the early
Church were the monks. 16 They accepted the dilemma set by Celsus
that either Christians should accept full political
responsibilities
or else give up having families. 17 Their withdrawal from society at
large necessarily entailed withdrawal also from the army. The em-
peror Valens in A.D. 376, we are told, struck against these monks by
forcing them into military service. Into the deserts of Egypt "he sent
tribunes and soldiers that the saints and true soldiers of God should
be subject to persecution under another name." 18 Chrysostom in-
terpreted monastic pacifism as vocational. "If you consider war," he
wrote, "then the monk fights with demons and having conquered is
crowned by Christ. Kings fight with barbarians. Inasmuch as demons
are more fearful than barbarians, the victory of the monks is more
glorious. The monk fights for the religion and true worship of God
. ,the king to capture booty, being inspired by envy and the lust
,
of power." 19
Curiously the pagan emperor Julian the Apostate continued to

regard Christianity as inculcating pacifism and partly for that reason
rejected it. Scornfully he inquired of the Alexandrians whether their
city owed her greatness to the precepts of the odious Galileans and
not rather to the prowess of their founder, Alexander the Great. 20
The Just War: View of Ambrose

A Christian ethic of war appears first to have been formulated by
St. Ambrose and then more
fully by St. Augustine. The former pre-
sumably had never entertained any scruples against military service,
because he had been the pretorian prefect of northern Italy before
being impressed into the bishopric of Milan. The justification of
89
Christian participation in war was rendered easier for him because
the defense of the empire coincided in his mind with the defense of
the faith. The The Danubian provinces
barbarians were Arians.
which offered weak a resistance to the invaders were also Arian.
so
Ambrose regarded the whole incursion as a proof of the divine wrath
because of the spread of unbelief. "From Thrace, Dacia, Moesia, and
all Valeria of the Pannonians we hear blasphemy preached and bar-
barians invading. How could the Roman state be safe with such
. . .
defenders? Planily those who violate the faith cannot be secure.

. . .
. . . Not eagles and birds must lead the army but thy name and
religion, O Jesus."
21
The accomodation of Christianity and military service was facili-

tated for Ambrose by borrowings from Stoicism and the Old Testa-
ment. His tract On
the Duties of the Clergy was a free reworking of
Cicero's De Officiis, taking over the concept of the just war in which
the suppliant was to be spared and good faith observed with the
enemy. From the Old Testament Ambrose enthusiastically appro-

priated of military prowess. "Moses feared not to
many examples
undertake terrible wars for his people's sake, nor was he afraid of
the arms of the mightiest kings, nor affrighted by the savagery of
barbarian nations." Abraham's recovery of his captured son-in-law
was more glorious by arms than had it been by ransom, and Judas
Maccabeus did well to repel aggression on the Sabbath day.
Christian pacifism was relegated by Ambrose to the private and
clerical sphere. The question of Carneades whether a wise man would
give up a plank to another in a shipwreck was thus answered: "I do

not think a Christian, a just and wise man, ought to save his own
life by the death of another; just as when he meets with an armed
robber he cannot return blows lest in defending his life he should

stain his love toward his neighbor." As for clerics, "The thought of
warlike matters seems to be foreign to the duty of our office, for we
have our thoughts fixed more on the duty of the soul than on that of
the body, nor is it our business to look to arms but rather to the forces
of peace." 22
Ambrose furnished two of the ingredients of the Christian theory
90
of the just war: that the conduct of the war should be and that
just
monks and priests should abstain.
The View of Augustine

What Ambrose thus roughly sketched Augustine amplified. His
background and outlook were very different. Augustine was an.
African withji deep sense of the wrongs of the conquered. He_was at
Punic." He was the heir
of classical antiquity, quoting Cicero even while berating him. Yet
Augustine was a Christian, and the Sermon on the Mount had burned
into his heart.He was steeped in the writings of the age of persecu-
tion and thought of the Church as the remnant of the persecuted. He
was at the same time a member of the Church catholic, coextensive
with the empire and allied with the state. Such a man could not find
an easy solution to the problem of the relation of Christianity to
society and more particularly to war and peace.
His view of man was much more somber than that which had
prompted the pragmatic pacifism of Origen. Augustine had aban-
_ inJlifi.
possibility of Christian^ perf c^
Once he had said that the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount
should be perfectly obeyed as "we believe them to have been fulfilled
2S
Later he said that they should "be obeyed as
by the apostles."
perfectly as they were fulfilled by the apostles," meaning that even
the apostles had not realized them to the full. 24
With the passing of the hope of Christian perfection was coupled
the vanishing of the dream of peace on earth. Swords never had been
beaten into plowshares and never would. "Such security is never given
to a people that it should not dread invasions hostile to its life." 25
On our earthly pilgrimage we pant after peace, yet are involved in
constant strife with the pagan, with the heretic, with the bad
Catholic, and even with the brother in the same household. One may
grow weary and exclaim, "Why should I eat out my life in contention?
I will return within myself." But even there one will find that the
flesh lusts against the spirit. 26 Peace will not come until this corrupti-
ble puts on incorruption, and then only for the redeemed, because
91
hell is the perpetuation of unresolved conflicts. 27 Perfect peace is
reserved for heaven, where there shall be no hunger nor thirst nor
28
provocation of enemies.
The inwardness of Augustine's ethic served to justify outward
violence, because right and wrong were seen to reside not in acts but
had proved very useful in explaining
in attitudes. Such a distinction
the apparently unchristian deportment of the patriarchs of the Old
Testament. Elijah, for example, was warranted in calling down fire
from heaven because at the same time he had love in his heart, where-
as the disciples were rebuked for wishing to do the like against the
Samaritans because the wish was prompted by vengeful intent. 29
Killing and love could the more readily be squared by/Augustine
because in his judgment life in the body is not of extreme importance.
What matterseternal salvation] The destruction of the
is body may
30
actually be of benefit to the soul of the sinner.
Another respect in which Augustine differed from Origen was in
his view of the Church, which could not be set so easily over against
the world as embodying a different spirit and employing a different
technique. According to Augustine the Church is not a society of the

saints, and the Church on earth is not to be equated with the Church
in heaven composed only of the elect. TJifijGhurch below is the field
in which the tares grow together with the wheat until the^hgjwest. 31
So long as the "City of God is a stranger in the world, she has in her
communion, bound to her by the sacraments, some who shall not
82 The difference between
eternally dwell in the lot of the saints/'
the Church and the world is therefore obscured, because the world
is partly mixed with the Church.
Augustine assigned to the Church a larger role in the fashioning

of society, because the duration of that society was extended by the
projection of the Lord's return into an indefinite future. The Church,

despite her imperfections, was to be a directive force in the coming
order. Hence the thrones of the book of Revelation were located
on earth, and the Church was deemed even now to have commenced
her reign. Like Eusebius, a gartnership of
Ajuygistn^ envisaged
Ctjurch and empire, but the leadership should lie with the Church.
~^
92
The thought of Eusebius pointed to the Caesaropapism of the East,
whereas that of Augustine looked toward the papal theocracy of the
" --
West.
The Barbarian Invasion

With these presuppositions and their vast implications Augustine
confronted the concrete situation of the barbarian invasion, which
had advanced since the day of Ambrose from the heretical fringe of
the empire to the orthodox core. The inroads could no longer be
explained as a divine chastisement visited upon heresy within the

empire. Augustine was challenged by the pagan taunts that God had
suffered this collapse not because of heresy but because of Christianity
There was the more urgent question of whether the inroads
itself.
should be resisted by Christian generals.

On this second point Augustine was in n<o doubt. Africa was on the
verge of invasion by the Vandals; Only the Roman legions stood in
the way. At that juncture Boniface, the Roman general in Africa,
having lost his wife, desired to retire and become a monk. "Not now/'
pleaded Augustine. "The monks indeed occupy a higher place before
God, but you should not aspire to their blessedness before the proper
time.You must first be exercised in patience in your calling. The
monks will pray for you against your invisible enemies. You must
them 83
fight for against the barbarians, their visible foes."
The larger question remained as to why God had suffered Rome,
the eternal, to be taken by Alaric in A.D. 41 L Augustine answered
with a philosophy of history according to which states both rise and
fall through their vices. Virtues indeed of a sort they have, and Rome
34 but
would never have succeeded without self-discipline, all of her
virtues were tainted. The very good faith of Regulus was elicited
only because of his implacability toward Carthage. The state itself
35
was created good, grounded on the God-implanted desire of man

for association, but the fratricide of Cain introduced corruption. The
state survived even though unjust, for justice is not necessary for its
being, as Cicero held, but only for its well-being. A robber band has
the essential characteristics of a state, and states have been in the main
93
robber bands. 36 By way of illustration Augustine moved down the
years chronicling the sins of states. Even the Hebrews, he held,
achieved their victories not by their virtues but by the vices of their
foes. 87 Rome, founded on fratricide, grew by the rape of the Sabines
and deteriorated through the destruction of Carthage. All of the
earlier theories of Roman decadence were thus worked into a scheme
of progressive decline. 88 The establishment of the empire evoked
in Augustine no enthusiasm. By him the emperor Augustus was
39 and the Pax Romana was not lauded as a
slighted preparation for
the gospel, 40 let alone as the fulfillment of the prediction that swords
should be beaten into plowshares. 41 What then of the cultural bene-
fits of the Roman empire? What of the one language, the bond of
peace? Yes, agreed Augustine, but by how many wars, how much
slaughter, how much bloodshed was this unity obtained? As for the
benefits conferred by the Roman government, are there no senators
in countries which have never heard of Rome? How much better if
the dubious benefits had been conferred with the consent of the
nations? Talk not of glorious victories. Look at naked deeds the
lust of dominion with which Sallust reproached mankind. If a glad-
iator fought with his father in the arena, should we not all be
shocked? Is it less shocking that a daughter nation should fight with
her mother? Why glory in the greatness of an empire built up by
dark and blood, which, whether shed in civil or in
fear, cruel lust,
foreign war, still is human blood? Well did Pompeius Trogus trace
the cycle of robber empires from Assyria to Rome. 42 So wrote
Augustine and the imprecations of the vanquished reverberate

through his pages.
The deduction properly to be drawn from all this would
appear to be that Rome was but receiving at the hands of the bar-
barians the treatment which she had inflicted upon others, and that
she should therefore be left to suffer retribution at the hand of the
Lord. This was not Augustine's conclusion, however, because he was
able to discover in Rome's history a break in the nexus of corruption.
It took place, not when Augustus became emperor and established
the Roman peace, but when Constantine was converted. If the ruler
94
o an empire be Christian, there is then a possibility of justice in the
state. Augustine had asserted that "great states without justice are
nothing but robbery on a large scale." Pagan states were bound to

fit this
description, but Christian states, or at least states with Chris-
tian rulers, might be just. If then an emperor upheld the true faith,
let his sway increase. The
objection to large states consequently dis-
appeared, and Augustine could praise God for the notable victories
of Constantine and Theodosius. 48
His argument at this point would seem to be wrecked. His ex-
planation of the barbarian invasion as retribution for the crimes of
pagan Rome why expiation should be made by
scarcely explained
Christian Rome, but Augustine really did not care too much about
the argument. The rise and fall of nations was not of ultimate con-
cern. Eternity could not be promised to Rome nor to any institution
upon earth, for nothing is eternal save the kingdom of Heaven,

44 We
Earthly life does not greatly matter. may be stripped of our
goods but cannot be deprived of heavenly treasures. Women may be
raped in the body but cannot be polluted in the spirit. Men may be
killed, but those who destroy the body have nothing more they can
do to the soul. 45 There is basically then no need to explain why God
should suffer one empire to fall or another to rise.
This philosophy might lead to a complete disregard for temporal

concerns to a Neoplatonic withdrawal of the sage from the strife.
Augustine as a Christian could not be so unconcerned, however.
When all was said and done, the empire stood for order against bar-
barian chaos. The empire was Christian. The Church was able to give
guidance. Some semblance of justice might be realized. Therefore the
empire was to be defended and Christians might fight.
The Code of War

Now us consider Augustine's code of war. It was the code of
let
Plato and Cicero, with Christian additions. The war, Augustine
agreed, must be wjyAJsjojsjsfiQK-PJ^c- To

just as to its intent
Boniface Augustine wrote, "Peace should be the object of your desire.
War should be waged only as a necessity and waged only that through
95
it God may deliver men from that necessity and preserve them in
peace. For peace is not to be sought in order to kindle war, but war
is to be
waged in order to obtain peace. Therefore even in the course
of war you should cherish the peace maker/' If injustice
spirit of a
can be corrected without bloodshed, how much greater the victory!
A higher glory it is to stay war than to slay men. Even those who fight
seek peace through blood. 46
Although perfect peace on earth is impossible, the hope of approxi-

mate peace was not abandoned by Augustine, Even the peace of
Babylon was for him a relative good. All the classical arguments in
favor of peace were revived, since peace is that principle of cohesion
without which even robber bands would disintegrate. Peace is the
concord exhibited in the harmony of the universe. Peace is the gre-
gariousness evident among animals of the same kind. Does not the
tigress gently purr over her cubs? The kite solitary in soaring for
prey yet seeks a mate, builds a nest, and maintains a domestic alli-
ance as peacefully as he can. How much more powerful are the laws of
man's nature which move him to preserve peace with all men, so
much as in him lies? 4T
An object of the just war is to vindicate justice. The specific quality

of justice in Augustine's thought was somewhat vague. This was his
formula: "Those wars may be defined as just which avenge in-
juries."
*8 What sort of injuries? An attack on the existence of the
Augustine held, was ordinarily an injury to be repulsed by war,

state,
but not under all circumstances. Cicero had said that the state
might defend its safety and honor. Augustine pointed out that the
two might conflict, as in the case of the Saguntines who were able
to preserve honor only at the price of their national existence. 49
Honor is to be preferred to safety, but ordinarily the divine law
50
permits self-defense to states. Other injuries to be forcibly rectified
included failure to make amends and refusal to grant passage, 51
The war must be just in its disposition, which is Christian love,
and this is not incompatible with killing, because love and non-
resistance are inward dispositions. Augustine said:
96
If it is supposed that God could not enjoin warfare because in after
times was said by the Lord Jesus Christ, "I say unto you, Resist not
it
evil . ," the answer is that what is here required is not a bodily action
. .
but an inward disposition. Moses in putting to death sinners was

. . .
moved not by cruelty but by love. So also was Paul when he committed
the offender to Satan for the destruction of his flesh. 52 Love does not
53 nor that correction which
preclude a benevolent severity, compassion
itself dictates. No one indeed is fit to inflict
punishment save the one
who has first overcome hate in his heart. The love of enemies admits of
no dispensation, 5 * but love does not exclude wars of mercy waged by
the good. 55
The war must be just as to its auspices. It is to be waged only under

the authority of the ruler. The taking of the sword which the Lord
condemned referred to the use of the sword by another than the
constituted authority. 56 On the prince rests the responsibility for
determining when the sword may be used. The common soldier
should leave the decision to his lord and obey even an infidel emperor
like Julian the Apostate. 51
The conduct of the war must be just. The rules were taken from
classical antiquity. Faith must be kept with the enemy. There should
be no wanton violence, profanation of temples, looting, massacre, or
conflagration. Vengeance, atrocities, and reprisals were excluded,
though ambush was allowed.
58
Augustine believed that in point of fact Christianity had mitigated

the asperities of warfare. The very barbarians now invading the em-
pire, said he, exhibited the influence o Christianity in that they

spared the refugees in the churches. When in pagan antiquity had
a like regard been shown for temples? The novelty in the recent sack
of Romelay in the gentleness of the invaders. He was blind, said
Augustine, who did not see that this was to be attributed to the name
of Christ and to the Christian temper. 50
Finally, Augustine classified Christians as Ambrose had done. Only

those in public authority may take life. The private citizen may not
defend himself because he cannot do so without passion, self-asser-
tion, and a loss of love. The law which permits killing to the ordinary
97
citizen to prevent robbery or rape is an unjust law, 60 "As to killing
others to defend one's own life I do not approve of this, unless one
happen be a soldier or a public functionary acting not for himself,

to
but in defense of others or of the city in which he resides." 61
The religious, the secular clergy, and the monks must not engage
in warfare at all. The monks are bound to go the full length in prac-
ticing the counsels of perfection insofar as that is possible on earth.

For them there is no marriage, no private property, no war. The
monastery is a foretaste of the Jerusalem that is above,
Augustine thus gathered up the strands of Hebrew, classical, and
Christian antiquity. Like the prophets, he believed in a transcendent
and righteous God who would guarantee permanence to no human
institution. Like the apocalyptics, he despaired of the present order,
though unlike them he centered his hope not so much upon a divine
intervention in the historic process as upon a new order beyond the
grave. For that reason he had no hope for entire peace on earth, yet
regarded peace as an ideal and appropriated the classical arguments
in its favor. He sought to restrain war by the rules of the justum
helium and the dispositions of the Sermon on the Mount, The
Roman empire, especially under a Christian sovereign, was regarded
as an institution to be preserved, though the process by which it had
arisen was excoriated with all the rancor of the conquered peoples.
These elements, diverse in origin, were synthesized in a graded ethic.
The distinctive points in Augustine's theory were these: that love
side
There one other point distinctive of Augiistine's view of all the

is
coercive activities of the state: namely, a mournful mood. The
judge may employ torture to determine guilt, but the suspect may
not after all be guilty, in which case the innocent has been punished
in order to avoid punishing the innocent. "If then,"
inquired
Augustine, "such darkness shrouds social life will the wise judge
take his seat on the bench? That he human society, which
will. For
he cannot rightly abandon, constrains him to do his duty. He will
take his seat and cry 'From my necessities deliver Thou me/ " 6 *
98
What Augustine said of the judge he would have said equally of the
general.
The position of Augustine here delineated is of extreme impor-
tance because it continues to this day in all essentials to be the ethic
of the Roman
Catholic Church and of the major Protestant bodies.
Whether, assuming the premises, this ethic is valid for our time, is a
problem to engage us later. Whether it was sound even in Augustine's
day may detain us here for a moment.
/ Augustine assumed that a just war can be just one one side only.
^ To him it seemed obvious that the cause of Rome was just, that of
'the barbarians unjust. They were invaders. Not only would they
commit injuries to property, life, and honor, but they would disrupt
the order maintained by the empire.
We today, who are actually more fully informed than was the
Bishop of Hippo as to what was going on all over the empire in his
own day, can make out
a very good case for the barbarians. They
were being pushed westward by hordes from the East. There was
room for them in the empire. They had long been infiltrating by a
process of controlled immigration. The Roman army in the imperial
period had been increasingly recruited from among the barbarians.
When Rome was taken by Alaric the Goth, the defender of the
capital was Stilicho the Goth. Then arose an old Roman party which
sought to purge the Goths within the empire. The spokesman of

this group was Synesius, later to be the bishop of Gyrene. He argued
before the Emperor Arcadius that the barbarian Germans could not
be the watchdogs of the Roman empire, because they were wolf cubs
not reared in the laws of Rome. Theodosius ought never to have ad-
mitted them. Let them be deported or made into helots. Actually the
Gothic general Gainas was assassinated and thirty thousand of his
men were butchered; consequently the weakened empire could not
cope with barbarian inroads. 63
An army might not have been needed to cope with invasions had
good faith and sagacity prevailed. The above-mentioned Theodosius
had stepped in after Rome, through her own treachery, had suffered
a severe disaster. Under Valens the Visigoths pressed by the Huns
99
asked permission to settle in the empire with their families, to the
number of a million souls. They were for the most part Christian.
Fritigern was their leader. The Emperor Valens promised admission.
The horde came over the Danube, but instead of being settled was
coralled by the forces of Rome and kept alive by a supply of dead
dogs. The price for each dog was a child to be sold into slavery. The
guard of Fritigern was treacherously murdered by the Romans. The
Goths broke loose and ravaged Thrace, Valens met them in battle.
The emperor himself perished, together with two thirds of the im-
perial army. Thenwas that the Spanish general Theodosius re-
it
stored order by honorably granting the settlement promised at the

outset.* 4
Had Rome practiced her ancient virtue of bona fides, the barbarian
invasions might have continued to be a controlled immigration.
When history is written fifteen hundred years later by the descend-
ants of these barbarians, the question becomes even more pertinent
as to whether their invasion was "just." The incorporation of their
vitality into the classical-Christian tradition led eventually to a great
fructification. Augustine's theory of the "just war" was a slogan of
conservatism. Yet it is too much to expect that a people will suffer
itself to be overrun because out of collapse will come a new and
its
better order. It is not too much to hope that a people will exercise
the wisdom to make
voluntarily those adjustments to change which
will both avoid collapse and provide for a better order.
100
Chapter 7
From the
Just War to the
Crusade and Sectarian

Pacifism
JL HE barbarian invasions disrupted the unity of the Roman

Empire* The Church set herself to reconstruct. The task was stu-
pendous, though less formidable than it might have been if the in-
vaders had been as diverse as they were numerous. Politically they
were divided, but culturally closer than were many of the sections
of the Roman Empire to each other for example, the Basques and
the Copts, or the Berbers and the Armenians. The barbarians had
a common tongue, which made it possible for the Saxon Boniface to
pass from England to the continent, there to carry on missionary work
among the Germanic people. They had common institutions, nor
were they altogether ignorant of or alien to Rome, for there had
long been contacts, and the barbarians admired the empire which
they had overrun. Yet the task was formidable, because there were
religious differences and political divisions to be overcome. The
barbarians were in part Christian heretics and in part pagans. The
Church must convert them to Christianity and to orthodoxy. They
were distributed in many independent kingdoms: Visigoths, Ostro-
goths, Lombards, Suevi, Vandals, Franks, Saxons, Angles, and Jutes.
Nor were they able, once within the confines of the empire, to enjoy
tranquillity. What they had done to the Romans other barbarians did
to them. For centuries invasions were led and pressures were exerted
by the Norsemen, the Slavs, and the Magyars.

101
The Church, in the light of her recent history, appeared ill-fitted
to take the lead in unification, for she had not the promise
fulfilled
of the early fathers nor the hope of Constantine that she would be the
cement of the empire. On the contrary, theological divisions had
fused with already existing rifts within the social structure to intensify
the cleavages. In the West the Donatist controversy in northern Africa
had pitted the Berber and Punic against the Latin elements in the
population, and in the East the Christological controversies had set
the Copts, Syrians, and Armenians against the Greeks, thus facilitat-
ing the eventual disruption of the Byzantine Empire, Yet the Church
actually did exert a unifying influence in the West, as also in early
Russia. One is tempted to make the generalization that the Church is
divisive when the state is strong and cohesive when the state is
weak, which only another way of saying that the Church can unify
is
only on her own terms. When the state is strong and seeks to im-
plement policies or force beliefs which the Church cannot accept,
then she is bound to be in opposition. If the state is feeble, however,
the Church is ableunhampered to give substance to a social entity.
It was to be so in the West. There the Church became the architect
and molder of our civilization. The Church was heir to the unity
of Rome and custodian of the unity of the faith. Through many
centuries she sought to convert, tame, and unite the Northern peo-
ples. Her success was Christendom.

With regard to war and peace the Middle Ages began in chaos,
with pacifism in recession and the code of the just war violated in
practice and strained in theory. The Church struggled to subdue the
warlike propensities of the Northern peoples and to allay their feuds
through a great peace movement, which curiously was turned into
a crusade when the plea for peace at home ended in a summons to
war against the infidel abroad. The enterprise did foster the unity
of Christendom, but new
sources of conflict emerged. Returning
crusaders imported heresy into Europe, and the crusade was then
revived to crush internal dissension. Even before the crusades, the
universal leadership of the Church had been challenged by another
claimant to universality, namely, the empire. The continuing clash
102
FROM THE JUST WAR TO THE CRUSADE AND SECTARIAN PACIFISM
between the two great powers of integration, the papacy and the
empire, facilitated the rise of city-states and nation-states. Their ex-
istence as sovereign political units with a common faith and culture
gave a new relevance to the doctrine of the just war, while their cen-
tralization of government opened a possibility of making war more
deadly when it came.
Adaptation of the Just War

The promotion of peace by the Church in the period following
the invasions was more difficult because the invaders had cut their
way into the empire by the sword. They were bellicose and utterly
devoid of any feeling for the beatitude upon the meek. When these
lusty warriors embraced the cross, they regarded it not as a yoke to
be placed upon their pugnacity, but as an ensign to lead them in
battle. The barbarians militarized Christianity.
Clovis regarded Jesus as the new Yahweh of Hosts. The king had
long resisted the entreaties of his wife, Clotilde, to become a Chris-

tian,but when pressed in battle with the Alamanni, he ejaculated,
"Jesus Christ, whom Clotilde asserts to be the Son of the living God,
who art said to bestow victory on those who hope in thee, if thou
wilt grant me victory over these mine enemies, I will believe in thee
*
and be baptised in thy name/'
The earliest extant German poem in the old Germanic tongue
celebrated the exploits of Peter in drawing the sword for his Master.
Then boiled with wrath

The swift sword wielder,
Simon Peter,
Speechless he,
Grieved his heart
That any sought
To bind his Master,
Grim the knight faced
Boldly the servants,
Shielding his Suzerain,
Not craven his heart,
Lightning swift
103
Unsheathed his sword,

Strode to the first foe,
Smote a strong stroke,

Clave with the sharp blade,
On the right side
The ear from Malchus. 2
Apart from the bellicosity of these braves, the anarchic situation

resulting from the breakdown of government rendered inoperative
the theory of the just war, which posited sovereign states under
responsible governments. The just war required the authority of the

prince, but often enough there was no prince in territories from which
the Roman legions had withdrawn, and even after the invaders were
settled in the land, Viking raids continued against which no defense
was instituted by government. Under such circumstances each de-
fended himself as best he might, on the principle of vim vi repellere,
that force may berepelled by force. Plainly the injunction o
Augustine that the private man should not defend himself was in
abeyance.
Another element in the Augustinian code of the just war frequently
violated was the requirement that the clergy and the monastics should
abstain. The clergy, being the only learned men, were soon drawn
into the civil service of the Prankishkingdoms and thereby also into
the military. Between the years A.D. 886-908 ten German bishops fell
in battle. Around the year A.D. 1000, Bishop Bernward headed
the forces of Otto III and fought with a spear containing some nails
from the cross of Christ, 8
Sometimes the clergy conserved the while violating the spirit
letter
of the code. Witness the case of Christian, the Archbishop of Mainz
in 1182, of whom it is recorded that with his own hand he killed
in battle nine men with a club rather than a sword because the
Church abhors the shedding of blood. The account continues that
the Archbishop after the slaughter donned his pontifical robes and
Three hundred soldiers, all apostate monks,
said the divine office.
were in attendance. A choir of nuns sang sweetly Gaudeamus. After
the mass the Archbishop assembled the abundant booty. 4
104
The monastics sometimes forsook their assigned roles; when mon-
were attacked, monks would slip armor over their cowls. Even
asteries
nuns, whom one would have expected to be restrained by their sex

ifnot by their vows, had recourse to violence, employed on occasion
not against barbarian invaders but against ecclesiastical superiors.
Chrodield led the nuns of Poitiers in a revolt in which she engaged
the aid of a rabble of murderers, vagrants, and sundry lawbreakers,
and for two years defied alike the churchmen and the laity of the
5
region.
The Church of course did not approve of such behavior. De-
fections from the code did not invalidate the code, and churchmen
labored valiantly to adapt it to the new conditions. The problem of
the authority of the prince could not be solved so long as there was
no prince and was not greatly eased when there came to be not one,
but a multiplicity of princes in a graded hierarchy. The feudal
system ranged from the serfs to the emperor, and everyone in between
was both an inferior and a superior to someone else. The theory of
the just war was then elaborated by the provision that an inferior
ruler could not make war upon a superior ruler; to do so would be
rebellion. Neither could a superior make war upon an inferior. The
use of armed force in this instance would not be war, but either an
power or else tyranny. Only equals could make
exercise of the police
war upon equals and even for them the question arose whether a
baron could declare war on a baron, a duke on a duke, or a count on
a count, without securing first the permission of his own superior, and
whether the aggrieved could properly initiate hostilities without first
seeking redress at the hand of the superior of his opponent.* The

upshot was that he who wished to fight, fought, and war was less
subject to formal restraints. Distinctions of rank were sometimes
ludicrously disregarded, as when a cook together with his scullions
and dairymaids issued a challenge of war to the Count of Salms. On
what trivial pretexts the code was bypassed is evidenced in the case of
a lord who declared war on the city of Frankfurt because a young
7
lady of that city had refused to dance with his uncle.
The Church did try to keep war within the framework of law. One
105
way was that of accomodation. The law was modified and adapted.
The structure of medieval society was more agrarian than had been
that of the Roman Empire. With the invasions and the interruption
had declined. Wealth therefore consisted in land
of commerce, cities
and the produce of land. For this reason, the scholastic theologians,
who often discussed the ethic of war, lai^the^stres^^
protection of life and honor, as Augustine had done, but upon the
of property. Adecretal of Gratian, for example, affirmed
the object of the just war to be the repulse of enemies this Augustine
would have said and the recovery of stolen goods. 8
The ultimate sanction for this position was found by the scholastic
and the canon lawyers increasingly in the doctrine of natural law
rather than in the word of the New Testament; for obviously the in-
junctions of the gospel to give away the cloak as well as the coat,
and the plea of Paul that Christians should not even go to law, pre-
clude the use of war to reclaim one's own. Natural law was pitched
on a less exalted plane, particularly when it was itself conceived more
in terms of Aristotelian social conservatism than of Stoic radicalism
with 9
picture of the communistic golden age.
its
If the object of war was to recover property, the pragmatic con-
sideration entered that war might destroy more property than it

recovered. St. Thomas raised the question, not with regard to war
but with regard to revolution against a tyrant, and propounded the
principle that recourse to arms would be justified only if the fore-
seeable damage would not exceed the injury sustained by submis-
sion. 10In other words, justice was made to depend upon a fallible
forecast. This principle to my knowledge was not extended to war
prior to the sixteenth century, when Vittoria said that no war was
just which would inflict great damage upon the world at large and
upon Christian population. 11
its
The provision that an object of the just war is to recover stolen

goods suggests the question, Whose goods? The goods of private
would sometimes be the answer, but then again the goods
citizens
might be the land appertaining to the state. When, then, there were
many little states contending with each other, the tendency was to
106
think of them as individuals in other words, to personify the state
as Cicero had long since done. This personification became more than
a convenient fiction when supported by the medieval philosophy
known as realism, according to which entities called universals really
exist. The state is such an entity or universal, and is not
simply the
aggregate of its
component citizens. The maxim that force 12 may be
repelled by force may therefore be invoked to preserve the existence

of the state as a corporate entity. 13 This theory has been revised in
modern times to justify the use of atomic weapons.
Thetheory of universals presents a threat to individualism, for if
individuals are nothing but infiinitesimal concretions of universals,
by what right may an individual go counter to such great corporate

entities as the Church and the state? Here is the problem of con-
science. Among the scholastics Abelard was the first to confront it.
A point of departure was to be found in St. Paul's Epistle to the

Romans, chapter 14, where he discussed the propriety of eating meat
which had been offered to idols. The apostle said, "Let every man be
fully persuaded in his own mind." Matureconviction was binding,
even though in error, and Paul believed that those who scrupled to
eat were in error; nevertheless, they should not eat so long as they
scrupled. Abelard on this basis formulated the principle that con-

science may be subjectively right while objectively wrong. The erring
conscience is obligatory though not exempt from the consequences
of error. Then arose the question of a conscientious heretic who
would die in the flames rather than recant his faith. Bonaventura
justified hispunishment by the device of positing three steps in a

moral judgment. The first is that of synteresis, meaning man's general
moral capacity, which decrees that that which is right ought to be
done. Reason then rules a particular course of action to be right and
conscience finally requires that this be done. The ruling of conscience
is thus dependent upon a prior judgment of reason, and reason may
be mistaken. If an individual finds himself conscientiously

opposed
to the affirmations of the Church, he should consider whether his
reason is likely to be right against that of the whole body of the
faithful. If he adheres stubbornly to his own view, he may rightly be
107
punished for his obstinacy. On this basis, a heretic may not rightly
stand against the Church, nor a conscientious objector against the
state.
St. discriminating. For him the great cleveage

Thomas was more
was between the natural and the supernatural. To the natural he
relegated synteresis, reason, and conscience. Faith belongs to the
supernatural. Therefore conscience does not apply at all in the realm
of faith, and the hereticwithout any sort of standing. War belongs
is
to the natural order, however. Here then, conscience does apply.
Thus, on a Thomistic basis, conscientious objection to military

service has a definite place, as it does to this day in Catholic ethics. 14
Suppose now that an individual were conscientiously convinced,

not that he should abstain from war, but that he should wage war
without the sanction of the state and against the head of the state?
Here was the problem of the legitimacy of tyrannicide. One observes
that the raising of this question was a way of escaping from the static
and conservative character of the just-war theory, which aimed as in
antiquity at maintenance of the status quo and provided no place for
revolution. The main form which revolution assumed in the Middle
Ages was the attempt to eliminate despotic rulers. The ethic of tyran-
nicide was much debated, and a warrant for it was discovered in a
combination of several traditions. There was the old Germanic view
that the chieftain owed fealty to his men as much they to him. The
as
Old Testament afforded an example in the assassination of Holo-

fernes by Judith, and classical antiquity provided the case of Brutus.
Medieval canonists and scholastics invoked ideas of contract grounded
in natural law, saying that a ruler who violated the constitution
could be driven out like a faithless swinehard. 15 St. Thomas was
unable to reach an unequivocal position. He was clear that a usurper
might be killed and endorsed the judgment of Cicero sanctioning
the assassination of Caesar. A
legitimate ruler if a tyrant might be
disobeyed, but might he be resisted? In the treatise De Regno,
Thomas appealed to constitutional theory whereby the ruler, if he
violated the convenant, might be deposed by the people. Even so,
the resistance must proceed from public authority. Did this mean
108
that some other officers of the state should lead the people in popular
insurrection? In his other works, however, Thomas declared that
16
tyrannicide was not allowable.
The Church sought thus to repristinate and by adaptation to con-
serve the just-war theory as a restraint
upon war. But better far
would it be if there were no war, and valiant efforts were made for its
eradication. The approval of the Church was never bestowed on
those clerics and monastics who had taken defense into their own
hands. St. Thomas, writing even after the commencement of the cru-
sades, held that the clergy should be excluded from military functions,
not so much, however, for ethical as for sacramental reasons. He
declared that there are some acts which cannot be performed by the
same persons; although participation in warfare is legitimate for
the Christian, not for the clergy because they serve at the altar.
it is
For that reason they may not shed the blood of another, but should
be prepared rather to shed their own in imitation of Christ. Various
enactments of the period prescribed also that the cleric might not
act as a judge. The Fourth Lateran Council, for example, declared
in 1215 that those who administered the sacraments of the Saviour
might not pronounce sentence of death. 11
For the laity a moral taint continued to be attached to warfare up
to the very threshold of the crusades. Ten
years after the Norman
conquest some of the participants sought counsel from their bishops
as to the appeasement of their consciences for the blood they had
shed. A council at Winchester in 1076 enacted that he who had killed
a should do penance for a year. He who did not know whether
man
his wounded assailant had died should do penance for forty days.
He who did not know how many he had killed should do penance one
day a week throughout his life. All archers should do penance thrice
for the space of forty days. 18
From the Peace of God to the Holy War

then killing, even in a just war, called for penance, every form
If
of war should be eliminated. How inappropriate in any case that
Christian princes should be devouring one another! The great re-
109
CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TOWAKD WAR AND PEACE
movement emanating from the monastery of Cluny aimed
formatory
at the radical Christianizing of society by the purging of the Church,
the subordination of the state to the reformed Church, and the en-
listing of the laity in the

Church's service. To this end Christians
make Or would, then
peace among themselves.
should fight they if
their warfare should be restricted by rules much more hampering

than those of the traditional code of the just war.
The first half of the eleventh century was marked by a great cam-
paign mainly in France,
but also in Germany to promote the
Peace of God and the Truce of God. The category limited those
first
involved in war by increasing enormously the category of the exempt.

The Council of Narbonne in 1054, for example, decreed that there
should be no attack on monks, nuns, women, pilgrims, mer-
clerics,
chants, peasants, visitors to councils, churches and

their surrounding
did not house arms)
grounds to thirty feet (provided that they
,
cemeteries and cloisters to sixty feet, the lands of the clergy, shep-
herds and their flocks, agricultural animals, wagons in the fields, and
olive trees.
The Truce of time for military operations. There
God limited the
should be no fighting from Advent through Epiphany nor from
nor on Sundays,
Septuagesima until the eighth day after Pentecost,
Fridays,and every one of the holy days throughout the year. 19
The Peace of God and the Truce of God could be combined, and
we find elements of both in the oath taken by Robert the Pious
:
(996-1031)
not infringe on the Church in any way. I will not hurt a cleric
I will
or a monkif unarmed. I will not steal an ox, cow, pig, sheep, goat, ass,
or a mare with colt. I will not attack a vilain or vilainesse or servants or

merchants for ransom. I will not take a mule or a horse male or female or
a colt in pasture from any man from the calends of March to the feast of
the All Saints unless to recover a debt. I will not burn houses or destroy
them unless there is a knight inside. I will not root up vines. I will not
attack noble ladies traveling without husband nor their maids, nor widows
or nuns unless it is their fault. From the beginning, of Lent to the end
of Easter I will not attack an unarmed 20
knight.
110
There were those who took these oaths and did not keep them.
What then? How
could they be punished? How could they be
coerced? Should the enforcement be left to the civil power or should
the Church undertake sanctions? Were she to do so, she would en-
croach upon the traditional role of the state. The lines of demar-
The prince bishop in his
cation were, however, already obscured.
own person already combined Church and state. He was a bishop. He
was a prince and he had armies. Why should he not then as a bishop
call upon the troops which he commanded as a
prince in order to
enforce the Church's peace? In the eleventh century peace militia
were formed in Germany and in France, in which the clergy partici-
pated with their church banners. We read that in Germany one such
army got out of hand and ravaged the country, so that a count with
his forces withstood and defeated the peace fighters, leaving seven
hundred of the clergy dead upon the field. 21 In other words a civil
ruler assumed his traditional role against the usurpation of the
Church. Another example occurred in Italy, where Giovanni de
Vincenza, a preaching friar, in 1233 organized a great peace league
of the northern Italian cities. Then he became so overweening that
the Benedictines of Padua roused their city to resistance. The apostle
of peace retaliated with armed forces, was defeated, and retired to a
22
monastery, thus ending his "withered dream/'
Implicit in these attempts to enforce the peace was the idea of a
crusade, that is to say of a war conducted under the auspices of the
Church for a holy cause the cause of peace. These initial ventures
had home. Perhaps they might be more successful if chan-
failed at
neled into a war abroad. The great speech of Urban II at the Council
of Clermont in 1095, which inaugurated the crusades, commenced
with another of the peace speeches so frequent in the French coun-
cils of the previous half century. The Pope said:
Oh race of the Franks, we learn that in some of your provinces no one

can venture on the road by day or by night without injury or attack by
highwaymen, and no one is secure even at home. Let us then re-enact the
law of our ancestors known as the Truce of God. And now that you have
promised to maintain the peace among yourselves you are obligated to
111
succour your brethren in the East, menaced by an accursed race, utterly
alienated from God. The Holy Sepulchre of our Lord is polluted by the
filthiness of an unclean nation. Recall the greatness of Charlemagne. O
most valiant soldiers, descendants of invincible ancestors, be not degen-
erate. Let all hatred depart from among you, all quarrels end, all wars
cease. Start upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre to wrest that land from
the wicked race and subject it to yourselves. 23
The assembly cried Deus VulL Peace should thus be achieved at

home by diverting bellicosity to a foreign adventure.
Here was a war inaugurated by the Church. Service was volun-
teered rather than exacted by a ruler from his retainers. The code of
the just war, which was being elaborated and refined by the secular
ideals of chivalry and the Church's ideal of the Truce and the Peace
of God, was largely in abeyance in fighting the infidel. Crucifixion,
ripping open those who had swallowed coins, mutilation Bohemond

of Antioch sent to the Greek Emperor a whole cargo of noses and
thumbs sliced from the Saracens
such exploits the chronicles of
the crusades recount without qualm. A
favorite text was a verse in
24
Jeremiah "Cursed be he that keepeth back his hand from blood."
There was no residue here of the Augustinian mournfulness in com-
bat. The mood was strangely compounded of barbarian lust for com-
bat and Christian zeal for the faith.
Raymond of Agiles has given us the following account of what

happened on the capture of Jerusalem:
Some of our men (and thiswas more merciful) cut off the heads of
their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the
towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles
of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It
was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these
were small matters compared to what happened at the temple of Solomon,
a place where religious services are ordinarily chanted. What happened
there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it
suffice to say this much at least, that in the temple and portico of Solomon,
men rode in blood up to their knees and the bridle reins. Indeed, it was
a just and splendid judgment of God, that this place should be filled with
112
the blood of the unbelievers, when it had suffered so long from their
blasphemies.
THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM IN 1099 FROM A MINIATURE OF THE

THIRTEENTH CENTURY. ON THE LEFT ARE SOLDIERS OF THE FRANKS WITH THE
fleurs de lys ON THEIR SHIELDS. THE FIGURE IN THE MIDDLE is OPERATING A
CATAPULT. FURTHER TO THE RIGHT FRANKISH SOLDIERS ARE BOOSTING A COM-
RADE ONTO THE BATTLEMENT OF THE FOE. SAPPERS ARE CRAWLING THROUGH
A HOLE UNDER THE TOWER. DEFENDERS STRIKE DOWN WITH A SWORD, EMPTY
A JAR OF BOILING OIL, AND HURL A STONE
Now that the city was taken it was worth all our previous labors and
hardships to see the devotion of the pilgrims at the Holy Sepulcher. How
they rejoiced and exulted and sang the ninth chant to the Lord. It was
the ninth day, the ninth joy and exaltation, and of perpetual happiness.
The ninth sermon, the ninth chant was demanded by all. This day, I
say, will all future ages, for it turned our labors and sorrows
be famous in
into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all
Christianity and the humiliation of paganism; our faith was renewed.
"The Lord made this day, and we rejoiced and exulted in it," for on this
25
day the Lord revealed Himself to His people and blessed them.
This mood was all very different from the attitude of the Byzan-
tines, who had long withstood the Turks but without religious fa-
naticism. The emperors sometimes even gave their daughters to the
harems of the sultans. There was more hate for the Latins than for
the Turks. Hence the saying "Better to come under the turban than
under the tiara."
As for the Byzantine attitude to clerical fighting, we have a very
113
illuminating account from the pen of Anna Comnena, the daughter
of the Eastern emperor of Constantinople at the time of the first
crusade. Although the Franks had come to the aid of the Greeks,
misunderstandings and frictions occurred and a Frankish vessel had

a skirmish with the admiral of the Byzantine fleet. Anna gives this
description.
A
certain Latin priest stood on the stern and discharged arrows. Though
streaming with blood, he was quite fearless, for the rules as to priests are
different among the Latins from ours. We are taught by the canonical
laws and the gospel that the priest is holy . but the Latin barbarian
. .
will handle divine things and simultaneously wear a shield on his left
arm and hold a spear in his right. At one and the same time he com-
municates the body and blood of God and becomes a man of blood, for
this barbarian is no less devoted to sacred things than to war. This priest,
or rather man of violence, wore his vestments while he handled an oar
26
and was so bellicose as to keep on fighting after the truce.
Even monastic pacifism collapsed and there came to be monastic

military orders, the Templars, the Hospitalers, and the Knights of
St. John. And if St. Bernard did not write the rules for the Templars,
at any rate this mellifluous commentator on the Song of Songs, cele-
brating the love of Christ and the Church, could exhort to fearless
fighting on the ground that he who killed benefited Christ and he
who died benefited himself. "Therefore, ye knights," exhorted
Bernard, "attack with confidence and courage the enemies of the
cross of Christ, assured that neither life nor death can separate you
from the love of God which in Christ Jesus our Lord." 2T
is
The medieval theologians were not aware that the crusade had
written a new chapter in the ethic of war. They could accomodate
the crusade to the doctrine of the just war, because by common con-
sent the crusade was not fought to convert the infidel but only to
protect the passage of pilgrims to the Holy Land; this at any rate
was the initial objective. There was latent a fundamental difference,
however. The
purpose was not to recover stolen goods nor to repel
an invasion, but to vindicate a right of religion under a foreign juris-
diction. This was after all a war of faith.
114
The religious character of the crusade became all the more ap-
parent when it was used to suppress heresy at home. One of the
anomalies of medieval history is that the Church itself remained
united from the barbarian invasions to the peak of the papal theoc-
racy and then, when such an amazing degree of unity had been
achieved, appeared in her structure. Indirectly the crusades con-
rifts
tributed. Disillusioned crusaders, returning after disasters in the
east,passed through Bulgaria and there were infected with the heresy
of the Bogomili, a sect in the spiritual succession of the Gnostics
who looked with upon the flesh. The Cathari, as these
despite
sectaries, were called, looked upon the sexual act as defiling, con-
demned marriage, and would eat nothing related to the processes of

sex, such as eggs, milk, butter, and cheese. Luckily they were not
aware that plants and fish have sex. The Cathari believed in trans-
migration of souls, and for that reason, would not take a life. way A
to detect a member of the sect was to call on him to kill a chicken.
Of necessity, therefore, the Cathari rejected war, though when at-
tacked they defended themselves. Perhaps under pressure their prac-
tice failed to conform to principle, or perhaps the discrepancy is to
be explained by the division of their adherents into the perfect who

observed all the precepts and the believers who were allowed a less
rigorous code. The Cathari vigorously rejected the authority of the
Church and threatened to supplant her in southern France. Then
the crusade was unleashed. Northern Frenchmen were enlisted by
an offer of indulgences in return for a service of forty days. Thirsty
for loot and temporal they flayed Provence, hanging,
spiritual
beheading, and burning "with unspeakable joy." When Beziers was
taken and the Papal legate was asked how to distinguish between the
Cathari and the Catholics, he replied: "Kill them all; God will know
which are His." 28 The claim that religious war is typically more
brutal than secular war is difficult to document; but certainly the
belief that the enemy is already damned is not conducive to chivalry.
The Inquisition was founded shortly thereafter to deal with the
surviving remnants of the movement as well as with other heretics
lately arisen. Imprisonment, torture, and the stake were employed
115
in order to save souls by intimidation. The Inquisition was a depart-
ment of the cure of souls. The motive was love for the heretic and
concern for his eternal salvation as well as love for those whom he
might lead to damnation. Presumably, the motive for the war

against the Cathari was the same. Reviewing these events, a modern
may well conclude that love is not an absolute; the pitfall of love is
meddlesomeness. To be tolerable, love must be combined with hu-
mility and respect.
The crusades are have contributed, never-
commonly believed to
theless, toEuropean unity. Despite political fragmentation, medieval

society from the Baltic to the Mediterranean became a corpus chris-
tianum, a respublica Christiana. 29 Very probably the crusades did
aid by setting Christendom over against Islam. On the other hand, a
greater weight is perhaps to be assigned to those peaceful processes

by which the Church unified the west sufficiently to make possible a
crusade. It may well be that the many instances of the avoidance of
war by arbitration, in the Europe of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, were due to weariness and revulsion against the crusades.
Medieval Arbitration
At any rate these centuries did exhibit a surprising degree of re-
course to arbitration. Novacovitch has recorded 127 cases between
the years 1218 and 1441. Such instances were rare in the twelfth cen-
tury, more numerous in the thirteenth, abounded in the fourteenth

and the first and then suddenly
half of the fifteenth centuries,
dropped off. An
examination of these cases reveals several points of
interest, including the geographical range from the Scandinavian
countries to Spain, England, France, the Low Countries, Poland,
Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, Bohemia, the Holy Roman Empire,
the Swiss Confederacy, the Italian Cities, and even the Balkans.
The disputants were less commonly the greater powers, though
occasionally England, France, Denmark, Sweden, Bohemia, Hungary,
Poland, and the Empire were among the litigants. For the most part,
however, the list runs after this fashion: the Countess of Troy
against the Duke of Lorraine; the city of Riga versus the Knights of
116
Christ; the Count of Ragus and the King of Serbia; the Bishop of
Speyer against the city of Speyer; Aragon, Sicily, and Naples against
each other as to the distribution of tribute from the sultan of Tunisia;
Uri, Schwiz, and Unterwalden, Zurich and Berne in agreement
later
for perpetual arbitration; Holland versus Brabant; the Duke of Bar
against the Duke of Lorraine; Wiirttemberg versus Esslingen; the
Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony, and the Marquis
of Brandenberg as to the allocation of expenses for the imperial elec-
tion; the Rhine cities, Strassburg, Mainz, Worms, and Cologne in
dispute with each other; and the Italian cities in like case.
The complexion of the arbitrators is striking because the Church
played so small a part. Only one dispute was mediated directly by
the pope, though several were handled by papal legates a cardinal
or a bishop. On the whole there was a disposition to avoid appeals
to the Church, because she would inject claims of her own. On one
occasion, the pope was himself a litigant and frequently bishops,
convents, and orders such as the Teutonic Knights were among
the parties. Laymen most frequently were arbiters, often the King of
France or some other monarch or nobleman and not infrequently a
board of arbitration set up by the contestants. Among the Italian
cities churchmen were more often the judges. 30
This comparative neglect of the Church in direct mediation must

not obscure the role of the Church in the creation of an atmosphere
in which arbitration flourished. On the other hand, the contribution
of the Church is not to be exaggerated. The fourteenth century,
when cases of arbitration were so numerous, was also the period of
the Hundred Years War between England and France. The popes,
then resident at Avignon, sought to avert the conflict, but during
its course injected a religious issue which precluded papal mediation.
For example, the emperor Louis of Bavaria was under excommuni-

cation. When, then, England made an alliance with Louis, the pope
threw his support to France, and thus became a party to the quarrel.
A deeper difficulty may well have been that the popes sought to
eliminate only those wars which they desired to eliminate. During
this very period, 64 per cent of the papal income was spent on wars
117
THE BATTLE OF FRENCH (ON THE LEFT)

POITIERS IN 1346 BETWEEN THE
AND THE ENGLISH (ON THE RIGHT) FROM A MINIATURE OF THE FOURTEENTH
.
CENTURY
to recover the estates in Italy which had been overrun when the
31
papacy was transferred to Avignon.
Medieval Pacifism
One can understand the revulsion which ensued against
easily
crusades in general, and in particular against crusades to recover
a certain Niger pro-
papal property. Already in the twelfth century,
tested on the ground that the cost and the risks were enough to dis-
credit the enterprise. Hestruck at the very root of a war under
churchly auspices, claiming that the making of war is the affair of

the secular ruler. He stoutly objected to the shedding of blood at
the hands of the clergy. 32 In the thirteenth century complaints be-
came more general and more diverse. Some decried the financial
racketeering of crusading indulgences; some objected to shipping

the
scum of Europe to the Holy Land. Military reverses and notably the
debacle of St. Louis suggested that .Dens non vulL A Templar said
118
that neither cross nor faith gave protection against the Turks but
that God seemed rather to favor them. Or could it be that Allah was
stronger than God? There were stay-at-home farmers whom cru-

saders called "Flemish cows staked out to graze" and debonair trou-
badours who preferred to court Nicolette than to campaign for the
Holy Sepulchre. One of them reproached God for sitting secure and
comfortable in heaven while leaving to his harassed followers not so
much as a castle, a fortress, or a battlement. Some who had no ob-
jection to shedding Saracen blood yet deplored adventures which
cost so much Christian blood.
The only criticism of the crusades which verged on pacifism was
had been a great preacher
that of the Franciscans. St. Francis himself
of reconciliation, and were renowned for their ability
his followers
went in person to
to pacify the feuds of the Italian cities. St. Francis
interview the sultan, and among the Franciscans were those who felt
the entire crusading enterprise should be replaced by missionary
activity. The testimony was not unequivocal, however; St. Francis

did not condemn the fifth crusade which he accompanied. Some,
Franciscans preached crusades, as did John of Capistrano another
case of reconciling feuds at home and inciting war abroad. 33
The purveyors of pacifism were rather the late medieval sects. We
learn that a group of the Waldensians in the early thirteenth century
were induced by Innocent III to return to the Church on condition
that certain of their demands be granted, one of which was exemp-
tion from military service. 84 The Franciscan Tertiaries made a similar
demand, and when feudal lords bitterly complained, several papal
briefs supported the penitents. Any who impressed them into service
would incur the indignation of the omnipotent God and of the
blessed apostles Peter and Paul. The pacifism of the Cathari has
35
already been noted.
Wycliffe appears not to have been an absolute pacifist. He held
war to be contrary to the teaching of Christ and considered the high-
est Christian ideal to requirecomplete abstention, but allowed that
on a lower level war might be waged for the love of God or to cor-
rect a people. His follower, Hereford, was less concessive, declaring
119
"Jesus Christ, duke of oure batel, taught us lawe of pacience, and

not to fight bodily." 36
The Hussite movement developed two wings, one pacifist and one
crusading. This bifurcation is not anomalous
as may at first
as it
appear. The religious sect is almost bound to be either pacifist or

crusading, because the sect demands a higher level of Christian de-
portment than is ever attained by an entire community. If then the
Church has coalesced with society so that every citizen is deemed a
Christian, and Christians are not distinguishable by their behavior,
then the sect must either dissociate itself from the Church and the
community and this course will commonly entail pacifism or else
must seek to impose its code upon the Church and the community
and this course will issue in a crusade.
The pacifist branch of the Hussites had its first outstanding leader
in Peter Chelciky, who scathed those who scrupled to eat swine flesh
on a Friday but not to shed human blood. He adumbrated many of
the ideas later to be prevalent among Reformation sects that the
first age of the Church was the golden age and this age was
pacifist;
that Christ's law was the law of love which forbids killing; and that
his weapon was spiritual only and his mission to redeem souls, not
to destroy bodies. The fall of the Church began with Constantine
with the union of Church and state. To be sure, the state was or-
dained of God, as Paul said, but only to restrain sin and should be
administered by sinners. Christians should obey all commands not
contrary to the Word of God, but political office they should decline
and military service they should refuse. When
religious war devas-
tated the land, Chelciky was more confirmed in his view that a
Christian should suffer, not inflict suffering. "Everywhere," said he,
"murder, rapine and want have flourished, and multitudes have
perished . .the laboring people is stripped of everything, down-
.
trodden, oppressed, beaten, robbed so that many are driven by want

and hunger to leave their land."
Chelciky never wavered in his stand, but his branch of the Hussites
made gradual accomodations, particularly when the social com-
plexion of the group was changed, and unlettered peasants were
120
replaced by prosperous burghers and educated intellectuals. Never-
theless a group survived; it is called from now on the Minor Party.
Many secular lords had the sagacity to welcome to their estates these
God-fearing, dutiful, industrious, frugal peasants. This was not to

be the first time in history that
pacifists proved able to survive by
an unwitting vocationalism. Nonpacifist landowners and rulers
argued that these men might as well be left to do the farming, since
others could be enlisted to do the fighting. The Bohemian Brethren
thus survived to give to the world in the Seventeenth Century the
great educator and internationalist Comenius.

37
The other wing of the Hussites, led by the blind general Ziska,
flung crusading armies of peasants, as contemptible as the handful
of Gideon, against the forces of the empire and put them to rout.
The land was ravaged, as Chelciky reported, and the crusade was
carried beyond the confines of Bohemia into Saxony. This was again
warfare in the name of the Lord of Hosts.
Although pacifism was the affair of the sects, one is not to conclude
that the concern for peace in the late Middle Ages was restricted to
them. We have already observed the efforts of the Church to es-
tablish peace through concord or enforcement. Whereas the inade-
quate success of these measures turned some to pacifism others turned

to the state as the appropriate organ in a Christian society to pre-
serve the peace. The outstanding exponents of this view were Dante,
Marsilius,and Pierre Dubois. They thought in terms of a universal
empire like that of ancient Rome, only more extensive. Dante would
include Asia and Africa. The structure of his world state was that
of the Holy Roman Empire, which should, however, take up its seat
in Italy rather than Germany. Marsilius perceived that a universal
empire would not be free from wars of succession in a dynastic system

and therefore proposed an elective constitution. Neither plan was
realistic because the Holy Roman Empire was not in a position to
control* the rising national states and Pierre Dubois saw better the
when he proposed France as
actualities the Lord's chosen people to
unite mankind under a single sway. But this too could not have been
done without a war to end wars. 88
121
Chapter 8
The Renaissance
Utopia
and the
Revival
of
the
Just
War
JL HE period of the Renaissance in the late fifteenth and early

sixteenth centuries was marked by three significant developments.
The first was a recurrence of that political situation which is most
congenial to the just war, namely, a congeries of independent sov-
ereign states united in a common culture, each recognizing the right
of the other to exist. This situation came to pass in Italy in the half
century prior to the invasion by Charles VIII of France, whose

advent with diabolical cannon "son of a gun" means son of the
devil made
Italy the cockpit of the European powers. Italy enjoyed
an interlude of fifty years between the wars of the Guelphs and the
Ghibellines and the conflict of the national states. This respite of
comparative peace eventuated from the mutual weakening of the

two great universal powers of the Middle Ages, the Church and the
empire. Each had sought to unify Europe, the one on a religious and
the other on a civil basis. The encroachment of the Church on the
civil domain and the frequent confiscation by the civil power of the
Church's patrimony led to conflicts in which the empire was reduced

to something more indeed than pageantry, but less than world do-
minion, and the Church to something short of .a world power, though
more indeed than a spiritual society. The Italian city-states had been
involved in the conflict, and each had had its papal faction, the
Guelph, and its imperial faction, the Ghibellirie. When the empire
122
THE RENAISSANCE UTOPIA AND THE REVIVAL OF THE JUST WAR
was weakened, and the papacy reduced to the point of itself becom-
ing one of the Italian city-states, then these small independent politi-
cal units could work out their mutual relations without subjection
to the imposition of peace orwar by either of their former overlords.
A balance was then achieved among five states Naples, the papacy,
Florence, Milan, and Venice.
Under these circumstances, the code of the just war again came
into vogue, and the conduct of the war very closely corresponded to
the conditions of the Peace of God and the Truce of God. The five
states adjusted their differences and pretentions by armed sorties in
which mercenaries on both sides sought in seasonable weather to
gain an advantage for their respective employers, with the least loss
to themselves or to their fellow professionals in the opposite camp.
The victory went to those who took the most prisoners, and these
were not killed but were speedily released. Fighting was on horseback
with conventional weapons; cannons were despised as more diaboli-
cal than human; rules were observed; ambassadors were inviolate,
and private were suppressed.
reprisals
Machiavelli, who viewed with contempt such gentlemanly wars,
recorded that in the battle of Zagomara only three men were killed;
thrown from their horses, they were suffocated in the mud. In the
battle of Anghiari, there was but one casualty, that of a man who
again fell from his horse and was trampled to death. In the battle of
Molinella, nobody was killed; only a few horses were wounded, and a
few prisoners were taken on each side. 1 To be sure, Machiavelli
barbed his shafts with exaggeration. There were larger casualties.
The condottieri sought some victories for prestige, and if they had
recourse to protracted wars of maneuver, it was partly because the
resources of the Italian city-states were too meagre and their power
too nearly balanced to permit swift and decisive large-scale en-
counters. The resemblance to the Peace of God and the Truce of
God was accidental, due to a new configuration of power rather than
to a resurgence of the old ideal. The character of this period is
of historical interest because it demonstrates that ah approximation
to the ideals of the just-war theory is realizable, given an equality of
123
power and a community of culture. The traditional stipulation,

however, of justice on one side only was entirely unrealistic. The five
states were simply sparring for advantage and were ready to seek it
without regard to justice.
The Theory of the Power State
The reduction of war's asperity in the Italy of

the Renaissance was
certainly not due to any peculiar goodness; this was the very period of
the Italian despots from whose behavior Machiavelli derived his
theory of the ruthless power state. His book, The Prince, though be-
longing to a medieval literary genre, broke with the medieval tradi-
tion of Christian morality. The ancients, said Machiavelli, fought
harder for liberty than did the men of his own day because Chris-
tianity taught humility and produced no ferocity. He wrote:
Our religion has glorified rather the humble and the contemplative
than the active, the summum bonum has been conceived in terms of hu-
mility, abjectness and contempt of the world. For as the religion [of the
ancients] saw the highest good rather in greatness of mind, prowess of body
and whatever else makes men courageous, our religion counsels that if
you have any strength you should suffer rather than be strong. This be-
havior has made the world weak and has given it as a prey to the unprin-
cipled who are able to dominate with impunity since the majority of men
think the way to get to heaven is to suffer blows rather than to avenge
them. That tie world is effeminate and heaven disarmed arises from the
cravenness of men who have interpreted our religion as indolence rather
than as virttu 2
Machiavelli's claim that this was an incorrect interpretation of Chris-

tianity may be suspected as a sop to his time, since he was actually
contemptuous of all religion save as a device for statecraft.
His political thinking was in the tradition of one strand of the
classical heritage that of the Sophists, with their glorification of
brute power, of which examples in abundance could be found in the
pages of Thucydides and Tacitus. Machiavelli found its locus in
mrtii, a dynamic energy in man, impelling him alike to power and
greatness, Virtii characterizes the prince in particular, and he should
124
seek to in his subjects who possess it ordinarily only in a
instill it
lesser degree. Virtii animates the state, though Machiavelli did not
advance the view that some states are more endowed than others and
have for that reason a right to impose their will. Each prince and
each state, he claimed, must gain and hold power, must indeed pre-
serve very existence through the exercise of virtii. No considera-
its
tion of morality should be permitted to impede. The prince, said he,
should appear pious, faithful, humane, religious and sincere, and should
indeed be all of these, but should ever be ready, if need be, to change to
the contrary. ... A prince, and especially a new prince cannot observe all
those qualities for which men are esteemed good. If it be necessary to
maintain the state, he must be ready to violate faith, charity, humanity
and religion.However, he must have a mind ready to veer with every
wind and variation of Fortune. 3
Machiavelli here suggested that not so much virtu as Fortuna is

of morality, because it is she who
responsible for this abdication
presents those necessities to
which men must react by brutality. Some-
times, however, the blame was laid upon the nature of man; if all
men kept faith, then one could keep faith, but since they do not,
one not bound to be honorable with the dishonorable. Throughout
is
the works of Machiavelli runs the assumption that one's own exist-
ence and the existence of the state are paramount. "When it is a
question of the safety of the country,"
he wrote, "no account should
be taken of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel, laudable or
shameful, but without regard to anything else, that course is to
be
unswervingly pursued which will save the life and maintain the
4
liberty of the [fatherland]/'
This does not mean that politics is nothing but unabashed chican-
on The
ery and cruelty. No state can
rest hate. virtii
permanently
of the ruler is dynamic but not demonic, save on occasion. Ordinarily
it is restrained by prudence. The wise ruler will so choose
his means
that he will be both feared and loved. By the same token,

a state
should not behave so outrageously as to provoke a concerted coalition

for its destruction. Prudence and valour are alike directed to the
125
maintenance of the security of the state. This means, of course, that
the traditional code of the just war was jettisoned. Only that war
could be considered just, said Machiavelli, which was dictated by
interest. And there could be no nonsense in the conduct of a war. The
term war did not apply "when nobody gets killed, no cities are
sacked and no lands are scorched." 5
One element of significance in the thought of Machiavelli, because
appropriated by the "realists" of later times, was his personification

and at the same time depersonalizing of the state. Politics for him
became a game, like chess, and the removal of a political pawn,
though it comprised fifty thousand men, was no more disquieting
than the removal from the board of an ivory piece.
The age of the Renaissance was significant also as a link between
antiquity and the modern period at the point of deterministic the-
ories of history which regard as inevitable the recurrence of war.
One form of the theory was the cyclical view with a rationalistic ex-
planation, as in the following citation from a work of the English
Renaissance:
Warre bringeth ruine, ruine bringeth povertie, povertie procureth

peace, and peace in time increased! riches, riches causeth statelinesse,
statelinesse increaseth envie, envie in the end procureth deadly mallice,
mortall mallice proclaimeth open warre and battaile: and from warre
againe as before is rehearsed. 6
Another form of the deterministic view was astrological and

supernatural. In this view the incidence and the outcome of war
depended on the courses of the stars or the caprices of the goddess
Fortuna. A striking example of the force of such ideas in precipitat-
ing war was the case of the Peasants' War in Germany. For twenty
years previously great devastations had been predicted for the year
1524, when all of the planets would be in the constellation of the
Fish. The peasants indeed held back one year because of
hopes that
the emperor would redress their grievances. He failed and in 1525
the great Fish unloosed the waters. The practice of judicial astrology,
as it was called, with specific prediction of events, incurred ec-
126
censure not only because astrology conflicted with the-
clesiastical
ology but because predictions had an unhappy faculty of procuring

their own fulfillment.
Humanist Pacifism
Contemporaneous with Machiavelli was a group of Renaissance

humanists who sought to resuscitate the languishing unities of
Europe. They were men of many lands Colet and More in Eng-
land; Erasmus in Holland; Vives in Spain; Clichtove in Belgium;
Postel, Rabelais, and Montaigne in France; Agrippa of Nettesheim
Paracelsus, and Sebastian Franck in Germany. They were compelled
to come to terms with the circumstances of their time. Nationalism
had become a fact in politics and in sentiment. In the political realm
they could do no other than reckon with realities, and their pleas
for peace, unlike those of Dante and Marsilius, did not envisage a
new Pax Romano, under the tutelage of a renovated Holy Roman
Empire, nor for that matter under the leadership of one of the new
national proposed for France by Pierre Dubois. Their hope
states, as
was rather that the many sovereign states, whether the newly con-
solidated monarchies of France, Spain, and England, or the small
territories of the German Reich, should dwell together in concord.
To that end these states should practice political isolationism, re-
nouncing all expansionist ambitions. Rulers should be content to
govern well what they already possessed rather than seek to be en-
cumbered with more.
The program for peace was thus focused on an aristocracy of rulers
bound to each other in a code of courtesy and humanity. Almost
apocalyptic hopes were entertained for the restoration of paradise
at the hands of three brilliant young princes trained in humanist
studies Henry of England, Francis of France, and Charles of the
Netherlands and Spain. They should abstain from inflaming their
peoples with the sentiment of nationalism. The humanists varied in
the degree of their own national attachments. Erasmus had the least,
for seldom did he mention his native Holland, and he had but scorn
for the boast of Pope Julius II that he was a Ligurian Italian. More
127
had a deeper feeling for England, though not for the sake of England's
tranquillity would he put his king above his God. Some humanists,
to be sure, were intensely nationalist for example Ulrich von
Hutten and Ulrich Zwingli, but they were warriors, and even they
had a sense of belonging also to a universal European republic of
letters.
The philosophy and theology animating the peace pleas were a

blending of the ancient Stoic harmony of the cosmos with Christian
faith in the brotherhood of the sons of God, coupled with a convic-
tion that men endowed with reason and baptized into Christ could
overcome the stupidity and depravity so generally evident.
The humanist advocates of peace differed in their emphases. The
sharpest variance was between Catholics and Protestants. Paracelsus,
Sebastian Franck belonged to the radical wing of Protestantism.
Paracelsus took his stand on the biblical command "Thou shalt not
kill/' and the pacifism of Franck was a corollary of his view of the
7
Church as always oppressed, ready ever to suffer but never to inflict

suffering. Catholics had to accept the theory of the just war, but
8
without forsaking its formulae they could condemn all the wars of
their generation. The just-war theory requires that the object of war
be peace and that every expedient for reconciliation shall have been
exhausted prior to the declaration of hostilities. Could Francis or
Charles or Henry pretend that these conditions had been fulfilled?
War against the Turks was more of a problem to the humanist
pacifists, but even in this case the espousal of the ultimate crusade
was not incompatible with a program of peace. That brilliant ec-
centric Guillaume Postel* dedicated his life to the conversion of
the Muslim, traveled in the Orient, learned Arabic and Syriac and
worked furiously to produce translations of Christian works into the
Oriental tongues. After a great missionary putsch, he was willing to
countenance a crusade to bring the obstinate residue under a world
empire led by France shades of Pierre Duboisl The emphasis was
on the peaceful campaign for the Concordia Mundi.
Some of the individual emphases among the humanists may be
noted Rabelais scoffed at the triviality of the causes of war by re-
128
counting how some cake bakers were driving a cart laden with their
goods when accosted civilly by some shepherds who wished to buy
at current prices. They were met with a
volley of Rabelaisan invec-
tive. The spokesman of the without
shepherds, losing his sang froid,
remonstrated and renewed the request. The chief cake baker feigned
consent, but when the trusting shepherd drew near he received a
lash across the shins. All the shepherds then fell
upon the cake bakers,
"whence arose great wars." 10
Montaigne complained of the stupidity of those who committed
their course to the capricious issue of battle, where defeat might be
occasioned by a contrary wind, by the flight of crows obscuring vision,
by the misstep of a horse, by a dream, a voice or a morning mist. 11
Clichtove, the great Catholic antagonist of Luther, centered on the
impropriety of war among Christians, the sacrilege of clerical par-
ticipation, and the unseemliness of taking the cross into battle where
itmight be desecrated by trampling in the fray. 12 Vives commenced
his tract on War with the Turk as if he were about to revamp the
speech of Pope Urban II at the council of Clermont. The Spaniard

pointed out that the Turk was gaining because the Christians were
fighting each other. One would expect his next point to be that the
Christians should stop fighting each other and unite against the com-
mon foe. Not so; however, since God does not need the unity of
men in order to repulse the foe he went on a mere handful will
and those who enjoy Christ's favor may be assured of security,
suffice,
apparently if they do nothing at all, The reason for the Turkish suc-
cess was not so much that Christians were divided as that they were
divisive, and that not merely at the political level. There were, alas,
contentions between the Thomists and the Occamists, the Monks
and the Minorites, the Franciscans and the Dominicans, the Cath-
olics and the Lutherans, and among the Lutherans themselves. Let
contention cease, then peace would ensue. As to the new weapons of
war employed in the sixteenth century, Vives recalled the remark of
one of the ancients who when the Syracusans used darts of liquid
fire, commented ruefully; "Now valor is no more." "Today," said
"we might better say 'humanity is no more'." ls
Vives,
129
The Utopia of the ring of righteousness. The
Thomas More had
noblest wars, in his judgment, were those undertaken by the state
not
on its own behalf but to succour the injured. The rules of the just
war should be observed, hostilities should cease the moment
strictly
the objective was achieved, and during their course humanity should
be practiced. For the Utopians "doo no lesse pytye the basse and
common enemies people, than they doo theyre owne;
sorte of their
the
knowynge that they be driven to warre agaynste theyre wylles by
and heades." The Utopians "do
furyous madnes of theyre prynces
not waste nor destroy there enemies lande with forraginges, nor they
burne not up their corne. . They hurt no man that is unarmed,
. *
onles he be an espiall. ... All the weak multitude they leaue un-
touched/
1
*
John Colet, the Dean of St. Paul's, likewise confined himself to the
terms of the just-war theory. Yet in so doing he stressed peace to the

for whom he preached a famous
point of disquieting Henry VIII,
sermon. Erasmus, on whom we must rely for a report, declared that
Colet pointed out how few undertake a war save for hatred or ambi-
tion, and how hardly can they who thrust their swords into their
brothers' blood entertain that love without which no one can see the
Lord. Henry was apprehensive lest such words destroy the morale of
his newly recruited troops. 18
Agrippa of Nettesheim was less restrained

than the others by the
war's horrors he concluded:
theory of the just war. After recounting
of
"The whole art war] studies nothing else but the subversion
[of
Mankind, transforming men into beasts and monsters so that War
is nothing but a general Homicide and Robbery by mutual Consent."
The Pontifical Decretals do not
at all impugne it, though Christ and his Apostles teach quite another
doctrine. So that contrary to the Doctrine of Christ, it has obtained no
small Honour in the Church, by reason of the many Orders of Holy
Soldiers, all whose religion consists in Blood, Slaughter, Rapine and
Pyracy, under pretence of defending
and enlarging the Christian faith;
as if the Intention of Christ had been to spread his Gospel, not by Preach-
ing, but by force of Arms; not by

Confession and simpleness of Heart,
130
but by Menaces and high Threats of Ruine and Destruction, strength of
Arms, Slaughter and Massacres of Mankind. Nor is it enough for these
Soldiers to bear theirArms against the Turks, Saracens and Pagans, unless
they fight also for Christians against Christians. War and Warfare have
begot many bishops, and it is not seldome that they Fight stiffly for the
Popedome; which made the Holy Bishop of Camera Affirm, "That seldom
any Pope ascends the Chair without the Blood of the Saints." 18
The most renowned and vocal of all the humanists pacifists of the
Renaissance was Erasmus of Rotterdam. In his letter to the abbot of
Bergen, in the commentary on the adage of Pindar "Sweet is war to
him who knows it not," in the Institute of the Christian Prince,
Complaint Peace, not to mention allusions in nearly
especially in the
every work and in many letters, Erasmus reiterated his perennial plea.
Peace was necessary for his program of the reform of the Church and
society through the processes of education. Erasmus the more despised
a sword in the hand because he had a rapier in his tongue. The use
of such a verbal weapon appeared to him to be not incompatible with
Christian love, because there are battles of truth and they should be
conducted by the instruments of the mind. There is here a deep in-
tellectualist revulsion against the ways of the brute.

As for the traditional ethic of the just war, Erasmus subscribed to
it. When after his deprecation of crusades, he was pinned down as to
the legitimacy of war against the Turk, he conceded that an invasion
might be repelled but added the proviso that nothing should be done
contrary to the will of God. Was this another of those artifices by
which Erasmus nullified a concession? At any rate, when it came to
the wars of Europe, he could and did condemn them all as incom-
patible with the stipulations of a just war. In the matter of territory,

he perceived that there could never be justice on one side only, be-
cause there was no state which had not lost territories formerly
possessed. If prior possession constituted a claim, Italy might take
over the whole of Northern Africa, and that of course would have
meant in his day an aggressive war against Islam. Erasmus would have
none of it. 1T
A brief review of his best known tract, The Complaint of Peace,
IS1
will show how he quarried afresh in the classical and Christian
18
sources to produce a new synthesis.
Here follows an epitome:
Peace enters speaking in her own person and lamenting that she is so
little received among men. She marvels at this the more because the
heavenly bodies, though inanimate, preserve a happy equilibrium; the

very plants cling to each other and the irrational animals do not devour
those of the same species. The boar does not bury his tusk in the boar,
the lion shows no fierceness to the lion, nor does the serpent expend his
venom on the serpent. The wolf is kind to the wolf. And if animals do
fight it is only to assuage their hunger. Why then should not man of all
creatures be at peace with man? The more
so because he is endowed with
reason and gifted with speech, the instrument of social intercourse and
reconciliation, and with tears which in a shower dissolve the clouds and
suffer the sun again to shine. Man depends for his very existence upon
cooperation. He could not be born without the union of partners or

survive without a helping hand. The human being, unlike the animals,
arrives physically defenseless. Why then should man prey upon man?
Peace, not yet disillusioned, assumes that when she hears the name of
man and Christian, there she will find a reception. She approaches hope-
fully a city begirt by walls and living in accord with laws, only to discover
factions. She turns from the common rout to kings and finds them em-
bracing with obsequious flattery while conniving at mutual destruction.

The learned men, the philosophers, are little better with their wrangling
schools. Nor even are the religious orders superior, though they bear the
name and carry the cross, for they are con-
of brother, dress in white,
tinually contentious. The home is indeed better, yet not without discord,
and even in the breast of a single individual the passions are at war with
reason.
All this is the more amazing when one examines the precepts of the
Christian religion. In the Old Testament Isaiah foretold the coming of
the Prince of Peace and in the New Testament Christ bequeathed
peace
.ashis legacy. The mark by which his disciples should be known is love
one for the other. The Lord's Prayer addresses Our Father, but how can
they call upon a common Father who drive steel into the bowels of their
brethren? Christ compared himself to a hen, Christians behave like hawks.
Christ was a shepherd of sheep, Christians tear each other like wolves.
Christians have the same Supper of the Lord, the same
heavenly Jeru-
132
salem, but they are less peaceful than the Jews who fight only with
foreignersand the Turks who keep the peace among themselves.
And who is responsible for all this? Not the common people, but kings,
who on the strength of some nmsty parchment lay claim to neighboring
territory or because of the infringement of one point in a treaty of a
hundred embark on war. Not the young, but the graybeards. Not
articles,
the laity, but the bishops. The very cross is painted on their banners and
cannons are christened and engraved with the names of the apostles, so
that Paul, the preacher of peace, is made to hurl a cannon ball at the
heads of Christians.
Consider the wickedness of it all, the breakdown of laws which are
ever silent amid the clangor of arms. Debauchery, rape, incest, and the
foulest crimes are let loose in war. Men who would go to the gallows in
peace are of prime use in war, the burglar to rob, the assassin to disem-
bowel, the incendiary to an enemy city, the pirate to sink his vessels.
fire
Consider the cost of it In order to prevent the enemy from leaving
all.
his town one must sleep for months outside of one's own. New walls could
be built for less than is required to batter down old ones. When all the
damage is taken into account, the most brilliant success is not worth the
trouble.
How is peace to be secured? Not by royal marriages, but by
then
cleansing the human heart. Why should one born in the bogs of Ireland
seek by $ome alliance to rule over the East Indies? Let a king recall that
to improve his realm is better than to increase his
territory. Let him buy
peace. The cheapest war would be more expensive. Let him invite the arbi-
tration of learned men, abbots, and bishops. Let the clergy absent them-
selves from silly parades and refuse Christian burial to those who die
in battle. If we must fight, why not go against the common enemy, the
Turk? But wait. Is not the Turk also a man and a brother?
Above all else let peace be sincerely desired. The populace is now
incited to war by insinuations and propaganda, by claims that the English-
man is the natural enemy of the Frenchman and the like. Why should
an Englishman as an Englishman bear ill will to a Frenchman and not
rather good will as a man to a man and a Christian to a Christian? How
can anything so frivolous as a name outweigh the ties of nature and the
bonds of Christianity? The Rhine separates the French from the German
but it cannot divide the Christian from the Christian. The Pyrenees lie
between the French and the Spaniards but cannot break the indissoluble
bond of the communion of the church. A little strip of sea cuts off the
English from the French, but though the Atlantic rolls between it could
not sever those joined by nature and still more indissolubly cemented by
US
grace.In private life one will bear with something in a brother-in-law
only because he is a brother-in-law, and cannot one then bear anything
in another because he is a brother in Christ?
Let us then repent and be wise, declare an amnesty to all past errors
and misfortunes, and bind up discord in adamantine chains which can
never be sundered till time shall be no more.
This tract is a fine
blending of the classical

and the Christian themes.
From the classical side are
derived the personifica-
tion of peace, the appeal
to the harmony of the
cosmos, the recital of the

horror, cost, and folly of
war. From the Christian
side, the appeal to the Old
Testament and the New
Testament, the stress on
the fatherhood of God
and the brotherhood of
believers and the passion-
ate concern that swords
be beaten into plow-
shares. Christian soli-
darity must not be

disrupted by the new
nationalism. Princes
should eschew all terri- THE WARRIOR MONK
torial ambitions and re-
HOLBEIN'S CARICATURE TO ILLUSTRATE
ERASMUS* Praise of Folly
frain from all inflama*
tory propaganda.
In the colloquy, The Erasmus caused the fishmonger
Fish-Eaters,
to declare what he would do if he were emperor. He would admit
that his victory over the king of France had been due only to a freak
134
of Fortune, and would release his valiant foe with the plea that ani-
mosity be forgotten and that henceforth the two kings should vie
with each other as to who should govern his own land with the
greatest justiceand goodness. "In the former conflict I have borne
away the Prize of Fortune, but in he that gets the better shall gain
this
far more glory. As for me, the fame of this Clemency will get more
true glory than if I have added all France to my dominion."
How sorely was Erasmus grieved when in the very year of the Diet
of Worms, which did so much to disrupt the spiritual unity of Europe,
the Holy Roman Emperor and the most Christian king of France
embarked upon war.
135
Chapter
9
of Religion
A HE year 1521, in which war broke out between Francis and

Charles, was also the year in which Martin Luther was placed under
the ban of the Church and the empire. Thereby the Corpus Christi-
anum was riven. The religious cleavage was to prove even more di-
visive than nationalism, and the spirit of the crusades was to be
revived on a larger scale than in the war against the Cathari. Religious
intolerance flared up being largely in abeyance in the opening
after
years of the sixteenth century, when even in Spain Erasmianism

flourished for the decade of the 1520's. By the 1530's, however, the
Inquisition was being revived throughout Europe, and wars of re-

ligion ensued, fanned by confessional fanaticism.
The Protestant reformers could not escape rendering judgment
with regard to the morality of all the wars of their time, whether
dynastic, national, religious, or what not. Luther reworked the theory
of the just war of Augustine and the early Middle Ages and stoutly
rejected the crusading idea. All of the Protestant state churches ap-
propriated the just-war theory, but within its terms the Reformed
churches reinstated the crusade, partly because of their theocratic
pretensions and partly because of their circumstances. Pacifism, as
in the late Middle Ages, was the affair of the sects of the Anabaptists
in the sixteenth century, the Quakers in the seventeenth, and the
Brethren in the eighteenth.
Luther 1 almost of necessity rejected the crusade because it was a
war instigated by the pope against the Turk, whereas in Luther's
136
WARS OF RELIGION
eyes the pope was worse than the Turk. "The mighty in the Church/'
said he, "fight the Turks, that is, not their vices but the rod with
which God scourges their vices." 2
Because of this statement Luther,
PLUNDERING IN THE TURKISH WAR, SIXTEENTH CENTURY
like Erasmus, was understood to mean that the Turk was not to be
view which both men undertook later to correct.
resisted at all, a
There were, however, deeper theological reasons why Luther rejected
a crusade under the auspices of the Church. His objection was rooted
in his view of the two kingdoms, the one the Kingdom of God or
Christ, the other the kingdom of the world the kingdom of civil
affairs. The Church belongs to the former; the state controls the
latter. The state includes all people, be they Christian or unchristian.
The goes back to the order of creation and arose in paradise
state
because of man's urge to association. The coercive power of the state
was introduced after the Fall by reason of Cain's murder in order
to prevent a general anarchy of revenge. The state is the affair of all
peoples, including the Jews and the Turks. The administration of

the state is in accord with natural law implanted in the hearts of
all men. In civil affairs Luther trusted so much to reason or common
sense that were he faced with the choice between a ruler who was
137
prudent and bad and another

who was good but imprudent, Luther
would choose the prudent and bad because the good by his im-
into disorder, whereas the prudent,
prudence would throw everything
however bad, 3 would have the sense to restrain the bad. In the king-
dom of Christ reason does not apply, however, for this is the area
of faith. The state rules over things outward the body, houses,
lands, and the like the Church only over things spiritual. The state
deals with crime, the Church with sin. Civil rulers are ordained of
God and wield the sword, whether to maintain justice within the
state or to repel invasions from without. The minister of the Church
isarmed only with the Word. From this it follows obviously that the
minister cannot be a judge, an executioner, or a soldier and of
course not a crusader.
The has led some interpreters
sharp demarcation of these spheres
of Luther to say that he posited also two moralities, one for the state
and one for the Church. The suggestion has even been made that
his thought
political
resembled that of Machiavelli, but this is a
perverse misreading of Luther. Because he said that the magistrate
cannot rule with a foxtail and that there cannot be war without
bloodshed, he is not to be understood to have jettisoned political
morality. He had mind not two ethics, but two and more than
in
two codes of behavior. At this point his position was a simplification
of the view of Augustine, who as to war had posited four codes: for
the magistrate, the minister, the monk, and the citizen, Luther
omitted the monk and thus was left with the other three. There is
a certain here to the two aspects of God's character.
correspondence
For God operates in history with a left hand which is the coercive
state and a right hand which is the persuasive Church. He is con-
4
suming in his anger and gracious in his compassion. The magistrate

is the instrument of his wrath. The positive function of the magistrate
isto protect the good, for without his help they would become extinct.
True Christians do not protect themselves. They are like sheep; if
the sheep do not resist nor do
sheep are placed in the midst of wolves
bears not the sword in
they last long. That is why the civil ruler
vain. 5
138
WARS OF RELIGION
In the exercise of severity the magistrate is not going counter to
Christian love. Though his work appears cruel, it is as merciful as
an amputation performed by a doctor. The magistrate is as much
subject to the Christian ethic as the minister, though in a much
more difficult position because the magistrate in executing a male-
factor must be completely devoid of any personal rancor, resentment,
or revenge. He is solely God's instrument/ He must indeed perform
his task with a sorrow which the minister has no need to feel. "We
be pained to condemn the guilty
see then that the godly judge will
and he will be grieved by the death which the law imposes. This
work has every appearance of wrath and unmercifulness but gentle-
ness is so utterly good that it remains in such a wrathful work and
wellsup all the more in the heart when it is required to be angry
and hard." T Here we have again the mournful magistrate of Augus-
tine. This reference of course is to the judge, but is equally relevant
for the soldiet, because Luther, like Augstine, thought of war as an
aspect of the police function of the state.
The role of the minister is strictly spiritual. He may curse and
damn the malefactor, but he may employ no weapons other than the
Word. The common citizen should never He may
defend himself.
serve at the behest of his prince; otherwise he should suffer. The monk
isout of the picture. This meant that the soldier was given a higher
status not that Luther directly and consciously substituted the one
for the other. The
point was rather that the notion of a religious call-
ing was taken away from the monk and bestowed upon all worthy oc-
cupations. Luther recognized three general categories, Nahr$tand>
Lehrstand, and Wehrstand. The
included agriculture and what-
first
ever sustains the body; the second the ministry, education, and all
that concerns the mind and spirit; the third applied to government,
whether in peace or in war. The soldier then had a legitimate calling
ordained of God.
Luther accepted the traditional view that the object of the just
war is peace, and like the ancient Greeks and Hebrews extolled all
her blessings.
139
Through peace we enjoy our body and life, wife, children, house and
castle, yes, all of our members, hands, feet,, eyes, health, and freedom.
And we sit secure in these walls of peace. Where there is peace there is
half of the Kingdom of Heaven. Peace can make a crust of dry bread
taste like sugar and a drink of water like malmosier wine. I could more
easily number the sands or count all the blades of grass than narrate all
of the blessings of peace. 8
Therefore, of course, war was to be only a last resort. The cost

should be carefully reckoned, and Luther quoted with approval the
remark of the Emperor Augustus that war is like fishing with a
golden net.
9 The
function of war for Luther was primarily the de-
fense of territory in the medieval sense. On this ground he came at
length to condone resistance to the Turk, not as an infidel but as

an invader. All of the traditional limitations of the code also applied.
The conservative character of the just-war theory became most
evident when Luther sharply condemned the uprising of the peasants.
In so doing he was not traitor to his class, for he had always said
that the common man should suffer rather than resist; only the
magistrate is ordained of God to bear the sword. Luther at the out-

set upbraided both the lords for the injustice which had occasioned
rebellion and the peasants beyond petition and prayer.
for going
When armed bands broke loose and ravaged the country, Luther
was infuriated doubly so because the prince, John Frederick, was
disposed to follow the Counsel of Gamaliel and wait to judge by the
outcome whether or no the rebellion were of God. Luther informed
him that as a magistrate he was obligated to use the sword: "smite,
stab, slay, and kill/' because no justice can result from rebellion. It
creates disorder and out of disorder only new injustice can arise.
Luther appeared here to be using pragmatic arguments.
He was further outraged by the particular circumstances of the
peasants' war in Saxony. In this area it was incited by that evangelical
preacher Thomas Muentzer, who sired the idea of the Protestant
theocracy, with the concomitant crusading idea. Muentzer believed

that God's elect could be identified through the
experience of the
new birth. They could recognize each other and form a covenant, a
140
WARS OF RELIGION
Bund, and though the Lord Jesus would soon come to reap the
harvest, yet the angels, identified with the peasants, must begin the
work. Muentzer rallied them to the cause by unfolding the banner
of rebellion in the very church. Luther fumed. To engage in revolu-
tion against God's ordained magistrate is rebellion, but for a minister
to instigate revolt in the of the gospel is sacrilege. What then
name
should be done if the minister thus forsook his proper role? Smite
him down! Thus Luther's hardness was a corollary of his doctrine of
nonresistance in the case of the minister.
Later in his Luther was asked for a judgment with regard to
life
another variety of war, namely, against the emperor, should he un-

dertake to eradicate the evangelical faith. Resistance to the emperor
would be rebellion and one would expect Luther to have dis-
countenanced it. Athe did so unequivocally. He had said in
first
good medieval fashion that only equals can make war upon equals.
Peasants cannot make war upon lords and by the same token lords
cannot make war upon the emperor. When in the early 1520's the
question was whether Frederick the Wise could resist the emperor
by arms in case he were to extradite Luther, the answer was abso-
lutely no. After the Diet of Speyer in 1529 the question came to
be, What should be the response if the emperor were to try to
eradicate the Protestant faithand compel Lutherans to go to mass?
Here, too, Luther was at first disposed to advise passive resistance
only. He had always counseled disobedience in case the emperor were
to issue a command contrary to the will of God, and argued that a
private citizen might refuse to serve in war if he knew the cause to
be unjust and opposed to the gospel. Luther thus highly approved
of the desertion of the troops engaged by Joachim of Brandenburg
ostensibly to fight the Turks, but actually to fight the Lutherans.

Could there be armed resistance? The jurists pointed out to
Luther that the emperor was not a hereditary prince but an elected
monarch. On the occasion of his coronation he had taken an oath
that no German state should be placed under the ban of the empire
without a hearing. At Speyer the Protestant princes had appealed to
the emperor to call a council of the Church whose decision he should
141
called the council and had
implement, but the emperor had not
given the Protestant princes
no hearing. If then he should invade
their territories to reinstate Catholicism, he would be violating
his
coronation oath. Luther's initial response to this argument was that

from the legal point of view it was valid, but not in accord with the
New Testament. Yet on occasion he would say that in matters
the of the lawyers might be followed and then
judgment
political
once more he would voice his extreme reluctance*
Where Luther held back, his followers were to go forward. After
his death the Lutherans of Magdeburg in 1550 developed
a theory
of armed resistance destined to have a long history with

varied ap-
It consisted in substituting constitutionalism for the

plications.
prototype was found rather
The in
graded scheme of feudalism.
classical antiquity in the example of the ephors in Sparta
and the
tribunes of Rome. They were all magistrates, lower magistrates,

and even resisting higher
of restraining
assigned the function
magistrates. The biblical
would not be violated if the
doctrine then
sword were borne only by the magistrate, albeit an inferior magis-
trate.Die niedrige Obrigkeit should resist the higher. In Germany
this meant that the electors might resist the emperor if he violated
the terms of his oath. Observe that this was no doctrine of popular
sovereignty; it was more nearly a sytem of checks, with the lower
a control upon the higher. In 1555, when Lutheranism received

of resistance was dropped, and the
legal recognition, this doctrine
conservative elements in Luther's theory were emphasized to a degree
far beyond his intent. The stress was placed upon the duty of the
subject toobey. Although Luther had said that the minister should
be the mentor of the magistrate and the pulpit should "wash the fur
10
of the ruler and clean out his mouth whether he laughs or rages/'
in a state church the minister came to be so dependent for his posi-
tion the government that any free exercise of the prophetic
upon
role was excluded. The way lay open for political absolutism and the
militarization of the state.
The churches of the Reformation, with the exception of the
of the just war as basic. The
Anabaptist, all endorsed the theory
142
WARS OF RELIGION
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England affirmed that "it is
lawfull for Christian men, at the comrnandement of the Magistrate,
to weare weapons and serve in the warres."
The Reformed Churches and the Crusade
Nevertheless, the Reformed Churches moved in the direction of

the crusade, partly because they became involved in wars of religion
and partly because of their theocratic concept of the Church. They
were in a sense in the succession of Thomas Muentzer, although his
name was anathema to them alL Like him they believed that the
Church consisted approximately of the elect, an identifiable com-
pany, in some sense a kingdom of God on earth, with a commission

to establish holy commonwealths, whether by persuasion or con-
straint of the ungodly. Zwingli saw in the Church the new Israel of
God, the successor to the chosen people of the old covenant and
realized in the church at Zurich. On behalf of this company the one-
time near was to become a crusader. 11
pacifist
In his earlier years Zwingli had been revolted by the mercenary
service of the Swiss and in his Fable of the Ox, the dog, who was
Zwingli himself, counseled the Swiss Ox not to forsake his Alpine

meadow in order to aid the French leopard, the imperial lion, or
Venetian fox. Yet Zwingli was at that time willing to serve as a chap-
lain to the Swiss troops in the service of the pope and shared with
them the perils of the field of Marignano where six thousand of his
countrymen were left upon the field. Deeply shaken and profoundly
affected by Erasmian pacifism, Zwingli renounced the papal service
and wrote a poem containing the lines:
Our honor stands on blood and war

Nature's rights are drowned in gore,
With all the furies loose from hell.
How could anybody tell
That we are Christian save by name,

Without patience, love and shame?
If God grant not that wars have ceased
We shall have turned from man to beast. 1*
143
More pointed was the question which he addressed to his fellow
Swiss, "Suppose a foreign mercenary should break into your land,
ravage your farms and vineyards, drive off your cattle, cut
down your
sons where they try to protect you, violate your daughters, kick your
wives as they supplicate for themselves and you, drag you out, an old
man cowering in your house and stab you before the eyes of your wife
and then burn home and house? If fire did not burst from heaven
to consume such villains, would you not say that there is no God?
And if you do this to another, will you call it the right of war?*' 1S
Yet if the security of the fatherland were threatened Zwingli was
not ready to renounce a war of defense, and when the gospel was
imperiled war was not to be regarded as the wrangling of men but
as a veritable crusade of the new Israel to vindicate the honor of
God. That the Catholic cantons should not suppress the gospel in the
evangelical lands, Zwingli drew up a plan of campaign, and solicited
German Protestants. He counseled a show
a military alliance with the
when the Protestants had such an overwhelm-
of the sword at a time
ing preponderance that they could win without using it. They sallied
forth, Zwingli with them and armed. On the field of battle an old
Swiss besought both sides to negotiate, and since the Catholics lacked
bread and the Ziirichers milk, each supplied the lack of the other
and peace was concluded over a huge bowl of bread and milk.
Zwingli was disheartened, because he believed the issue would have
to be decided eventually in blood and not in milk* When the
Catholics gained a military ascendancy, they marched. The Ziirichers,
surprised and outnumbered, rallied. Zwingli stood with them in

helmet and sword and went down fighting. Luther looked upon his
death as a judgment of God because as a preacher he had taken the
sword.
Calvinism and the Wars of Religion
Yet Calvinism, 14 even more than Zwinglianism, is associated with

the crusade. The reason is partly one of circumstance because
Calvinism rather than Zwinglianism became a militant minority
fighting for a foothold in France, The Netherlands, Scotland, and
144
WARS OF RELIGION
England and partly one of ideas. Calvin spoke of "the Church re-
stored" as the kingdom of God, and Calvinists were active in erecting
holy commonwealths. The kernel of the theocratic ideal was the
doctrine of election, with more and more tangible tests of the elect,
who could be identified in reasonable charity by faith, upright de-
portment, and participation in the sacraments. The role of the state
in the religious commonwealth was indeed restricted, in that church
discipline and excommunication were to be in the hands of the

Church alone. The state was ordained of God, not only to protect
the good and punish the bad, but also to support the true religion
even to the point that the town council at Geneva conducted the
heresy trial of Michael Servetus. Whereas Luther looked upon the
coercive function of the ruler as a sad necessity, Calvin had none of
the mood of the mournful magistrate. With such presuppositions
war would have to be the battle of a religious society fought with
fervor in the name of the Lord God of Hosts, and the more holy
the cause the less restrained would be the means. Calvin repeatedly
said that no consideration could be paid to humanity when the honor
of God was at stake. 15 One recalls that Machiavelli eliminated
humanity when the security of the state was in jeopardy. Calvin took
loftier ground since the honor of God transcends the security of the
state, but one may well inquire whether either can be conserved if
humanity be flouted.
The question of war was acute during Calvin's lifetime because
Geneva was constantly in danger of attack from the Catholic powers*
The duke and the bishop, having been expelled, desired restoration;
after Calvin's death an attack was in fact made. The atmosphere at
Geneva throughout his life was surcharged, though actual war over
religion broke out only in France. In that land Calvinism was from
the outset a revolutionary movement, prohibited by law, spreading
rapidly in the utmost secrecy. Converts were sworn, if discovered and

tortured, to disclose nothing about their coreligionists. The presence
of a congregation in Paris became known and there followed the
massacre of the A
Rue Saint Jacques. rash young nobleman thought
then to avert a repetition of this tragedy by an armed uprising which
145
should seize the person of King Francis II, assassinate the regents
of
of the Catholic house of Guise, and seat in their stead the princes
the Protestant house of Bourbon. The conspiracy was nipped. Calvin
that rebellion is never legiti-
highly disapproved of it on the ground
mate. "Better," said he, "that we should all perish one hundred times
than that the cause of the Gospel and Christianity should be exposed
to such opprobrium." 1<J Yet Calvin had informed the conspirators
that he would not object the revolt were led by the Bourbon prince,
if
the theory already

Anthony of Navarre. Behind this concession lay
set forth in the confession of Magdeburg (1550) that
an inferior
Calvin appealed to the example
magistrate might resist a superior.
of the in Sparta and the tribunes at Rome and suggested that
ephors
the Estates in France might fulfill the same role. In the above
instance, however, he looked and when

to the princes of the blood,
war broke out led by Cond of the house of Bourbon, Calvin had
only encouragement to offer.
His Theodore Beza, had even less reservation. Earlier

associate,
than Calvin he had adopted the theory of the inferior magistrate,
and after the massacre of St. Bartholomew, along with Hotman and
the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, even went so far as to justify a re-
bellionon the part of the community because a covenant exists
1*
between God, the king, and the people which, if it be violated by
the king, may be vindicated by the people. In England coinciden-
tally a more acute problem had arisen under "Bloody" Mary, because
no Parliament and no nobles were willing or able to offer resistance
to her. For that reason Ponet and Goodman hesitantly endorsed
so also did John Knox in Scot-
private resistance as a final recourse;
land, though less on the ground that tyranny may be resisted than
that idolatry extirpated. At the
must be same period Catholic authors
naturally espoused similar views.
Such were not without bearing on the course of the wars of
ideas
religion, which were punctuated by

assassinations. Huguenot sym-
pathizers disposed of Duke Henry of Guise and his son Duke Francis,
and Catholic sympathizers made away with Henry III and Henry IV,
not to forget William of Orange in the Low Countries. The un-
146
WARS OF RELIGION
successful attempt on the life of Coligny set off the massacre of St.
Bartholomew.
The conduct of the wars was marked by barbarities. A commander
guilty of atrocities justified himself by saying, "The first acts are cruel-
ties, the second mere justice." A
Catholic commander, having
captured a town on the Rhone, put the people to the sword and
threw their bodies into the river with a note to the bridge keeper at
Avignon to let them pass since they had paid the toll already.
Huguenots wore strings of priest's ears, buried Catholics up to then-
necks, and played nine pins with their heads. 18 Said a contemporary,
"Only Christians are permitted to rage against each other with every
variety of inhumanity provided it be for the advancement of one
party and the detriment of another. Those who are moderate are
held suspect." 10
Cromwell and the Puritan Revolution

The transition in the Puritan upheaval from the theory of the just
war to that of the crusade is a striking illustration of the conservative
character of the revolution. One may wonder why so much concern
should have been felt to keep facts inaccord with theory. If the
Puritans meant to have a revolution, why did they not simply have
a revolution? The reason was that they were of no mind to disrupt
the British constitution and to introduce a general chaos. They were
desirous of proving to the public and to themselves that, granted
certain rights, they would leave the political structure intact. For the
same basic reason they were loath to exceed the traditional ethic of
the just war. As we have seen, however, a revolution against the
prince cannot be squared with a war under the prince. The Puritan
20
preachers struggled manfully to find a formula of accommodation.
The was that they were not fighting the king but only his evil
first
counselors, the Malignants. Charles I dispelled this evasion by lining
up with the Malignants. The next approach was by way of the

theory of checks and balances. England was held to be a mixed
monarchy consisting of king, lords, and Commons, and the Commons
might correct the king to which he replied that the three were co-
147
ordinate and the Commons was no more empowered to correct him
than he the Commons. Next came the familiar argument of the right
of the inferior magistrate to curb the superior. The difficulty here
was that Parliament was acting as the superior, and the claim
naturally shifted to the assertion that Parliament was a supreme
court of judicature competent to pass even upon the life of the king.
Then the entire argument was confused when the army asserted as
great a right to resist the parliament as had the parliament to resist
the crown. The army pretended to be the custodian of the welfare
of the people of England even against their will, just as, when the
pilot is drunk, inferior mariners must take over. Finally, some argued
that if the king were a tyrant he was no longer a king, and in that
case even a private citizen might bring him to book.
Oliver Cromwell grew impatient with the quest for the authority
of the prince as a guarantee for the justice of the cause. How can the
prince determine the justice of a holy war? If it is holy, it is holy no

matter what prince, parliament, or people may say to the contrary.
All of these quibbles about the seat of authority may be but "fleshly
reasonings." The Lord himself has given the answer. "Let us look
unto providences; surely they mean somewhat. They hang so to-
21 The
gether; they being so constant, so clear and unclouded."
crusading theory in these words is complete.
If the formulation had waited thus long, the mood had been
present for some time in the sermons of the parliamentary divines
and the dispatches of the parliamentary leaders. The crusading idea
requires that the cause shall be holy (and no cause is more holy
than religion) that the war shall be fought under God and with his
,
help, that the crusaders shallbe godly and their enemies ungodly,
and that the war be prosecuted unsparingly. Examples of all
shall
of these points are abundant.

The cause was deemed holy because religious. Whether or no the
preachers were realistic at this point is irrelevant. The schools of
modern thought divide over this, as over every war. Some look to
social and economic causes, some to the force of ideas
including the
148
WARS OF RELIGION
religious. The contemporary

preachers recognized both and not
uncommonly declared that they were fighting for religion, liberty,
and laws. Take, for example, the title of the tract, The Declaration
of the Kingdomes of England and Scotland loyned in Armes for the
vindication and defense of their Religion, Liberties and Lawes,
22 Some of the
against the Popish, Prelaticall, and Malignant party.
preachers went further and insisted that religion was a primary factor
in the struggle. Heyricke, for example, exclaimed, "Religion is the
very Nerves and sinews of the Common-wealth, the very heart and
prime fountain of life and livelihood, the Crown, the glory of a Na-
tion, the beauty, the strength, the perfection, the Spirit, the soul of
a Kingdome; in Religion is the publicke safety; when
Embarqued
that is aimed at, the danger is
dreadfull, the losse beyond recovery." 23
Edmund Calamy, urging upon the Commons the summoning of the
Scots in October, 1643, defended himself that as a minister he
pleaded for war. Did not the priests in the Old Testament blow the
silver trumpets? "And certainly, if this were the way of God in the
Old Testament, certainly much more in such a Cause as this, in

which Cause Religion is entwin'd and indeed so interlac'd, that
Religion and this Cause, they are like Hippocrates his twins, they
must live and die together." 24 Obadiah Sedgewick on the same oc-
casion maintained the cause to be the cause of God, the cause of
Christendom, "for if this Cause be carryed against us, certainly the
Protestant Cause throughout all of Europe, will fare the worse for
it/' 25
The war was fought, under God.
The Saints receive their commission from the great King, King of Kings,
to have a two edged sword in their hands, to execute judgment upon the
Heathen, and punishment upon the people; To binde their Kings with
chaines, and their Nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the
judgment written, This honour have all the Saints. Hence then we see
what a type of Holy Writ lies upon our Parliament and Army, to execute
28
judgment upon the King and his wicked Adherents.
God might be trusted to scatter his enemies. So George Walker
149
27 and did not Oliver Crom-
preached before the Commons in 1644,
well pause with his army at St. Abb's Head to sing the sixty-eighth
*8
psalm, "Let God arise, Let
His enemies be scattered"? Victory
of his ap-
was regarded doing and the manifest proof
as the Lord's
to his success as "an unspeak-
proval of the cause. Cromwell referred
able mercy," 29 and emphasized the disparity of the forces in order
that divine assistance might be the more apparent. "Sir, this is
to him/' 30 Ad-
nothing but the hand of God. Praise onely belongs
dressing the Speaker of the House the general exclaimed, "Sir, what
can be said to these things? Is it an arm of flesh that does these!
things, Is it the wisdom, the counsel, or strength of men? It is the

Lord only. God will curse that man and his house that dares to think
otherwise." ai
When the Presbyterians held back from touching the Lord's

anointed and Cromwell pressed on with the aid of the Congrega-
tionalists and the to the execution of the King, the crusad-
Baptists
the period. Joseph Caryl in-
ing note was struck in the sermons of
the Lord hath given us a charge
quired: "How can we be quiet seeing
against Askelon? . . . May this
Sword and Bow of all the upright in
heart be like the bow of Jonathon, and the sword of Saul, not turning
backe nor returning empty, from the blood of sinne slaine, and from
the fat of our mightiest corruptions both in Church and Common-
wealth" * 2 The old favorite crusading text was revived: "Cursed
he that keepeth backe his hand from sheding of blood." 83 The
Souldiers Pocket Bible compiled by Edmund Calamy in 1643 man-
fully disposed of the Sermon on the Mount by placing together

the
following verses: "Matthew 5:44. But I say unto you,

Love your
enemies. 2 Chronicles 19:2. Wouldst thou help the wicked and love
them that hate the Lord? Psalm 139:21-22. Do not I hate them, O
Lord, that hate Thee? ... I hate them with an unfeigned hatred as
they were mine utter enemies." The summary is that the soldier must
"love his enemies as they are his enemies, and hate them as they
are God's enemies."

The conduct of the war was affected by the religious alignment.
Catholics received no quarter from the Puritans. The garrison at
150
WARS OF RELIGION
Drogheda was massacred, Hugh Peters is reported to have sent this
dispatch. "Sir, the truth is Drogheda is taken, 3,352 of the enemy
slain, and 64 of ours Ashton the governor killed, none spared.
. . .
I came now from giving thanks in the

. . .
great church Dublin, . .
1649." 8 * Cromwell this exercise of

September 15, justified severity
in the following words: "I am persuaded that this is a righteous
judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued

their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to pre-
vent the effusion of blood for the future, which are the satisfactory
grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse
and regret." One who had talked with Cromwell said he adduced that
also the consideration that "there are great occasions in which some
men are called to great services in the doing of which they are ex-
cused from the common rule of morality/* as were the worthies of
the Old Testament. 85
The
Presbyterians in Scotland, however, were treated with leni-
ency which made possible the resumption of the union of the two
lands. In England the differences between the Dissenters and the
Anglicans did not dispel the amenities which obtain among gentle-
men.
In the meantime the Thirty Years' War raged on the continent.
The beginning was over a point of religion, though the course of the
war became increasingly a struggle for power. The sack of Magde-
burg was considered one of the great atrocities of the age. A modern
author is inclined, however, to believe that it was not the result of
deliberate fanaticism and brutality on the part of Tilly and Pappen-
heim, but was due rather to the license of uncontrollable troops. It
is an illustration not of the point that a religious war is less humane
than a secular war, but rather that all war unleashes helL*'
151
Cluster 10
The Historic Peace Churches
and War with the Aborigines
_L HE sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which witnessed the

wars of religion, saw also a rise of pacifist sects, remarkable because
they have largely preserved their testimony against war until our
own day. The Anabaptists (now the Mennonites and the Hutterites) ,
the Quakers, and the Brethren are popularly called the "historic
peace churches," not because other churches are not concerned for
peace but because these groups have refused to take part in war.
They have somewhat among themselves in their emphases.
differed
The Anabaptists have been the most aloof from society and averse
to participation in government* The Quakers have been the least
segregated and have been willing even to assume political office up to

the point of war. The Brethren have taken a median position. In
the colonial period in Pennsylvania the Mennonites would not
vote; the Quakers sat in the legislature; the Brethren would vote
only for Quakers. The differences are due to divergent estimates as
to the redeemability of human nature here on earth. Pessimism and
optimism on this score in the case of these three may not be un-
related to the circumstances of their origins. The Anabaptists began
subject to the penalty of death, the Brethren to that of banishment,

the Quakers only to that of imprisonment. The Anabaptists, being
burned by Catholics and drowned by Protestants, saw no hope in
man. The Quakers, able to u$e trials and imprisonments as instru-
152
THE HISTORIC PEACE CHURCHES AND WAR WITH THE ABORIGINES
ments of propaganda, were more hopeful that their witness would
mind of all England, and not without reason witness the
affect the
way in which William Penn in the course of his trial won the battle
for the nonintimidation of juries.
The Anabaptists
The Anabaptists 1 made a sharp distinction between
the two king-
doms, the kingdom and
of the world
the kingdom of Christ. The
kingdom of the world comprised the unredeemed who live accord-

ing to the lusts of the flesh and prey upon whom they can. To re-
strain their villainy God instituted the state and endowed it with
coercive po.wer. 2 The sword was ordained because of sin; in Paradise
there was no sword until after the Fall some said until after the
Flood, when the descendants of Noah proved to be as vile as his
contemporaries.
Then Christ instituted a new order,an order of love and meek-
ness in which there is no constraint. This is possible because the
Christian is a new creature and will not avenge himself. As a sheep
before the shearers 'is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. The Good
Shepherd called his flock sheep. "By sheep Christians alone were
meant. A sheep is a suffering defenseless, patient beast, which has
no other defense save to run so long as it can and may. A sheep is no
more comparable to the governance of the sword than to a wolf or
a lion/* 8 The deportment of Christians is wholly different from that
of the children of the world. Said Menno, "Our fortress is Christ, our
defense is patience, our sword is the Word of God, and our victory
is the sincere, firm, unfeigned faith in Jesus Christ. Spears and swords
of iron we leave to those who, alas, consider human blood and swine's
blood well-nigh of equal value." *
The Christians who endorsed the just war or the crusade con-
fronted the Anabaptists with many examples of warriors approved
of God in the Old Testament. The reply was that the New Testa-
ment represents the radical new order of Christ. This suggests that
the Old Testament belongs to the kingdom of the world under the
administration of God and the New Testament to the kingdom of
153
Christ. The danger here implicit, and had to be refuted, that the
is
Anabaptists were setting the kingdom of God the Son over against
that of God the Father. How to handle the Old Testament was of
course a problem for all Christians. None rejected it completely but
all to a degree. Paul himself had said that the law of Moses was
binding only until Christ. How much more, then, would one expect
new 5
the dispensation to reject the immoralities of the patriarchs,
such as the suicide of Samson, the theft of the Israelites from the
Egyptians, the tyrannicide of Judith, the lie of Abraham, the
polygamy of the patriarchs, and the conquest of Canaan in con-
travention of the requirements of the just war? Some answered that
all of these were allowed by reason of a special revelation from God
which had not been subsequently repeated. Some, however, affirmed

that certain of the above acts, such as tyrannicide, were in accord
with natural law and might recur. Luther considered polygamy
permissible under natural law, though not to be practiced because
contrary to statute law. There was general agreement that a war of
invasion without provocation, such as the conquest of Canaan, was
no longer permissible. The Anabaptists were of all parties the most
radical because, though steeped in the imagery of the Old Testament,
they yet rejected its ethic as having been superseded by that of Christ.
His kingdom they held to be based upon the Sermon of the Mount
and his injunctions to be literally obeyed, not only with regard to
war but also with regard to the oath. Here, then is a New Testament
legalism. Obedience, discipleship, and the imitation of Christ are
the recurrent words in the Anabaptist confessions. They suggest
something more than individual behavior and stand in the context of

a program for the Church which must itself first be restored to the
purity of the apostolic time, when Christianity was persecuted rather
than supported by the state. The great fall in the history of the
Church came with Constantine when the two kingdoms were fused
and the sword of the empire intimidated the heretics. The restitu-
tion of the Christianity of the golden age was the object of the Ana-
baptists' endeavor, and to this end adherents were expected to
154
embark upon missionary tours for the conversion of the heathen
whether Catholic or Protestant. The gathering of the pure
Christians,
Church would be the prelude to the coining of the Lord to establish
his kingdom upon earth. Thus they held hope for society, but only
through the conversion of individuals and the intervention of Christ.

Critics faced the Anabaptists with the problem with which Luther
had He
too had defined Christ's kingdom in these terms,
wrestled.
but he had pointed out that the lion and lamb cannot lie down
together unless the lamb is frequently renewed. He argued that if,
as the Anabaptists admitted, the sword of the magistrate had been
ordained by God, Christians who would renounce it for themselves
should employ it for others. Out of love they should collaborate with
God's left hand. The Anabaptists almost said that God's right hand
should not know what his left hand was doing. They recognized the
need of government for sinners.
But our will and mind are not to do

away with civil government, nor
to refuse it obedience in matters good and right, because there must be
government among men in the world, just as there must be daily bread
and a schoolmaster with a rod over the children. Since the great mass of
this world will not allow God's Word to hold and rule, therefore they
must be held and ruled by the sword, that the scamps and rascals, the
children of this world, who will not walk uprightly through Christ, may
do so through fear of the gallows. Therefore the magistracy is or-
. . .
dained of God. 6
The Christian may not be a magistrate, however.
Wherefore? Because the governance of the world is according to the

flesh;the governance of Christians is according to the spirit The houses
and dwelling of the worldly are in this world, whereas the dwelling of
the Christians is in heaven. The citizenship of the world is in the world;
the citizenship of the Christians is in heaven. The warfare and weapons
of the one are of the flesh and fight only with the flesh; the weapons of
the other are spiritual against the rampart of the devil. The worldly are
armed to fight only with the flesh; the Christians have put on the armor
of God, that is "truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the
Word of God.T
155
The Anabaptists were told that if they abstained from the main-
tenance of justice by the sword, justice would suffer. They answered
that there would never be anylack of persons ready to assume the
office of the magistrate. This rejoinder savors very much of voca-
tionalism. Functionally it is just that, but not in theory, for the

the magistrate, though ordained of God, did not belong in
office of
their view to the kingdom of Christ. If all men would enter the
kingdom of Christ, the magistracy would at once cease. So long as

men did not, the citizenship of the Christian could be only in heaven,
and he must even now walk as if heaven were here.
Would not that mean suffering for those who were not protected?
The Anabaptists were aware that it would, and offered the weak only
the protection of the sword of the Spirit. Suffering in the body there
would be, but it was not a suffering from which the Christian was
exempt while others endured. He would be subject to the sword
because of his rejection of the sword. This must be expected because
the world would always be the world and the Church would always
be rejected, poor, and persecuted. Every Abel must have have his
Cain and every Christ his Caiaphas. So would it be until the Lord
came.
Appeals to princes therefore were deemed fatuous, and plans for

world peace were considered futile. The Anabaptist could not, like
Erasmus, write an Institute of the Christian Prince, because there
could not be a Christian prince. The true Christian could do no
other than withdraw from and in the sixteenth
all political life
century the Anabaptists were compelled to withdraw from all social

life. Survival was
possible only by accommodation or withdrawal.
Those who preserved the witness were those who withdrew. To find
a place where they could go and behave fully in accord with their
conviction was not simple. A group of the Hutterites, for example,
was granted an asylum on the estates of Count Leonard of Lichten-
stein. When the Austrian authorities threatened to extradite the
Anabaptists theCount replied that if the Austrians came they would

be met with cannon balls. The Hutterites thereupon informed him
that they could not in conscience remain. With wives, bairns, and
156
goods they took to their wagons until they found a nobleman who
would grant toleration without protection. 8
An
unusual situation developed in Poland, where a number of
noblemen were themselves converted to the faith of the Brethren
and discarded the sword in favor of the staff. Faustus of Socinus was
for a time of this persuasion. Their position was again that of the
Anabaptist's radical distinction of the two kingdoms. Faustus began

to make concessions, however for example, that a Christian
might
serve in the army provided he did not take a This position had
life.
not been unrealistic in the days of the early Church, when the
Roman soldiers were engaged primarily in police work. It was not
realistic in the wars of Poland, and this accommodation speedily
proved to be the undoing of the pacifism of the Polish Brethren.
The Quakers
The Quakers occupied a median position between Erasmus and
the Anabaptists. The Quakers were ready to address pleas to rulers
and even to offer counsel as to the use of the sword, while themselves
refraining from its employment. To a degree
they have sought peace
through politics. While separating the kingdom of Christ from the
kingdom of the world, they have not utterly despaired of the world.
As already noted, their attitude may have been related to the com-
parative mildness of their punishment, but perhaps also to the fact

that many of them had come out of the army and knew that the
ranks still held godly men. Several Quakers had been converted
while in the army and had not at first been impelled to leave. Rather
they were expelled, not because they were pacifists, but because the
unpredictable promptings of the light within were incompatible
with army discipline. General Monk said that they were fitted neither
to command nor to obey and that their social equalitarianism
liquidated the distinction between officers and privates. Some after

and some before expulsion were persuaded of the word of George
Fox, who when asked why he would not fight for Cromwell against
the king replied, "I live in the virtue of that life and power that takes
157
away the vocation of all wars.'* When William Dcwsbury joined

*
the army in the spirit o a crusade,
The word of the Lord came unto me and said, "Put up thy sword into thy
scabbard; my kingdom were of this world then would my children fight.
if
Knowest thou not that, if I need, I could have twelve legions of angels
from my lather?" Which word enlightened my heart, and discovered the
mystery of and that the kingdom of Christ was within; and the
iniquity,
enemies was [sic] within, and was spiritual, and my weapons against them
must be spiritual, the power of God. Then I could no longer fight with a
carnal weapon, against a carnal man, for the letter, which man in his
carnal wisdom had called the Gospel, and had deceived me; but the Lord
. . . caused me to in obedience, to
yield up my carnal sword into the
put
scabbard and to leave the Army. 10
the army had a conscience

Quakers thus recognized that those in
and a code to which they were bound until they should receive
further light. Edward Burrough set forth the point, which, however
behavior. He
incongruent it may appear, goes far to explain Quaker
exhorted soldiers to observe their duty. "What do you know but the
Lord may have some good work for you to do if you be faithful to
Him? . The Lord hath owned and honoured our English Army,
. .
and done good things for them in these nations in our age, and the
Lord once armed them with the spirit of courage and zeal against
many abominations, and gave them victory and dominion over
much injustice and oppression and cruel laws." They should avenge
innocent blood and break down the thorns and briers which impede
the work of the Lord. "And yet though such a victory would be
honourable unto you, yet there is a victory more honourable, to wit,
the victory over sin and death and the devil in yourselves. Your . * .
work hath been, and may be, honourable in its day and season, but
he hath a work more honourable to work after you; that is, to destroy
the kingdom of the devil and the ground of wars." u
In this spirit, Barclay set the case very clearly when he said:
As to what relates to the present magistrates of the Christian world,

albeit we deny them not altogether the name of Christians, because of
158
the public profession they make of Christ's name, yet we may boldly affirm,
that they are far from the perfection of the Christian religion; because in
the state in which they are they have not come to the pure dispensation
of the Gospel. And therefore, while they are in that condition, we shall
not say, that war, undertaken upon a just occasion, is altogether unlawful
to them. For even as circumcision and the other ceremonies were for a
season permitted to the Jews, not because they were either necessary of
themselves, or lawful at that time, after the resurrection of Christ, but
because that Spirit was not yet raised up in them, whereby they could
be delivered from such rudiments; so the present confessors of the Chris-
tian name, who are yet in the mixture, and not in the patient suffering
spirit, are not yet fitted for this form of Christianity, and therefore cannot
be undefending themselves until they attain that perfection. But for such
whom Christ has brought hither, it is not lawful to defend themselves by
arms, but they ought over all to trust to the Lord. 12
The distinction between a Christian and a sub-Christian ethic

makes possible appeals to those who operate on other presuppositions
that they be faithful to their own. On such grounds Quakers have
often been able to address themselves to an entire nation in the name
of justice and humanity, if not in the name of nonresistance and
pacifism.
The question would not down: if Quakers held that those who
believed in just wars should fight just wars, why should not Quakers
join them that justice might prevail? The answer given was that war
as a method is not appropriate for the achievement of peace. This is
a pragmatic consideration, but the ground was deeper. Said Isaac
Pennington, "Fighting is not suitable to a gospel spirit, but to the
spirit of the world and the children thereof. The fighting in the
gospel is turned inward against the lusts, and not outward against
the creatures." 13 This sounds very much like the word of Erasmus,
who was constantly pitting the inward against the outward. The
Quakers applied to the sword the word "carnal," and carnal meant
not only the fleshly but also the irrational, the entire lower nature of
man. George Fox proclaimed his mission "to stand a witness against
all violence and against all the works of darkness, and to turn people
from the darkness to the light and from the occasion of the magis-
159
trate's sword With the carnal do not fight, but am from
weapon I
John Lilburne, who had served long in the

those things dead." 14
army, testified after becoming a Quaker: "I am already dead, or

crucified, to the very occasions and real ground of outward wars and
carnal sword-fightings and fleshly bustlings and contests; and that
therefore confidently I now believe, I shall never hereafter be a user
of a temporal sword more, nor a joiner with them that do so." 18
Another Quaker objection to war arose out of respect for the
conscience of the enemy. This was a particularly telling point in the
English Civil War, when men equally conscientious were fighting

both for and against the king and the bishops. Again the point was
made in colonial Pennsylvania, and a petition was addressed by the
Quakers to the government in 1740 pointing out the great difference
between "killing a soldier fighting (perhaps) in obedience to the
commands of his sovereign, and who may possibly think himself in
the discharge of his duty, and executing a burglar, who plundered
our goods and perhaps would have murdered too and who must
know that by his acts he justly rendered himself obnoxious to the
1C
punishment which ensued." Killing appeared here to be allowed
in the case of a burglar but not against a soldier acting in accord
with his conscience.
Still another Quaker objection to war was predicated upon igno-
rance. Incipient English democracy let alone scrupulously conscien-
tious Quakerism could not rest with the injunction of Augustine
to leave the decision to the magistrate in case of doubts as to the
justice of the war. Barclay advanced ignorance as one of the grounds
for declining to engage in war.
If to revenge ourselves, or to render injury, evil for evil, wound for

wound, to take eye for eye, tooth for tooth; if to fight for outward and
perishing things, to go a warring one against another, whom we never

saw, or with whom we never had any contest, or anything to do; being
moreover altogether ignorant of the case of the war, but only that the
magistrates of the nations foment quarrels one against another, the causes
whereof are for the most part unknown to the soldiers that fight, as well
as upon whose side the right or
wrong is; and yet to be so furious, and
160
rage one against another, to destroy and spoil all, that this or the other
worship may be received or abolished; if to do this, and much more of
this kind, be to fulfill the law of Christ, then are our adversaries indeed
true Christians, and we miserable Heretics, that suffer ourselves to be
spoiled, taken, imprisoned, banished, beaten, and evilly entreated, without
any resistance, placing our trust only in GOD, that he may defend us, and
lead us by the way of the cross unto his kingdom. 17
The Quakers by their allegiance to conscience convinced the gov-

ernment of the rights of conscience, and for the first time were ac-
corded exemption from military service on this ground in 1802. 18
The claims made by them, and indeed by all Puritans, on behalf of
conscience were now much more sweeping than those allowed by
Aquinas and the Protestant reformers, who had attached conscience
toknowledge in such fashion that conscientious objection to partici-
pation in war was admitted only on the basis of positive information
as to the injustice of the conflict. The struggle for religious liberty
had done much in the meantime to relativize conscience as inward
conviction, no matter to what it applied and regardless of objective
correctness. 19 Such a conscience is binding upon the individual so
long as he remains convinced. This Aquinas would have said, but he

would have insisted that unless he were right he had no claim to
recognition by the state. The English state, however, agreed at last
to accord a civil status to an internal conviction deemed wrong by
the state.
The Problem of Conscience
A severe ethical and political dilemma is posed here. The Quaker

recognized that the soldier might be conscientious and the magistrate
conscientious. Might not then the magistrate be conscientious in im-
prisoning the Quaker, and might there not then be a clash between
those equally conscientious, a clash capable of reconciliation only by
a struggle of body for body? Early in the eighteenth century, Pierre
Bayle raised the problem in the case of a conscientious tyrannicide
such as the assassins of Henry III and Henry IV. If an individual
conscientiously believes himself called upon to kill the monarch, he
161
must follow his conscience, but at the same time the magistrate must
punish him.
20 Samuel
Johnson wrestled with the difficulty.
When
asked whether the Roman magistrates were justified in persecuting
the early Christians, the doctor replied, "Sir, the only method by
which religious truth can be established is by martyrdom. The magis-
trate has a right to enforce what he thinks; and he who is conscious
of the truth has a right to suffer. I am afraid there is no other way of
ascertaining the truth, but by persecution on the one hand and

21
enduring it on the other."
The has become a commonplace in modern
position of Johnson
thought; L. T. Hobhouse said,
for example, "that we have
political
to admit as correlative to the ultimate right of conscience an ultimate
At the
22 same time, although the state may in
right of coercion/'
conscience place restrictions upon the conscientious objector, yet
there are considerations of prudence and humanity which dictate
restraint. On the mere score of expediency the state needs to recog-
nize that soldiers do not make good soldiers. Further, since
unwilling
is most unwise to
so many services are requisite in wartime, the state
try to turn an industrious farmer or a good dentist into a dragheel
private. A
more serious and loftier consideration is that the conscien-
tious objector to military service is not antisocial nor ordinarily anti-
political.His very integrity makes of him the finest citizen and the
most effective civil servant in a post which he can in conscience accept.
The man who may have to be imprisoned in war may become a
prime minister in time of peace. In England,
men who opposed
particular wars, like Lloyd George
and Ramsay MacDonald, did
become prime ministers, and Bertrand Russell now sits in the House
of Lords. The state therefore should employ only that minimum of
constraint required to neutralize the objector during a period of

crisis that he may be utilized when the emergency is past. Of all con-
siderations the deepest is that conscience is worthy of honor and is
not lightly to be constrained.

Undeniably the entire Quaker program of abstention from war
and participation in politics was predicated upon a greater hopeful-
ness for the world than that held by the Anabaptists. When Isaac
162
Pennington was told that his program was fit only for "a world in the
moon," he retorted:
After a long night of apostasy, the spirit of Christ is awakening again

and gathering men together to the true Church, making them pure and
peaceable. "As the Lord does this so will it go on, and the nations, kings,
princes, great ones, as this principle is raised in them, and the contrary
wisdom, the earthly policy (which undoes all) brought down, so will
they feel the blessings of God in themselves, and become a blessing to
others." **
Not merely individuals,then, but magistrates also belong to the king-

dom of Christ. William Smith contemplated the spiritual army
marching under the banner of love which would reach such strength
that "wars would cease, cruelty end, and love abound." 24t This was
to be the work of the Lord, but his instruments were men "who have
given up their bodies and spirits unto God."

In the case of the Brethren, who arose in the eighteenth century,
there is little to be said, because the information is scant in regard to
their early peace stand. One of the utterances from the time of their
origin has the ring of Mennonite statements. "The higher powers

bear the sword of justice, punishing the evil and protecting the good.
In this we acknowledge them from the Word as the ministers of God,
but the sword belongeth to the kingdom of the world." 25
A Quaker Example
A concrete example of the dilemmas, predicaments, problems, and
behavior of the early peace churches is afforded by the case of a
Quaker, Thomas Lurting by name, who lived in the time of the
26
Commonwealth and the Restoration. He was first a fighting sailor

who had no scruple against firing a shot into the powder hold of a
Spanish galleon and blowing up ship and crew. On his own vessel
were some Quakers whom he maltreated until convincement came
upon him and he joined himself to the Friends. Thus far, none of
them had any compunction as to war. First to Lurting in the midst of
an engagement came the word of the Lord that he should not kill a
163
man. He brought the other Friends to be of the same mind. Then a
vessel, presumed to be Spanish, bore down upon them, and the cap-
tain summoned all to their posts. The Friends headed by Lurting
appeared in a body on deck and told himthey would not fight. He

drew his sword promising to "put it into the guts of any who denied
to fight." Lurting was distant from him five paces and six steps. Eye-
ing him he stepped the five paces. At the third step, "the
steadily,
captain's countenance changed pale," and leaving his sword he turned

away. The vessel proved to be friendly and thereafter the captain
became "respective." At the end of the voyage Lurting was released.
Subsequently, he was impressed on another man of war. For five

days he refused to eat, saying that if he took of the king's victuals he
would be the king's man. The commander then offered him non-
combatant service. He should haul the ropes. Nol He should hand out
the beer. No! Then, he should engage in a piece of charity and as-
sistthe doctor. No! Because this, too, was assistance. He was willing
to load grain onto a warship. Was not this also assistance? To which
he replied, "I am commanded to love my enemies." In this reply
there may be a touch of legalism, but basically Lurting was trying
to find a line between a direct contribution to war, with humani-
tarianism and a direct humanitarianism with an incidental assistance
to war.His opponents were employing the familiar tactic of driving
one who seeks a middle ground of nonconformity into either a com-
plete withdrawal from society or a complete conformity.
Lurting's great testing was yet to come. He took service on a mer-
chant ship in the Mediterranean under a Quaker captain, with a
non-Quaker crew. The defense of this vessel was not guns but sails.
When a Turkish pirateer swooped down, the English ship let out
a point beyond her capacity. Something gave way and she
all sail to
was taken. The Turks boarded. They were ten; the English were
nine. But the Turks were armed. A storm separated the English and
the Turkish vessels. Lurting proposed to lull the Turks by com-
pliance; then to disarm them. The men were
ready to cut throats,
the Quaker captain said no. Lurting reassured him, though doubt-
ful whether he could hold his men. The Turks were
persuaded
164
to bed in different cabins. While asleep, their arms were collected and
the pirates were locked in the hatch with the English all on the deck.
The Turks wept, but were promised that they would not be sold
into slavery. Lurting feared to put into a Spanish port lest he should
not be able to keep his word and made instead for the Barbary
Coast. As they neared the shore, the English saw the difficulty of land-
ing the Turks. The rowboat would not hold more than fourteen. If
an equal number of English and Turks got in, two trips would be
necessary and the Turks first put ashore might give the alarm. But
if there were ten Turks to four
Englishmen, the Turks might make
them captive. Lurting resolved to risk it. He took charge himself,
with three of hisown men and no arms save blunt instruments. The
Turks were quiet until one of the English called out, "There are
Turks in the bushes/' Lurting was smitten with fear. The Turks
saw it and rose. He confronted them in silence until his composure
returned. Then with a boathook he struck the master of the Turks,
who sank and the rest followed. As the Turks landed,
into his seat,
they invited the English to come and enjoy much wine in a town
three miles distant. They declined. The Turks were given supplies
of food and their arms, "and so we departed in great love, and stayed
until they had all gone up the hill, and they shook their caps at us
and we, at them." When the English vessel sailed up the Thames,
King Charles and the Duke of York came aboard and plied the
Friends with many questions."Said the King, 'I should have brought
the Turks to him.' Ianswered, 'that I thought it better for them to
be in their own country/ At which they all smiled and went away/'
War with the Aborigines
A was placed upon every form of the Christian

frightful strain
ethic by the struggle with the natives for possession of the world dis-
covered by Columbus. The Spaniards in the Caribbean, the govern-
ment at any rate, tried to conserve thecode of the just war. 2T The
Puritans in New England revived the crusade. The Quakers in Penn-
sylvania adhered resolutely to the Sermon on the Mount.
The conquistadores were themselves a mixed breed, some con-
165
cerned for some only for loot. Pizarro frankly averred that he
souls,
had come no other reason than "to take from the Indians their
for
gold." De Soto and his men raped the Vestal Virgins of the Incas and
by treachery assembled and butchered the princes and took over the
empire. Cortez responded to the proposal that the Spaniards, instead
of enslaving the Indians, should themselves work the land, by saying,
"I came to get gold, not to till the soil like a peasant." Others strove
for the conversion of the Indians, but how much good conversion
did them, in some instances, is evidenced by the case of a chief in
Chile who requested baptism. With solemn rites he was baptized and
then riddled with arrows. A
combination of motives was expressed
by one who said, "We came here to serve God and also to get rich."
The conditions for the just war with the Indians were set forth by
Francesco Vittoria. 28 The natives were not to be converted by force
nor killed because of a rejection of the gospel, but they might be
constrained if they denied the natural right of travel through their
territories and also if they refused to permit the preaching of the
gospel. The just war required an announcement of the conditions
on fulfillment of which war could be avoided. These were set forth
in a document called The Requirement in 1513. The natives must
acknowledge the Church as the ruler of the world and the king of
Spain as its representative, and they must permit the preaching of
the faith. A modern historian reports that "Captains muttered its
theological phrases into their beards on the edge of sleeping Indian

settlements, or even a league away before starting the formal attack,
and at times some leather-lunged Spanish notary hurled its sonorous
phrases after the Indians as they fled into the mountains."
Later the great theologian Sepulyeda adapted the theory of the
just war to the new
situation by having recourse to its most ancient
formulation declared by Aristotle, who had said that a just war is
one waged to enslave those who by nature are destined to be slaves
and who resist their destiny.
Protests against the rapacity of the conquistadores and the subter-
fuges of theologians were persistently voiced by not a few, among

whom the most celebrated was Bartolomeo de las Casas, himself a
166
conqueror revolted by what he had seen and done. First as a layman
and then as a friar, he dedicated himself to the Indians, to the
abolition of forced labor in the encomienda system of slavery, to
peaceful conversion, and to free labor for the Indian with agricul-
tural work for the Spaniards. Free Indianswould not work the
mines, however, and Spaniards would not till the lands. Attempts at
peaceful conversion were subverted by the invaders who did not

want peace. Las Casas took his case to Spain and so impressed the
Emperor Charles V that even after the conquest of Mexico he
ordered a halt to further expansion until the theologians should
all
have pronounced on the justice of the cause. There followed a long

and inconclusive debate between Las Casas and Sepulveda. In the
meantime the conquistadores thumbed their noses alike at the friars
and the government. The historian cited above says of all the ex-
periments and peaceful conquests, that today they appear "as tragic
comedies enacted on doomed little islands around which the ocean
of the conquest boiled and thundered until it overwhelmed them."
The Spanish Christians so behaved that an aged chief in Nicaragua
inquired, "What is a Christian, what are Christians? They ask for
maize, for honey, for cotton, for women, for gold, for silver; Chris-
tians will not work, they are liars, gamblers, perverse, and they
swear." In Peru Benzoni wrote that Spaniards committed such cruel-
ties that the Indians "not only would never believe us to be Chris-
tians and children of God, as boasted, but not even that we were born
on this earth or generated by a man and born of a woman; so fierce
an animal, they concluded, must be the offspring of the sea/' 29
If the Spaniards appealed to Aristotle, the New Englanders ap-
pealed to Moses. In so doing they reversed all previous Christian
exegesis. For by common consent the conquest of Canaan had been
the only instance of a just aggressive war, and it was just only because
commanded by God. But God was commonly held no longer to issue
such commands. They were reinstated by the theocratic holy com-
monwealth in the wilderness, which regarded itself as the New Israel
of God commissioned to subdue the Indians as the Amalekites. In
his Soldier's Counselled written in 1689, Cotton Mather affirmed that
167
the NewEnglanders had acquired all of their land by just and fair
purchase and not by encroachment like the Spaniards, but the
30 He
Indians, said he, were "a treacherous and barbarous enemy."
was of course ignorant of their political institutions and expected
them to conduct their foreign relations after the manner of European
sovereigns. Since they did not, he pronounced them to be "the
veriest tigers"and summoned the colonists to go forth against
"Amalek annoying this Israel in the wilderness." One would have
thought that he might have been as generous as Vittoria, who saw
justice on both sides in Indian wars, on the side of the Spaniards
who were vindicating the right of free travel in accord with natural
law and on the side of the Indians because of their invincible ig-
norance. Cotton Mather did not make even this less than tender con-
cession, however. For him, the eradication of the aborigines was a
crusade.
The behavior of the Puritans was little better than that of the
Spaniards, although the Puritans came to colonize and to till the

soil themselves. They, too, made slaves and they, too, made holocasts.
Miles Standish rounded up the Indians into their villages and set
the whole. Piety was no impediment. Pyncheon, the author of
fire to
"The Meritorious Price of our Redemption" carried the scalps of

the murdered sachems from Hartford to Boston. 31 The early crusad-
ing moodcontinued well into the seventeenth century. Herbert

Gibbs in 1704 thankfully commemorated "the mercies of God in
extirpating the enemies of Israel in Canaan," and ended his sermon
with the text, "Curse ye Meroz." 82 In 1742 Samuel Phillips declared
that with regard "to the Aboriginal natives . . , there is no method so
likely to subdue, or to humble them, as to march forth in quest

of them." In this we should Lord of hosts on our
try to "engage the
side/' 3S The point, of course, was, as in the Old Testament, that if
Israel were recreant the Lord would withdraw from the field.
In the eighteenth century the feeling against the Indians was in-
tensified because these "Amalekites" came to be allied with the
minions of Antichrist, the French Papists. The sermons of the period
spew the wrath of God upon them both: "Our Indian neighbors,
168
under the influence of Popish priests treacherously and barbarously"
fall upon France is a "proud, haughty, blasphemer, persecutor
us.
and disturber of the Common peace." "By flattery she seduced her
Huguenot subjects and then polluted their temples/' 34 "The Israel-
ites of old by the immediate command of God
Almighty made war
on the nations of Canaan and God was exceedingly displeased
. . .
with Saul ... for not entirely destroying Amalek." This took care
of the Indians. As for the French: "Endeavor to stand the guardians
of the religion and liberties of America; to oppose Antichrist and
35
prevent the barbarous butchering of your fellow countrymen."
When Cape Breton was captured in 1745, Thomas Prince of the
South Church in Boston said that he had long regretted the transfer
by treaty in 1713 from the British to the French of this island abound-
ing in the finest coal in America. In the intervening thirty years the
French had so developed the island as well-nigh to capture the trade
of Spain, Italy, and Portugal, He had considered that a war for its
recovery would be expedient, and now the Lord had been pleased
to instigate the French to "precipitate the war upon us," with the
result that all of their prodigious labor "has accrued to us. It is the
Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes." 8e
When Montreal fell in 1760, when in consequence the "treacher-

ous Aboriginals" and the "perfidious papistical French" were de-
feated, when the holy Protestant religion was thus vindicated, when
the door was thereby opened for the propagation of the Gospel, then
the new Israel sang with Moses, "The Lord is our strength." 37 One
of the preachers exulted that God had proceeded with "awful and
righteous solemnity to pour the vials of His wrath upon the Romish
beast." 38
In New as in the Spanish possessions there were protests
England
against the maltreatment of the Indians. John Elliott, Roger Wil-
liams, David Brainerd, and Jonathan Edwards sought by peaceful
means to save the souls of the Indians. Unhappily, success in this en-
deavor imperiled the Indians' temporal existence, since converts were
esteemed neither white nor red. And, conversions or no conversions,
"Westward the course of empire took its way."
169
Be observed however that in dealing with fellow Protestants
it
such as the Dutch the Puritans adhered to the code of the just war. 89
The Quakers and the Indians
A very serious attempt to keep peace with the Indians was made in
Quaker Pennsylvania. William Penn was the son of the admiral of
the British fleet. The old sea dog disowned him for joining the
Friends. Though young William Penn renounced "the treasures of
Egypt/' he did not escape from the treasures of the Admiral, and
Charles II, in order to discharge a debt of the crown to the father,
gave to the son the colony of Pennsylvania. He who "refused to be

called the son of Pharoah's daughter" and kept his hat on in the
presence of the king did not on that account forfeit the friendship of
princes, though no doubt they thought it more pleasant to have him
on the other side of the ocean.
William Penn was ready to abandon England's thrust for a mari-
time empire, but he saw no reason to renounce the colonial enter-
prise, since he assumed that it could be pursued peaceably through
the exercise of justice and friendliness toward the natives.
The Quakers tried resolutely for nearly a century to implement his
40 The
experiment but never had a completely free hand. colony
was a grant from the crown, and the crown was not pacifist. The gov-
ernors were appointed by the crown and, after William Penn, they
too were not pacifist. Residence in the colony was open, and those
who flocked in were sometimes in accord with the Quaker dream,
but sometimes they were not. The Mennonites and the Schwenck-
felders could be counted as allies, but not the Anglicans, and by no
means the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, whose slogan was: "And when
the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite
them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with
them, nor shew mercy unto them." 41 The Quakers controlled the
legislature- They did not control the king. They did not
represent
all of the constituency and they were opposed to coercing the con-
sciences of others.
170
At first
there was no great problem, because the Indians were few.
They were of the tribe of the Delawares, subject to the Iroquois, and
by them forbidden to engage in war* Their enforced situation well
accorded with Penn's holy experiment. He treated them justly and
generously. No finer example of the treatment of the aborigines is
to be found in history.
By and by came the French. The struggle for the American con-
tinent was not simply with the red man, but with other Europeans for
the opportunity to exploit and exterminate the red man. The French
found a way to the Ohio Valley through the territory of Pennsyl-
vania. There they sought to enlist the Iroquois as allies, and the
English countered in kind. Both supplied rum and rifles. The Iro-
quois desired to be neutral, to let the French and the English fight
it out and the more killed the better. An Indian
complained of the
encroachments from both sides, saying that if an Indian found a bear
in a tree an owner of the land would pop up and forbid him to kill
it. The Indians veered to the French, partly because the French inter-
married with the Indians, partly because the French were fur traders
and clashed less with the Indians' way of life, and partly because the
English were divided into several colonies striving with one another.
The Delawares had even less desire than the Iroquois to be drawn
into war, but the pressures were increasing, and they were infuriated
by the treacherous "walking purchase" which by trickery alienated

their land.
Wars were under way. Braddock was defeated. Benjamin Franklin
was pushing Pennsylvania toward energetic participation. The
Quakers still controlled the legislature. They had long since refused
to vote military appropriations as such, but they voted money "for
the King's use" and left the use to his conscience. In 1756, a bill
authorizing a military force was before the house. The Quakers in

conscience could not vote for they hesitated to vote against it,
it;
thereby impeding the exercise of the conscientious persuasion of the

non-Quakers. The bill exempted Quakers. Franklin justified this
clause on the ground that he would not refuse to pump the ship
because in saving himself, he would also save the rats. Let the
171
Quakers pay for the war, said he, and others could do the fighting.
The Quakers at last voted for it, because of their own exemption.
On April 14, 1756, the government declared war on the Delawares.
This was too much for the conscience of John Woolman and others
like him, who sensitized the Friends again to the repudiation of such
equivocation. At the next election the Friends declined candidacy for

the legislature, and the few who were elected without their consent
tendered their resignations. Thus faded the Quaker dream.
In general one may say with reference to the treatment by Euro-
peans of the Indians of South and North America that one people
imposed itself upon another, sparing the conquered when they could
be used or if they could not be reached, and exterminating them if
they were in the way. To be sure disease accounted for more casual-
ties than war since the natives had no immunity to smallpox, measles,
typhus, and tuberculosis. Complete dislocation of the social fabric

was likewise a factor. Yet, though war alone was not responsible and
despite all protests and efforts at amelioration, the word to be written
over the dealings of the white man with the red man is ruthlessness.
172
Chapter 11
The Enlightenment
Peace Plans and Limited War
JL HE age of the Enlightenment, roughly the

eighteenth century,
was marked by a revulsion against the wars of religion. These wars
were now over. The military struggle was terminated in France by
the Edict of Nantes in 1698, though the struggle was in a measure
renewed by the revocation in 1685 and the banishment of the
Huguenots. In England, the end of the convulsion was marked by
the Glorious Revolution at the end of the century. In Germany the
Thirty Years War was terminated in 1648. These wars, of course, had
1
never been exclusively religious. They became increasingly secular

and ended in simple power struggles such as those between Louis
XIV, the English, and the Dutch. But whatever the causes of the
HORRORS OF THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR

173
carnage, men were sick of it.
Already in the seventeenth century and
more particularly in the eighteenth, there emerged protests and
pleas, plans for peace and the actual amelioration of war.
One of the greatest changes was in mood. The age of the Enlighten-
ment saw the return of pity. Not that pity had been extinct, no great
human motif ever fully succumbs. Yet, the absence of the theme of
pity for the victims of war, in the great literature from the Renais-
sance to the Enlightenment is worthy of remark. Racine and Cor-
neille made use of Euripides' Trojan Women not to appropriate
compassion for the women of the enemy, but ony to borrow certain
dramatic techniques. 1 Shakespeare, otherwise so universal, lacks this
theme. 2 The poor conscripted devils, Ralph Mouldy and Peter Bull-
calf, impressed byFalstaff, are introduced only for burlesque. To be
sure, Aufidius, the Volscian, can shed a tear over Coriolanus, his fall-
en Roman foe: "My rage is gone, and I am struck with sorrow/' This
is only the theme of the medieval duel, in which he who fell could
still in dying declare that he who felled him was his greatest friend.
The golden warless age of the Stoics is relegated in The Tempest to

the realm of diverting fantasy, and the "quality of mercy" is invoked
for the victim of extortion, not for the multitudes whom war despoils.
In. Henry V the king expressed qualms as to the invasion of France,
but his scruples were speedily allayed by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury,
Pity in war returns with Voltaire. His novel Candide may serve as
an example. Candide is a gentle youth who is well received by a
baron and baroness in an elegant chateau. Candide learns from the
tutor, Pangloss, that this the best of all possible worlds, but be-
is
cause of too intimate attentions to the charming Cunigunde, the

daughter of the house, Candide is booted out of this best of all pos-
sible chateaux. In penury, he is picked up by the impressment officers
of the King of the Bulgars, engaged in fighting the Abars. Nothing
could be more beautiful, more fascinating, more brilliant than two
well-ordered armies: the trumpets, the fife, the hautboys, the drums,
and the cannons form a harmony such as there never was in hell (a
crack at the portrayal of war as music) . The artillery disposes of some
174
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
six thousand on each side. The musketry removes from this best of
all possible worlds about nine thousand miserables who infest its
surface. The bayonets take care of several thousand more; in all
there might be some thirty thousand casualties. Candide escapes to
a village of the Abars, fired by the Bulgars, and thence to a village of
the Bulgars, fired by the Abars. At length he encounters a pitiable
beggar who turns out to be the tutor, Pangloss, the proclaimer of

the best of all possible worlds. Candide asks about Cunigunde, only
to learn that she is dead. "Cunigunde dead! Oh, best of all possible
worlds, of what disease?" "She was disembowelled/' Pangloss tells
him, "by the Bulgars, after having been raped as many times as
possible. The baron who tried to protect her had his head bashed in,
and the baroness was dismembered. As for the chateau, there is noth-
ing left not a stone, not a barn, sheep, duck, or tree. They were
well avenged, however, because the Abars did the same thing to a
nearby estate of the Bulgars."

The themes of peace characteristic of the Renaissance and classical
antiquity were revived in this period. Erasmus was to have a great
vogue in the age of enlightenment Actually the number of editions

of his peace tract was greater in the seventeenth century than in the
3
eighteenth, but by way of compensation, the eighteenth brought
out a complete edition of the entire Erasmian corpus.
Jonathan Swift, in Gulliver's Travels, pillories the trivialities of
war when he describes the conflict between the great empires of Lilli-
put and Blefuscu.
It began upon the following occasion: It is allowed on hands that

all
the primitive way of breaking eggs before we eat them was upon the
larger end; but his present Majesty's grandfather, while he was a boy,
going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice,
happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the Emperor, his father,
published an edict, commanding all his subjects, upon great penalties,
to break the smaller end of their eggs. The people so highly resented this
law, that our histories tell us, there have been six rebellions raised on that
account; wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown. These
civil commotions were constantly fomented by the monarchs of Blefuscu;
175
and when they were quelled, the exiles always fled for refuge to that
empire. It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times
suffered death rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end.
Many hundred large volumes have been published upon this controversy;
but the books of the Bigendians have been long forbidden, and the whole
party rendered incapable by law of holding employments. During the
course of these troubles the emperors of Blefuscu did frequently expos-
tulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a schism in religion,
by offending against a fundamental doctrine of our great Prophet Lustrog,

in the fifty-fourth chapter of the Brundecral (which is their Alcoran) ,
This, however, is thought to be a mere strain upon the text; for the words
are these: That all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end,
And which is the convenient end seems, in my humble opinion, to be left
to every man's conscience, or at least in the power of the chief magistrate
to determine. Now, the Bigendian exiles have found so much credit in
the Emperor of Blefuscu's court and so much private assistance and en-
couragement from their party here at home, that a bloody war hath been
carried on between the two empires for thirty-six moons, with various
success; during which time we have lost forty capital ships, and a much
greater number of small vessels, together with thirty thousand of our best
seamen and soldiers; and the damage received by the enemy is reckoned
to be somewhat greater than ours. However, they have now equipped a
numerous fleet, and are just preparing to make a descent upon us; and
his Imperial Majesty, placing great confidence in your valour and strength,
hath commanded me to lay this account of his affairs before you.
On a subsequent voyage, Gulliver found himself among the most
repulsive creatures he had ever encountered, the Houyhnhnms. In

their language he was called a Yahoo. He described to the chief of
the Houyhnhnms how wars arose among the Yahoos over such ques-
tions as to whether flesh be bread or bread be flesh and whether the
juice of a certain berry would be blood or wine. The chief was not
greatly disturbed at this recital because nature had constructed the
Yahoos incapable of doing much damage to each other. They could
not bite very effectively, nor had they claws upon their feet.
I could not forbear shaking my head, and smiling a little at his igno-
rance. And, being no stranger to the art of war, I gave him a description
of cannons, culverins, muskets, carbines, pistols, bullets, powder, swords,
176
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
bayonets, battles, sieges, retreats, attacks, undermines, countermines,
bombardments, sea-fights; ships sunk with a thousand men; twenty
thousand killed on each side, dying groans, limbs flying in the air; smoke,
noise, confusion, trampling to death under horses' feet; flight, pursuit,
victory; fields strewed with carcasses, left for food to dogs and wolves, and
birds of prey; plundering, stripping, ravishing, burning, and destroying.
And to set forth the valour ofmy own dear countrymen, I assured him
that I had seen them blow up a hundred enemies at once in a siege, and
as many in a ship; and beheld the dead bodies come down in pieces from
the clouds to the great diversion of the spectators.
The monster at this recital reflected that "when a creature, pre-
tending to reason, could be capable of such enormities, he dreaded

lest the corruption of that faculty might be worse than brutality
itself/'
Eymeric Cruc in his Le Nouveau Cynee revives the theme of the

fickleness of fortune and the risk of war. Princes should recall that
only a little wind

necessary to push them into the abyss. At this
is
point Cruc betrays the classical origin of his idea, for with the pass-
ing of sailing vessels a little wind could no longer determine the
fortunes of battle. His observation was sound enough, however
that the sovereign of today might be the slave of tomorrow.
Above all he revives the great theme of humanity. Nationalism, as
in the Renaissance, was accepted as a political fact but derided as a
sentiment. Hostilities between people, he avers, are
only political and cannot take away the connection that is and must be
between men. The distance of places, the separation of domicile does not
lessen the relationship of blood. It cannot either take away the similarity
of nature, true base of amity and human society. Why should I, a French-
man, wish harm to an Englishman, a Spaniard, or a Hindu? I cannot wish
it when I consider that they are men like me, that I am subject like them
to error and sin and that all nations are bound
together by a natural and
indestructible tie which insures that a man cannot consider
consequently
another a stranger. 4
Religious intolerance as a source of war was especially decried in

177
this period, struggle for peace coincided with the struggle
and the
for freedom in religion. Voltaire composed an "Ode on Fanatacism"
in which this verse occurs.
Jansenists and Molinists

Who battle in our day
With reasons of the Sophists
To teach mankind the way,
Must you lose humanity,
Brandish the flare of hate
To show us what is verity?
*
The pacific mood of the Enlightenment brought forth a great
plans for peace. One striking characteristic among them is

6
many
that, although written by Christians, they are so little Christian in
the ground of their ethic. The ground of motivation, to be sure, is
Christian but the appeal is sub-Christian. The explanation may be
twofold. One reason was that these schemes generally went beyond
the confines of Europe and envisaged a universal peace embracing
the Turk and the Hindu. Plainly if non-Christians were to be in-
cluded, the basis of the peace could not be exclusively Christian. The
other reason was that the confessional cleavages had so far divided
Christians that they themselves could not find a common Christian
denominator. Therefore recourse to the ancient classical tradition
of natural law was necessary. Grotius, in his famous tract on the Law
of Peace and War, already in the seventeenth century delineated

the program for the eighteenth. The basis, said he, must be a
morality self-validating and true, "even if there were no God, which
A
God forbid." T Christian himself and a confessional Christian who
suffered for his adherence to a particular need, Grotius must in in-
ternational relations revert to the classical heritage. Incidentally,
though he aimed not preclude war. Rather

at peace, his position did
it sought to repristinate the just war
theory to make war again the
servant of law, the instrument of justice, and the tool of 8
peace.
Nowhere is the secular tone more amazing than in William Penn's
An Essay Toward the Present and Future Peace of Europe. To be
178
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
sure there is a conclusion in which the Christian note is struck.
Christians are upbraided for
invoking the merciful God to prosper their brethren's destruction: yet

their Saviour has told them that He came to save, and not to destroy the
lives of men: to give and plant peace among men: and if in any sense
He may be said to send war, it is the holy war indeed; for it is to send
against the devil, and not the persons of men. Of all His titles this seems
the most glorious as well as comfortable for us, that He is the prince of
peace. It is His nature, His office, His work, and the end and excellent
blessings of His coming, Who is both the maker and preserver of our
peace with God. And it is very remarkable, that in all the New Testament
He is but once called lion, but frequently the Lamb of God; to denote
to us His gentle, meek, harmless nature, and that those who desire to be
the disciples of His cross and kingdom . .must be like him.*
.
Apart from this peroration, the tract is pitched in accord with

what was to be a common Quaker tactic, on the level of sub-Christian
presuppositions. The essay is not replete with biblical texts, and the
arguments in favor of peace are to a large degree prudential and
even mercantile. Penn speaks of "the mighty prey" which in war
"winds and waves have made upon ships and men.'* Not for nothing
was he the son of an admiral, though he had an eye also to the losses
which he had witnessed in the Palatinate on land. Penn speaks, after
the manner of the Greeks and Erasmus of the uncertainty and the
expense of war. What were better than that "our trade should be
free and safe and we should rise and lie down without anxiety*?
His plan would insure freedom of travel and traffic, "a happiness
never understood since the Roman Empire has been broken into so
many sovereignties." "The devouring expenses of war" might be di-
verted into "public acts for learning, charity and manufacturers/'
This is well-nigh the voice of Jeremy Bentham. There was no insin-
cerity in this appeal, however, because the assumption was that ideal-
ism and practicality would in the long run coincide, nor did the
Quaker who eschewed none of the economic virtues foresee that
business might be as inimical to the Christian ethic as war.
Penn's scheme was one of those which transcended the boundaries
179
o Europe and would include the Turks and the Muscovites. The
notion of a crusade was utterly gone, and this is significant because
in his day it was not extinct. James I tried to marry his son Charles
to the Spanish Infanta in order to which
cement a political alliance
would drive the Turks from the Mediterranean, where they were still
preying upon European commerce and selling Europeans into
slavery. Recall the case of Thomas Lurting.
Within Europe, Penn betrayed no trace of English nationalism.
He planned a parliament of nations which should surrender national
sovereignty in international affairs and retain home rule in matters
domestic. When it came to voting he would give to the German
Empire twelve votes the aura of the Holy Roman Empire had not
yet vanished while France should have ten, Italy eight, and England
only six.
He advocated in this writing no absolute pacifism, perhaps because

it was not addressed to Quakers. There should be an international
police force to coerce the recalcitrant. If all other armed forces were
abandoned, such a force need actually never be invoked. Above all
he sought to eliminate war by the exercise of justice. The just war
was supposed to vindicate justice but in practice, said Penn, "the
remedy is almost ever worse than the disease. The aggressors seldom
getting what they seek, or performing, if they prevail, what they
1 '
promise. If justice is first of all practiced, however, there will be

no occasion for war. "Thus peace is maintained by justice, which is a
fruit of government, as government is from society, and society
from consent."
Eymeric CYUC& was a Catholic, but scheme was not conspicu-
his
ously He thought the greatest step toward universal peace

Catholic. 10
would be an agreement between the two great powers of his day
namely Christendom and Islam by which he certainly did not mean
that the Turks must submit to the Pope. Therefore, his pleas already
cited were those of antiquity and the Renaissance. He, too, desired a
world assembly. When it came to the order of rank in seating, he
would, as a Catholic, give the first place to the Pope, but the second
should go to the Emperor of the Turks, the third to the Emperor of
180
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
the Christians, and the fourth to the King of France. Cruce, good
Frenchman that he was, placed the Emperor higher than his own
sovereign. The fifth was accorded to the King of Spain; the sixth
should be shared by Persia, China, Tartary, and Muscovy; and the
seventh by Great Britain, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Mo-
rocco, and the great Mogul. French nationalism is evident in the
place assigned to Great Britain. On the whole, however, there is here
a singular world-mindedness and also a remarkable secularity of tone.
Comenius, a Moravian, in The Angel of Peace (1667) takes his
own stand on the Sermon on the Mount, but says to his readers, "if
you are not equal to the precepts of Christ, at least imitate the con-
cessive Abraham." Let the English and the Dutch divide the spheres
of their trade and not one try to rule the waves. Conflict will
let
impoverish both. "Is it wise to fish with a golden hook or to scuttle

the ship on which thine enemy is traveling with thee?" u The cure
for trade wars renounce Asiatic gewgaws. In all essentials each
is to
nation is capable of economic self-sufficiency. Abandon avarice as
Christ was poor. Here is the Christian note, but it is reinforced by an
appeal to Seneca, Epicurus, and Socrates, and by the reminder that

if Christians do not follow the
gospel, the pagans will rise up in
judgment upon them.
Emanuel Kant, a Lutheran, in Perpetual Peace (1795)
his
grounded his appeal primarily upon reason and prudence. He be-

lieved strongly in the practice of political morality and was at the
same time convinced that ultimately it would prove to be the course
of enlightened self-interest. The principle is sound, said he: "Let
justice be done, though the earth perish." But it will not perish. "The
universe would not totter if there were fewer wicked men in it."
Statesmen do wrong to act on the principle "Act first, excuse after-

wards; disclaim what you have done; divide and conquer, * . True .
politics can never take a step without having previously rendered

homage to morality." This isultimate prudence, however, because
honesty is better than all policy, even though temporarily a states-

man might have to sacrifice the interests of his own country in order
181
to bring the constitution into accord with "national right founded
on
reason."
is com-
Even an impassioned plea against colonial exploitation
bined with the observation that the enterprise is unprofitable. He ex-
claimed:
How far are the nations of Europe from exercising the natural right of
universal hospitality! At what an excess of injustice do we not behold
them arrive, when they discover strange countries
and nations? . The
. .
Chinese and Japanese, whom

experience has taught to
know the Euro-
refuse their entry into the country. . . The
. worst, or to
peans, wisely
the best of the matter that all these outrages
speak with the moralist, is,
are to no ... the islands, that den of slavery the most re-
purpose sugar
fined and cruel, produce no real revenue, and are profitable only indirectly
... to form sailors for the navies, consequently to carry on war
in Europe,
which service render to powers who boast the most of piety and who,
they
whilst they drink like water, to equal the elect in point
iniquity pretend
of orthodoxy. 12
His objection to the just war was chiefly pragmatic, because it
would never succeed in being just. The very concept was based on
the ofanalogy and that analogy he held to be false.
government,
There never has been a system in which war was the instrument of
an international justice determined by an impartial tribunal. Even
the papacy never functioned in this way. Rather, each party de-
termined justice for itself. Kant observed that "the field of battle is
the only tribunal before which states plead their cause; but victory
. does not decide/* This statement would seem to imply that war
. .
might be legitimate if conducted by an international army enforc-

ing a decree of an international court; but this, too, Kant rejected.
"From her highest tribunal o moral legislation, reason without ex-
ception condemns war as a means of right/' There
are ambiguities
in his position. He condemned a peace of mere indolence and was en-
American and French Revolutions.
thusiastic over the
The most and the most penetrating of all the peace plans
secular
o the century was that of Jean Jacques Rousseau in his Extran du
Projet de Paix Perpetuelle de M. L'Abbt de Saint Pierre and his
182
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
Jugement sur la Paix Perpetuelle. Rousseau's religion sat more
lightly than that of the others. He did not scruple for convenience
to change from Catholicism to Calvinism. Still, he could be a Chris-
tian without being and
passionately addicted to either, in any case,
his treatise moves on a secular level.
he takes his departure from a r&um of the scheme of

First of all,
the Abbde Saint Pierre (written in parts from 1712 to 1733) who ,
would have frozen the victories of Louis XIV by a European federa-

tion to maintain thereafter the status quo. His plan, unlike those
noticed above, did not include the Turks and the Tartars. It was to
have been simply a confederation of Europe which formed an entity
united by religion, letters, commerce, customs, and the law of na-
tions. The
sovereign states within this entity should federate and use
constraint against any recalcitrant. After the union was once formed,
there would be no fear of rebellion. Forts then could be demolished
and troops disbanded.
"All very well," commented Rousseau, "but how is it to be brought
about?" He recalled the still earlier scheme of Sully, the minister of
Henry IV, who desired to establish a Pax Gallica by first breaking

the power of all of the rivals of France. "And how else can it be
done?" inquired Rousseau. The Abb6 assumed that princes would be
willing to form such a confederation. But princes do not distinguish
between the good of their independence and the greater good of
perpetual peace. The Abb6 assured the princes that they need not
fear rebellion but could give no such assurance unless the people
were at the same time assured that there would be no tyranny, but
what prince will ever endure to be forced to be just? A voluntary

federation cannot be realized. The
only way to federate is by force.
In that case, we should not write books but raise troops.

Two inferences are possible from these assertions. One is that the
federation of peoples might be achieved if the princes were first re-
moved. This would be the way of the French Revolution. The other
possibility is that
one prince might impose his way upon all the rest;
that was the way of Napoleon. The peace plans of the eighteenth
183
century thus began in appeals by Christians to humanitas, and ended

in a tocsin for war in the name of I'humanite.
Limited War
The eighteenth century is not to be written off as if it had done
nothing but compose abortive tracts. In this period the magnitude of
war was reduced and the cruelty of war restrained. This happened not
because men as men became was brutal; death
less cruel. Civil life
was the penalty for trivial offenses; prisons stank; amusements were
cruel; but war was reduced in intensity and extent. For this change
there were a number of contributing factors sociological, political,
and ideological. Europe had again become more unified. Religion
had ceased to divide. One might almost say that there was again one
religion this time, the religion of deism. Science was more de-
veloped, and science was not divided along national lines. French
culture was universally admired and imitated, even by Frederick the
Great and Katherine the Great, and commerce, though it might
incite war, yet imposed restraints because it was not prudent in
destroying a rival to wreck a market.

One of the most important factors in the changed practice of war
was political and consisted in the centralization of power in mon-
archy this was the age of the enlightened despots and, above all,
in the stabilization of finance so that armies could be maintained
without pillage. The troops were composed of mercenaries; their
pay was kept up, and they were restrained from plunder by an iron
So strong was the control that the
discipline, especially in Prussia.
Prussian army retreating from Jena endured the rigors of a winter's
night without fires rather than burn the wood stacked up near the
encampment, because the troops lacked money with which to pay for
it.
Looting was held in supreme detestation, and when the Russians
did it in East Prussia in 1757 there was an outcry. 13
Bloodshed was reduced, not altogether for humanitarian reasons.
Mercenary armies could not be trusted. They might desert for more
pay from the other side, to escape combat, or to avoid killing their
own countrymen among the *
'enemy/' In the Anglo-Dutch War from

184
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
1665 to 1667, three thousand
English and Scotch were serving in
the Dutch fleet. 14 There were desertions
every day. In the American
Revolutionary War the claim was made, of course with exaggeration,
that the British and the American forces were made up in each case of
deserters from the other side.
Since actual battles were costly of men set in mass formation
against artillery, the course of prudence was to wear out the enemy
by maneuvers rather than to defeat him on the field. Defoe said that
fifty thousand men to spend
in his day it was customary for armies of
the whole campaign in dodging each other. The art of war was said
by another to consist less in knowing how to defend a fortress than

in knowing how to surrender it honorably.
Wars interfered less in this period with the civilian population.
There was no restriction on travel for noncombatants, and passports
originated as safe conducts. When Laurence Sterne went to France
without a passport during the Seven Years' War, he readily secured
one after his arrival from a French Duke engaged in prosecuting the
war, who gave it when assured that "a man who laughs is never
ls
dangerous."
The conduct war and the making of peace were restrained by
of
chivalry. Waragain became a game. At the battle of Fontenoy,

"When the head of the English column was twenty paces from the
French line, the officers of the other side saluted, and Lord Hay, the
captain of the Guards, called out: 'Tell your men to firel' But, 'No,
Sir, you have the honor/ replied the Count d'Auteroche. The first
volley mowed down the French."

16
Vattell in his great work, Le Droit de Gens (1773) , ransacked
history for examples of chivalry to hold up as examples to his age.

He told how Leopold in 1318 threw a bridge across the Aar to reach
Soleure. When a sudden rise in the river washed it out and threat-
ened to drown his men enemy rushed to their rescue and Leopold
the
called off the siege* Again, the Duke of Cumberland, being wounded,
was waiting for the attention of a physician when a French officer
in worse plight was brought in. The English Duke yielded his turn.
As for his own day, Vattell testified that "the humanity with
185
which war is waged cannot be too highly praised. If occasionally
a
soldier refuses quarter, this is contrary to orders." Noncombatants,
he added, are spared. An
invading army behaves in friendly fashion,
said he, "to the inhabitants of the occupied territory and the
peasants to sell their goods in camp." 1T

come
Montesquieu similarly lauded the moderation of his day, where
the conqueror continued to govern a country in accord with its own
laws. How different from the behavior of the Spaniards in the New
World "What might not the Spaniards have done for the Mexicans!
1
They might have given them a gentle religion. Instead they gave
them a furious superstition. They might have freed the slaves; in-
stead they enslaved the free. They might have enlightened them as
to human sacrifice;instead they exterminated them." 18
There was in this period genuine reluctance to invent and to em-
ploy cruel weapons. This note did not originate in the eighteenth
century. Leonardo had invented some sort of submarine but,
said he, do not divulge on account of the evil nature of
"This I
men who would practice assassinations at the bottom of the seas by

breaking the ships in their lowest part and sinking them together
with the crews who are in them." Sir John Napier invented a
mechanism which enabled him to clear four square miles of life, as
he demonstrated on sheep, but refused to disclose his device. The
eighteenth century went further and refrained from using weapons
already known and available. The Swedes refused to use the bayonet
except against the Poles, and the Russians and Louis XV refused to
have the French armies use an improved form of gunpowder be-
cause it was too destructive of human life. 19
Yet when one cannot deny that many features of the

all is said,
eighteenth century were making for new wars. One was injustice.
The iron rule of the army was itself an aspect of despotism, and the
treatment of the France was to produce the Revolution.
serfs in
Peace is not secure when based only on chivalry; there must also be
justice. If this be true in Europe, how much more in the colonial
world, where some of the excesses of the conquest were tempered
but where the white man still exploited all those of colorl At the
186
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
same time, the industrial revolution means more
provided the for
deadly weapons. The French Revolution swept away courtesy and
reintroduced plunder, and the democratic revolution ended the
.rr* jtrpKRjxs
MARSEILLOI?)
TUEATRRS
tirf SAH/HCH
$*fnnt
i f f
J/ </*L? t& &&,< ^f,^ ~ -^''rirr
**/ fa*
*. t
y
fa^y
ctf <OM 0M)<^.
T**T jfimq fa fi> A i* >4 fl*4 ^/ AM
AN EDITION OF THE MARSEILLAISE IN 1792
system of professional mercenaries in favor of citizen armies, with the

result thereafter that war could no longer be isolated from the entire
population. One of the most sinister developments was the exaltation

of the state as a counterpoise to the Church and as a bulwark against
disorder. The right of resistance to the state was repudiated by
187
Grotius and Bayle, 20 and Hobbes even went so far as to deny the
injunction to obey God rather than man. He did say that in a
Christian state such an alternative could never arise, because God
requires of man for salvation only that he be minded
to obey God
and love his neighbor. No Christian sovereign would ever infringe
upon these duties, and if a pagan sovereign should do so the Christian
should be content to believe in his heart. If he felt compelled to
make a public testimony, then let him be prepared to suffer and re-
ceive his reward in heaven. 21 Such sentiments obviously anticipated
the totalitarian state of modern times.
The American Revolutionary War

The eighteenth century occasioned no significant changes in Chris-
tian views of war, except that the American Revolution posed a
much more difficult form of the discrepancy of any revolution from
the theory of the just war waged under the authority of the state.
In the Puritan revolution the insurgents had claimed the authority
of Parliament as an inferior magistrate resisting the king. This time
the colonists professed loyalty to the crown and opposition to Parlia-
ment. 22 There was no religious difference with England, and the
"perfidious French Papists" were now allies. On the score of religion
the most that could be said was that if political liberty were lost
religious liberty would be insecure. The colonial preachers did not

quite venture to beseech the Lord to hew Agag to pieces over a tax
on tea. The only remaining recourse was the secular solution that the
colonists, by reason of England's violation of the compact, had
lapsed into a state of nature in which they could make a new compact
with each other and form a new government. Although the theory
of the war was secular, the mood still had much of the crusade, at
any rate for the New England Congregationalists. Among them re-
gard vanished for the old rule of clerical abstention. Several of the
Connecticut clergy served not only as chaplains but recruited and led
23
companies of militia.
Other churches followed more nearly their own traditional lines.
The Anglicans were frequently Tories out of devotion to the king,
188
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
the head not only of the state but also of the Church. The Method-
ists, only just emerging as a body separate from the Church of Eng-
land, shared the same political outlook. John Wesley printed a tract
on "Taxation no Tyranny," and in general the Methodists were
cool to the revolutionary cause. The peace churches of Pennsylvania
the Mennonites, the Brethren, and the Quakers maintained
their witness and suffered at the hands of their compatriots, for
Pennsylvania had long since ceased to be under Quaker control. The
Lutherans were ready to support the war but were averse to clerical
participation. There was one notable exception. John Peter Gabriel
Muhlenberg in his farewell to his congregation in January, 1776, de-
clared: "In the language of Holy Writ, there is a time for all things.
There isa time to preach and a time to fight; now is the time to
fight." After the benediction he removed his vestment and stood in

the uniform of a Virginia colonel. He never went back to his vest-
ment; one or the other it must be. This the Lutherans still felt. 24
189
Chapter 12
From Waterloo to
Armageddon:
A Century of Comparative Peace
the Napoleonic Wars, Europe was to enjoy a century of
comparative peace from 1815 to 1914. The primary reason was that
the Napoleonic conflict did not disrupt the balance of power which
had obtained during the eighteenth century. The French failed to
establish a hegemony in Europe, and the victorious Allies were
wise enough, after their victory, not to eliminate the vanquished
from the power conclave. Throughout the nineteenth century the
powers to be taken into account were England, France, Germany,
Russia, and Austria. Spain, Holland, and Sweden had lost the pre-
eminence of former years. Britannia ruled the waves and intervened
on land only to keep the balance, as in the Crimean War to prevent
Russia from cutting through Turkey to the Dardanelles. By no means
negligible as a stabilizing factor was the American frontier, which
eased the strains on the European social fabric by
affording an outlet
for the indigent and the insurgent. During the
century 66,000,000
1
persons emigrated. Even more important was the survival of the
sense of European unity. Christendom lived on, at least as a cultural
entity, and for most statesmen also as a religious society. 2 Bismarck

had a deep sense of his responsibility to the Great Task Master, and
that old sea dog Admiral Fisher was facile with
scripture. The con-
cept of Europe as a family of sovereign states imposed restraints, and
190
FROM WATERLOO TO ARMAGEDDON
when Bismarck had rounded out the confines of Germany, he re-
frained from Napoleonic adventures.
Peace makes possible reform, and the nineteenth century was an
age of reform in Europe and in America. The abolition of the slave
trade and of slavery, the ending of child labor, the reduction of hours
and the increase of wages for adults, the repeal of the Corn Laws in
England, the improvement of prisons, the reduction or abolition of

the death penalty, the extension of the franchise, women's suffrage,
the restraint of alcoholism, and social legislation these were the
reforms agitated and in large measure achieved. The technique
developed for fostering these reforms was the founding of societies,
each directed to a specific objective and recruiting all who agreed on
the one goal, however diverse their religious or other affiliations. In
consequence, Christian influence in this period cannot be traced by

observing the actions of churches. One must rather examine the
religious allegiance of the individual members of societies. When
this is done, the primary motivation is seen to have stemmed from
Christian idealism.
The Peace Movement

Among the reforms which peace fostered, none is more important
than the abolition of war. This was the period in which the peace
movement first organized itself on an international scale and took
measures to impress its views upon governments. 3 Peace societies were
formed in England, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Italy, Austria,
Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the United States. Congresses were
.held in Brussels, Paris, Boston, and elsewhere. The movements were
inspired in part by revulsion against the Napoleonic wars, and in

the United States the War of 1812. The general mentality was still
that of the eighteenth century, and the effort now was not so much to
advance new ideas as to implement politically the peace plans of the
previous century. The societies were Christian in their outlook, save
in France, where the fraternite and humanite of the revolution were
still the slogan. The forces for peace were divided in this period, as
they commonly are, between those who sought peace through world
191
government, or even through an international police force, and those

who renounced all war and violence.
In the United States one ingredient in the philosophy of peace
came from the mellowing of the rigors of Calvinism. Even Samuel
Hopkins, accounted a high Calvinist, stressed the utter benevolence
of God, while his onetime parishioner William Ellery Channing, a
Unitarian, inveighed alike against the inhumanity of God in the
Calvinist picture and the inhumanity of man in war. The Calvinist
dream of a holy commonwealth to be won and maintained by the
might of the Ironsides was transformed by extending the terrain to

embrace not merely the original Puritan colonies but the whole of
the United States. The goal was to be a world at peace, with America
taking the lead through her emancipation from the dynastic quarrels
of a decadent Europe. Ralph Waldo Emerson in his "Address on
War" voiced alike the faith and the hope. In 1838 he said:
Not in an obscure corner, not in a feudal Europe, not in an antiquated

appangage where no onward step can be taken without rebellion, is this
seed of benevolence laid in the furrow, with tears of hope; but in this
broad America of God and man, where the forest is only now falling, or
yet to fall, and the green earth opened to the inundation of emigrant men
from all quarters of oppression and guilt; here, where not a family, not
a few men, but mankind, shall say what shall be free; here, we ask, Shall
it be War, or shall it be Peace? 4
One of the most novel turns of the peace movement was the re-
examination of historical wars. A
Unitarian minister in Maine,
Sylvester Judd, published a tract entitled The Moral Evils of Our
Revolutionary War, as a result of which he was dismissed as the
chaplain of the state legislature. John Humphrey Noyes was so in-
5
censed by the treatment accorded in the past and present to the

Indians and the Negroes that he resigned from the United States. 6
The peace movement developed two wings. The moderates who
organized the American Peace Society in 1838 would allow defensive
war and trusted for the abolition of war to the establishment of world
government with an international court and an international congress
192
of the nations, after the manner of the peace plans of the
previous
century.
The pacifists organized the New England Non-Resistance Society
in 1838. Their leader, Adin Ballou, went further than
anyone hither-
to in advancing a which, he claimed, would
prudential pacifism
afford actually greater security than would reliance arms. Not
upon
invariably, to be sure, but ordinarily one could assume that if one
turned the other cheek, one would not be hit. His examples were
taken almost entirely from private life, though in one instance groups
were involved. An army was commanded to capture a town in the
Tyrol. Finding there only women and children, the soldiers withdrew,
not knowing what else to do because their instructions covered only
7
fighting with soldiers. They had been born too soonl
The American societies were recruited from the membership of
the churches, among whom the more prominent were the Quakers,
the Unitarians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Congregationalists,
and the Presbyterians. The Episcopalians, the Catholics, and the
Dutch Reformed held aloof. Sometimes the churches as churches
made pronouncements on the subject of war, as when the Congrega-
tionalists in Massachusetts and Vermont in 1816 and 1817 denounced
war and lauded peace. 8 At the same time in particular wars, as we

shall see, the clergy were often highly belligerent; so much so, that
Mark Twain wa? prompted to compose this satire on a wartime
prayer:
O Lord our Father, our young patriots . go forth to battle Be Thou

.
near them. With them in spirit we also go forth from the sweet peace
of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear
their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells. . . Help us to wring the
.
hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn

them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the
wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst . . imploring
.
Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it. ... Blast their hopes, blight
their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water
their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded
feet. We ask it in the spirit of love, of him who is the source of Love, and
193
who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and
seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen. 9
In England the great drive came from the Quakers; their attitude
will be delineated below in connection with Bright' s critique of
England's wars. In Germany the Uncle Tom' 3 Cabin of the peace

movement was the novel Lay Down Your Arms by the Baroness
Bertha Von Suttner. She dealt in the story with Bismarck's three wars
against Denmark, Austria, and France. Two themes in the book are
recurrent. The first is the frightfulness of war:
Fighting in the open country is terrible enough but fighting amongst

human beings is ten times more cruel. Crashing timber, bursting flames,
stifling smoke; cattle run mad with fear; every wall a fortress or a barri-
cade, every window a shot-hole. I saw a breastwork there which was formed
of corpses. The defenders had heaped up all the slain that were lying near,
in order, from that rampart, to fire over onto their assailants. I shall never
forget that wall in all my life. A
man, who formed one of its bricks,
penned among the other corpse-bricks, was still alive, and was moving
in
his arm. ... If there were any angel of mercy hovering over the battle-
fields he would have enough to do in giving the poor creatures men and
beasts who are "still alive" their coup de grdce.
The other theme is the circuitous and fallacious reasoning of those

who regard war as inevitable. Her father in the story quotes to her
the old saying
Si ins pacem para helium: we are only preparing out of precaution.

And the other side?
With a view to attacking us.
And they also say that their action is only a precaution against our
attack.
That is malice.
And they say that we are malicious.
Oh, they say that only as a pretext, to be better able to make their
10
preparations.
The baroness animated the German peace movement until her death
just before the outbreak of the First World War.
194
Russian pacifism in this period, represented by the sects, was with-
out impact not only in Europe but even in Russia. The Dukhobors
were few and were persecuted and segregated. Their aversion to
miltary service appears, as a matter of fact, not to have arisen from
pacifism at all, if the charge be true that they were guilty of murder-
ing any deserters from their cult. The reason would seem rather to
have been hatred for the czars' government, which had inflicted
upon
them such frightful persecution.
11
The Molokans were different. 12 In them came again to expression

an early and persistent strain in Russian piety, the imitation of the
kenotic Christ. The word "kenotic" comes from the Greek and means
emptying, "for Christ counted not the being on an equality with God
a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself." Long before St. Francis
this ideal of complete abnegation animated Russian monasticism.
It was to reappear in the nineteenth century among the atheist aris-
tocracy, who renounced wealth and position to share the life of the
13
peasants. Specifically the Molokans justified their pacifism as obedi-
ence to the commands "Thou shalt not kill" and "Put up thy sword/'
A broader consideration was that the right of life and death be-
longed only to the Creator of heaven and earth.

The obscurity of these sects was not shared by Tolstoy, whose name
became a symbol of pacifism throughout the literate world. He, too,
stood in the tradition of the kenotic Christ. Man, as a son of God,
must renounce himself; he alone is above others who humbles him-
self. Christ did not command us to suffer, but to resist not evil, and
this will entail suffering. Violence is to be used neither to defend

oneself or others, though force may be employed to rescue a child
from imminent danger. The Christian must renounce all recourse
to law as well as to war. He who does so will of necessity be at variance
with the and society, which rest upon violence. The renuncia-
state
tion of violence was made to rest by Tolstoy partly on obedience to

the divine commands and partly on the hope of a better future. He
believed that the day would surely come when the scientific activity
dedicated to destruction would be the derision and pity of future
14
generations.
195
Arbitration and Disarmament

When we review the peace efforts of the nineteenth century they
appear at first glance to have been utterly unavailing; nothing is more
of shelves and
depressing than to walk through the library stacks
shelves of pamphlets, periodicals, and books of that era advocating
at least for their own time.
peace. Yet there were concrete gains, valid
International arbitration received an enormous impetus. The number
of cases successfully arbitrated in Europe in approximately the nine-
teenth century is as follows:
17944800 4 1841-60 25
1801-20 12 188M900 111
182140 10 1901-10 25
The establishment of the Hague Tribunal in 1899 provided a
convenient machinery for adjudication, but it has been hampered
by the failure of the nations to surrender their sovereignty to the de-
gree of submitting all disputes to juridical decision. High hopes were
entertained for this goal when in 1910 President Taft declared that
even questions involving national honor should be resolved in this
way. There was even greater enthusiasm when, under Woodrow
Wilson, the Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan negotiated
thirty treaties requiring that prior to hostilities a "cooling off" period
should intervene, in which all disputes should be submitted to an
investigating commission. Bryan presented to each of the diplomats
of the signatory powers a plowshare paperweight beaten from a sword
supplied by the War Department. Bryan never received the Nobel

peace prize, which earlier hadbeen conferred upon the swashbuckling
Theodore Roosevelt for negotiating on request the peace between
16
Japan and Russia.
Efforts at disarmament during this period achieved some tangible
results, to which one may well believe the agitation of the peace socie-
ties had contributed. The most spectacular accomplishment was the
Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1816 which demilitarized the entire fron-

tier between the United States and Canada. Naval vessels on the Great
Lakes were dismantled. The agreement has been continuously in
196
force ever since and has never resulted in any untoward incident from
either side.
Agitation for similar but much more extensive peace action among
the great powers was persistent on the continent and in
England,
where the dissenting churches threw their whole weightinto the
endeavor. Statesmen and parliamentary bodies discussed the idea.
Yet all were amazed when in August of 1898, a call for a disarmament
conference was issued by the Czar Nicholas II of Russia, in which he
lamented that the desire of the great powers for a general pacification
had yielded no results during the preceding twenty years. Hundreds
of millions were being spent on engines of destruction, regarded to-
day as the latest inventions of science but discarded tomorrow as

obsolute. "It is the supreme duty, therefore, at the present moment
of all States to put some limit to these unceasing armaments/' Ac-
cordingly, a conference was summoned. "Such a Conference, with

God's help, would be a very happy augury for the opening century.
It would concentrate in one powerful effort the strivings of all States
which sincerely wish to bring about the triumph of the grand idea
of universal peace.'*
"Could it be that the Czar really meant it?" gasped an astounded
Europe. Was this perchance a ruse? He did in fact mean it, for he
had been influenced by the work of Von Bloch, who predicted that
future war would bring "not fighting but famine/' the bankruptcy
of nations, and the disruption of the social order. The Czar's ministers
did they agree? Did they also mean it? There was reason to believe
that they did because Russia wished peace with the West in order
to expand toward the East. The conference met, and it did accomplish
the establishment of the Hague Tribunal, a very relevant achieve-
ment since the corollary to disarmament is the settlement of disputes
under law. 17
Actual disarmament made no strides, however. President Roosevelt
thought it would mean abdication by civilized nations in favor of

the barbarians. When it came to summoning another conference, he
yielded the initiative to the Czar. The assembly met
in
graciously
1906, but Russia, after her defeat at the hands of Japan, desired now
197
to increase her armaments. The dictum of Theodore Roosevelt pre-
vailed, that the highest civilizations must be masters of the world.
The Churches and the Wars of the Nineteenth Century
The statement that the nineteenth century was one of comparative
peace is
entirely valid, but this is only to say that there were no con-
flictsof equal magnitude to the Napoleonic wars earlier or to the
First and Second World Wars afterward. There were wars during the
nineteenth century. England had the Crimean War with Russia and
the Boer War. Bismarck, as we have observed, fought with Denmark,
Austria, and France. The United States was involved in the War of
1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, and the Spanish-American
War. The attitudes of the churches in the respective countries to
these wars call for review. In the United States, peopled mainly by
the dissenting religious bodies of Europe, the traditional varieties of
the Christian ethic were less displaced by the attitude of the en-
lightenment than had been true in Europe. One observes that during
the Civil War there
was a recrudescence of the old alignments, nota-
bly on the part of the Northern churches. Those who had come from
the established churches of Europe the Catholics, the Anglicans,
and the Lutherans looked upon the war less as a crusade for the
emancipation of the slaves than as the suppression of a rebellion.
They talked in terms of "inevitable necessity" (Lutheran) "support ,
of the constituted authority" (Catholic) , and "unfaltering allegiance

to the Government" (Episcopalian) The churches of the Calvinist
.
tradition the Congregationalists, the Unitarians, the Presbyterians,

and the Baptists, as well as the Methodists looked upon the war as
a crusade for the abolition of slavery. For them the soldier in such
a cause was an imitator of Christ. "As he died to make men holy, let
us die to make men free." 1S The peace churches, for the most part,
adhered to their historic stand and in they were joined
this witness
by the Disciples. The Quakers suffered agonized searching of heart.

They had been in the van in disowning any of their members who
did not emancipate their slaves. Here now was a war for the emanci-
pation of all slaves. Could Quakers continue at the same time to op-
198
pose both slavery and this war to end slavery? Some Quakers became
colonels, but the Society as a whole continued to combine the cam-
paign for the emancipation of slaves with the condemnation of all

war.
Cutting across the old lines was sectionalism. This was at no time
War. The churches in the South supported
so evident as in the Civil
the Confederacy, and three of the
great denominations were split:
the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the
Baptists. The two former
have since been reunited. The Mexican War to a lesser degree dis-
closed a sectional rift.
Support war came from the churches
for the
close to the Mexican border, and
opposition came from New England.
The Christians nearest to the Rio Grande shrieked their Deus vult.
The Southern Baptists, being closest, were the most vociferous. The
Congregationalists and the Unitarians, in the area converging on
Boston, were emphatic that Deus non vult.
The War of 1812 may have exhibited sectionalism, but the matter
has not been sufficiently investigated to admit of final analysis. The
pressure of the war came from what was then the frontier, running
in a crescent from New Hampshire to Buffalo, on through Kentucky
and Tennessee to Savannah. There was no division along the lines of
North and South, because the North desired to annex Canada and
the South, Florida. Since England and Spain were, at the moment,
allied in fighting Napoleon, war with England was also war with
Spain and thus provided an opportunity for annexation in two

directions. But if the North and South were united, the East and
the West were split. The war was not popular on the Atlantic sea-
board and especially in New England. The Federalist party, which
interests in the coast
opposed the war, consisted of the commercial
towns, as well as the college-bred and the professional men, who
looked upon Napoleon as anti-Christ and upon England as "the
world's last hope." 20 The clergy in this area denounced the war, but
whether the clergy on the frontier supported the war is a question
which remains to be investigated.
A growing tendency on the part of the churches to coalesce in their
attitudes, not only with one another but also with the prevailing
199
mood of the country, became evident in the Spanish-American War.
Itwas an expansionist war, pushed by men like "Teddy" Roosevelt,
theRough Rider, who was convinced that the civilized nations must
keep the barbarians in tow. Popular passion was fanned by the propa-
ganda of the Hearst Press, which disseminated fabricated atrocity
stories illustrated by Remington. Though Spain had conceded our
demands, President McKinley declared war and took over not only
Cuba, where Spain's misrule was claimed to be intolerable, but also
the Philippines. The full facts were not available to the public at the
time. The Church press at the outset exhibited an admirable modera-
tion, refusing to become hysterical over the blowing up of the Maine.

When Senator Proctor visited Cuba and came home with reports of
Spanish misrule, however, the churches sounded the tocsin of a holy
war for the vindication of the oppressed. This was true in general of
the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Method-
ists, the Disciples, and the Unitarians. The Episcopalians, the Luth-
21
erans, and the Roman Catholics were more temperate.
In England the dissenters were the core of the Liberal party, even
though it was headed by an Anglican, William Ewart Gladstone. The
dissenters were not pacifists, but political liberals and opponents of
imperialism. Thoroughgoing and consistent opposition to England's
wars came, as one would expect, from the Quakers. The full implica-
tions of their position were well exemplified in the career of their
great statesman John Bright. He was a Quaker; he believed in Quaker

principles. He opposed all of England's wars during his lifetime, but
not on Quaker principles; rather on the principles of those whom
he addressed.
I shall not read the Sermon on the Mount to men who don't acknowl-
edge its authority, nor shall I insist on my reading of the New Testament
to men who take a different view of it; nor shall I ask the members of a
church whose articles especially justify the bearing of arms to join in any
movement which shall be founded upon what are called abstract Christian
peace doctrines. But I will argue this question on the ground which our
opponents admit, which not professing Christians only, but Mohamme-
200
dans and heathen and humanity will admit. I will this
argue it upon
ground, that war is probably the greatest of all human calamities. 22
After the Indian mutiny he responded to the

question whether the
English should do nothing but allow every Englishman in India to
be murdered.
I don't think so. They must act on their principles, seeing they admit no
others. ... I have not pleaded . . , that this country should remain with-
out adequate and scientific means of defense. I acknowledge it to be the
duty of your statesmen, acting upon the known opinions and principles
of ninety-nine out of every hundred persons in the country, at all times,
with all reasonable moderation, but with all possible efficiency to take
stepswhich shall preserve order withinand on the confines of your king-
dom. But I shall repudiateand denounce the expenditure of every shill-
ing, the engagement of every man, the employment of every ship, which
has no object but intermeddling in the affairs of other countries, and
endeavoring to extend the boundaries of an Empire which is already large
enough to satisfy the greatest ambition, and I fear is much too large for
the highest statesmanship to which any man has yet attained. 2 *
On the grounds, not of Quaker nonresistance, but of public policy,

he would point out that England's intervention in Europe's wars had
been not only unnecessary but calamitous. Had she refrained, "We
should indeed have had less of military glory. We might have had
neither Trafalgar nor Waterloo; but we should have set the high
example of a Christian nation."

With regard to the Crimean War, Bright urged that England was
not called upon to defend Turkey against Russia. If she should do
so on behalf of every down-trodden people, why had she not inter-
vened on behalf of Hungary against Russia? After the war with
Russia was actually in progress and members of the Cabinet were
treating the subject with flippancy, Bright rose to
rebuke the buf-
foonery of the noble Lord Palmerston, the Prime Minister. Bright
went on to say that he was ready enough to debate the justice of this
war on the principles of the noble lord himself, and on such princi-
ples it could not be justified.
He continued:
201
I am not, pretend to be, a statesman; and that character
nor did I ever
is so tainted and our day, that I am not sure that a pure
so equivocal in
and honourable ambition would aspire to it. I have not enjoyed, for thirty
years, like these noble lords, the honours and emoluments
of office. I
have not my sails to every passing breeze. I am a plain and simple
set
citizen, senthere by one of the foremost constituencies of the empire,

the opinions of
representing feebly, perhaps, but honestly, I dare aver,
very many, and the true interests of all those who have sent me here. Let
it not be said that I am alone in my condemnation of this war, and of
andguilty administration. And even if I were alone,

this incapable if
mine were a solitary voice, raised amid the din of arms and the clamours
of a venal press, I should have the consolation I have tonight and which
I trust will be mine to the last moment of my existence the priceless
consolation that no word of mine had tended to promote the squandering
of my country's treasure or the spilling of one single drop of my country's
blood.
Bright sat down in the midst of a complete silence in which the

tittering ministers had become grave.
On another occasion he addressed a plea to Lord Palmerston:
The Angel of Death has been abroad throughout the land; you may
almost hear the beating of his wings. There is no one, as when the first
born were slain of old, to sprinkle with blood the lintel and the two
sideposts of our doors, that he may spare and pass on; he takes his victims
from the castle of the noble, the mansion of the wealthy, and the cottage
of the poor and the lowly, and it is on behalf of all these classes that I
make this solemn appeal.
I tell if he be ready honestly and frankly to en-
the noble lord, that
deavour by the negotiations about to be opened at Vienna to put an end
to this war, no word of mine, no vote of mine, will be given to shake his
power for one single moment, or to change his position in this House.
[Hear, hear]
The noble lord has become "the foremost subject of the Crown."
Let him achieve "a still higher and nobler ambition: that he had re-
turned the sword to the scabbard." 24t
In these speeches of Bright a number of principles come to light:

that a pacifist may legitimately appeal to the nonpacifist to live to
up
202
his own by refraining from military adventures, wars of aggres-
ethic,
sion, wars of expansion; and that the pacifist may sound the note of
pity and compassion. As the member of a legislative assembly the
pacifist should not, however, stand in the way of those measures which
are necessary for the implementation of the
policies adopted by the
principles. He could not of course share
majority in accord with their
in the framing or the execution of
policies not in accord with his
principles. Therefore he could not hold executive office. He could
do no more than retain his seat in the House.
The Boer War divided even the dissenting churches in Britain.
Some held it to be an example of unabashed imperialism. W. T.
Stead, a Congregationalism and Lloyd George, a Baptist, together
with many were
others, of this mind. Their position was well stated
by the Liberal Lord Morley, not himself a churchman. When he
went to speak in his native Manchester to an audience of between
eight and ten thousand persons, he was hooted down until in a pause
he managed to call out "I am a Lancashire man." Then they gave
him a chance.
After an hour of a judicious mixture of moderation, breadth, good-

temper, with a slight guarded Lancastrian undertone of defiance, which
they rather liked than resented, I sat down amid universal enthusiasm.
The grand potent monosyllable with which I wound up was not to be
resisted. "You may carry fire and sword into the midst of peace and in-
dustry: it will be wrong. A war of the strongest government in the world
with untold wealth and inexhaustible reserves against this little republic
will bring you no glory: it will be wrong. You may make thousands of
women widows, and thousands of children fatherless: it will be wrong.
It may add a new province to your empire: it will still be wrong." 25
There were others among the British dissenting churches who held
that the war was being fought on behalf of the South African natives,
who would not be accorded equality in status by the Boers, as they
would be the British. The English won the war at the cost of in-
stituting concentration camps for Boer civilians.
The war was fol-
lowed by a generous peace which granted to the Boers home rule, but
203
the outcome of this idealistic war for the native has come to be
apartheid.
As for the attitude of the churches on the continent to the wars
of the nineteenth century, we know in general that all supported their
governments, but no detailed studies are available save one. This

chronicles the sequel to the Franco-Prussian War, when the German
Protestants extended a hand of reconciliation to the French Protes-
tants in a document which began by stating that the Germans were
not disposed to be vainglorious because God had given their father-
land the victory in a war forced upon them by the French. This
26
preamble nullified the gesture.
In Russia the Orthodox Church throughout supported the czar.
The sects protested and were unheard. Only Tolstoy reached the
world. During the Russo-Japanese War he lamented:
All over Russia, from the palace to the remotest village, the pastors of
churches, calling themselves Christians, appeal to that God who has en-
joined love to one's enemies to the God of Love Himself to help the
work of the devil to further the slaughter of men. . . . The same thing is
going on in Japan* . Japanese theologians and religious teachers no
. .
less than the military ... do not remain behind the Europeans in the
techniques of religious deceit and sacrilege, but distort the great Buddhis-
tic teaching by not only permitting but justifying that murder which
Buddha forbade.
Specifically Tolstoy pilloried the statement of the Czar and his

general that not more than fifty thousand men would be needed to
dislodge the Japanese from Manchuria.
That unfortunate deluded Russian peasants now

ceaseless stream of
being transported by thousands to the Far East these are those same
not more than 50,000 live Russian men whom Nicholas Romanoff and
Alexis Kuropatkin have decided they may get killed and who will be
killed in support of those stupidities, robberies, and every kind of abomi-
nation which were accomplished in China and Korea by immoral, am-
bitious men now sitting peacefully in their palaces and expecting new
glory and new advantage and profit from the slaughter of those 50,000
204
unfortunate defrauded Russian
workingmen guilty of nothing and gain-
ing nothing by their sufferings and death.
On
the publication of this indictment in
England, the London
Times commented, "The enormity of bloodshed is the
gist of his
[Tolstoy's] doctrine; yet he holds the governing classes of his own
country up to the execration of ignorant peasants with a recklessness
which might lead in certain circumstances to the cruelest of all blood-
shed the bloodshed of social war." 2T
The First World War, the Crusading War

The shot at Sarajevo ended Europe's century of comparative peace.
In August, 1914, the First World War began. The causes have been
much debated. Among the more remote were the closing of the
American frontier and of the frontier of colonial possessions, leaving
Germany with inferior holdings. The Allies at the time ascribed to

Germany sole guilt for the disruption of the peace. Subsequently, the
revisionist historians have taxed Russia with even greater responsi-
bility. In this land one of the world's great revolutionary upheavals

was already astir and one could hear the bellowing of the milling
herd. The government may well have supposed that the

Czar's
proletariat insurgence could be deflected by a foreign war and that

in the mele Russia might achieve her ancient goal of an ice-free
port on the Mediterranean, Whatever Russia's guilt, Germany is not

to be exonerated. She had been engaged in a feverish race of naval
armaments in order to challenge Britannia's "dominion over palm
and pine." Germany had become highly industrialized. She needed
tobe sure of raw materials and markets abroad. Had she been able to
conclude a partnership with England, the one to control the land,
the other the with both dividing the spoils, the balance might
sea,
have been preserved. But Germany could not trust a commercial
rival in control of the seas to be solicitous for her interests.
In conjunction with this rivalry of goods and power, a subtle

change of outlook had been taking place, which divided Germany
from the world of the West, With singular acumen, Ernest Troeltsch
205
took cognizance of this change. 28 It consisted in this: that the West,
meaning especially England, the United States, and France, retained

the tradition of natural law, whereas in Germany it was supplanted
by the Romantic movement. The ancient theory of natural law, as
we have observed, rested upon the assumption that a principle of
rationality pervaded the cosmos, immanent in the world and man,
implanting in his heart the principles of a morality intelligible to
and binding upon all The Romantic movement
denied the possi-
bility of a universal morality, claiming instead
that men are not
equally endowed with reason and with energy. On the contrary, in
particular periods particular peoples are the recipients and custodians

of a dynamic vitality which lifts them above their fellows. By virtue
of this special endowment, they make their own rules which others
cannot understand but should be compelled to obey. Here we have
a secularization of the concept of the chosen people. God's elect have
here become the Herrenvolk.
Hegel in the realm of ideas and Bismarck in the realm of politics
are often regarded as the prime architects of this attitude, though as
a matter of fact, neither was as extreme as were his followers. Hegel
held that private morality does not apply between nations; for them
the only morality is fidelity to agreements of their own making. The
sovereign nation issubject to nothing save the Weltgeist** Precisely

what this means depends upon the definition of the Weltgeist. If it
can be the cosmic rationality of the Stoics, then natural law is not
excluded, but if it be the elan vital which appears erratically in this
nation or that, then the universal morality of natural law is at an
end. Politically, as we have noted, Bismarck set out to achieve
Germany's destiny by blood and iron, but having attained his goal,
he then stopped. Alike, Hegel and Bismarck would have been aghast
at Hitler and probably at
Bethmann-Hollweg when he referred to
the treaty over Belgium as a "scrap of paper." Yet the lines do run
from the restrained precursors to their less inhibited successors. A
appeared between German and notably English
distinct difference has
and American attitudes. Bethmann-Hollweg's remark was defended
in Germany, but when Admiral Fisher, head of the British Navy,
206
proposed to "Copenhagen" the Germany fleet, after the manner of
Nelson who, at Copenhagen, fell without warning upon the fleet of
Denmark, British leaders were horrified and promptly disavowed his
proposal, Troeltsch summarized by saying that to the Germans the
Anglo-Saxon attitude appeared to be compounded of moralism and
pharisaism. Tothe English and Americans the German attitude
seemed to be a blend of mysticism and barbarism.
Whatever may be the proper assessment of responsibility, whatever
the relative roles of sensate and ideological factors, the war did come
and the churches in every land gave support to their governments. In
Germany the Catholic Mausbach 30 and the Protestant Holl 31 looked
upon Germany as begirt by foes bent on her strangulation. For
Germany to defend herself against their encirclement was nothing
other than a just war.
In England, the mood fluctuated between that of the just war and
the crusade. The latter outlook became the more prevalent as fabri-
cated atrocity stories were disseminated and believed, to the effect
that the Germans had cut off the hands of babies in Belgium and
had crucified a Canadian.
The Bishop of London with brutal candor exhorted young Eng-
land to do that which in war has to be done: "Kill Germans to kill
them, not for the sake of killing, but to save the world, to kill the
good young men

as well as the bad, to kill the as well as the old, to
kill those who have shewn kindness to our wounded as well as those
fiends who crucified the Canadian Sergeant. ... As I have said a
thousand times, I look upon it as a war for purity, I look upon every-
one who dies in it as a martyr." 32
The Archbishop of Canterbury was more temperate and more
troubled. He recognized the legitimacy of a righteous wrath, but
feared that it might degenerate into a "poisonous hatred'* which
would coarsen, corrupt, and defile England's high aims, "transform-
ing what was a righteous yes, a wholesome wrath against wrong
into a sour and envenomed hatred of whole sections of our fellow-
men." a3
In December, 1914, Richard Roberts, a Presbyterian minister, and
207
Henry Hodgkin, a Quaker, founded the Fellowship of Reconciliation.
In the United States the mood was a blend of hysterical nationalism
and crusading idealism. The rancor was the greater because of the
fervent desire of the nation to be neutral Hence virulent resentment
against those who, contrary to our will, dragged us into the conflict.
Wilson was re-elected on the slogan "He kept us out of war/' At the
beginning of hostilities in Europe his intervention was confined to
WHEN WILLIAM COMES TO LONDON
YOU'LL HEAR THE TlN-COD OF POTSDAM SAY:

"ACCEPT THIS IRON CROSS, MY RAMSAY."
OPPONENTS OF WAR RIDICULED IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA

DURING THE FlRST WORLD WAR
protests against interference with the rights of neutrals on the high

seas.England had thrown a tight blockade around Germany and was
preventing all trade from going in, while Germany was seeking to
break through by means of the newly invented submarine. Passenger
ships bearing arms were sunk. Of such was the Lusitania though
only later did it become generally known that she carried munitions.
Both England and Germany interfered with American travel and
trade. Complete and consistent defense of neutral rights would have
involved the United States in hostilities with both countries, but
208
Wilson's sympathies were with England, because he shared her blood,
her ideas, and her ideals. England was a democracy, Germany a mon-
archy, and though the ostensible occasion for entering the war was
still the defense of neutral
rights, once America became involved the
goal was declared, "to makethe world safe for democracy."
A surprised and outraged nation rallied to the support of the
president, American churchmen of all faiths were never so united
Copyright 1917 by Los Angeles Times
OPPONENTS OF WAR RIDICULED IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA

DURING THE FlRST WORLD WAR
with each other and with the mind of the country. This was a holy
war. Jesus was dressed in khaki and portrayed sighting down a gun
barrel. The Germans were Huns. To kill them was to purge the
209
earth of monsters. Nor was such action incompatible with love, be-
cause their deaths would restrain them from crime and transplant
them to a better land. The Lord God of battles was rolling up the
hosts of Armageddon to destroy the great beast of the abyss that the
new Jerusalem might descend from the sky. To be sure, not all
ministers were so immoderate. There were eighty pacifist clergymen. 34
Nor were churchmen so savage as the general populace. The press
engaged in vilification of isolationists, IWW's, and pacifists. All of

them were branded as agents of the Kaiser. Violence sprang up
against those suspected as pro-German. The language of Germany
became taboo and sauerkraut had to be called "liberty cabbage." For
refusal to put on a uniform, a Dukhobor was sent to Alcatraz, and
there was subjected to hosing under cold water so that he died of
pneumonia. When his widow came to claim the remains, the corpse
was dressed in a uniform. 35
Strategically the war bogged down Mirred in
into trench warfare.
mud and gore, the choicest of Europe's youth went over the top and
fell in no man's land. The war ended, as winter was about to set in,
on November 11, 1918. When spring returned, the poet sang:
So when the Spring of the World shall shrive our stain

After the winter of war,
When the poor world wakes to peace once more,
After such night of ravage and rain,
You shall not come again.
You shall notcome to taste of old Spring weather,
And gallop through the soft untrampled heather,
And bathe and bake your body on the grass.
We shall be there. Alas!
But not with you. When Spring shall wake the earth
And quicken the scarred fields to a new birth,
Our grief shall grow. For what can Spring renew
More fiercely for us than the need of you? 38
210
Chapter 13
From the
Outlawry of War
To the Atom Bomlo
the war to end war came the crusade for an enduring

peace. This mood of the 1920's has come to be incomprehensible to
the 1950's. The young today inquire how people could have been
so unrealistic as to suppose that there could ever be an enduring
peace. Were they impelled by an incredible nai"vet6 as to the goodness

of human nature? On the contrary, not the goodness of man but the
hideousness of war fired the resolve that it should never happen
again.
one would understand the mood of that hour,
If listen to these
words of Herbert Hoover:
I was one of but few civilians who saw something of the battle of the
Somme. In the distant view were the unending trenches filled with a
million and a half men. Here and there, like ants, they advanced under
the thunder and belching volcanoes from 10,000 guns. Their lives were
thrown away until half a million had died. Passing close by were unend-
ing lines of men plodding along the right side of the road to the front,
not with drums and bands, but with saddened resignation. Down the
came the unending lines of wounded men, staggering among
left side
unending stretchers and ambulances. Do you think one can forget that?
And it was but one battle of a hundred. . . .
In another even more dreadful sense I saw inhuman policies of war.

That was the determination on both sides to bring subjection by starva-
tion. The food blockade by the Allied Governments on the one side,
and the ruthless submarine warfare by the Central Powers on the other,
had this as its major purpose. Both sides professed that it was not their
211
purpose to starve women and children. But it is an idiot who thinks
soldiers ever starve. It was women and children who died o starvation.
It was they who died of the disease which came from short food supplies,
not in hundreds of thousands, but in millions.
And after the Armistice came famine and pestilence, in which millions
perished and other millions grew up stunted in mind and body. That is
war. Let us not forget. 1
Because men had not yet forgotten. Woodrow Wilson was hailed
as a messiah by delirious throngs who saw in him the leader through
whom a new world order should come into being.
The revulsion against the misery of war was intensified by the dis-
closures and failures which followed in its wake. The sole guilt of
Germany was called into question by the Revisionists. The atrocities
in the conduct of the war were demonstrated to have been the fabri-
cations of propagandists. Evidence was presented pointing to the con-
clusion that an international ring of munitions makers, selling to
both sides,had had a hand in fomenting and prolonging the war.
Disillusionment as to the cause and conduct of the struggle was aug-
mented by despondency over the failure to realize in the peace the
ideal objectives for which the war had been waged.
The war to end war had been followed by the invasion of Man-
churia and Abyssinia. The campaign to make the world safe for
democracy had as its sequel in some lands the rise of totalitarianism.

The slogan of "No annexations and no idemnities" was evaded by
mandates and reparations. The attempt to recover "normalcy" was
thwarted by economic upheaval, depression, inflation, widespread
unemployment, and more or less violent social unheavals.
For all of these failures war itself was widely blamed, on the
ground that peoples frenzied with fury cannot immediately on the
cessation of hostilities display the magnanimity, rationality, and
co-operativeness needful for the establishment of world order, demo-

cratic institutions, social and economic stability.
Many of the leading literary and ecclesiastical figures in England

became pacifist Bertrand Russell, Vera Brittain, A. A. Milne,
Aldous Huxley, Canon Raven, and Dick Shepherd. They were joined
212
"I JUST DIED FOR CIVILIZATION!"
"FINE, BUDDY, I MADE THE WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY!"
Copyright 1935 by The Nation
WHAT DID You DIE FOR?

in the United States by Archibald MacLeish and Harry Emerson
Fosdick, who put himself on record as resolved never to bless an-
The churches resolved to make every effort to see that
other war. 2
there should never be another war to bless. With characteristic
ardor the churches of the United States embarked on a crusade for
peace. Three ways were tried: the first looked to the State to elimi-
nate war, the second looked to the Church to excommunicate war,
the third looked to the community to find an alternative to war.
War No More
The first strove progressively to eliminate war by reduction in
armaments. To this end a four-power treaty was signed in 1921 by the
United States, Great Britain, Japan, and France. It was really not
disarmament but only proportional limitation in accord with the
actual status quo. It applied only to naval construction and set ratios
at five for the United States, five for Great Britain, three for Japan,
and 1.7 for France. The United
States gained heavily because, by
agreement, she now

equaled Britannia in the ruling of the waves.
The new treaty abrogated the alliance between Great Britain and
Japan, and thus relieved the United States of concern as to the
where, however, Japan was to have a free hand. The greatest
Pacific,
renunciation was made by Britain, depleted by the war and in no
mood tocombat the pretensions of the United States. Already the
shift in the center of power was becoming apparent. The point here
is that this and

subsequent attempts at disarmament were motivated
by revulsion against war. Yet they never really amounted to disarma-
ment and exhibited no genuine sacrifices or even risks on behalf of
3
peace.
A few years later, in 1929, an attempt was made to outlaw war by
treatiesbetween sovereign states. The Kellogg-Briand treaties, called
the Paris Pact, bore the signatures of fifty-nine nations. peal of A
jubilation arose from the American Protestants, and the historic peace
churches were pleased to see governments actually ready to beat
swords into plowshares. In a few years the resolutions of church bodies
made it apparent that they did not wish to see all swords converted to
214
FROM THE OUTLAWRY OF WAR TO THE ATOM BOMB
agriculture.The phrase used in the treaties was "renunciation of war
as an instrument of national policy." Precisely what did this mean?
That a nation should not defend itself, or merely that it should not
use war to enforce its will by aggression?
Baptists, Methodists, and
Presbyterians, among others, made plain that they did not propose
to outlaw a war of defense or a war of ideals. In other words, the
just war and the crusade were still intact. 4

A second line of attack was religious and moral rather than politi-
cal, relying on the actions of churches and not of governments. A
number of Protestant churches recorded their unwillingness as
churches to bless any war whatever, but leaving to individual mem-
bers the decision as to conscientious objection, with full support of
the church either way. Yet traces of the old alignments were still
In 1934 more than twenty thousand of the Protestant clergy
visible.
were asked this question: "Do you believe that the churches of
America should now go on record as refusing to sanction or support
any future war?" The affirmative list was headed by one of the historic
peace churches, that of the Brethren* The Methodists and the Dis-
ciples were near the top; the Congregationalists and the Unitarians
in the middle; the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, and
the Lutherans in descending order at the bottom. As for the Catholics
some were doubtful whether in modern times the conditions of the
just war could be realized.
A third approach to the elimination of war was an effort to discover
alternate techniques which could be employed by the world com-
munity for the settlement of disputes between nations. One technique

was the erection of an international machinery of justice comparable
to that already existing within the framework of well-ordered states.
The World Court and the League of Nations received warm support
from many churches, in the hope that they would achieve this end.
Another alternative to war, which commended itself especially to
Christian pacifists, was the attempt to resolve conflicts by the exercise
of nonviolent pressure. The example and the comparative success of
Gandhi in the interval between the two world wars gave strong stimu-
lus to the exploration of the power of nonviolence.
215
The Assault on Liberal Optimism
A drastic shift in attitude was underway. It was rooted in the doc-

trine ofman. All of the programs war rested
for the elimination of
on the assumption that man is good enough and wise enough to
abolish war. Such confidence received a succession of shattering
blows. Karl Earth in Europe revived the Calvinist picture of human
depravity, and Hitler arose to illustrate it. The year before

the Nazi
accession to power in 1933, Reinhold Niebuhr in the United States
struck at naive optimism by reviving in Moral Man and Immoral
Society (1932) the essential features of Luther's tract On Civil Gov-

ernment. Luther had drawn a distinction between the little flock of
real Christians and the mass of nominal Christians. The one could
dispense with control, the other must be ruled by the sword. The
masses would never be genuinely Christian, hence the sword could
never be eliminated. Niebuhr's distinction was not quite the same.
He did not segregate believers into true and nominal Christians.
His point was rather that the very best of Christians act differently
as private individuals and as members of large groups. The moral in
both cases was that in public relations conflict would never be over-
come. Consequently restraint would always be necessary. The only
questions were how much restraint and how it should be exercised.
Here Niebuhr was scornful of the outlawry of war and much more
respectful of Gandhi's nonco-operation, but insistent that nonco-
operation was not nonresistance. It may have definite moral advan-
tages because it can be more readily controlled, does not so easily
alienate the one against whom it is directed, and leaves the door
open for a rational agreement. It may succeed under some circum-
stances,though not under others, and it does not preclude recourse
to violent action if the nonviolent should fail. The conclusion was
that war should not be ruled out as an ultimate recourse.
On the Brink
Hitler came into power in 1933 and initiated the sequence which
ran directly to the Second World War. Whether his adyent could
216
have been prevented, and whether after his accession the war could
have been averted are still questions for rueful speculation. The
Treaty of Versailles was certainly not as magnanimous and wise as
the Treaty of Vienna. Germany was saddled with immense repara-
tions on the ground that she was solely responsible for the outbreak
of the conflict. When the historians in the Allied countries later
came to the frank avowal that this was not the case, the treaty was not
in consequence revised. Actually, of course, the reparations were
never paid in full, but if only there could have been an open remis-
sion with a disavowal of the accusation of sole guilt, how gratifying
would have been the effect upon the German public mind, instead of
the course actually taken of continuing the demands for reparations
and financing the payments by American aidl 5
Another step which might have forestalled Gehenna would have
been sincerity in the matter of disarmaments. The Treaty of Ver-
sailles exacted disarmament of Germany and promised disarmament
on the part of the Allies. The exaction was executed, the promise
not fulfilled. Repeated disarmament conferences were abortive. In
1931 Bruning pleaded that if he could return to Germany with a real
pledge of disarmament on the part of the Allies, he could overcome

the Nazis. He was sent back empty-handed, to be removed by Von
Hindenburg and replaced by Von Papen who said that Germany
had "struck out the word pacifism from her vocabulary. Pacifism
. . .
cannot understand the old German aversion to death on a mattress."

Hitler understood it. When he followed swiftly, he still claimed that
what Germany demanded of the powers was equality in the matter
of armaments. It could be achieved by universal disarmament and
this he would accept or by the rearmament of Germany. If the
Allies would not agree to the one, he would grasp the other. This
he did.*
Even so, perhaps he might have been contained had not England
and France each hobbled the technique of the other. England wished
to Jet Germany up, France to hold her down. Had Germany been
permitted to rise by voluntary grant rather than in response to pres-

sures, Hitler would have been deprived of his most persuasive talk-
217
ing point. On the other hand, had there been prompt intervention
before Germany was rearmed, Hitler might have been held in leash.
But England impeded France, and France, England. They were all
7
playing the game of the balance of power, and it did not balance.
Hitler sought the unification of Europe by the revival, with even
greater brutality, of the way of Napoleon; unification by the hegem-

ony of one power. This England was bound to resist, because it
would destroy the balance. Hitler claimed that Germany needed
room to live. He set out to get it by robbing Russia and by expelling
and in the end exterminating the Jews. Never has there been a more
unmitigated exemplification of the slogan of Lord Fisher, "Ruthless,
8
Relentless, Remorseless."
The outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 demanded quick
decision by governments, peoples, and churches
what should be
as to
done and what could be justified. In England, endorsement of the
war was compounded of the resolve to defend the nation and the
empire and a determination to protect the minorities of Europe and
the decencies of life. British pacifists were driven to a re-examination
of their position, and not a few changed their minds. Maude Royden
summarized the new mood by citing the word of a man who said, "I
used to be a pacifist. I know now that I would rather go to hell for
fighting than have my son brought up to think that it was funny to
kick a Jew in the stomach." 9

Canada joined with Britain in the struggle. The United States,
spared by her geographic location and political independence from
immediate decision, watched and waited, trying to decide where her
interest and her duty lay. The government of the United States
moved stage by stage toward intervention in Europe and in the
East. Neutrality legislationwas repealed so that the opponents of
the Axis could buy munitions on a cash and carry basis. Supple-
mentary lend-lease was subsequently introduced. Economic pressure
on Japan commenced with the freezing of Japanese assets in the
United States as early as July 25, 194L Trade restrictions were
progressively applied until December 2, 1941, five days before Pearl

Harbor, the New York Times cited the report of the National In-
218
dustrial Conference Board that "J aPan has been cut off from about
75 per cent of her normal imports as a result of the Allied blockade."
Before hostilities were declared we were already so nearly embarked
on an undeclared war that the Saturday Evening Post on May 24,
1941, revised its noninterventionist editorial policy without retract-
ing a single argument in its favor, on the sole ground that the coun-
try was by this time too involved for retreat. "For the truth is that the
only way now to avoid the shooting, if it has not already begun, is to
repudiate the government."
The Drift Toward War

Public opinion in the United States was torn between sympathy
for Great Britain and the desire to stay out of the war. A Gallup poll
in February, 1941, registered 85 per cent in favor of abstention, yet
68 per cent would aid Britain even though war might be the out-
come. The opinion in the churches was not far different from that
in the country at large. The prevailing sentiment was for staying out
of the war but there was no absolute unanimity. The Episcopalians
were ready to support Britain; the Presbyterians were of divided
counsels; the Disciples were noninterventionist; while the Methodists
and the Congregationalists still reflected the strong pacifist sentiment
of the previous decade. Curiously, while the other Protestant
churches were veering toward war the Lutherans were detaching
themselves from their traditional adherence to the doctrine of the
just war. As
for the Catholics, a poll of 54,000 students disclosed 97
per cent opposed to our entry into the conflict.

Some of those who opposed participation contended like John
Haynes Holmes that the issues were not sufficiently clear because the
Allies bore a heavy burden of guilt for the outbreak of hostilities.
Others held the cause to be just but the means inappropriate. One
isnot to suppose, said they, that "after a long-drawn-out orgy of in-
discriminate killing people may be expected to think rationally
. . .
and act 10
justly/'
This entire analysis was most stoutly opposed by a group who
urged at first all aid to Britain short of war and in time came to favor
219
even military intervention. They rejected the characterization of
the war as merely a struggle between rival imperialisms. To speak in
such terms was to strain out the British gnat and swallow the German
camel. Granted that were tainted with sin, that all stood in need
all
of repentance, nevertheless there were still relative rights and rela-

tive wrongs, to distinguish between which was of extreme importance.
To be sure, the war might not establish democracy, liberty, and a
just and enduring peace. The only thing war can ever do is to re-
strain outrageous villainy and give a chance to build again. A victory
of the Allies would ensure none of the ideal ends which Christians
entertained, but a victory for the Axis would preclude them. And an
Axis victory could be prevented only by military strength. To suppose
that the patient endurance of evil would soften the heart of the wolf
was sheer nonsense. To talk of influencing history by bearing the
cross was to forget that the crucified is blotted out of the historical
process. If pacifist wished to take his stand upon an absolute, re-

a
gardless of consequences, he was on logically impregnable ground,
but let him not pretend by his stand to determine the course of
events, and above all let him not prate of the cross when by his very
abstention from the struggle he was not so much bearing the cross
11
upon the shoulders of others.
as fastening it
All such discussion was cut short in the United States by Pearl
Harbor. As usual in war, pacifism receded, though the recession was
far from complete. Three thousand ministers in the United States
enrolled in the Fellowship of Reconciliation to continue their pacifist
witness, and the membership of the society increased both in Britain
and in the United States after the outbreak of hostilities. By and
however, concerted opposition to the war had folded up. The
large,
main reason was that the Japanese attack had solidified the country.
Many Americans who had opposed intervention in Europe saw no
recourse after Pearl Harbor but to defeat Japan and Hitler too, since
he had followed suit. The Axis Powers certainly did their best to
provide for the United Nations all the normal conditions of the just
war. Many former pacifists argued that under the circumstances the
best way to further the peace was to finish the war.
220
No Crusade
place was not taken by a crusade

If pacifism largely collapsed, its
in which the knight could fight without qualm, assured that the
cause was holy, that God was with him and Christ beside him, and
that victory would be a triumph of the cross. Such a mood recurred
but slightly this time and chiefly in secular quarters. Practically
every church pronouncement was replete with the note of contrition.
A lone crusader like Stanley High was somewhat irritated that
"prayers for use in wartime fairly reek with penitence, and the sons
of God are being sent forth to war clad only in sackcloth." Paul
Ramsay reminded the mournful warrior that he had better not

"blubber over his gun-powder" but "get on with the shooting." 12
Such exhortations only reinforced the observation of Willard Sperry
that "we cannot recover either for better or for worse the feelings of
World War I for the needs of World War II"; we are no longer
wielding "the sword of the Lord and Gideon." The English, he said,
at the outbreak of the war thought of themselves sometimes as a
patient about to undergo a dangerous operation and sometimes as

the doctor who, by a slip of the scalpel "might infect himself with
the poison in the bloodstream of the patient." 13 Either way the atti-
tude was sober, matter-of-fact, and entirely unsentimental. No more
poignant exhibition of the prevailing mood could be found than in
the words of a Canadian minister who said, "this is the saddest war in
history. We are not jubilant, but infinitely dejected. There is not
a jot or atom of hatred in our hearts. . . . We
expect nothing from
this war except that everything sweet and precious will be crushed
out of life for most of us. Nevertheless, we could do no other." 14
The Just War Through a Glass Darkly
If pacifism and the crusade are excluded, the only position remain-
ing in historic Christian thought is the ethic of the just war. The
traditional concept of the just war had been subject to so much
criticism, and the incompatibility of its conditions with modern war
so cogently displayed that some Christians who rejected the other
221
two positions could not find a refuge here, however. Hence, the quest
for a fourth position was undertaken by the Christian Century. With
extraordinary sensitivity to the pressure of the contemporary, this

journal responded to the impact of the times. All the confusion in-
herent in the situation itself was vividly sensed: the all-engulfing
quality of modern war which draws to itself every constructive effort

despite the unwillingness of the contributor; the irrational character
of a struggle which embraces the globe though no people desire it;
the futility of the effort which vitiates the use of power for ideal
ends; the undisciplined quality of a force which brooks no restric-
tions impeding victory; the impersonal character of a fight in which
combatants strike the undiscriminating nature of
invisible foes;
weapons which smash alike arsenals and cathedrals and shatter equally
troop trains and air-raid shelters filled with children; the blindness
of a strife, the precise reasons for which may not become clear until
ten years after its termination; the complexity of a war where rival
imperialisms, nationalistic interests, and clashing ideologies criss-
cross inextricably on a loom shaken by shifting alliances, so that the
solemn pronouncements of one day appear ironic to the next. In
such a struggle, the Christian Century could discover no meaning
and no morality. This was not a just war; it was just war. We were
in the war, and none of us could get out. We should have to see it
through in a spirit of inexpressible grief.

This abdication of morality was due to concussion. When full con-
sciousness returned, the just-war theory was revived in terms of the
edge of justice. The case was well stated by Reinhold Niebuhr, who
protested against allowing contrition to obliterate moral distinctions.
"We do not find it particularly impressive," he wrote, "to celebrate
one's sensitive conscience by enlarging upon all the well-known evils
of our western world and equating them with the evils of the totali-
tarian systems. It is just as important for Christians to be discrimi-
nating in their judgments, as for them to recognize the element of

human endeavors." 15 John Bennett protested very strongly
sin in all
against making the soldiers regard themselves merely as "victims of

a common tragedy or of God's judgment. It would make a vast differ-
222
ence tomany of them if they could know that on what they do de-
possibility of justice and freedom of men everywhere/'
the ie
pends
The Ultimate Degradation of Warfare

In the meantime the moral problem was being accentuated by the
culmination of a process which had been underway for a century and
a half, namely the progressive degradation of warfare since the
eighteenth century. There was nothing essentially new in this de-

velopment, but rather a reversion to the methods of warfare which
had prevailed in the centuries preceding the eighteenth. Nor was
the subsequent decline due to any deterioration in Western man. On
the contrary, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have seen a
great increase in humanitarian feeling manifest in civilian life. The

eighteenth century was brutal in its treatment of criminals, under-
lings, and unfortunates; amusements; and in its sports. The
in its
modern age spends incredible sums to reclaim the reclaimable and

to keep alive the irreclaimable. There has emerged an ever widening
discrepancy between sensitivity in civilian relations and callousness

in military behavior.
Coleridge already observed it in the very last years of the eighteenth

century. Upbraiding his fellow Englishmen, he wrote that they were
unmindful of their mercies,
Thankless too for peace . . .

Secure from actual warfare, we have loved
To swell the war-whoop, passionate for war!
Boys and girls

And women, that would groan to see a child
Pull off an insect's leg, all read of war,
1*
The best amusement for our morning meal.
In the early twentieth century the Baroness Von Suttner observed

it. As she was crossing the Atlantic a vessel was sighted in flames. The
the rescue. The

ship on which she was a passenger at once raced to
burning vessel proved to be a derelict with none aboard. Had there
been so much as one passenger, what pains, what risk would have
223
been taken to save him! But when the next morning the Marconi
(the wireless) brought word of a blood bath at Port Arthur or
Mukden, it was only an interesting piece of news. 18
The war of etiquette prevalent in the eighteenth century is thought
by some to have been broken down by the struggle in the New World
with the Indians, whose code the white man adopted. One may
doubt, as a matter of historical fact, whether the Indians could teach
the white man anything on the score of cruelty and treachery. The
point is rather that when the French, the English, and the Spaniards
fought each other on the terrain of the new world, and with Indian
allies,they no longer lined up and said, "You shoot first, dear col-
league." The methods of the savages were taken over by the civilized
and turned against each other.
Another stage in the brutalization was marked by the American
Civil War, which differed from the European conflicts of the eight-
eenth century in two respects. In the first place, it was not organized
under strong monarchs able to pay and control their troops. In the
second place, to the eyes of the North it was a crusade. These two
factors may have contributed to Sherman's use of the scorched earth
technique in his march through Georgia. Said he, "War is hell, and
the way for the enemy to avoid it is to surrender. In Europe the
makers of modern Prussia were through with politeness. Clausewitz
said, "To introduce into the philosophy of war a principle of modera-
tion would be absurd. War is an act of violence pursued to the
uttermost." 19
The great change came through technology. New weapons pre-

cluded humanitarian restraint. The submarine could and did send
out a wireless as to the location of a stricken vessel, but it lacked ac-
commodation removal of the crew and passengers. Poisoned
for the
gas cannot be palliated. The blockade in the Middle Ages had been
applied usually to cities from which non-combatants were sometimes
permitted to withdraw before the commencement of the siege. Such
permissions could not be granted when the whole of Germany was
ringed around and the object was to break the war potential of the
populace,
224
In an earlier age sea powers like England had never refrained from
throwing cannon balls from ships into enemy ports, even though
civilians were killed. How much more deadly was this
procedure
when the missile was released not from the sea but from the air! The
First World War had seen the advent of the
airplane. It was then
used only to strike at troops and military installations. In the Second
World War it came to be used to break the morale and the resistance
of civilian populations. Strategic bombing was followed by oblitera-
tion bombing. The first step was taken by England as an extension
of the principle of naval bombardment. This is not to forget th,at
Hitler first bombed Warsaw and Rotterdam, where civilian popula-
tions were destroyed. His object was to pave the way
still strategic
for the entry of invading troops rather than to shatter civilian
morale. 20 Churchill, in January, 1940, stigmatized obliteration bomb-
ing as "a new and odious form of attack/' President Roosevelt, in
1939, before the United Statesbecame involved in the war, addressed
an appeal to the German and Polish governments in which he
affirmed that "the ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in un-
fortified centers of population . . . has profoundly shocked the con-
science of humanity. ... I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal
to every government to affirm its determination that its armed forces
shall in no event and under no circumstances undertake bombard-
ment from the air of civilian populations or unfortified cities." 21
In May, 1940, only five months after Churchill's excoriation of
"the new and odious form of attack," Britain, by an extension of her
old naval policy, gave to an aerial warfare a new turn in the bombing
of cities no longer to facilitate the movement of troops, but to
wreck the will to resist in the enemy population. Germany, in Septem-
ber, retaliated with attacks on Coventry and Birmingham. Churchill
informed the House, in 1942, that Germany was to be subjected to
"an ordeal, the like of which has never been experienced by any
country." A year later he declared, "There are no sacrifices we will
not make, no lengths of violence to which we will not go." 22
Vera Brittain in her book Seeds of Chaos documented the havoc:
"According to a member of the German Government Statistics Office
225
---fee-. - .-r -v
'
^g^r*"'*-
S=> 5==S>- -r-C w. -
;
' : . *r-\V
'. ,.*"-^V
NEPTUNE'S ALLY
(THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY CALLS IN A NEW ELEMENT
TO REDRESS THE BALANCE OF THE
OLD.)
Punch IN 1914 (MARCH 25) PICTURED WINSTON CHURCHILL AS

AEOLUS SUMMONING THE AIRPLANES TO THE AID OF NEPTUNE
; ''
J*^-~
**&.
THE DISHONOURS OF WAR

J
MARS: "I USED TO BE THE GOD OF BATTLE NOT BUTCHERY/

Copyright 1938 Punch,, London
Punch IN 1938 QUNE 15) PORTRAYED MARS REFLECTING RUEFULLY

ON THE BARBARITIES OF AERIAL WARFARE
in Berlin, 1,200,086 German civilians were killed or reported missing,
in air raids from the beginning of the
[most of them] believed killed
war up to October 1, says a Zurich message. The number of people
bombed out and evacuated owing to air-raid danger was 6,953,000."
human terms was described by a
Concretely what this meant in
witness of the bombing of Berlin who reported: "It was nerve-shat-
after the raids, crying continuously
tering to see women, demented
for their lost children, or wandering speechless through
the streets
with dead babies in their arms."

In Hamburg the heat was so intense that even in cellar shelters
bodies were incinerated more completely than in the process of cre-
mation. The hurricane of flame sucked to itself the oxygen from
surrounding regions so that many who escaped the fire died of suffo-
cation. Men, having greater power than
of resistance, suffered less
women and children. The loss of life at Hamburg was sixty times
greater than at Coventry.
To such wanton destruction for even
Churchill described the attacks only as an experiment not certain to
achieve a military objective some Britons were cynically indifferent.
In one district a children's competition was organized for the best
to be preferred for the bombs. Those
essay or poem on the target
more remote from the devastation in England were even more un-
feeling with regard to the bombings

in Germany. In distant Ontario
25
a blockbuster was inscribed as "a Christmas card to the Reich."
Nuclear Warfare
Then came atom bomb. The eyewitness descriptions of the

the
destruction, compounded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by aftereffects,
dwarfed even the accounts of the mass incinerations of Hamburg and
Dresden. Ten years later Mrs. Hizuine of Hiroshima reported:
"All of the houses were demolished. The crumbled and heaps of

walls
tiles stretched for many miles. Many people rushed from the centre.
Their bodies were burnt. Their skin was hanging down like rags. Their
faces were swollen to twice normal size. They were holding their hands
to their breasts. They were walking, embracing one another and crying
out with pain. Someone was walking, dragging something along. To my
228
it was his intestines. His stomach was
great surprise ripped open and it
came out and he was dragging it along without knowing what he was
doing. .
My eldest daughter had only two slight wounds. ... A month
. .
after the bombing she died. My second daughter had no wounds at all,
six years after the explosion, she told me about
but one day in July, pains
in the throat and shoulder and she said she could not walk very well.
She died six days after having been taken ill. "It is more than ten
years since the war was over,but the sufferings from the bomb have
not yet been cured/' 24
The world 'was shocked. Herman Hagedorn wrote:
In a splendor beyond any that man has known, the new age we have
***
claimed came to birth.
The brightness of its drawing was the fierce shining of three suns together
at noonday, shedding, for golden seconds, such beauty over the earth
as poets, painters, philosophers and saints have imagined and striven
in vain to reveal to man in symbols and parables.
And we used it to destroy a hundred thousand men, women and children.
What have we done, my country, what have we done?

Our fathers knew greatness.
What shall the shrunken soul do to fill out and be itself again?
Our fathers knew mercy.
What shall the wet stick do to burn once more? 25
The A bomb
has been followed by the H
bomb. The test at
Bikini affected twenty-three Japanese fishermen far beyond the range
of estimated radioactivity. They returned to land and were hos-
pitalized; a month after, radiation still appeared

in their urine. One
died after six months. The United States apologized, indemnified,
and prepared to test again.

In the meantime public feeling in this country has become so
narcotized that the sale of a soft drink can be advanced by calling it
a Hydrogen Bomb Ice Cream Soda.
229
Chapter 14
Past and Present
W HEN we cometo appraise the traditional Christian positions

with regard to the ethic of war we must bear in mind that the situa-
tions in confrontation with which they were originally conceived no
longer exist. The development of technology and the dehumanizing
of war have progressively excluded middle courses and narrowed the
range of choice. Two colossi now face each other each possessed of the
power to paralyze the other if not to liquidate the globe. Against
nuclear destruction there is no military defense. The experts are
agreed that intercontinental ballistic missiles cannot be completely
intercepted and only a few H
bombs would suffice to incinerate our
The Russians by a surprise attack could destroy, according to
cities.
some many as a hundred million persons in the United

estimates, as
Other estimates regard these figures as an exaggeration and
States.
would halve the sum, but even fifty million exceeds the population
of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Others again reassure us that even so we should not be disabled.
They point out that obliteration bombing against civilian popula-
tions did not destroy the military potential of either Germany or
Japan and now that we are forewarned, as they were not, we can take
preventative measures either by the dispersal of our cities or by re-
verting to the rabbit stage of civilization of living in holes in the
earth. We are not to forget, however, that the balance of weapons is
not static. Every new instrument of attack is followed by a new device
for defense, and if it is successful there is then a new instrument of
attack. When the atomic submarine succeeded in cruising beneath
230
PAST AND PRESENT
the seven seas and emerging undetected in Boston harbor, the
cry
was immediately for a counter contrivance, because the
assumption
is that
any newly invented weapon of attack will soon be in the
possession of the enemy. We must then invent a defense which will
also soon be in the hands of the enemy, and then we must both devise
a new means of attack. In the present instance should we succeed in
circumventing nuclear annihilation the enemy will shift to bacterio-
logical warfare, which is harder to ward off, because it can be directed
not only against men but also against cattle and crops. There may also
be a reversion to poison gas. The public, inarticulately aware of all
this, is actually not going underground, but, convinced that the only
defense is massive retaliation, is content to strew the floors of the
Florida seas with billions of dollars' worth of debris from experi-
mental missiles. We
are preparing ourselves likewise to retaliate
with bacteriological weapons with regard to which extensive research
is being conducted at Porton in
England, Suffield in Canada, and
Fort Detrick in the United States. In the meantime advance in
technology continually restricting our choices. Some of the mili-
is
tary experts are now telling us that a surprise nuclear attack would
incapacitate us for counterattack. Massive retaliation in that case is
already obsolete, and the only recourse is preventative war, to which
thus far our government has been unwilling to commit itself. 1
Some again seek to assuage our fears by the assurance that despite
nuclear weapons war can be limited* As a matter of fact there have
been seventeen limited wars since the Second World War. With this
in a study committee of the World Council of Churches advo-
mind
cated among the nations "the development of that discipline . . .
which will enable them to stop, even if necessary on the enemy's

terms, rather than embark on an all out war." 2 What this statement
overlooks is is possible only within the framework
that limited war
of unlimited war, unless, of course, both sides abandon major
weapons. If one side only renounces nuclear arms a war can be
limited only armed does not regard the issue as crucial.

if the better
Hanson Baldwin has well observed that if war is to be kept limited
the enemy must know that if he exceeds the limit we shall "clobber"
231
him. 8 To do this we must have the full panoply of nuclear arms in
reserve and we must be willing to use them. Kissinger, who has done
most to popularize the idea of limited war, recognizes that it must not
be "our only strategy. We
must maintain at all times an adequate
retaliatory force and not shrink from using it if our survival is threat-
ended." 4 Some Christians suggest that we might achieve our end by
bluff. 5 Weshould be prepared to retaliate, but resolved not to re-
taliate, but we should not let the enemy know that we would not
retaliate. This sounds like the practice of a Quaker merchant of the
eighteenth century who mounted on his ship wooden cannons. There

was, however, this difference. His cannon could not shoot. The sum
of the matter is that we have reached an impasse where the only
feasible military defense is massive retaliation, or if that be obsolete,
then preventative war. It we reject this possibility the alternative is
unilateral disarmament.
For this not ready. Neither are our churches. All
our nation is
exhibit divided counsels with an increasing readiness to follow the

lead of the state. Fear of the expansion of Communism, on the one
hand, and on the other, recoil before the ghastliness of the only
deterrent available, have prompted them to avoid unequivocal state-
ments.
At first obliteration bombing elicited shocked protests from Protes-
tants and Catholics. In the United States a group of twenty-eight
Protestant churchmen, pacifist and nonpacifist, issued a summary of
Vera Brittain's book with an appeal to Christian people to
examine themselves concerning their participation in this carnival of

death. ... In our time, as never before, war is showing itself in its logical
colors. In the First World War, some shreds of the rules of war were ob-
served to the end. Laws of war are intrinsically paradoxical; but so far as
they went, they bore witness to the survival of some fragments of a
Christian conscience among the combatants* But today these fragments
are disappearing. The contesting parties pay little heed to the former
decencies and chivalries, save among their own comrades. 6
The Christian Century commented: "If the war goes on, with obliter-
232
PAST AND PRESENT
ation bombing continuing wipe out whole regions and popula-
to
quite possible that in the hour of triumph the victors will

tions, it is
find that they have created so much destruction, so much hate, so
much misery, so much despair that the very well-springs of Occidental
life have been poisoned not only for the vanquished but the victors
also." f
For the Catholics in this country Father Ford, in 1944, came out
with an on "The Morality of Obliteration Bombing" in which
article
he declared that the moral line is to be drawn between precision

bombing of specific military objectives and indiscriminate area bomb-
ing with vast killing of noncombatants. The justification for such
warfare, said he, extremely flimsy. "Not merely the conscience of
is
humanity, not merely international law, but the teaching of Catholic

theologians for centuries, the voice of the Church speaking through
her Councils and through her hierarchy and through the Supreme
Pontiff down to the present day, uniformly insist on the innocence
and consequent immunity of civil populations." His conclusion was
that "Obliteration bombing, as defined, is an immoral attack on the
rights of the innocent. It includes a direct intent to do them injury.

Even if this were not true, it would still be immoral, because no pro-
portionate cause could justify the evil done; and to make it legitimate
would soon lead the world to the immoral barbarity of total war.
The voice of the Pope and the fundamental laws of the charity oi
8
Christ confirm this condemnation."
The use of atomic weapons as instruments of obliteration bombing
caused a new shock and brought forth renewed protest, Protestant
churchmen in the United States declared that even if the attack
could have been defended on grounds of military necessity:
We have never agreed that a policy affecting the present well-being of

millions of non-combatants and the future relationships of whole peoples
should be decided finally on military grounds. ... In the light of present
knowledge, we are prepared to affirm that the policy of obliteration
bombing as actually practiced in World War II, culminating in the use
of atomic bombs against Japan, is not defensible on Christian premises. 9
233
A footnote revealed, however, that some were unwilling to renounce
the restraint of aggression by the fear of reprisals.
The discussion has continued with a tendency to retrench. In 1950
a new Protestant commission rendered this judgment:
If atomic weapons or other weapons of parallel destructiveness are

used against us or our friends in Europe or Asia, we believe that it could
be justifiable for our government to use them with all possible restraint
to prevent the triumph of an aggressor. We come to this conclusion with
troubled spirits but any other conclusion would leave our own people and
the people of other nations open to continuing devastating attack and to
probable defeat.
In a dissenting comment Professor Calhoun observed that the "Chris-

tian conscience in wartime seems to have chiefly the effect ... of
1
10
making Christians do reluctantly what military necessity requires/
In 1947 the Catholic Association for International Peace no longer
visited upon atomic bombing the condemnation which Father Ford
had pronounced against obliteration bombing with conventional
weapons. The author assumed a situation in which the destruction
of the enemies' cities would be "absolutely necessary." If, for example,
the enemy had invaded our shores and could be repelled only by an
attack on his cities as the source of his productive capacity then "a
proportionate reason" would exist for using our bombs on his cities
"to preserve our country and our whole remaining people from
utter enslavement." 1X
Morerecently Cardinal Ottaviani has declared bellum ornnino
interdicendum, war is to be entirely interdicted, by which he meant
that is incampatible with the just war. He stressed the
modern war
principle of proportionate damage. A
just war is one in which the
foreseeable good exceed* the predictable evil. In modern war the
damage is entirely unpredictable. The popes have neither confirmed

nor repudiated this statement of the cardinal. 12
When the pope does not speak and the World Council contents
itself with no more than a statement of the dilemma, 13 the individual
Christian is left to make his own decision. As one among the multi-
234
PAST AND PRESENT
tude in this extremity I will now proceed to my own analysis and
conclusion.
Prior Assumptions
First, however, certain presuppositions must be declared as to
man, God, and morals. If man by his nature or destiny is doomed

to strife, war cannot be eliminated and modern war cannot be miti-
gated.
As man and his terrestrial destiny history has
to the nature of
something to say. The picture is mixed. When man ate of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil he became capable of rising above
the angels or of sinking lower than the brutes. He has been guilty of
bestiality, cruelty, and sadism. He has also exhibited nobility, self-

heroism, and martyrdom. Man in the aggregate has been
sacrifice,
continuously engaged in wars large and small and yet has made
notable achievements by way of peace in limited times and areas.
There have been examples of peace by conquest the Pax Romano,
of peace by concord as between the principalities in the Middle Ages,
the Italian city-states in the Renaissance, the modern national states
in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and most notably between
the United States and Canada with an unfortified and unguarded
frontier. There has been peace by federation as in the case of the
Swiss and the United States. No one of these instances exhibits per-
fection. Rome had occasionally to subdue revolts. The Middle Ages,
the Renaissance, and the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries could
be called peaceful only in comparison with our own time. Federation
did not prevent civil conflicts in Switzerland at the time of the
Reformation or between the American states in the Civil War. Never-
theless these periods were less lethal than our own. If it be said that
the past does not warrant hope for Utopia the reply may be that
without achieving Utopia we should be vastly better off could we
but recover the lost Atlantis.
If we consider Christian man
operating through the Church the
record again mixed. The
is Church has promoted peace and fomented
wars. The reason is partly the divergence of view with regard to the
235
ethical implications of the gospel. In part, however, it is due to the
abandonment of the gospel through coalescence with culture. The

Christian has simply done what his neighbors were doing and has
so far compartmentalized his religion as to be unaware of the dis-
crepancy. Thus churchmen have shared in the enslavement and ex-

termination of the aborigines. In other instances the instigation to
war on the part of the Church has arisen from the perversion of the
noblest in the Gospels. The concern for justice has led to cruelty
toward those deemed unjust, and love, untempered by respect, has
issued in meddlesomeness to the point of using the stake to save souls.
Yet, when the full indictment is in, one is not to forget that the
Church has never failed to pray dona nobis pacem, and in our own
day has made and making valiant efforts to avert the holocaust.
is
Some there are who take a gloomy view of man's predictable be-
havior not because his heart is bad but because his hands are tied.
Determinism exercises a persistent lure. A contemporary historian
commenting on Churchill's reference to the Second World War as
"an unnecessary war*' remarks: "Churchill probably would not deny,
however, that there is an overriding necessity in the course of history,
grounded not so muchin political events as in the moral and in-
tellectual fiber of nations and men/' 14 This observation is unques-
tionably sound if it means that a nation frenzied by war is scarcely

equal to the magnanimity requisite to prevent a recurrence. The
statement is true if it means that a given decision or series of decisions
may set up an ineluctable sequence from which there is no turning

back. George Kennan has said it well in his comment on what led to
Pearl Harbor:
I suspect that in the

developments leading to World War II in the
Pacific there must have been a dividing line between the phase when
something hopeful could still have been accomplished by our own efforts
and the phase when circumstances were beyond repair the point at
which sheer tragedy overtook human frailty as the determinant of our
misfortunes. But I cannot promise you that there was such a point, and
I certainly cannot tell you where it lay. 15
236
PAST AND PRESENT
The author avows his ignorance as to the location of the point of no

return, but concedes that there may have been an anterior point; this
concession is enough to destroy determinism.
Certainly history does not support the view of a necessary recur-
rence of wars in a cyclical pattern. Sorokin's graph of the frequency
of wars exhibits no periodicity, no predictability. There has never
Loo-
Xll XII! XIV XV XVI XVII XVUt XIX XX

MAGNITUDE BY CASUALTIES OF THE WARS OF EUROPE
(FRANCE, GREAT BRITAIN, AUSTRIA-HUNGARY, RUSSIA)
been a period without some war somewhere, but there has been great
1*
fluctuation in the frequency and magnitude of wars.
Admittedly the picture is not encouraging. The

most disturbing
observation is that social change is slow, and we cannot afford to be
slow. Furthermore if the future is not to be vastly worse than the past
it must be better. To pass from the Swiss and American federa-

vastly
union of the world, the abandonment of nationalism, the
tions to the
faiths and
surrender of sovereignty, the union of peoples of diverse
237
cultural patterns from the kraal to the Kremlin and the Pentagon
requires a social adjustment as great as the technological advance
from the javelin to the H
bomb. Man may not be equal to it. Perhaps
we are so trapped by our previous mistakes and crimes that we can
only play out the drama to its tragic end. We do not know. But history
does not preclude hope.
When we turn from man to God theological presuppositions appear
at first glance to be irrelevant. From every theological position di-
vergent ethical applications have been deduced. Theism undergirds

alike pacifism and the crusade. Atheism has been the creed of the
occasional pacifist Bertrand Russell and the militant revolutionary
Lenin. Humanism may solidify humanity in order to frustrate the
harshness of the universe, and gain humanism may become crusad-
ing against a foe devoid of humanity. Among theists the fatherhood

of God entails for some the brotherhood of man, but for others
brotherhood is restricted to the elect. Belief in immortality
has deterred bloodshed on the ground that premature death would
prejudice the lot of the soul in the hereafter, but the argument has
also been reversed because the death of the body cannot hurt the
soul.Appeal to the Bible is not determinative. Some look to the
Moses who slew the Egyptian and some to the Moses who for the sake
of his people asked to be blotted out of the book of life. Some imitate
the Christ upon the cross, arid some the Christ on the rainbow at
the judgment day. The expectation of the speedy coming of the
Lord has led some to quietism, others to revolution to hasten the
coming. The appeal to Christian love does not settle the case, because
ifGod be love, then love and killing cannot be incompatible, since
God in the end terminates every life, and often prematurely. The
irrelevance of theology may be inferred from the fact that when a
theologian, after an elaborate exposition of his principles, comes up

with a program of political action it is one which a can
secularist
endorse.
This is not to say that theology is irrelevant, but only that agree-
ment on a given course of action may be possible on the basis of vary-
ing assumptions. The assumptions are not unimportant and, if cir-
238
PAST AND PRESENT
cumstances alter, may lead to divergence. More to the
point is this,
that theological assumptions are not so ultimate as to be
solely de-
terminative for ethics. Morals have to do with men, and men have
to take each other into account whether or no there be a God. Any
theology which justifies the sacrifice of Isaac, the burning of Servetus,
or the incineration of a hundred million
persons in an act of massive
retaliation has gone wrong somewhere along the line.
Among the necessary assumptions for a Christian ethic as to war

and peace the most fundamental is the goodness of life. This affirma-
tion is implied in the Christian doctrine of creation. God made man.
God made man in his own image. God saw that his work was good.
God saw that it is not good for man to be alone and gave to him a
helpmate and told them to be fruitful and multiply. The denial of
the goodness of life and Manicheanism has been em-
in Gnosticism
phatically rejected by the Church. Life is good. But is life absolutely

sacred? Certainly one is not to regard one's own life as worthy to be
preserved at any cost. "He that loses his life shall save it." Neither
is the indefinite continuance of man on this
planet the chief end of
creation, for in the apocalyptic denouement the present order is to
pass away. The survival of man is neither to be despised nor to be

inordinately cherished.
May man take life? In the biological realm he has to. There life
lives from life, and man cannot live unless he consume either animal
or vegetable life. He must destroy germs and the carriers of germs
flies, fleas, mosquitoes, and rats. Schweitzer set up the principle of
reverence for life and averred that "ethical man shatters no ice crystal,
tears no leaf, breaks no flower, crushes no insect." But Schweitzer at
the same time recognized that man must kill to live. Yet in killing he
should be remorseful. "A good conscience is an innovation of the
devil." 1T Why should man feel remorse for the unavoidable? Why
might he not rather blame God for such necessities? To eschew
wanton killing is certainly sound, but reverence for life compels
some killing, for without killing there can be no life.
This applies to the lower orders. But may man kill man? God
obviously takes the life of man, but God may do so because
he gives
239
life. The creature not to usurp the office of the Creator. This is
is
the principle on which our hospitals are conducted, and there we

exhaust every resource of medical skill to keep life going even at a
vegetative level, whereas in war we squander the choicest of our
youth.
The distinction, we are told, lies here, that life ceases to be sacred
when it menaces life. Life may be taken to protect life. The plea is
not specious and was pointedly posed in recent years for a divinity
student who at the outbreak of the Second World War declined
professional exemption and refused to register. In consequence he

served a term in the penitentiary. After his release and the completion
of his ministerial training, he went outa missionary to India and
as
arrived at the time when the Hindus were massacring the Moslems.
The latter were seeking only to escape but at the very railway stations
were mowed down by the Hindu police.

Corpses were piled up by the
thousands and were carried away in trucks. Two occurrences con-
tributed to the restoration of order. The first was the assassination
of Gandhi, which sobered the Hindus and demonstrated the reality
of "soul force." The second was the arrival of Christian troops ready,
if need be, to fire upon the Hindus. This missionary conscientious
objector said that he had reached the point where he would prefer
martial law to sheer chaos.
In this situation the restoration of order might have taken some
lives. To justify such action means that one does not subscribe to an
absolute nonresistance. It means that the command to turn the other
cheek is not an absolute when it is somebody else's cheek. It means
that the command "Thou shalt not kill" is also not an absolute. It
means that the police protection which Paul accepted is not ruled
out. To concede all of this is not to justify war, however, because
war not an act of protection, except incidentally. Primarily it is
is
self-vindication without due process of law. Those Christian troops

who came to halt the Hindus were intrinsically policemen, acting not
in their own cause and with no intent other than to restrain violence.
Under such circumstances incidentally the amount of violence they
240
PAST AND PRESENT
would have to exercise be minimal. Men do not wage implac-
would
able warfare against those who are not
seeking to harm them. In the
quelling of riots tear gas commonly suffices. Here technology has
assisted the reduction of violence. There is a further difference in
that the numbers involved were fewer than in war, and therefore the
Christian ideal of handling offenders as individuals with an eye to
reclamation could be more nearly achieved. One of the most serious
indictments of modern war is that it deals not with men but with
millions.
The question may be raised as to what is to be done in a frontier
situationwhere no police force exists. Are vigilantes then justified?
Here one observes that in history the establishment of orderly gov-
ernment has been achieved by the coincident operation of two forces,
on the one hand by the consolidation of power and on the other by
the renunciation of power. Kings have built up monarchical author-
ity and have suppressed baronial feuds and highway brigandage.

Monks at thesame time have given an example of living in accord
with a different scale of values, renouncing much of that for which
men fight. One is tempted to say with Luther that God operates in
history with a left hand and a right. The first is the consolidation of
power, the second is the relinquishment of power. Note that on the

frontier the achievement of orderly government was not so much the
work of the vigilantes as of men who came to see that the only way
to end disorder was voluntarily to remove the gun from the chimney
piece and the revolver from the holster. Those in recent years who
have argued that the only way to win world government was first
to defeat all of the opponents of world government may come to see
that a surer way is the voluntary renunciation of the means of self-
defense. .
When we turn from the view of man and God to a consideration of

morals we may spell out the ethical implications of these assumptions,
but our position cannot well be deemed Christian if it leave out of
account the teaching of the New Testament. There are those today,
even among Christians theologians, who are averse to an appeal either
241
to its precepts or principles. The ethical teaching of Jesus is con-
sidered inapplicable because it was conditioned by the expectation
of the speedy end of the age. This point has already been considered.
Again an appeal to the sayings of the Master is excluded because we

cannot be sure of what he said. If this be granted we may still turn
to Paul, who also had the mind of Christ. The deepest source of
reluctance arises from an aversion to all legalism so that even princi-
ples are rejected in favor of inspired hunches, and the Christian ethic
comes be devoid not only of predictability but even of coherence.
to
By way of comment let it be said that one finds it difficult to call an

ethic Christian which takes no account of the ethical precepts and
principles of the New Testament. To be Christian an ethic must

posit and seek to implement in proper balance love, justice, the in-
tegrity of the self, and the integrity of the other person even should
he be the enemy.
The Critique of the Tradition as to the Crusade

In the light of these assumptions we may now turn to an appraisal
of the traditional positions. A
beginning may be made with the cru-
sade which is not simply to be brushed aside as it so often is today
by those whose primary objection is to enthusiasm of any sort. Such

chastened sobriety precludes a crusade for peace as well as a crusading
war! After all, there is something to ponder in the remark of R. H.
Tawney, "War is ought to be so over-
either a crime or a crusade/* It
whelmingly right as to be manifestly the will of God or else not right

at all. One can think of wars which might fit the formula. Had there
been a war for the purpose of saving the Jews, undertaken with-
sole
out reference to any national advantage for the participants, such

a war, if any, might have been called holy. Had there been a war to
save the Hungarians from suppression by Russia and only for that,
one might have felt that the condition was fulfilled. But the Second
World War was not undertaken to save the Jews, and the war for
Hungary was never undertaken at all. One
thinking here in any
is
case only of the intention, because in fact modern war could not have
242
PAST AND PRESENT
saved either. The Hungarians would have been incinerated in the
explosion ignited by their defenders.
The crusade suffers from the assurance not to say the arrogance of
all elitism. It is the war of a
theocratically minded community which
seeks to impose the pattern of the Church
upon the world. The saints
are to rule. They are the elite. One difficulty is to determine with any
surety who are the elite and to be sure that they will remain elite
after having become elect. The crusade is furthermore
dangerous be-
cause it down such restraint as can be placed upon the carnage
breaks
of war. The enemy being beyond the pale, the code of humanity
collapses. The crusade is dangerous again because it impedes the
making of a magnanimous peace. Those who have fought in a frenzy
of righteousness against the enemies of God or of the democratic
way of life are disposed to demand unconditional surrender, thus

prolonging resistance by their refusal to state terms. The crusader is
severely tempted to arbitrariness in the final settlement, for the mood

of holiness leads to the punishment of war criminals by the victors
under the trappings of impartial justice. At Nuremberg
fictitious
Field Marshall Keitel, Chief of the German staff, was hanged for
carrying out the orders of a civilian government. That among those

executed some had been guilty of violating the traditional code of
war cannot be gainsaid, but why were not the Russians punished for
the murder of some fifteen thousand Polish officers in the Katan
Forest? Why was no action taken against Churchill for unleashing
an aerial bombardment against Hamburg; or against Truman for
use of atomic bombs without warning on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
This is not to say that they should have been hanged, but rather
all
that it were better had none been hanged. The victors in war cannot
administer disinterested justice, and least of all is this possible in the
case of a crusade. 18
The point need not, however, be labored further because since
the
First World War there has been a revulsion against crusading.
Christians who undertake to justify modern war do so through an
attenuated version of the doctrine of the just war, which requires
therefore a lengthier consideration.
243
As to the Just War

The first stipulation of the just-war theory is that the war must
be conducted under the auspices of the state. As we have frequently

seen, this theory confronts great difficulty when applied to a revolu-
tion, but this defect is not troublesome in the United States where
revolution is relegated to the cult of the ancestors except in the
case of a revolt against our rivals, for we abet abroad what we sup-
press at home. Under the totalitarian states, however, the morality
of tyrannicide has again become acute. Certainly one cannot with-
hold respect and admiration from those idealists who risked and gave
their lives in the attempt to eliminate Hitler. Particularly tragic was
the figure of Goerdeler who, while working with the conspirators,
constantly exhorted them to avoid violence, hoping that Hitler might

yet be open to persuasion. When the plot failed and the conspirators
were caught, Goerdeler took full responsibility for the course from
which he had sought to dissuade his associates. For months prior to
his execution he ruminated in solitary confinement, with mingled
feelings of regret and remorse over the plans which had failed and
the method which should never have been attempted. 19 One finds
it hard to
pronounce any word of condemnation against those who
acted in such complete self-effacement, but one may wonder whether,
had they succeeded, they might not also have failed.
One of the prime requisites of the just-war theory is that the war
shall be just on one side only. The determination of this point calls
for an impartial court of judicature which does not and never has
existed. Without it not even the information essential for a judgment
is available. The intervention of the United Nations in the Korean
conflict is
frequently cited as an exception. Yet a decade later dispute
continued as to whether the North or the South Koreans first crossed
the line. 20 If ten years afterward the very facts are controverted how
could they at the time have been self-evident?
Most Christian adherents of the just-war theory have given up the
claim to exclusive justice, and now maintain only an edge of justice.
One would not be disposed to confute this claim. In any war, victory
244
PAST AND PRESENT
for one side may be preferable to that of the other, but whether
modern war can vindicate that edge of justice is another question
and one of very great moment.
The protection of small states is the least contestable form of the
edge of justice, provided of course that the protector is disinterested.
We do well to remind ourselves that protection often imperils the
protected. A historian of the Second World War made this state-
ment: "An astonishing and ironic revelation regarding the campaign
in Greece has been made since the war by the Greek Commander in
Chief, General Papagos. The Greeks actually asked Britain not to
send help, feeling that it would be too small to be effective but
enough to attract Germans like a magnet. Britain insisted in order
not to lose face." 21
Again, any good which may be accomplished by intervention needs

to be set over against the damage inflicted. In the case of Korea,
here is the account of an eyewitness:
Some seemed to us of pure enchantment, the tiles

of these villages
of the roofs upcurled at eaves and corners like the toes of oriental slippers,
while the poorer cottages lay under heavy grey thatches which seemed to
embrace them. And in these villages, too, the women wore bright colours,
crimson and the pale pink of watermelon flesh, and vivid emerald green,
their bodies wrapped tightly to give them a tubular appearance, while
mothers suckled their young from full breasts swinging free beneath a
kind of apron, giving them a most curious appearance.
In the early hours of the following day, the airfield of Kimpo was
captured, and when I came this way again, an infantry division had
moved up to take over from the marines and had fanned out south and
east. The brief respite had ended in death. The bright colors were gone
from field and female under dust and pall. No longer the scarlet of
pimentos, no longer the vivid green and crimson of silken dothes.
Now
the villages smoldered in the hollows and old men sat at the roadsides
with the knowledge that the deluge of war, which had seemed for the
moment to have passed them by, might now overwhelm them.**
When one turns to the conduct of of every modern war,

this and
the gravest ethical difficulties are encountered, for the more war has
improved at the point of technology, the more has it deteriorated

at
245
the point o moral discrimination. The code of the just war calls for
the sparing of noncombatants. Today not even children are im-
mune. At the time of Mussolini's Abyssinian adventure a speaker
in the United States defended resort to military sanctions. in-An
quirer put to him a question, "Would you then bomb Rome and
kill women and children?" "Why not?" he retorted. "Isany more life
sacred because it is young?" The answer must, of course, be no. Life

is not more sacred because it is young, but it is less responsible. Civil
law has developed to the point of making a distinction between the

juvenile and the mature offender, between the sane and the insane.
War obliterates all such distinctions. Modern war certainly cannot
be squared with the code of the just war.
For the Christian the most uncompromising demand of his tradi-
tional ethic is that a war to be just must be fought in the spirit of
love. The question then arises whether this is possible, whether it is
actual. It is not impossible. There are those who fight in a spirit of
inner desolation combining a sense of guilt with a sense of duty. They
entertain only pity, not rancor, for the foe whom they must repel
using the weapons which this age has imposed. Those who fight in
be found, but they are few.
this spirit are to
Again, there are those who fight without emotion, particularly if

they never see the foe if their task is to pull the levers of remote
controls, to release bombs in darkness, or to fire rockets over the
horizon. These lads have a job to do and they are out to get it done
without griping and without hate.
There are again those who do see the enemy, as in the trenches
during the First World War. They see that he, too, is in the rain,
the mud, and the gore and there arises a fellow feeling for "old
Fritz.* The attitude is fatalistic. The poor dogs on both sides have
1
been impressed into a service which they loathe and from which
they cannot escape, but they will just have to go on killing and being
killed till the bloody mess is over.
The possibility of killing in love is remote in the frenzy of battle
when passions are unleashed and hate becomes the slogan. The so-
called "beasts" at West Point are trained to work themselves up to
246
PAST AND PRESENT
maniacal combativeness.What happens in combat was described by
an American soldier who had seen forty months of active warfare
culminating in Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway? We shot

prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or
mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the
dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off
enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their
bones into letter openers. We topped off our saturation bombing and
burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly
defenseless cities, thereby setting an alltime record for instantaneous mass
slaughter.
As victors we are privileged to try our defeated opponents for their
crimes against humanity; but we should be realistic enough to appreciate
that if we were on trial for breaking international laws, we should be
found guilty on a dozen counts. We fought a dishonorable war, because
morality had a low priority in battle. The tougher the fighting, the less
room for decency; and in the Pacific contests we saw mankind reach the
blackest depths of bestiality.
Not every American soldier, or even one per cent of our troops,
deliberately committed unwarranted atrocities, and the same might be
said for the Germans and Japanese. The exigencies of war necessitated
many and the bulk of the rest could be blamed on the
so-called crimes,
mental distortion which war produced. But we publicized every inhuman
act of our opponents and censored any recognition of our own moral
23
frailty in moments of desperation.
Lord John Fisher very well took care of love in war when he said:
The humanizing of War! You might as well talk of the humanizing

of Helll When Hague got up and talked about the
a silly ass at the
amenities of civilized warfare and putting your prisoners' feet in hot water
and giving them gruel, my reply, I regret to say, was considered totally
unfit for publication. As if war could be civilizedl Jf I'm in command
when war breaks out I shall issue my order:
"The essense of war is violence.
"Moderation in war is imbecility.
"Hit first, hit hard, and hit everywhere." 24
247
There are Christians who concede all of this, yet contend that
battle frenzy is not really hate and that soldiers who have so behaved
can be decent as an army of occupation. The point has some validity,
but one should not exaggerate the benevolence of an army of occu-
pation. Since the days of the Assyrians, it has never been a charitable
institution, and the fraternization tends to be too largely directed to
the female population.
One may conclude that although a war may be fought in sorrowful
love, it can never be won in this mood. Those who entertain such a
disposition are few,and wars are the affairs of the masses. To beat
the enemy one must use the scum of one's own population. The
Christian in war cannot win without the aid of obnoxious allies. He
does not endorse their behavior but he cannot dispense with their
assistance and he becomes therefore in a measure guilty of their
crimes.
As to Pacifism
If the crusade and the just war are rejected as Christian positions,
pacifism alone remains. The writer takes this view. A

distinction
must here be made between varieties of pacifism. There is a Chris-
tian pacifism of renunciation and a secularist pacifism of prudence.
The Christian pacifism is not a strategy but a witness. Conscientious
objectors have never been numerous enough to stop a war. Between

the two wars the hope appeared not unrealistic that they might at-
tain sufficient strength to apply an effective brake. They failed and
there appears to be even less likelihood of success in our own day.
The churches are certainly not disposed to commit themselves as
churches to war resistance. Moreover a much more extensive move-
ment would be necessary now than formerly to impede a war because
at present twenty-five men possessed of modern weapons could launch
an attack and all nonparticipants would wake up to find themselves
either dead or in it. As for the impact of martyrdom on public
opinion, one never knows. The scaffold may sway the future, but it
may also be buried in oblivion.

At the same time there is the possibility of a new variety o pacifism
248
PAST AND PRESENT
which may attain large proportions, and that is a pacifism of
pru-
dence, based on the desire for survival. Such a movement may start
not from Christians addicted to the Sermon on the Mount but from
generals averse to futility. The two types of pacifism would largely
coalesce as to their program. Their day is not
yet, however, and in
the meantime we have the questions, shall small
groups of Christians
espouse a pacifist view, and by so doing would they render them-
selves irrevelant?
The indictment of the pacifist is summed up in the charge that he
is motivated by the desire to preserve his personal purity and fails
to see that the price of purity is irrelevance as the
price of relevance
is
corruption. We shall discuss first the claim that he is motivated by
a concern to appear before God with clean hands and a pure heart.
Personal purity is not the point, but rather the purity of the cause.
The pacifist is fearful that, if in withstanding the beast he descend
to themethods of the beast, he will himself become the beast, and
though the field be won the cause will be lost.
The
charge continues that by seeking to be pure the pacifist be-
comes irrelevant and this indictment is thought to hold whether the
purity in question be that of the person or the cause. The assumption
is that involvement entails corruption,
particularly political involve-
ment because power necessarily corrupts. Yet the exercise of power
is essential to the attainment of justice. Consequently to ensure
justice one will have to be corrupted. Therefore let one regard cor-
ruption as the supreme sacrifice, the sacrifice of one's virtue for the
common good. Such an analysis requires scrutiny. It is faulty at the

outset in the unqualified assertion that power corrupts. As a matter
of fact the wielders of power have not infrequently been men of high
integrity. If power corrupts, so also does weakness.
Existence corrupts.
Life in association with other beings corrupts. That was why
human
the monks went There
to the desert. they discovered that solitude
corrupts and returned. In every aspect of our living
we are sinners
before God, but not therefore criminals before men. It will not do
from the divine perspective to reduce all human behavior to a uni-

form level of sinfulness and then to say that the purity of the ideal
249
should be abandoned because we must sin that justice may abound.
Nor is it true to say that we do sin in doing that which must be
done that justice may abound. We may sin in the doing of it, but
that which must necessarily be done is not of itself sinful. It may

be distasteful; it may be revolting. To be bound to see it through in
that case not sin but tragedy.
is
The indictment continues that the pacifist by his abstention, what-

ever his motive, actually makes himself irrelevant. Justice requires
action. In every circumstance something has to be done. What can
be done may be far from the ideal but under the circumstances it
is the best alternative. To hold out for the absolute means to forfeit
the relative good. To this the reply may be that to elect the relative
may be to forfeit the absolute. There are circumstances in which the

highest relevance is irrelevance. During the Nazi period, for ex-
ample, in Germany a school superintendent joined the party because
by thus securing his position he could protect his subordinates from
party interference and might also be able to mitigate the rigors of the
regime. The motives of such a man are not lightly to be impugned.
His discernment and his relevance may be questioned. He who
adopted this course did not succeed in protecting subordinates, did
not mitigate the behavior of the party, and after the war was ex-
cluded from the reconstruction. In the sequel he made himself ir-
relevant.
To from the course of action adopted by the
dissociate oneself
party or the nation not irresponsible or craven. Americans are

is
perhaps less ready than other peoples to recognize this point because
of the system of government in which the president is expected not
to resign but to finish his term, even though he may have lost the
support of Congress and the country. If he remain in office he must
then either stymie legislation or stifle his conscience and implement
the public will. In Britain this dilemma cannot arise because a gov-
ernment which has lost the confidence of the House must resign, and
the resignation of a cabinet member who dissents from his colleagues
is deemed honorable.
The final and most telling criticism against the pacifist is that by
250
PAST AND PRESENT
his refusal to destroy the
oppressor he abandons the oppressed, be-
cause there are circumstances in which military intervention may
terminate tyranny. One answer to this reproach is pragmatic, that
military intervention by the nation-state without due process of law
normally impedes rather than aids the vindication of justice. The
other answer is the admission of circumstances in which the refusal
to employ violence may bring hurt to others and even to one's own
family. Yet the protection even of one's own family cannot be an
ultimate. The principle is recognized in war that if a civilian to
protect his family shoots a soldier he will thereby unleash reprisals
against an entire population. If the resister to tyranny, in order to
protect his family, ceases to resist, all resistance may fold up, because
the tyrant well knows how to exploit the love of family to quell
resistance. The
choices which confront the pacifist are almost as
grim as those which confront the soldier, and he is not to delude

himself by supposing that by his stand he can avoid inflicting all
hurt. Yet, if he dissociates himself from the use of war to advance a
cause however noble he is not for that reason irresponsible, and he

may not be irrelevant.
251
Ckpter 15
What Then?
JL HE pacifist must dissociate himself from war. He need not

therefore dissociate himself from all political life. The Quakers have
not done so. Pacifists agitate for legislation looking toward the elimi-
nation or mitigation of war. Critics claim that they have no business

to do so. If they would be pacifists, let them be pacifists, but let them
not presume to give advice to statesmen operating on nonpacifist
principles. This word of the modern critic is a revival of the gibe of
Celsus that the Christian must either participate fully in political
the point of war or else give up marriage and parenthood and
life to
retire to the desert. Thus the only valid pacifism is monasticism. No

middle ground can be found or conceded. Until recently the Men-
nonites, as we have seen, have agreed, but not the Quakers.
The line lies between politics and war, and it is not an easy line to
draw because politics is so involved in war, and peace itself may be
waged with an eye to war. John Bright located his middle ground by
serving in Parliament but not on the cabinet, but the Quakers in
Pennsylvania found themselves constrained to resign from the legis-
lature. They were guided by two principles. One was opposition to
war, and the other was respect for the consciences of those who did
not renounce war. The element of fair play was and is involved. If a
nation is committed to war as an ultimate recourse it must at all
times be ready for war, and it is hardly fair for those who do not
approve of war so to impede the preparation that, if it comes, those
who do believe in it will be so ill prepared as to suffer defeat. If then
252
WHAT THEN?
a military appropriation is to be voted in time of
peace the pacifist in
a legislative assembly, if he does not resign, should at any rate abstain
from voting.
This does not mean that he cannot oppose any military appropria-
tion or that he cannot vote against involvement in any
particular
war. John Bright opposed every war in which England was engaged
during his lifetime, not on Quaker principles but on grounds of
public policy. There are wars that are indefensible on every count,
and there aremilitary appropriations so excessive as to imperil the
peace through the fear and counter measures which they inspire in
the enemy state. A
nonpacifist liberal will oppose such appropria-
tions and a pacifist legitimately join him in so doing.
may A
pacifist,
then, may participate in politics as a liberal rather than as a pacifist.
Natural Law and a Program for Peace

At the present juncture there is more need for peace than there is
for pacifism. If peace is preserved it will be through the efforts not of
pacifists, but of peace-minded nonpacifists, who do not renounce war
absolutely, but who oppose war in our time on grounds of the hu-
manitarian and the pragmatic. The question then comes to be, what
are the lineaments of a peace program on which those with differing
presuppositions can make common cause? This will depend of course

upon the ethic espoused by the national state and by the world com-
munity. The
highest ethic which one cajri expect for the state is the
ethic of natural law. For the Church one has a right to assume the
ethic of the gospel, however interpreted. The two in large measure
will coincide, but they may also clash; natural law recognizes the
principle that force may be repelled by force, whereas the gospel, if

not entirely excluding this principle, certainly inculcates a spirit of
concession and even of renunciation.
The great natural-law tradition rests on the premise of rationality
in man. This is not a popular doctrine in our day when reasonable-
ness decried alike in philosophy, theology, and ethics. Yet the irra-
is
tional is a counsel of humanicide, and if we do not as intelligent
beings appraise our situation and act with sanity in applying

con-
258
trols, we not be capable much longer of acting even irrationally.
shall
In any case, however men behave, the Christian in addressing his
fellows and especially statesmen, must proclaim sanity, even though
again he be only a John the Baptist raving to the ravens.

The second ingredient in the natural-law tradition is universality.
The law of nature is intelligible to all men and binding upon all
peoples. It must have regard to the welfare of all and is therefore
incompatible with any ethic conceived in terms of national self-
interest. Yet there are today many among us who assume that self-
interest and should be the primary concern of the state. This judg-
is
ment rests on the distinction between private and public morality.

Man, we are told, is moral; society is immoral. This is, of course, a
pedagogical exaggeration. Some men criminals, for example are
vastly less moral than society. The point is that society includes every-
body and the morality of society must therefore be average. It is not
so low as that of the scoundrel, nor so high as that of the saint.
There is, however, another and more valid distinction which is not
exactly that of public and private. It is the distinction between the
way in which one may legitimately act when involved for oneself
alone and the course to be taken when one is responsible for others.
A man can be more reckless in sacrifice if only he will suffer. This
means that all those who by their acts involve others must behave
soberly including not only statesmen, but also business executives,
college presidents, and fathers of families. Luther at this point classi-
fied fathers with magistrates and placed both in the category of public
life. Still there is a difference between the statesman and the father.
The statesman simply cannot commit his people to sacrifices which
they are not ready to undertake. If for himself he must take another
course, then as statesman he must resign. But a father cannot resign
from being a father. If for himself alone he should refuse military
service or resist a dictator or a totalitarian regime, not only may he
be crushed, but his family may suffer reprisals. The ethical dilemmas
of what we thus even greater than in the public
call private life are
domain, but our concern here is with the public. The point is simply
to indicate that any sharp demarcation between private and public
254
WHAT THEN?
is excluded. Each has its own particular problems and neither is
exempt from moral restraints.

In the realm of public affairs we are frequently told today that a
nation does act and should act only in its own interest. 1 This view is
being taken not only by secularists but also by Christian theologians.
Their attitude from a reaction against the pretentious
results
altruism, the
lofty do-goodism, the unctious moralism, which
prompted us to commit Japan and Germany to the renunciation of
arms and then in short order to force upon them rearmament. When
their military assistance was necessary for our own security, we jet-
tisoned the commitments which we had imposed upon them. We
should have been less hypocritical had we never exacted what we
were not prepared to adopt. The point is well taken that candor is
to be preferred to cant, but candor can be achieved in either of two
ways by speaking as badly as we behave or by acting as finely as

we pretend.
The pursuit of self-interest is highly precarious. Some assume that
if it be sought by all, out of the ensuing clash a balance will emerge
and an approximation to justice. This outcome is by no means self-
evident. The two great rivals of the moment could easily divide the
world into spheres for exploitation. A variant justification for the
pursuit of self-interest is that we do not know enough as to the

genuine interest of other peoples to take them into account. If this
word is intended as a censure of our attempts to impose our culture 2
upon others the point is well taken. If it means that we are to act
entirely without regard to the welfare of others, the statement is not

true and the conclusion is not wise. Surely we know that it is not to
the interest of others to suffer the expropriation of their territory, to
be excluded from waterways and access to raw materials, to have their
commerce wrecked by prohibitive tariffs, and the like. Already we
are so interlocked with others that a tremor at the Pentagon causes
a quiver at the Kremlin. We can no more pursue our national interest
in isolation than Pan-American Airlines can plot their courses with-
out regard to the routes of the Scandinavian, British, French, Italian,
255
German, and Swiss lines. Nothing is more to the interest of us all
than the elimination of war.
Ways to Peace
The first, the most obvious, and the most imperative step in that
direction is world disarmament. One could wish that our nation
would disarm unilaterally. One could wish that the churches would
urge such a course. There seems to be little likelihood that our na-
tion will do so or that the churches will ask it. We shall probably
muddle and spar precariously until the tensions are eased, provided
in the meantime someone does not inadvertently pull the wrong
In urging disarmament one must, however, not forget that it
lever.
would entail perils and drastic rearrangements in our way of life.
Were we to strip ourselves of all defense the Communists might ex-
tend their sway. On
the other hand they might with sincere relief
turn their efforts to industrial production and relax their grip on
However that may be, the dismantling or con-
the satellite countries.
version of armament plants would cause a huge dislocation of in-
dustry among ourselves and extensive preparations would need to be

made in advance for new industries by way of replacement. 8
World government is most heartily to be desired, and it does not
exist. The United Nations is "a debating society with wide reverbera-
4
tions." It serves also as a fact finding body and affords an oppor-
tunity for informal exchanges between diplomats. We are not to
labor under the illusion that it is immune from the power struggle;
nor, on the other hand, are we to belittle its influence, which would
be greatly enhanced if all de facto governments were included. 5
In the United States foreign aid is frequently regarded as a device
for winning friends and averting war. Its effectiveness as an expedient
for making friends is not to be exaggerated. It may also make enemies.
We cannot give to all and if the chosen are grateful, the rejected may
be resentful. Again a gift long continued comes to be assumed and
withdrawal may be considered a grievance. The recipients again will
not be impressed by our altruism if we employ foreign aid as a
device for disposing of the surplus products of an economy of waste
256
WHAT THEN?
and will be suspicious if we attach to our
gifts any political commit-
ments. The real function of foreign aid is to assist economic
global
stability, which is conducive to peace. 6
Cultural exchange is often regarded as a way to
promote under-
standing and diminish tensions. It is certainly not to be despised,
discouraged, or diminished, but neither are we to expect too much

from it. There was cultural
exchange in abundance between the
nations of Europe during the nineteenth century but this did not
prevent the First World War. A

common language and a common
culture have not prevented civil wars in England, the United States,
and Spain. Let us by all means seek to know our neighbors, remem-
bering however that the more we get together the happier we shall
not necessarily be.
Some especially pacifists look to "nonviolence" as a way to
combat injustice and to provide a substitute for war. Here we must
bear in mind that nonviolent resistance has two objectives. The first
is to coerce the
opponent into compliance through pressures mainly
economic. Gandhi's boycott of British cotton goods was of this order.
It differed no whit in principle from any other boycott and re-
sembled weapon. Nonviolent resistance of this

also the strike as a
sort is preferable to war because more amenable to moral control,
and less likely to produce those passions which impede and preclude
a generous peace. The other object is to persuade. Gandhi's fasts
sought to persuade his followers to be disciplined and his opponents
to yield. This method sometimes succeeds, sometimes fails. The Brit-
ish allowed the Irishman Sweeney to starve himself to death in prison
and did not give in, at least not at the time. Vinoba Bhave's program
of sharing the land operates only by persuasion and is not resistance,
save to human nature. He has had an astonishing success in inducing
landlords voluntarily to divide their holdings. Whether their motive
is philanthropy or sagacity in forestalling an otherwise inevitable ex-
propriation, the success of the effort is

an eloquent proof that men
are amenable either to sanity or benevolence and perhaps to both.
Nonviolence in Africa presents a varied pattern. A
report in 1957
declared that in South Africa, where it had been used, the feeling
257
was better but the concessions less than in Kenya with terrorization.
Since then Kenya has become independent and violence has broken
out in South Africa, In the French resistance movement the issue
was complicated since the common cause, to save the Jews, was made
by Christian nonresisters and the Maquis. In the United States the
Negroes, who successfully boycotted the busses, combined economic
pressure with persuasion and won. 7
Nothing can be more important, and nothing can more properly
engage the attention of all those interested in peace than a statesman-
like grappling and a flexiblehandling of all the social changes which
we shall have to confront and are not in a position to predict. The
dislocations which such changes occasion provide fertile ground for
wars. There is the problem of overproduction, to which our industry
is geared. In order to
keep going at all we have to make more than
we can use. For a time foreign markets and foreign aid may absorb
the surplus but this process cannot be continued indefinitely after
all peoples come to be industrialized. The problem may be solved
by an increase in population, but an increase in population may

exhaust the food supply. 8 If new sources of food are discovered there
will still be the question of space. In this whole picture there are
many unpredictables. The upward trend in population may arrest

The food supply may be incapable of large increases. Natural
itself.
resources of oil, steel, and rubber may be exhausted. Substitutes may

or may not be found. These changes are all pertinent to our problem
and demand a high degree of competence, imagination, flexibility,
and genuine concern not only for ourselves but for all the peoples
of the earth. Since these matters cannot be settled by one nation in
isolation they necessitate operations on a world scale, and since the
solutions cannot be left to laissez faire they point to some measure of
government control. This indicates a planned economy under a

world government, a goal obviously remote and fraught with perils
of its own.
In the meantime there is the
problem of whether a nation com-
mitted to an ethic of natural law can find any common ground for
dealing with a nation which frankly is acting partly in its own in-
258
WHAT THEN?
terest and
partly in the interest o a world movement which aspires
to the establishment of a classless society and an economic
equality,
but for the present achieves classlessness to a degree and
equality in
a measure by liquidating resisters within and without. In other words
canwe deal with the Russians?
One who has had a great deal of experience in dealing with them
makes some pertinent suggestions. Our approach, he says, must be
one of courtesy and patience because there is a heritage of suspicion
from the days when the United States joined in the effort to restore
czarism. In debate we must work from their premises and to that
end must be versed in their scriptures. If we can show that their
conduct is not consistent with the teachings of Marx and Lenin, they
may reconsider. The most important point is that we should not pre-
sent a plan with the claim that it is to their advantage. They will
immediately look for the catch. We should say that it is to our ad-
vantage and leave them then to see whether it is also to theirs.

9
What this adds up to is that we should talk only of our interests

otherwise we shall not be believed but we should act as much in
their interest as our own, because otherwise our proposals will not
be accepted.
The Will to Peace
All of the devices thus far considered for the elimination of war
will be futile without the will to peace. The desire for peace is uni-
versal; less so, the will to peace. The line between desire and will is
not the line between non-Christians and Christians. The nontheists

and the theists, the secularists and the Christians, can once more make
common cause. The wisdom of the Greeks is again uttered in our
day by a number of voices, Lewis Mumford touches the horror of it
*
all in his article with the title "Kindling for Global Gehenna/'
Norman Cousins stresses the pity of it all in his book Who Speaks
for Man? Bertrand Russell points to the folly of it all when he in-
quires whether the sublimity of feeling
which makes the species
worth preserving is all
259
Co end in trivial horror because so few are able to think of Man rather
than of this or that group of men?our race so destitute of wisdom, so
Is
incapable of impartial love, so blind even to the simplest dictates of

self-preservation, that the last proof of its silly cleverness is to be the
extermination of all life on our planet? for it will be not only men
who will perish, but also the animals and plants, whom no one can
accuse of Communism or anti-Communism." n
In the voicing of such pleas, are Christians to be behind humanists?

The churches as churches have not come out with unequivocal re-
pudiations of modern war because their constituencies are divided
and they wish to leave the individual conscience free. In that case
there is all more reason why individuals should declare their
the
convictions. Some have done so. Attention may be called to two sig-
nificant pronouncements from Christian laymen: the first, a German
theoretical physicist, Carl Freidrich von Weizsacker of the University
of Hamburg; the second an American diplomat, George F. Kennan.
The German physicist has this to say:
Christianity has differentiated between righteous and unrighteous

wars, between a righteous and unrighteous manner of waging them.
It has differentiated between the individual ethic which inclined towards
the Sermon on the Mount and the ethic of political responsibility which
dictated the protection of fellow men by means of weapons.
All this inspires respect where the effort is serious. I do not challenge
it. But if I ask myself whether, after
reading the New Testament, I can
throw a hydrogen bomb, then I know that the answer is "No." And if I
may not throw it, then I cannot make it for another to throw. And if I
cannot make it in order that it may be thrown, can I then make it in

order that it may be used to threaten? ... I cannot believe that the
Church can say "Yes" to the use of the H-bomb. If she is not able to
say "No" she will have to acknowledge her perplexity either openly or
else by complete silence. Yet I believe that members of the Church can
do themselves and the whole world service if upon quite definite
12
presuppositions they openly say "No."
George Kennan refuses to condone atomic warfare. He writes:
In taking responsibility for the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg,

to say nothing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Americans went
beyond
260
WHAT THEN?
what it seems to me the dictates of Christian conscience should have
allowed.
I regret, as an American and as a Christian, that these
things were
done. I think it should be our aim to do nothing of the sort in any
future military encounter. If we must defend our homes, let us defend
them as well as we can in the direct sense, but let us have no part in
making millions of women and children and non-combatants hostages
for the behavior of their own governments.
It will be said to me: This means defeat. To this I can only reply: I
am skeptical of the
meaning of "victory" and "defeat" in their relation
to modern war between great countries. To my mind the defeat is war
itself. In any case it seems to me there are times when we have no choice
but to follow the dictates of our conscience, to throw ourselves on God's
mercy, and not to ask too many questions.
He goes on to justify his stand by the wrongfulness of encroaching on

the domain of the Creator. God has given us a natural environment
which we did not create and have no right to destroy.
In the political process, says Kennan, we shall unavoidably find
"much that is ambiguous in the Christian sense," but in our diplo-
macy "decency and humanity of spirit can never fail to serve the
Christian cause."
Beyond that there loom the truly apocalyptic dangers of our time, the
ones that threaten to put an end to the very community of history outside
which we would have no identity, no face, either in civilization, in culture,
or in morals. These dangers represent for us not only political questions
but stupendous moral problems, to which we cannot deny the courageous
Christian answer. Here our main concern must be to see that man,
whose own folly once drove him from the Garden of Eden, does not now
commit the blasphemous act of destroying, whether in fear or in anger
or in greed, the great and lovely world in which, even in his fallen state,
he has been permitted by the grace of God to live. 18
The Spirit of Peace
The Christian must do more than say "no" to war. His vocation is
words of George Fox, "in that spirit which is above all

to be, in the
war and contention/' Those who in our day reinterpret the Judaeo-
261
Christian tradition in terms of political realism forget that in the
New Testament the only appeal to political realism is to warn
would-be disciples that they should count the cost for "what king,
going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and
consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that
cometh against him with twenty thousand?" 14 The New Testament
is not concerned with the
power struggle "The kings of the Gentiles
exercise lordship ... ye shall not be so." 15 The New Testament is
redolent of the gentler virtues; the fruits of the spirit, declared the
apostle Paul, are "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, good-
ness, faith, meekness, temperance." 16 He did not include massive
retaliation.
Throughout the centuries the Christian ethic has always impressed

outsiders as pacific to the point of weakness. Celsus in the second
century brought the reproach that if all men were as the Christians,
the empire would be overrun by lawless barbarians. Julian the
Apostate in the fourth century mockingly asked the men of Alexan-

dria whether their city owed its greatness to the precepts of the
Galilean and not rather to the prowess of its founder Alexander the
Great. In the Renaissance Machiavelli attributed the decadence of
his times to the "feebleness of our religion." In the nineteenth cen-
tury Friedrich Nietzsche thought that the sign by which Christianity
conquered should be labeled "decadence." In our own time Alfred
Loisy, having repudiated Christianity, interpreted its ethic in
Tolstoyan terms. Rabbi Klausner believed that the ethic of Jesus
would disintegrate the state.
These examples are not cited to contend that all of the above
judgments are correct, and one may legitimately query whether un-
believers are at any point the best exegetes. Yet perchance they may
be, because those who reject an exacting ethic may better keep it
intact than those who, having accepted it, are then under the tempta-
tion to pare it down to the level of the attainable. Not vengeance,
not retaliation, but compassion and reconciliation are the Christian
notes.
Pope Pius XII spoke as a Christian when he reviewed what is en-
262
WHAT THEN?
tailed in atomic warfare and sought to turn men to a nobler way. In
his Easter message in 1954 he said:
Thus, before the eyes of a terrified world there is presented a preview

of gigantic destruction, of extensive territories uninhabitable and unfit
for human use over and above the biological that can result,
consequence
either by the changes brought about by germs and
microorganisms, or
through the uncertain effect which a prolonged radioactive stimulus can
have upon greater organisms, including man, and upon their future
offspring.
At the same time, we ask: For how long will men insist on
turning
their backs on the salutary light of the Resurrection, seeking security
instead in the deadly blasts of new weapons of war? For how will
long
they oppose their designs of hatred and of death to the Divine Saviour's
precepts of love and His promises of life? When will the rulers of nations
realize that peacecannot consist in an exasperating and costly relationship
of reciprocal terror, but in the Christian rule of universal charity, and
particularly in justice voluntarily applied rather than extorted and in
confidence that is inspired rather than exacted?
The Christian must seek to exemplify the self-effacement of the

Saviour, and he must remember that the concern of the gospel is for
individual persons. There is not a word of advice in the New Testa-
ment about mass communication. When Paul wrote to the Romans
he was not thinking of the Roman Empire, but of the local congre-
gation at Rome, and his letter concludes with nearly a chapter of
greetings to persons named Apelles, Herodion, Tryphena, Try-
phosa, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Julia, Nereus, and the rest. One of the
ingredients in the degradation of modern war is that it has become
so completely depersonalized that justice cannot be administered on
a basis of individual responsibility, nor can punishment be made to
fit the crime. Perhaps even worse, the revulsion against war is
diminished because of the failure to realize that people are involved.

We talk about power relations as if China, Korea, Iran, and Kenya
were the pieces in a cardboard puzzle, and not nations of human
The participants in war may
hate each other less because
beings.
they do not see one another, but by the same token, they are less
263
struck by the inhumanity of what they are doing when they know
the enemy only as a target.
At the close of the Second World War two veterans met in the
home of an American professor; one was a German, the other an
American. Both were theology students. The German had been on a
submarine, the American in an airplane. They compared notes. The
German related that on a given day in a given month in a particular
year he had been in a submarine off a Baltic port, dodging the
bombs from an American plane. The American said that on the
same day of the same month and the same year off that same Baltic
port he had been in a plane dropping bombs in an effort to bag a
German submarine. For the first time each of them felt the monstrous
incongruity on the part of two men training to be ministers of Jesus
Christ.
Grounds for Hope

Is there
any possibility that a Christian word will be heard? We do
not know, but we make a mistake to underestimate man's
capacity
for idealism. Professor Spykman made a very significant observation
in the following passage:
In man's idealism lies both his strength and his weakness as a fire.
He can be made to fight for his personal and social survival, but it is
easier to inspire him with a call to service for abstract values than
with
a promise of material gain. In terms of interest men
divide, only in
terms of the defense of the moral order can
they unite. Because man
loves peace, it always the opponent who is the aggressor, and, because
is
he prefers decency it is always the enemy who fights unfairly and with
cruel and dastardly means. National
struggles inevitably become struggles
between good and evil, crusades against sin and the devil. Modern wars
can be fought successfully only in an
atmosphere of unreality and make-
believe/ IT
1
Such a statement embodies the ultimate

irony, if it be true that na-
tions are bound
to fight, that they never do
fight save in their own
interest, but that they cannot induce their
subjects to fight without
pretending to wage war disinterestedly for an ideal Whether or not
264
WHAT THEN?
all these assumptions are valid we need not here decide. The point is
men do respond more readily to an ideal than to a material goal.

that
What an enormous potential lies here, if only this idealism might be
channeled toward the ideal!
The bellicosity of soldiers is not innate. The frenzy of battle has to
be induced by training which eradicates inhibitions. Brigadier Gen-
eral S. L. Marshall announces that enough soldiers do not fire to
constitute a military problem. In the Second World War only 12-25
per cent of all the combat soldiers actually pulled the trigger. A
sergeant testified, "Time and time again I had to expose myself and
crawl from foxhole to foxhole to get half of the platoon to fire. Some-
times I'd practically have to sight the rifle and pull the trigger for the
guy." General Marshall explains this behavior on the ground that,
"All his life, the boy's mind works unconsciously to suppress any
desire to kill. Then, abruptly, he is put into a soldier suit and told to
shoot fellow human beings. One man in two loses the resulting
struggle to break down the lifelong inhibition." He goes on to say
that the Russians had an advantage over us because their men had
fewer inhibitions against killing. The General despairs of obtaining
100 per cent firing from our men. If we could raise the proportion to
75 per cent, "That is the best we can possibly expect." The way to
do it is to induce a mobpsychology which overrides individual in-
hibitions. "The most dramatic innovation has been talking it up
the yelling in combat which has accompanied many of our most
heroic actions in Korea." 1S
If aversion to killing is actually the normal response of our young
men, to build out from that base toward peace should be easier than
to reverse all of their previous training in favor of war.
Let us suppose that our nation should disarm unilaterally. What
would happen? We do not know. Such an unparalleled renunciation
might have an amazing effect. Weakness as such has no power; the
If a
Jews were helpless, and their helplessness did not soften Hitler.
nation possessed of strength should voluntarily renounce its ad-
vantage, however, the enemy might respond

with alacrity and relief.
No proof of this can be offered because no nation has ever tried, but
265
there are cases on a more personal level which point to hope. Hans
to talk to the
deBoer, a German pacifist, went to Kenya, resolved
leaders of the Mau Mau. Everyone told him that if he went into the
Mau Mau country, he would never come back with his head on. He
consulted an American Quaker who had been in the land for some
twenty years. The advice was, "Young man, I wouldn't do it if I were
you. One should not tempt God."
DeBoer nevertheless went and entirely unarmed. After some two
hours of walking, as he was approaching the first settlement, two
natives in remnants of European dress accosted him in English, ask-
ing, "Are you Mr.

DeBoer?" The Quaker friend who had counseled
the Mau Mau. DeBoer was able
him not go had in fact contacted
to
to have a conference with one of the leaders to whom he deplored

alike the violence of the Mau Mau and of the whites, urging instead
that if the whites would come un-
negotiation. The Negro replied
armed to talk, no blood would flow. The Negroes desired only free-
dom and the right to own their own land, and they were not lusting
19
to murder all of the whites.
This incident significant for two
is reasons: first, because the
throughout the whole conflict had been able to keep open

Quakers
the lines of trustful communication, and second, that a man volun-
tarily walking unarmed
into the nest of the Mau Mau so impressed
them that they gave him every courtesy. Disarmament and non-
violence might revolutionize the world's behavior.
But If Not
"But if These words were spoken by the three Jewish
not . . ."
youths who were commanded by Nebuchadnezzar

to worship his
answered that
image on pain of being cast into a fiery furnace. They
their God was able to deliver them from the hand of the king and
from his burning fiery furnace. "But if not, be it known unto thee,
O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image
20
which thou hast set up/'
"But if not . . ." If the threat of massive retaliation were removed,
there is the possibility that tyranny might expand. The contempla-
266
WHAT THEN?
tionis the more grievous for American Christians because the first
blow would be felt not by ourselves but by West Germany. The

young of that land would be subject to propaganda and penalization
under such pressures that their humanitarian ideals and Christian
faith might crumble. The prospect is grim, but our sense of guilt
for not affording them military defense is diminished
by the fact that
to defend them would spell their annihilation. If
they and later we
were subjected to an expanding Communism, what would emerge
after a century is difficult to foresee. This
only we know, that the
spirit of man is resurgent, and that more than once in history the
descendants of conquerors have looked upon themselves as spiritually
the sons of the conquered.
"But if not . . ." and if by defenselessness we forfeit survival, the
Christian answer can only be that survival is not the chief end of
man. Survival is not lightly to be relinquished. Life is a precious
boon, but life is not to be had at any price. That point surely need
not be labored among those who will not have peace at any price.
During the war churchmen well stated the principle. Prin-
British
cipal Cairns of the Scottish Church declared with reference to

reprisals that there are some things which no nation ought ever to do,
even at the risk of destruction. The Archbishop of Canterbury
affirmed that theremust be limitations to reprisals "below which, at
whatever cost, honor will forbid us to fall." The British Church
Times wrote: "The reason why, even to win the war or to win it
quickly, this country cannot adopt methods of the jungle is simply
that it does not wish the world to be a jungle when the war is
finished." 21
Father Ford, after branding as immoral the use of atomic weapons,
concluded that if the alternative were subjugation to an atheist
regime or the extinction of the human race "the followers of Christ
should abandon themselves to divine Providence rather than forsake
these [Christian moral] imperatives." 22
Once again the realists tell us that if we renounce power, we shall
be at a disadvantage. Of course we shall. When were the scrupulous
not at a disadvantage in dealing with the unscrupulous?
267
Shall the scrupulous then become unscrupulous in order to sur-
vive?Are we to renounce honor, shame, mercy, and compassion in
order to live? The ancient pagans would not have said so. Did not
Socrates declare that to suffer injustice is better than to inflict it?
Shall we allow this pagan to take over the virtues which we have
been wont to call Christian, while we invoke Christ to justify nuclear
annihilation?
268
Notes
Chapter 1
1. Ps. 122:7.
2. Ps. 128.
3. Onthe concept of peace in the Old Testament consult: The article eirenl in
Gerhard Kittel, Theologisches Worterbuch (1935) ; Wilhelm Caspari, "Vorstellung und
Wort Friede im Alten Testament," Beitrage zur Forderung Christlicher Theologie,
XIV, 4 (1910) ; Caspari, "Der biblische Friedensgedanke nach dem Alten Testament,"
Biblische Zeit-und Streitfragen, X(1916) ; Martin Noth, "Die israelitischen Peisonen-
namen . . . ," Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, III, 10
.
(1928)
4. John L. Myres, The Political Ideas of the Greeks (New York, 1927) , p. 142.
5. Fragment 71 in Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, ed. Koch (1884) .
6. On concepts of peace in classical antiquity: Wallace E. Caldwell, Hellenic Con-
cepts of Peace (New York, 1919) ; Wilhelm Nestle, "Der Friedensgedanke in der antiken
Welt," Philologus, Suppl. Bd. XXXI, 1 (1938) ; articles by Bruno Keil and Karl Brug-
mann in Berichte sachs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Philol. hist. KI., LXVIII
(1916) ; fuller bibliography in Michael Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History
of the Hellenistic World, III (Oxford, 1941) , pp. 1358-59.
7. Lev. 26:5-6.
8. Denyse Le Lasseur, Les Dresses Armies dans I'art classique (Paris, 1919) ; Andr
Baudrillart, Les Divinite's de la Victoire en Grece et en Italic (Paris, 1894) .
9. Heinrich Gross, "Die Idee des ewigen und allgemeinen Weltfriedens im Alten
Orient und im Alten Testament," Trier TheoL St., VII (1956) ; Michael Rostovtzeff,
A History of the Ancient World. The Orient and Greece, Vol. 1 (Oxford, 1930) , pp.
119-21.
10. William S. Ferguson, "Economic Causes of International Rivalries and Wars in
Ancient Greece," Annual Report American Historical Association. (1915) , pp. 111-21.
11. A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I (Oxford, 1945) p. 14. ,
12. Hesiod, Erga, lines 109-20 and 276 ff.

13. Aratus, Phaenomena II, 7:96-136. Cf. Arthur O. Lovejoy and George Boas,
Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity (Baltimore, 1935) , pp. 34-35.
14. Plutarch, De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, XXXII, 2.
15. Ovid, Metamorphoses, I, 98. Cf. Fasti, I, 719 ff. Epistolae ex Ponto II, Ep., IX, 39,
40. Lovejoy, op. cit., pp. 44-46.
16. The biblical citations in this section are in the following order: Isa. 9:6-7; 11:3-4;
2:4; Mic. 4:3; Hos. 2:18; Ps. 46:9; Isa. 9:5; Ezek. 38:11.
17. The biblical citations are: Isa. 51:3; 11:6-9; Hos. 2:18.
18. Polybius Historic, VI, Loeb Library ed., pp. 438-39.
19. Iliad, XIII, 635-39.
269
20. Ibid., II, 290-94. Cf. Odyssey, XXIV, 486.
21. Agamemnon, lines 399-449.
22. Lines 764-70.
23. Persians, lines 845-51.
24. Naturales Quaestiones, III, Praef.
25. Satire, X, 168-73.
26. Res Gestae Alexandri, VII, 8, 15.
27. Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, VII, 77.
28. Tacitus, Agricola, 30.
29. Seven Books, VI, 1.
30. Justinus, Epit. Pompei Trogi, XXVIII, 2.
31. Ep odef VII.
32. Catilina, ch. I-X, fragments 11-12.
33. Tacitus, Historia, III, 25, 81.
34. Stobaeus, Anthology, III, 40, 9.
35. Fragment 110.
36. Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes, trans. Gilbert Murray (London: George Allen
& Unwin Ltd.) , lines 345-51.
37. Pythian Odes, 4, 272-74,
38. Historia, I, 87.
39. I, 594, trans. Benjamin B.
Rogers (Loeb Classical Library ed.; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press) p. 63. Used by permission.
,
40. Dio Chrysostom, Orat. XL, 35.

41. Nicomachean Ethics, VIII, 1155A, I, 18.
42. Satire, XV, 159-70.
43. Karl von der Liedc, Die Xenophontische Schrift von den Einkunften (Diss. Koln,
1933) .
44. Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, II, 26.
45. Gen. 21:32-34.
46. Gen. 13.
47. Diodorus Siculus, Historia, XIII, 20-27.
48. Nestle, op. cit., p. 36.
49. Diogenes Laertius, Lives, II, 98.
50. Epicurea, ed. Hermann Usener (Leipzig, 1887) , p. 329, No. 560.
51. De Rerum Natura, I, 30-43.
52. Enneades, III, 4, 2, and 1, 5, 10.
53. Vita, 12.
54. Lovejoy, op. cit., ch. on the Cynics.
55. Seneca, Ep., XC.
56. Ep., CVIII, 17.
57. Fragment 28.
58. Jamblichus, De Vita Pythagorica, XXX, 186.
59. Seneca, Ep., XCV
and Naturales Quaestiones, 5, 18.
60. Meditations, X, 10.
61. The biblical citations are: Isa. 59:7-8; 48:22; 57:21; 32:17; Ps. 85:8-10.
62. The biblical citations are: Isa. 39; 30-31; 30:15; and Hos. 7:11.
63. Jer. 29:5-7.
64. Isa. 53.
65. Aeneid, VI, 790 ff. and IV, 559, VI, 847-53.
66. Georgics, II, 490 ff.
67. Eleg., II, 1, 20, and 5, 105 ff.
68. Eleg., IV, iii, 20, and III, v.
69. Laus Romae, lines 214-16.
70. De Consulate Stilichonis. Ill, 150.
270
NOTES
Chapter 2
1. History VII, 9, 1.
2. Hermann Diels, Die Fragments der Vorsokratiker (3 vols.; Berlin, 1952) , II, 87, 44.
3. Diogenes Laertius, Lives, VI, 63.
4. W. W. Tarn, "Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind," Proceedings of
the British Academy, XIX (1933) .
5. De Alexandri Magni Fortuna, I, 6.

6. Meleagri Gadareni Fragmenta, ed. Friedrich Graefe (Leipzig, 1811) , No. CXXVII,
condensed and freely translated.
7. Amos 9:7.
8. Isa. 19:24-25.
9. Isa. 9:2.
10. A. Raeder, "L*Arbitrage International chez les Hellenes," Publications de I'ln-
stitut Nobel International, I (1932) ; Marcus Niebuhr Tod, International Arbitration
Among the Greeks (Oxford, 1913) .
11. F. Laurent, Etudes sur I'historie de VHumanite, II, La Grece (Paris, 1880), pp.
97-105.
12. Coleman Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and
Rome, II (London, 1911) pp. 5-11 and 219-20.
,
13. Laws, 628, Republic, 471.

14. Republic, 469 ff.
15. Xenophon, Hellenica, II, ii, 3-23.
16. Matthias Gelzer, "Nasicas Widerspruch gegen die Zerstorung Carthagos," Philo-
logus, LXXXVI (1930-31) , pp. 261-99.
17. Republic, 469-71.
18. Myres, op. cit., pp. 167 ff.
19. Politics, I, 1256, B., 23-26.
20. Georgias, 489, AB.
21. Auguste Bill, "La Morale et la Loi dans la Philosophic Antique," Etudes
1
d'Histoire et de Philosophic religieuse . . . I'Universite de Strassbourg, XVIII (Paris

1928) , p. 172.
22. The rules for the just war are mainly in De Officiis I, 34-40, 83; II, 27; III, 46,
107.
23. De Republica, III, 34.
24. De Officiis, I, 36; De Republica, II, 31; De Legibus, II, 9, 21.
25. De Republica, III, 35.
26. Rudolf Pfeiffer, "Humanitas Erasmiana," Studien mr Bibliothek Warburg, XXII
(1931) Richard Harder, "Nachtragliches zu Humanitas," Hermes, LXIX (1934) pp.
,*
,
64-74; Max Pohlens, "Antikes Fuhrertum, Cicero de Officiis und das Lebensideal des
Panaitios," Neue Wege zur Antike, II, 3 (1934) , pp. 137 ff.
27. The biblical citations are: Jer. 11:10, Hos. 2:18, Jer. 33:20-25, I Enoch 69:10 ff.,
Jer. 31:31-34.
28. I Mace. 2:38 and Josephus, Antiquities, XII, 6 and XIV, 4.
Chapter $
1. Num. 10:35.
2. Judg. 5, Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Der heilige Krieg im Alien Testament (Zurich,
.
1951)
3. Edward Meyer, "Kritik der Berichte uber die Eroberung Paiastinas" and
Bernhard
Stade, "Nachwort des Herausgebers," Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft,
I (1881) , pp. 117-50. There has been much discussion since with Noth attacking and
Albrecht defending the tradition in substance.
271
4. I Sam. 22:6.
5. I Sam. 22:13; II Sam. 15:18; I Rings 1:8.
6. I Kings 10:26.
7. I Sam. 8:11-18. Cf. Rudolf Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II (Gotha, 1925),
pp. 174-75.
8. I Sam. 24.
9. Judg. 3:1-4.
10. Judg. 3:5.
11. II Sam. 21:2.
12. I Kings 18.
13. II Kings 10:28.
14. II Sam. 21:3-9.
15. Hos. 1:4.
16. Deut. 7:1-2; 13:15-16.
17. Exod. 14:26-29; Num. 16:31; Josh. 10:12-14; Judg. 5:20.
18. Deut. 32:41-42.
19. Judg. 7.
20. Judg. 4:21.
21. Josh. 6.
22. Num. 21:2.
23. Josh. 7.
24. I Sam. 15:10-33.
25. Josh. 6:21.
26. Josh. 10:40. Cf. Num. 31 and the many passages collected by Maurice Davies,
The Evolution of War (New Haven, 1929) pp. 312, 318-19, 321, 327, 338-39.
,
27. Ehrhard Junge, "Der Wiederaufbau des Heerwesens des Reiches Juda unter
Josia," Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alien und Neuen Testament^ IV, 23 (1937) ,
28. II Kings 23:30.

29. The references in the above paragraphs are to the following passages: Ps. 137:8-9;
Isa. 13:17-22; Nah. 3:7; Isa. 14:12-17.
30. I Mace. 1:11.
31. Elias Bickermann, Die Makkabaer (Berlin, 1935) , and Der Gott der Makkabder
(Berlin, 1937).
Chapter 4
1. De dementia II, 5, 4-5.
2. Meditations 7, 22.
3. Satire 15.
4. I John 5:4.
5. I Mace. 4:10.
6. I Cor. 11:25.
7. Matt. 25:31-46.
8. Rom. 14:17.
9. Rom. 16:20.
10. Eph. 4:1-3.
11. Only in Acts 12:20 and 24:2.
12. Ps. 85:8, Isa. 57:21.
13. Rom. 5:1.
14. Eph. 2:11-23.
15. Phil. 4:7.
16. Matt. 10:13.
17. Rom. 15:13.
272
NOTES
18. Matt. 5:9.
19. John 2:15.
20. Matt. 10:34.
21. Luke 12:51.
22. Luke 22:35-38.
23. Matt. 26:52.
24. Mark 12:17.
25. Ethelbert Stauffer, "Die Geschichte vom Zinsgroschen," Christus und die Caesaren
(Hamburg, 1948) .
English: Christ and the Caesars (Philadelphia, 1955) .
26. Matt. 17:24-25.
27. Rom. 13:1-6. Cf. I Pet. 2:13-17; I Tim. 2:2.
28. Gal. 6:16.
29. I Pet. 2:9.
30. Rev. 5:10. Cf. 1:6.
31. Col. 1:6.
32. I Cor. 15:29.
33. Eph. 1:23.
34. Phil. 3:20.
35. See II Cor. 6:14-18.
36. Heb. 11:10, 13; 13:14; I Pet. 1:17; 2:11.
37. Meditations, VII, 9.
38. Eph. 4:5.
39. Jas. 4:1.
40. Luke 2:1.
41. Luke 3:1.
42. Luke 3:12-14.
43. Luke 14:31-33.
44. Matt. 26:52.
45. Luke 22:25-38.
46. Matt. 5 and Luke 6.
47. James Moffatt, Love in the New Testament (New York, 1930) , pp. 113-19.
48. Lev. 19:2.
49. Hans Windisch, Der Messianische Krieg und das Urchristentum (Tubingen, 1909) .
50. Rom. 13:11-14.

51. Luke 6:36; Rom. 12:19.
52. Hans Windisch, "Friedensbringer-Gottessohne . . .", Zeitschrift fur die Neu-
testamentliche Wissenschaft, XXIII (1924) , pp. 240-60
53. Eph. 6:10 Moffatt.
54. II Cor. 10:5 Moffatt.
55. I Thess. 5:8.
56. Eph. 6:16-17.
57. I Tim. 6:12.
58. James Moffatt, article "War" in Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.
Chapter 5
Abbreviations: CSEL Corpus Scrip torum Ecdesiasticorum Latinorum
PG Patralogia Graeca
PL Patrologia Latina
1. For examples see my article "The Early Church and War," Harvard Theological
Review, XXXIX, 3 (July, 1946) , pp. 189-212, portions of which are incorporated into
this chapter. Substantially in agreement is Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen, "Der
273
Kriegsdienst der Christen in der Kirche des Altertums," Offener Horizont (Jasper's
Festschrift, Munchen, 1953) , pp. 255-64. The usual Catholic attempt to discover non-
pacifist motives for the rejection of military service reappears
in Edward A. Ryan, "The
Rejection of Military Service by the Early Christians," Theological Studies, XIII
(1952) , pp. 1-32.
2. Contra Celsum, VIII, 68-69.

3. Apologeticus, XXXVII, cf. XLII, 5. (Abbr.: Apol.)
4. De Corona Militis, XI. (Abbr.: Cor.)
5. Epistolae, XXXIX (XXXIII) , 3.
6. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, VIII, app. (Abbr.: HE) .
7. Ibid.f VIII, 1, 8.
8. Adolf Harnack, Militia Christi. (Tubingen, 1905) , pp. 117-21.
9. C. J. Cadoux, The Early Church and the World (Edinburgh, 1925) , p. 580.
10. Nos. 12, 21, 22, 24, 29, 47.
11. Cadoux, op. cit., p. 421.
12. Contra Celsum, VIII, 73.
13. W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (2 vols.; Oxford, 1895) , p. 717,
no. 651.
14. Cor. XI.
15. Ruinart, Acta Martyrum (Ratisbon, 1859) , pp. 340-42.
16. Eusebius, HE, IX, 8, 2-4.
17. Ibid., VII, 30, 8.
18. Theodoret, HE, II, 26.
19. F.C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904) .
20. Oratio ad Graecos, XI.

21. Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII, 730. (Abbr.: ANF) .
22. Acts of Archelaus and Mani, 1, ANF, VI, 179.

23. Legatio pro Christianis, XI.
24. Trypho, CX.
25. I Apol., XXXIX.
26. Stromata, IV, 8. (Abbr.: Str.)
27. Paedagogus9 I, 12. (Abbr.: Paed.)
28. Ibid v II, 4, Cf, II, 2.
29. Protrepticus, XI, 116. (Abbr.: Protr.)
30. Adversus Haereses, IV, 34, 4. (Abbr.: Haer.)
31. De 2dolotria,XlX. (Abbr.: Idol.)
32. Apol.f XXXVII.
33. Cor., XL
34. Octavius, XXX, 6. (Abbr.: Oct.)
35. Ad Donatum, VI, 10. (Abbr.: Don.)
36. De Habitu Virginum, XL
37. Adversus Nationes, I, 6. (Abbr.: Nat.)
38. Divinae Institutions, VI, xx, 15-16. (Abbr.: Inst.)
39. Ledercq, article "Militaisme" in Cabrol's Dictionnaire d'Archdologie Chrdtienne;
II, pp. 1107-81; on this point pp. 1116-19.
40. Passage from Cramer, Catena in I Cor. V, p. 98. Cited in Adolf Harnack, "Der
kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes/' Texte und

Untersuchungen, XLII, 3 (1918) , p. 117, note 2.
41. Idol, XIX.
42. "Carolina,'' Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, XV. Abbreviated
hereafter CSEL. On the date see my article listed above note 77.
43. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV, xxvi, 7.
44. Igino Giardani, The Social Message of the Early Church Fathers (Paterson, N. J.,
274
NOTES
1944) , p. 149, associates with Melito two other Asiatic bishops, namely Theophilus
and Abercius.
45. On Rome as the power that restrains: Tertullian, De Resurrections Carnis, XXIV;
Origen. Com. in Joh. 6:3; Lactantius, Inst., VII, 25; Hippolytus, In Danielem IV, 21, 5.
46. Harold Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstand
gegen Rom in der antiken Welt (Berlin,
1938) .
47. Tertullian, Ad
Nationes, IX. Minucius, Octavius, XXV.
48. Inst., VII, 15.
49. ApoL, XXV.
50. Inst.t VI, 9.
51. Wilhelm Bousset, The Antichrist Legend (London, 1896) , p. 126.
52. Haer., IV, 30, 3.
53. De Pallio, I.
54. Contra Celsum, II, 30. Cf. C. J. Cadoux, The Early Church and the World
(Edinburgh, 1925) , pp. 378, 386.
55. II Pet. 3:4.
56. Adolf Harnack, Die Chronologic der altchristlichen Literatur , II . . .
(Leipzig,
1904) p. 273, and my discussion in the article listed in note 1.
,
57. Robert Frick, "Die Geschichte des Reich Gottes-Gedankens in der alten Kirche
bis zu Origenes und Augustin," Beihefte z. Zt. f. d. neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, VI
(1928) and Cadoux, op. cit., pp. 305 ff., 347, 379.
,
58. Apol.f XXXII, XXXIX, Ad Scapulum IH. But a speedy coming desired in De
Oratione V. On the mora finis: cf. Cyprian, Ad Donatum, XX. On Hippolytus: Karl J.
Neumann, Hippolytus von Rom in seiner Stellung zu Staat und Welt (Leipzig, 1902) ,
pp. 56-57.
59. The Epistle of Diognetus contains the classic statement. For parallels consult
Luigi Salvatorelli, "II pensiero del Cristianismo antico intorno allo stato dagli
Apologeti ad Origene," Bilychnis, XVI (1920) , pp. 264-79, 333-52, and Wilhelm Wagner,
Der Christ und die Welt nach Clemens von Alexandrien (G6ttingen, 1903) .
60. Cyprian, Ad Demetrianum, XVII, and Tertullian, De Spectaculis.

61. ApoLt XXXVII. Cf. Justin, I ApoL, XIV.
62. Protrepticus X.
63. Cyprian, De Patientia, XV-XVI.
64. Ep.f XIV.
65. Tertullian, De Patientia, VI.
66. I ApoL, XV.
67. Acts 15:29.
68. De Pudicitia, XII.
69. This and many other citations in Gotthold Resch, "Das Aposteldekret nach
ausserkanonischer Textgestalt," Texte und Untersuchungen, XXVIII, N.F. XIII, 3
(1905) , p. 12, No. 21, cf. p. 43.
70. ApoL, XXXVII.
71* Oct., XXX, 6.
72. Ad
Donatum, VI, 10.
73. Nationes, I, 6.
74. Inst.9 VI, 20.
75. Paulini Nol. Ep XVIII,
. 7, Migne PL, LXI, 240 C.
76. Legatio, XXXV.
77. Contra Celsum, III, 7.
78. Canon, XVI.
79. 13. Migne, PG, XXXII, 682.
Ep. Cl v H, 188,
80. ANF,
VIII, 728. A
thorough study has been made of the aversion of the early
Christians to the taking of life by Bernhard Schopf, Das Totungsrecht bei den fruh-
christlichen Schriftstellern (Regensburg, 1958) .
275
81. P. K, Baillie Reynolds, The Vigiles of Imperial Rome (Oxford, 1926) .
82. On their functions see Theodor Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, IV (1881) ,
pp. 529-30.
83. Dist. d'Archeologie Chretienne, II, p. 1160, no. 24,
84. De Fuga, XIII.
85. Diet. d'Archeologie Chretienne, II, pp. 1172-73.
86. E. Ch. Babut, "La guarde imp&iale et les officiers de I'arme'e romaine," Rev.
Hist., CXIV (1913) , pp. 225-60; CXVI (1914) , pp. 225-93. Cf Ernst Stein, Geschichte
.
des spatrom. Reiches (1928) p. 82. ,
87. Eusebius, HE, VIII, IX, 7.

88. Burton Scott Easton, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (New York, 1934) ,
Pt. II, Canon 16, p. 42.

89. Idol., XIX.
90. Protrepticus, X, 100.
91. Gustave Combes, La Doctrine Politique de Saint Augustin (Paris, 1927) , p. 261.
92. John Eppstein, The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations (Washington,
D.C., 1935) ,
p. 40.
93. Paedagogus, I, viii, 65, 1.
94. Adolf Harnack, Militia Christi, p. 87 f.
95. Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini, I. 1-4.

96. Idol, XIX
and Corona XI.
97. Adolf Harnack "Marcion," Texte und Untersuchungen, XLV (1921) ,
p. 105,
cf. pp. 88 and 161.
98. Tertullian, Idol., XIX.
99. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, IV, 16.
100. Origen, Contra Celsum, VII, 26.
101. Origen, Horn, in Jesu Nave, XV, 1.
102. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, I, 24, and I, 14.
103. Ibid., I, 29.
104. Origen, Contra Celsum, VIII, 55.
105. Ibid., VIII, 73.
106. "Comm. Ser. 37 in Mt. 24:7-8" Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller,
XXXVIII, p. 69.
108. Haer., V, 20. Cf. Wolfgang Schmidt, Die Kirche bei Irenaeus (Helsingfors, 1934) .
109. II Apol., VII.

110. Contra Celsum, VIII, 75. Cf. Heinrich Weinel, Die Stellung des Urchristentums
zum Staat (Tubingen, 1908) .
111. ApoL, XXXVIII.

112. Contra Celsum IV, 70. Cf. Guglielmo Massart, Societd e stato nel cristianesimo
primitive: la concezione di Origene (Padua, 1932) .
113. ApoL, XXX.

114. Stromata, II, 18.
115. Contra Celsum IV, 82.
116. Ibid., VIII, 73.
117. Demonstratio Evangelica, I, viii, 29b-$0b; cf. Cadoux, op. cit., 469 note and 578.
Chapter 6
1. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, IX. Cf. Rene* Pichon, Lactance (Paris,
1909), p. 404.
2. Felix Riitten, "Die Victorverehrung im christlichen Altertum," Studien zur
Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums XX, I (1936) , p. 42.
276
NOTES
3. Eusebius, Oratio Constantini, XVI, 3-8. GCS, VII, 249-50. Praeparatio Ev., I, iv.
Migne PG, XXI, 35-42. cf. Erik Peterson, Monotheismus als politisches Problem
(Leipzig, 1935).
4. Karl Staab, "Pauluskommentare aus der
griechischen Kirche," Neutestamentliche
Abh., XV (1933) p. 107. ,
5. Expos, in Ps. XLV,

Migne, PG, LV, 207.
6. On Micah 4:2. Migne, PL, XXV, 1187-88.
7. En. in Ps. XLV. Migne, PL, XIV, 1142-44.
8. Historiarum Libri VII, VII, 3, 4. CSEL, V, 438.
9. Contra Symmachum, II, 586 fie.
Migne, PL, LX, 227-30.
10. Theodosiani Libri XVI, XVI, 10, 21, Dec. 7, 416.
11. Supra.
12. Letters of Synesius of Cyrene, trans. A. Fitzgerald
(Oxford, 1926) , letters 104,
122, 125, 132. Greek in Migne, PG, LXVI, 1479, 1501-05, 1517.
13. James Franklin Bethune-Baker, The Influence of
Christianity on War (Cambridge,
14. Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini, I, i-v. Migne, PL, XX, 161-63.
15. Ep.t XVIII, 7-10, Migne, PL, LXI, 240-44.
16. John T. McNeill, "Asceticism versus militarism in the Middle Ages," Church
History, V (1936) , 3-28.
18. Orosius, Historiarum Lib. VII, XXXHI, CSEL, V, 516.
19. Migne, PG, XLVII, 389, sec. 2.
20. Julian, Ep., 51.
21. De Fide Christiana, II, 16. Migne, PL, XVI, 587-90.
22. De Officiis, the Latin in Migne, PL, XVI, English PNF 2d, X.
23. Sermo Dom., I, iv, 12, Migne, PL, XXXIV, 1235.
24. Retract. I, xix, 1.
25. De Civitate Dei, XVII, 13.
26. In Joan. Ep., XXXIV, 10, Migne PL, XXXV, 1656.
27. DeCivitate Dei, XIX, 28.
28. En. Ps. CXLVII, 20 Migne, PL, XXXVII, 1930. Many passages are collected by
Harald Fuchs, "Augustin und der antike Friedensgedanke," Neue philol. Unters.
No. 3 (Berlin, 1926) p. 47 f. ,
29. Sermo Dom. I, xx, 64, Migne, PL, XXXIV, 1262.

30. Gustave Combes, La charitt d'aprte Saint Augustin (c. 1934) .
31. Roland H. Bainton, "The Parable of the Tares," Church History, I (1932) 67-89. ,
32. DeCivitate Dei, I, 35.

33. Epist. 99, CSEL, XXIV, 533-34; Epist., Ill, ibid., 653-54; Epist., 228, ibid., LVTI,
484-98; Epist., 189, ibid., LVII, 134-35.
34. Epist., 138, 16 and De Civitate Dei, V, 15.
35. De Civitate Dei, II, 18.
36. Ibid., XIX, 24 and IV, 4.
37. Ibid., XVI, 43.
38. Ibid., XV, 5; II, 17-18. Cf. Walter Rehm, "Der Untergang Roms in abend-
ISndischem Denken," Das Erbe der Alten, XVIII (Leipzig, 1930) .
39. De Civitate Dei, III, 2L

40. P. Gerosa, "S. Agostino e I'imperialismo Romano/' Miscellanea Agostiniana II
(Rome, 1931) , pp. 977-1040.

41. En. in Ps. XLV, Migne, PL, XXXV, 522.
42. De Civitate Dei, XIX, 7; V, 17; III, 14; III, 3; IV, 6.
43. Ibid., Ill, 3; V, 19, 25, 26.
44. Sermo CVI, vii-viii, Migne, PL, XXXIV, 623-25.
45. De Civitate Deif I, 10-19.
277
46. Epist., 189, 6, and 209, 2.
47. Rom, 12:18. De Civitate Dei, XIX, 12-13.
48. Quaest. Kept., VI, 10, CSEL, XXVIII, 2, p. 428.
49. De Civitate Deif XXII, 6.
50. De Libero Arbitrio, V, 12. Migne, PL, XXXXII, 1227.
51. Quaest. Hept., IV, 44, CSEL, XXVIII, 2, p. 353.
52. Contra Faustum, XXII, 76 and 79.
53. Epist., 138, ii, 14.
54. Sermo Dom.t I, xx, 63 and 70. Migne, PL, XXXIV, 1261 ff.
55. Epist., 138, ii ,15.

56. Contra Faustum, XXII, 70 and 75.
57. En. Ps. CXX/F, Migne, PL, XXXVII, 1654.
7,
58. Passages collected by Gustave Combes, La doctrine politique de Saint Augustin
(Paris, 1927).
59. De Civitate Dei, I, 6-7.
60. De Libero Arbitrio, V, ii, Migne, PL, XXXII, 1227.
61. Epist., 47, 5.
62. Ps. 25:7. De Civitate Dei, XIX, 6.
63. Robert Grosse, Romische Militargeschichte von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der
byzantinischen Themenverfassung (Berlin, 1920) , p. 264.
64. E. Homes Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose (2 vols.; Oxford, 1935) ,
I, 164-76.
Chapter 7
1. History of the Franks, II, 30.
2. Heliand, German trans. K. L. Kannegieser (1847) , pp. 145-46.
3. Edgar Nathaniel Johnson, The Secular Activities of the German Episcopate 919-
1024 (University of Nebraska Studies, 1932) .
4. Albrecht von Stade, Chronicon Alberti Abbatis Stadenis (Helmestadii, 1587) , for
the year A.D. 1172.
5. Lina Eckenstein, Woman under Monasticism (Cambridge, Eng., 1896) pp. 65-67.
,
6. Alfred Vanderpol, La Doctrine scholastique du Droit de Guerre (Paris, 1919),

pp. 77-84.
7. Bede Jarrett, Social Theories of the Middle Ages (1926, reprinted 1942) , p. 192.
8. Vanderpol, op. cit., p. 51.
9. Martin Grabmann, "Das Naturrecht der Scholastik von Gratian bis Thomas von
Aquino," Archiv fur Rechts- und Wirtschaftsphilosophie, XVI (1922-23); Odon

Lottin, Le Droit naturel chez Saint Thomas d'Aquin et ses predecesseurs (Bruges, 1931) ;
Friedrich Wagner, Das natiirliche Sittengesetz nach der Lehre des hi. Thomas von
Aquino (Breslau, 1910) .
10. Thomas Aquinas, De Regno.

11. Vanderpol, op. cit., and Heinrich Finke, "Das Problem des gerechten
Kriegea in
der mittelalterlichen theologischen Literatur," JSeitrdge zur Geschichte der Philosophic,
Suppl. Ill (1935) , pp. 1426-34. On this point p. 1430.
12. The idea but not the proverb is classical. Cf. E. Wolfflin, "Krieg und Frieden im
Sprichworte der Romer," Sitzungsberichte der bayr. Ak. der Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl. (1888) .
13. Vanderpol, op. cit., p. 29.
14. Emanuel Hirsch, Luther Studien, Bd, 1, Drei Kapitel zu Luthers Lehre vom
Gewissen Michael Wittmann, Die Ethik des hi. Thomas von
(Gtitersloh, 1954) ;
Aquino Oskar Renz, "Die Synteresis nach dem hi. Thomas von
(1933) , pp. 176-78;
Aquino/' Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittelalters, X, 1-2 (1911) , p. 137.
15. Ferdinand Geldner, Die
Staatsauffassung und Filrstenlehre des Erasmus von
Rotterdam (Berlin, 1930) , p. 14 note 12.
278
NOTES
16. Fritz Kern, "Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht," Mittelalterliche Studien I,
2 (Leipzig, 1914).
Max Lessen, Die Lehre vom Tyrannenmord in der christlichen Zeit (Miinchen,
.
1894)
17. Vanderpol, op. tit., pp. 119-24.
18. Ibid., p. 117.
19. Ludwig Huberti, Studien zur Rechtsgeschichte der Gottesfrieden und Landfrieden,
I that appeared, Ausbach, 1892) ,
(all pp. 314-15.
20. Ibid., p. 165.
21. Ibid., p. 21 Iff.
22. Bede Jarrett, op. cit., p. 187.
23. Passages are here combined from several versions translated in Dana Carlton
Munro, "Urban and the Crusaders," Translations and Reprints (University of Penn-
sylvania, 1901).
24. Carl Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens (Stuttgart,
1935) , p. 164.
25. Historia
Francorum, trans. Frederick Duncalf and August C. Krey, Parallel Source
Problems in Medieval History (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1912) Used by permis- .
sion.
26. Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. Elizabeth Dawes (London:
Routledge &
Kegan Paul Ltd., 1928) pp. 255-57. Used by permission.
,
27. Migne PL, 182, 921 ff. Cf. Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. I,
ch. I, "Holy Peace and Holy War" (Cambridge, Eng., 1951) .
28. Hoffman Nickerson, The Inquisition (London, 1923) p. 115; Jean C. L. Simonde
,
de Sismondi, History of the Crusades Against the Albigenses (London, 1826) , pp. '35,
77-78.
29. Richard Wallach, "Das abendlandische Gemeinschaftsbewusstsein im Mittelalter,"
Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, Bd. 34 (Leipzig,
1928) .
Mileto Novacovitch, Les. Compromis et les Arbitrages Internationaux du XII au

30.
XVe , The
Siecle (Paris, 1905)examples are mostly from northern Europe. summary A
and bibliography of works covering also southern Europe is given in M. de Taube,
"Les Origines de 1'Arbitrage International. Antiquit et Moyen Age," Receuil des cours
de VAcademie de droit international IV, Tome 42 (1932) .
31. Helen Jenkins, Papal Efforts for Peace under Benedict XII, 1334-1342 (University
of Pennsylvania Diss., Philadelphia, .
1933)
John Gruber, "Peace Negotiations of the Avignonese Popes," Catholic Historical
Review, XIX (1933-34), pp. 190-99; Clemens Bauer, "Epochen der Papstfinanz,"
Historische Zeitschrift, CXXXVIII (1928) , pp. 457-504.
32. George B. Flaliff, "Deus non vult," Medieval Studies, IX (1947) , pp. 162-88.
33. Palmer Throop, Criticism of the Crusade (Amsterdam, 1940) , especially p. 58.
34. Ellen Scott Davison, Forerunners of St. Francis (Boston 1927) , pp. 257, 271.
35. Der Christ in der Welt, III, 3 (1952-53) p. 82. ,
36. Herbert E. Winn, Wyclif, Select English Writings

(Oxford, 1929) , p. 113; cf.
Geoffry F. Nuttall, Christian Pacifism in History (Oxford, 1958) .
37. Peter Brock, The Political and Social Doctrines of the Unity of Czech Brethren
(Gravenhage, 1957); Frederick Heymann, John Zizka and
the Hussite Revolution
.
(Princeton, 1955)
38. Werner Fntzemeyer, "Christenheit und Europa," Historische Zeitschrift, Beiheft
23 (Mttnchen, 1931), expecially pages 7-13.
Chapter 8
Florentine, IV, 6; V, 33; VII, 20. Cf. Felix Gilbert on Machiavelli in Makers
1. Istorie
of Modern Strategy, ed. f Edward M. Earle (1943) , pp. 12-13.

A
full treatment of war-
fare in this is
period Piero Pieri, // Rinasctmento e la crisi militare italiana
given by
279
(1952) On Machiavelli and his
.
thought consult Frederico Chabod, Machiavelli
political
and the Renaissance (London, 1958) . On the international community of the Italian
city-states see Angelo Sereni, The Italian Conception of International Law (New York,
1943) , ch. VI.
2. Discorsi, II, 2.
3. Principe, XVIII.
4. Ibid., XVII.
5. Istorie Fiorentine t V, I.
6. Thomas Fenne, Fennes Frutes (1590) , fol. 53, cited in Paul A. Jorgensen, Shake-
speare's Military World (Berkeley, 1956) , p. 192.
7. Paracelsus, Sozialethische und sozialpolitische Schriften, hrsg. Kurt Goldammer
(Tubingen, 1952) , pp. 310-16.

8. Sebastian Franck, Kriegbuchlein des Friedens, excerpts and commentary in Kurt
von Raumer, Ewiger Friede (Freiburg i. Br., 1953) .
9. William J. Bouwsma, Concordia Mundi. The Career and Thought of Guillaume

Postel (Cambridge, Mass., 1957) .
10. Gargantua, XXV. Cf. Paul Stapfer, "Les Ide*es de Rabelais sur la Guerre/'
Bibliotheque Univ. et Rev. Suisse, XL (1888) pp. 367-79. ,
11. Montaigne, Essais, II, xii.

12. J. Clichtovuis, De Bello et Pace (1523) , photocopy ed. Olivart (Madrid, 1914) .
13. Ludovicus Vives, Opera Omnia (Basel, 1555) De Bello Turcico, II, 947-59.
,
14. Thomas More, Utopia, VIII, tr. 1551 (Oxford, 1895) .

15. Erasmus, Vita Coleti.
16. Agrippa of Nettesheim, On the Vanity of the Arts and Sciences (English,
London, 1676) pp. 254-55.
,
17. LesterK. Born, "The Education of the Christian Prince," Records of Civilization,
XXVIII (New York, 1936) .
18. R. H. Bainton, "The Classical and Christian Sources of Erasmus* Querela Pacts/'
Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, 42 (1951) , pp. 32-48, for full literature.
Chapter 9
L The most important writings of Luther on this subject are the following arranged
in chronological order and with references to the Weimar edition:
1523 Von weltlicher Oberkeit, II, 245-81,
1525 Ermahnung zum Frieden, XVIII, 291-334.
Wider die rauberischen und morderischen Rotten der Bauern, XVIII, 357-61.
Sendbrief von dem harten Biichlein wider die Bauern, XVIII, 384-401.
1527 Ob Kriegsleute, XIX, 623-62.
1529 Vom Kriege wider die Tiirken, XXX, II, 107-48.
Heerpredigt wider den Turken f XXX, II, 160-97.
1534 Zwo Predigten von Zorn, XLI, 748 ff.
The following literature covers Luther's political theory and his views as to war
against the peasants, the Turk and the emperor:
Paul Althaus, 'Xuthers Haltung im Bauernkrieg," Jahrbuch der Luthergesetlschaft,
VII (1925) , 1-39.
Heinrich Bornkamm, "Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen . /' Archiv fur Reforma-
.
tionsgeschichtef 49 pp. 26-49.

(1958) ,
Harvey Buchanan, "Luther and the Turks," Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichtef 47

(1956) , pp. 145-60.
Harold Diem, Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen (Munchen, 1938) .
Johannes Heckel, "Im Irrgarten der Zwei-Reichen-Lehre," Theologische Existenz
Heute, Heft 55 (1957) .
Fritz Kern, "Luther und der Widerstand," Zeitschrift der Savingy-Stiftung fur Rechts-
geschichte, Kanonistische Abt. VI (1916) .
280
NOTES
Kurt Mathes, "Luther und die Obrigkeit," Aus der Welt christlicher Frommigkeit,
XII (1937).
Karl Miiller, "Luthers Ausserungen fiber das Recht des bewaffneten Widerstands
gegen
den Kaiser," Sitzungsberichte der kon. JBayr. Akad.
philos-philol. Kl., VIII (1915) .
Gustaf Tornvall, Andligt och varldsligt regemente hos Luther
(1940) , German, Geist-
liches und weltliches
Regiment bei Luther (1947) .
Oscar Waldeck, "Die Publizistik des Schmalkaldischen Krieges," Archiv fur Reforma-
tions geschichte, 7 (1909-10) , pp. 1-55.
2. Weimarer Ausgabe, I, 535. (Abbr. WA) ,
3. WA, XIV, 553.

4. WA, HI, 26.
5. Especially Von weltlicher Oberkeit.
6. WA,XLI, 748 ff.
7. WA f VI, 267.
8. WA, XXX, I, 202.
9. The saying comes from Suetonius, Vita Octavii, XXV. In Luther WA t VI, 261.
It is quoted sometimes as a golden hook and sometimes as a golden net.
10. LII, 189 and XXXVII, 319.
11. OnZwingli consult Walter Koehler, "Ulrich Zwingli und der Krieg," Christliche
Welt 29, No. 34 (1915) , pp. 675-82. The same theme is handled by Oskar Farner in
Zwingliana, III (1914) pp. 78-80. ,
12. Oskar Farner, Huldreich Zwingli (2 vols,; 1943,

1946) , II, 194.
13. Huldreich Zwinglis Sdmtliche Werke, 1 (CR. LXXXVIII) , pp. 175-76.
14. On Calvin and Calvinism consult:
J. W. Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1928) .
R. H. Bainton, "Castellio Concerning Heretics," Records of Civilization, XXII (New
York, 1935) , the section on Calvin.
The Age of the Reformation (Anvil Original, 1956) , documents on the right of
revolution.
Robert Kingdom, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France (Geneva,
1956) .
"The First expression of Theodore Beza's Political Ideas," Archiv fur Reformations-
geschichte, 46 (1955) , pp. 88-100.
Richard Niirnberger, Die Politisierung des Franzosischen Protestantismus (Tubingen,
1948) .
15. Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, VIII, 476; XXIV, 360; XLIV, 346.
16. Ibid., XVIII, 425-26.
17. I Kings 11:11.
18. Henry White, The Massacre of St. Bartholomew (London, 1868) , pp. 238, 248.
19. Chanon. Trois Verite's. Cited in Geoffrey Atkinson, Les Nouveaux Horizons (Paris,
1935) ,
p. 396.
20. See R. H. Bainton, "Congregationalism: from the Just War to the Crusade in
the Puritan Revolution," Andover Newton Theological School Bulletin, Southworth
Lecture (April, 1943) .
21. Thomas The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, ed. S. C. Lomas
Carlyle,
London, 1904) , I, 396.
(3 vols.;
22. London, 1643.
23. A Sermon Preached Before the Commons, May 27, 1646 (London, 1646) p. 8. ,
24. Fovre Speeches (London, 1646) , p. 21.

25. Ibid., pp. 15-16.
26. John Redingstone, Plain English (London, 1649) , p. 3, on Ps. 149.
27. A
Sermon, Jan. 29, 1644 (London, 1645) .
28. Carlyle, op. cit., II, 100.
281
29. A Great Victory God hath vouchsafed by the Lord Generall Cromwels Forces
against the Scots (London, 1651) , p. 5.
30. A full RELATION
of the Great Victory (London, 1648), p. 7.
31. Carlyle, op. cit., I, 511.
32. THE WORKES of Ephesus Explained, April 27, 1642 (London, 1642) , p. 50.
33. A WARNING-PEECE to WARRE (London, 1642) .
34. T. B. Howdl, A Complete Collection of State Trials (London, 1816) , V, pp.

1116-18.
35. Robert S. Paul, The Lord Protector (London, 1955) p. 210. ,
36. C. V. Wedgewood, The Thirty Years' War (New Haven, 1939) .
Chapter 10
1. On the Anabaptists consult:
Franklin Littell, The Anabaptist View of the Church (new ed., Boston, 1958) .
Hans J. Hillerbrand, "The Anabaptist View of the State," Mennonite Quarterly Re-
view XXXII, 2 (1958) , pp. 83-111.
"An Early Anabaptist Treatise on the Christian and the State," XXXII, 1 (1958) ,
pp. 28-48.
Harold Bender, "The Pacifism of the Sixteenth Century Anabaptists," Mennonite
Quarterly Review, XXX, 1 (1956) pp. 5-19. ,
John Horsch, The Principle of Nonresistance as held by the Mennonite Church

(Scottsdale, Pa,, 1927) .
Guy F. Hershberger, ed., The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision (Scottsdale, Pa., 1957) .
War, Peace and Nonresistance (Scottsdale, Pa., 1944) .
Stanislas Kot, Socinianism in Poland (Boston, 1957) .
On the Brethren:
Rufus Bowman, The Church of the Brethren and War (Elgin, 111., 1944) .
On the Quakers:
Margaret E. Hirst, The Quakers in Peace and War (London: George Allen & Unwin
Ltd., 1923) .
Geoffrey F. Nuttall, Christian Pacifism in History (Oxford, 1958) .
2. Rom. 13.
3. Lydia Muller, "Glaubenszeugnisse oberdeutscher Taufgesinnte," Quellen und
Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, XX (1938) , p. 249.
4. Cited by Horsch, op. cit.
5. R. H. Bainton, "The Immoralities of the Patriarchs . ." Harvard
Theological .
Review, XXIII, 1 (January, 1930) .

6. A. J. F. Zieglschmid, ed., Die dlteste Chronik der Hutterischen Briider
(Ithaca,
1943) , p. 307*
7. Op. cit., note 3, p. 199.
8. Op. cit., note 5, pp. 54, 87-88.
9. Hirst, op. cit.t
p. 43. Used by permission of George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
10. Ibid., p. 46.
11. Ibid., pp. 118-19.
12. Robert Barclay, An Apology (Philadelphia, 1805) , pp. 582-83.
13. Hirst, op. cit., p. 124.
14. Ibid., p. 57.
15. Ibid., p. 59.
16. Isaac Sharpless, A History of Quaker Government in Pennsylvania (2 vols ;
Philadelphia, 1899) , I, 190, condensed.
17. Robert Barclay, Apology, pp. 584-85.
18. Hirst, op. cit., p. 213.
19. Waldo Beach, The Meaning and Authority of Conscience in Protestant
Thought
of Seventeenth Century England (Unpublished dissertation, Yale University, 1944) .
282
NOTES
20. Oeuvres diverses de Mr. Pierre Bayle (The Hague, 1727), II, 432-33.
21. Boswell's Life of Johnson (London, I, 511 under the year 1773.
1904) ,
22. Leonard T. Hobhouse, The

Metaphysical Theory of the State (London, 1918) ,
pp. 91-94.
23. Hirst, op. cit., p. 125*
24. Ibid., p. 130.
25. Bowman, op. cit.t p. 43.
26. ThomasLurting, The Fighting Sailor (London, 1770's) .
27. On
the Spanish conquest consult:
Lewis K. Hanke, The Spanish Struggle for Justice in the
Conquest of America (Phila-
delphia, 1949) . The statements below refer to the following pages: 7, 71, 6, 7, 34,
and 2 in this order.
Aristotle and the American Indians
(London, 1959) .
28. Franciscus de Vittoria, Classics of International Law, ed. T. B. Scott (1917) , pp.
129, 250, 163-87.
29. Hanke, Aristotle, p. 26.
30. Cotton Mather, Souldiers Counselled and Comforted, a Discourse Delivered Unto
Some Part of the Forces Engaged in the Just War of New England Against the Northern
and Eastern Indians. September 1, 1689. (Boston, 1689) .
31. George Leon Walker, Thomas Hooker (New York, 1891) , p. 100.
32. Jer. 46:10. Henry Gibbs, The Right Method of Safety or, The Just Concern of
the People of God . , .
(Boston, 1704) .
33. Samuel Phillips, Souldiers Counselled and Encouraged (Boston, 1742) .
34. Thomas Bridge, The Knowledge God

Securing from Flattery, and Strengthen-
of
ing to the Most Noble Exploits (Boston, 1705) , pp. 46, 50.
35. James Cogswell, God, the Pious Soldier's Strength and Instructor: A Sermon
Delivered at Brooklyn . to the Military Company, under the Command of Capt.
. ,
Israel Putnam (Boston, 1757) , pp. 7, 26.

. . .
36. Thomas
Prince, Extraordinary Events the Doings of God, and Marvellous in
Pious Eyes (Boston, 1745) , pp. 18-20.
37. Samuel Woodward, A Sermon Preached October 9, 1760. Being a Day of Public
Thanksgiving on Occasion of the Reduction of Montreal and the Entire Conquest of
Canada, by the troops of His Britannic Majesty . - (Boston, 1760) p. 26. . ,
38. Nathaniel Appleton, A Sermon Preached October 9, being a day of Public

Thanksgiving, Ocassioned by the Surrender of Montreal, and all Canada, September
8, 1760. to His Britannic Majesty (Boston, 1760) pp. 7 and 29. ,
39. Records of Plymouth Colony, IX, p. 7, art. IX and X, pp. 26 and 56. On this
period compare Arthur H. Buffinton, "The Puritan View of War," Publications of
the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, XXVIII (April, 1931) , pp. 67-86.
40. Robert L. D. Davidson, War Comes to Quaker Pennsylvania 1682-1756 (New
York, 1957) .
41. Deut. 7:2.
Chapter 11
1. George Norman Clark, War and Society in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge,
Eng., 1958) .
2. Jorgenson, op. cit.
3. Palace of Peace, The Hague, Bibliography of the Peace Movement Before 1899
. Lists
twenty-eight editions during the seventeenth century
and six during the
(1936)
eighteenth exclusive of the Opera.
4. Eymeric Cruce. Le Nouveau Cynte, ed. Thomas W. Balch (Philadelphia, 1909) ,
pp. 30, 84-85.

5. Oeuvres (54 vols., Paris, 1829-30), 11, 357.
283
6. Elizabeth V. Souleyman, The Vision of World Peace in 17th and 18th Century
France (New York, 1941), especially pp. 11, 13, 113; Kurt von Raumer, Ewiger Friede
(Munchen, 1953) , analizes the peace plans beginning with Erasmus. The smaller are
printed in full, the longer in excerpts,
7. De Ivre Belli ac Pacts
(Amsterdam, 1642) Prolog. XX. ,
8. T. S. K.
Scott-Craig, Christian Attitudes to War and Peace (New York, 1938) ;
Joachim von Elbe, "The Evolution of the Concept of the Just War in International
Law," American Journal of International Law, XXXIII, 4 (October, 1939) , pp. 665-88.
9. William Penn, An Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe, reprinted
by the Peace and Service Committee, Friends General Conference (1944) .
10. Compare note 4 above.

11. Comenius, The Angel of Peace, ed. M. Safranek (Pantheon, New York, n.d.) .
12. Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace, reprinted from the translation of 1796 (Co-
lumbia University, New York, 1939) .
13. On the background see:

Michael Roberts, The Military Revolution 1560-1660 (University of Belfast, 1956) .
B. H. Liddell Hart, The Revolution in Warfare (London, 1946) .
George Clark, War and Society in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 1958) .
Fritz Redlich, "De Praeda Militari, Looting and Booty 1500-1815," Vierteljahrschrift
fur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Beiheft, 39 (1956) , especially p. 72.
14. John V. Nef. War and Human Progress (Cambridge, Mass., 1950) , p. 233.
15. Ibid., p. 162.
16. Denis de Rougement, Love in the Western World (1939) , p. 239.
17. Emmerich de Vattel, Le Droit des Gens (Neuchatel, 1773) , III, pp. 110-11, 94-96.
18.Charles L. Montesquieu, "L'Esprit des Lois," Bk. X, iv, Bibliotheque de la
Pleiade, 81 (1949) , p. 381.
19. Nef, op. cit., pp. 118, 122, 252, 260.
20. Elise Constantinescu-Bagdat, Etudes d'histoire Pacifique, II De Vaughban a
Voltaire (Paris, 1925) , p. 252.
21. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (reprint Oxford, 1909) , pp. 457-69.
22. Charles F. Mullett, Fundamental Law and the American Revolution 1770-1776
(New York, 1933) .
23. Alice Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (Durham,
N.C., 1928) .
24. Dagobert De Levie, "Patriotic Activity of Calvinistic and Lutheran Clergymen

during the American Revolution," Lutheran Church Quarterly, VIII, 4 (November,
.
1956)
Chapter 12
1.
Harry Rudin, "Diplomacy, Democracy, Security: Two
Centuries in Contrast,"
Political Science Quarterly, LXXI, No. 2 (June, 1956) , pp. 161-81 and "The Problem
of Security," in God and the Nations, ed. Paul Poling (New York, 1952) .
2. Werner Fritzmeyer, "Christenheit und Europa," Historische Zeitschrift, Beiheft,

23 (1931).
3. W. Freeman Galpin, Pioneering for Peace Merle Curti, Peace or
(Syracuse, 1933) ;
War, the American Struggle (New York, 1936) ,
4. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Works (12 vols, Boston, 1909) XI, 201. ,
5. Curti, The American Peace Crusade 1815-60

(Durham, N.C., 1929), p. 53.
6. Galpin, op, cit., p. 113.
7. Adin Ballou, Christian Non-resistance (Philadelphia, 1842) p. 163. ,
8. Galpin, op, cit., pp. 77 and 25 ff.

9. Cited in Ralph Barton Perry, Puritanism and Democracy (New York, 1944) ,
p.
608.
284
NOTES
10. Bertha von Suttner,
Lay Down Your Arms, trans. T. Holmes (London, 1894),
'
pp. 236-37 and 203.
11. J. F. C. Wright, Slava Bohu
(New York, 1940) .
12. Pauline V. Young, The
Pilgrims of Russian Town (Chicago, 1932) .
13. George P. Fedotov, The Russian Religous Mind (Cambridge, Mass., 1946) and ,
"The Religious Sources of Russian Populism," Russian Review

(April, 1942) pp. 27- ,
39, Nadijda Gorodetzky, The Humiliated Christ in Russian

Thought (New York, 1938) .
14. Leo Tolstoy, My Religion (Crowell edition, 1899) .

15. H. C. G. J. Mandere, De Vredesbeweging in hare Geschiedenis
(Leiden, 1928)
p. 114.
16. Curti, Peace or War, pp. 222-26.
17. Merze Tate, The Disarmament Illusion (New York,
1942), pp. 167 ff.
18. Chester Forrester Dunham, The Attitude of the Northern Clergy Toward the
South 1860-65 (Toledo, Ohio, 1942) .
19. C. S. Ellsworth, "American Churches and the Mexican War," American Historical
Review, XLV, 2 (January, 1940) pp. 301-26.
,
20. Julius W. Pratt, The Expansionists of 1812

(New York, 1925) .
21. William Archibald Karraker, The American Churches and the Spanish-American
War (Unpublished dissertation, University of Chicago) .
22. Hirst, op. cz'i., p. 275. Used by permission of & Unwin
George Allen Ltd.
23. Ibid., p. 286.
24. George B. Smith, The Life and Speeches of .
John Bright (New York, 1881,
. .
pp. 219, 231, 237.

25. John Morley, Recollections (2 vols.; London: Macmillan &
Company Ltd. 1917) ,
II, 86. Used by permission.
26. Raoul Allier, Les Sglises de R4'forme et le Probleme de la Paix au cours du
XIXe siecle (Paris, 1931) .
27. Literary Digest, XXIX, nos. 4, 5 (January, 1904) , pp. 115-16, 141.
28. Ernst Troeltsch, The Ideas of Natural Law and Humanity in World Politics;
appendix in Gierke, Natural Law (English, Boston, 1957) .
29. Georg Wilhelm Hegel, Werke (18 vols.; Berlin, 1832-45) , VIII Philosophic des
Rechts f sections 259, 333-39.
30. Joseph Mausbach, Vom gerechten Kriege . .
(Munster, 1914) .
.
31. Karl Holl, Gesammelte Aufsatzef III (1928) , section 7, pp. 147-70. This address
was delivered in 1917.
32. Bishop A. F. Winnington-Ingram speaking on November 28, 1918, cited in
Keith Bryant and Lyall Wilkes, Would I Fight? (Oxford, 1935) , p. 43.
33. George K. A. Bell, Randall Davidson (2 vols.; Oxford, 1935) , II, 903,
34. Ray H. Abrams, Preachers Present Arms (New York, 1933) .
35. H. C. Peterson and Gilbert C. Fite, Opponents of War 1917-18 (Madison, Wis.,
1957) , p. 134.
36.Maurice Baring, "In Memoriam A. H.," from Collected Poems (London: The
Bodley Head, 1925) , pp. 8-4. Used by permission.
Chapter 13
1. Herbert Hoover, Shall We Send Our Youth to War? (New York: Coward-McCann,
Inc., 1939) . Used by permission.
2. Vera Brittain, The Testament of Youth (New York, 1933) ; A. A. Milne, Peace
with Honor (New York, 1934) ; Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means (New York, 1937;
Charles E. Raven, /$ War Obsolete? (1934) , and War and the Christian (New York,
1938) ; Archibald MacLeish, Air Raid (New York, 1938) ; Harry
Emerson Fosdick, A
Christian Conscience about War (1925) .
3. P. J. Noel Baker, Disarmament (New York, 1926) ; Mary Katherine Reely, Select
285
Documents on 'Disarmament (New York, 1921) Benjamin H. Williams, The United ;
States and Disarmament (New York, 1931) .
4. Statements not otherwise documented in this chapter are covered in my pamphlet,

"The Churches and War: Historic Attitudes toward Christian Participation," Social
Action (January, 1945) .
5. Hajo Holborn, The Political Collapse of Europe (New York, 1951) , p. 136.
6. John W. Wheeler-Bennett, The Pipe Dream of Peace (New York, 1935) , pp.
116-18.
7. Arnold Wolfers, Britain and France between Two Wars (New York, 1940) .
8. John A. Fisher, Memories (London, 1919) p. 274. ,
9. New York Times, January 23 and 27, 1941.

Christian Century (April 16, 1941) , p. 523.
10. Ibid., (December 11, 1940) , p. 1546; (July 17, 1940, p. 900) ; February 5, 1941),
p. 179.
11. Reinhold Niebuhr, Christianity and Power Politics (New York, 1940).
12. Christianity and Crisis (September 21, 1942) , p. 6 and (April 19, 1943) , p. 4.
13. Christendom (Autumn, 1943) , p. 482.
14. Christian Century (November 1, 1939) , p. 1347.
15. Christianity and Crisis (February 10, 1941) , p. 6.
16. Ibid. (September 21, 1942) , p. 1.
17. From
"Fears in Solitude," composed 1798.
18. Memoirs
of Bertha von Suttner (Boston, 1910) , II, 408-9.
19. Liddell Hart, The Revolution in Warfare (London, 1946) .
20. Patrick M. S. Blackett, Fear, War and the Bomb (New York, 1949) , p. 15.
21. Cited by John C. Ford, "The Morality of Obliteration Bombing," Theological
Studies (September, 1944) , pp. 261-309. This citation p. 26.
22. Churchill's statements are cited in Vera Brittain, Seed of Chaos (London, 1944) ,
p. 15.
23. Reprinted in Fellowship (March, 1944) .
24. "Hiroshima It must Not Happen Again," (London, 1955) . Used by per-
mission of the publisher, Today and Tomorrow Publications.
25. Herman Hagedorn, The Bomb that Fell on America (Santa Barbara, Cal,, 1946) ,
pp. 9, 14.
Chapter 14
1. On
the possibility of defense against nuclear warfare consult:
Bernard Brodie in Quincy Wright, ed., A Foreign Policy for the United States (Chicago,
1947) , pp. 92-94.
Patrick M. S. Blackett, Fear, War and the Bomb (New York, 1948) , pp. 20-30, 36-38, 60.
Stanton A. Coblents, "H-Bombs; New Maginot Line," Christian Century (November
28, 1956) , and his From Arrow to Atom Bomb (New York, 1953) .
A number of articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists deal with the subject,
e.g., McCleary (September, 1956) , Kahn (January, 1959) . Chisholm on bacteriological
warfare (May, 1959) ; and Lapp (October, 1959) , who discusses the obsolescence of
massive retaliation.
2. Committee of the World Council of Churches (July, 1958) , Article 79, 2.
3. Hanson W. Baldwin, "Limited War," Atlantic Monthly (May, 1959) pp. 35-43. ,
4. Henry A. Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy (New York, 1957) , p.
189.
5. Compare C. F. von WeizsScker, Ethical and Political Problems of the Atomic Age
(London, 1958).
6. Fellowship
(March, 1944) .
7. Christian Century (March 22, 1944) , p. 361.
286
NOTES
See note 21, chap. 13.
8.
Federal Council of Churches, Atomic
9.
Warfare and the Christian Faith (March,
1946)
10. Federal Council of Churches, The Christian Conscience and
Weapons of Mass
Destruction (1950) , pp. 14, 23.
11. Wilfred Parsons, "Peace in the Atomic
Age," Catholic Association for Interna-
tional Peace (1947) .
12. Kaspar Mayr, Der Andere Weg (Nurnberg, 1957) p. 312. ,
13. Fifth World Order Study Conference, Cleveland, Ohio

(November 18-21, 1958) .
14. Hajo Holborn, The Collapse of Europe (New York, 1951) , p. 149.
15. George F. Kennan, American Diplomacy (New York, 1951) p. 53. ,
16. P. A. Sorokin, Social and Cultural

Dynamics (1 vol. ed.; Boston: Porter Sargent,
1957) , p. 548.
Albert Schweitzer, Civilization and Ethics
17.
(London, 1923) , p. 254.
18. F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism
(Appleton, Wis., 1953) pp. 186-97. ,
19. Gerhard Ritter, Carl Goerdeler Cf. Oscar Jaszi and John D.
(Stuttgart, 1954) .
Lewis, Against the Tyrant (Glenco, 111., 1957) .
20. Lothar Kotsch, "The Concept of War in

Contemporary History and International
Law," tudes d'Histoire economique, politique et sociale XVIII (1956) , p. 77, footnote
129.
21. Cyril Falls, The Second World War (London, 1948), p. 91. Cited in Blackett,
Fear, War and the Bomb (1948) , p. 19.
22. Reginald William Thompson, Cry Korea (London: Macdonald &
Company, 1952) .
Used by permission.
23. Edgar L. Jones, "One War Is Enough," Atlantic Monthly (February, 1956),
pp.
48-53. Used by permission.
24. Reginald Hugh Bacon, Lord Fisher (London, 1929) I, 120-21. ,
Chapter 1$
1. The view that foreign policy should be directed primarily to national self-interest
is espoused by:
Hans J. Morgenthau, In Defense of the National Interest (New York, 1951) p. 252; ,
and "The Decline and Fall of American Foreign Policy," New Republic (December
10, 1956) , p. 14.
Louis J. Halle, "A Touch
of Nausea," New
Republic (January 21, 1957) , pp. 1-17.
Kenneth Thompson, Christianity and Crisis. (January 7, 1957) .
Ernest Lefever, Ethics and United States Foreign Policy (New York, 1957) .
2. George F. Kennan, American Diplomacy 1900-1950 (Mentor Paperback, 1952) , p.
100.
3. Friends Committee on National Legislation (October, 1956) .
4. Philip, "What the

Andr6 UN
Can and Cannot Do," New Republic (January 14,
1957) , pp. 8-10.
5. John Foster Dulles, War and Peace (New York, 1950) , pp. 190-91.
6. Vera Micheles Dean, "Anti-Westernism: Cause and Cure," Christian Century
(May George Meader, "Our Foreign Aid Program," Reader's Digest (April,
9, 1956)
;
p. 98; Bernard S. Van Rensselaer, "How Not

to Handle Foreign Aid," Reader's
1957) ,
Digest (February, 1957) , pp. 25-30; Max F. Millikan and

W. W. Rostow, A Proposal
for a United States Foreign Policy (New York, 1957) .
7. On various ventures in nonviolence consult: (Gandhi does not need documenta-
tion)
Barthelemy de Ligt, The Conquest of Violence (London, 1937) ,
Hallam Tennyson, India's Walking Saint (New York, 1955) .
Vinoba Bhave, Bhoodan Yajna (land-gifts mission) (Ahmedabah, 1953).
287
Cecil E. Hinshaw, "Nonviolent Resistance," Pendle Hill Pamphlet 88 (1956) .
Andr6 Trocme, "Stages of Nonviolence/' Fellowship (1953) .
Leo Kuper, Passive Resistance in South Africa (New Haven, 1957) .
Martin Luther King, Jr., "Nonviolence and Racial Justice," Christian Century (Febru-
ary 6, 1957) .
8. On
the population problem:
Information Service of the National Council of Churches (June 6, 1959) bibliography. ,
United Nations, Population Studies, especially The Determinants and Consequences

of Population Trends (1953) .
Richard M. Fagley, The Population Explosion and Christian Responsibility (New

York, 1960) , Cf. Social Action (December, 1958) .
Population Bulletin (March, 1959) . The prospects to A.D. 2000.

A. Myrdal and P. Vincent, "Are we too Many?" Bureau of Current Affairs (1949) .
Discriminating.
John Boyd Orr, The White Man's Dilemma (London, 1953) . The cycle will run its
course.
Daedalus (summer, 1959) , articles by Hudson Hoaglund on the control of fertility and
by John L. Thomas and John Bennett on the Catholic and Protestant approaches
to the control of population.
John N. Hazard, "The United States and the Soviet Union," Quincy Wright,
9.
A Foreign Policy for the United States (Chicago, 1947) .
10. Lewis Mumford, "Kindling for Global Gehenna," Saturday Review of Literature
(June 26, 1948) , p. 7, and "The Morals of Extermination," Atlantic Monthly (October,
1959) pp. 38-44.
,
Bertrand Russell, "Man's Peril from the Hydrogen Bomb," The Listener (Decem-
11.
ber 30, 1954) reprinted by the Friends Peace Committeef London.
,
12. C. F. von WeizsJicker, Ethical and Political Problems of the Atomic Age (London:
Student Christian Movement Press, 1958) Used by permission. .
13. George F. Kennan, "Foreign Policy and Christian Conscience," Atlantic Monthly
(May, 1959) pp. 44-49. Used by permission.

,
14. Luke 14:31.

15. Luke 22:25-26.
16. Gal. 5:22-23.
17. Nicholas Spykman, America's Strategy in World Politics (New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 1942) p. 37. Used by permission.
,
18. Bill Davidson, "Why Our Combat Soldiers Fail to Shoot," Colliers (Nov. 8,
1952) ; S. L. A. Marshall, Men Against Fire (New York, 1947) .
19. Hans de Boer, The Bridge is Love (Grand Rapids, 1958) .
20. Dan. 3:18.

21. Christian Century (July 5, 1939) , p. 862; (January 31, 1940) , p. 155; (November
6, 1940) , p. 1365.
22. Theology Digest (Winter, 1957) , p. 9. Two forthright Catholic statements have
lately appeared: Francis M. Stratman, War and Christianity Today (Westminster, Md.:
Newman Press, 1956) .
Charles S. Thompson, ed., Morals and Missiles (London, 1959) .
288
Guide to Literature
The literature on the problems and the ethic of war and peace is too voluminous
for coverage in the notes or even in a separate bibliography which would itself com-
prise a volume. Space precludes more than a reference to bibliographical aids. Guides
to literature have been issued by:
The Fellowship of Reconciliation, Box 271, Nyack, New York.
The Friends Peace Committee, 1520 Race St., Philadelphia 2, Pa. In December, 1956,
and again in 1959.
The Puidoux Theological Conference, August, 1955. Apply to the secretary Pastor
Dale Aukerman, Gluckstrasse 3, Becklinghoven bei Beuel, Germany. The compiler
of this list, Walter Dignath, has provided bibliographies in his: "Kirche, Krieg und
Kriegsdienst," Theologische Forschung, X (Hamburg, 1955)
and in his article:
:
in Geschichte und Gegen-

"Friedensbewegung," in the new edition of Die Religion
wart.
Ralph Luther Moellering covers the recent American scene in Modern War and the
American Churches (New York, 1956) .
Three journals are important for current material:

For the United States: Fellowship, published by the Fellowship of Reconciliation,
Box 271, Nyack, New York.
For Britian: Reconciliation, 29 Great James St., London, England.
International: Reconciliation Quarterly, 3 Herndon Ave., Finchley, London N. 3,
England (formerly Christus Victor).
For the continent: Der Christ in der Welt, ed., Kaspar Mayr, Nachreihengasse 48,
Vienna 17, Austria. .
For Catholic coverage see the publications of The Catholic Association for International
Peace.
289
Index
Abgar, 70 Arnobius, 73, 78

Aborigines, American, 165-72 Assyrians, 19-20, 30, 33, 36, 49, 94,
Abraham, 27, 90, 154 248
Abyssinia, 212, 246 Athenagoras, 72, 78
Aelius Aristides, 32 Atrocities, 112, 147, 151, 207, 212
Aeschylus, 22, 24 Augustine, 14, 78, 89, 91-99, 106,
Africa, North, 69, 71, 91, 93, 102; 138-39
South, 203, 257 Augustus, 22, 31, 57, 61, 140
Agrippa of Nettesheim, 127, 130-31
Ai, 48 Babylon, 30, 50, 96
Akiba, 58 Ballou, Adin, 193
Alaric, 93, 99 Baptists, 193, 198, 199, 200, 202,
Alexander the Great, 23, 31, 34, 89, 215
262 Barbarian invasions, 93-101
Alexandria, 79 Barclay, Robert, 158-60
Amalakites, 167 Bardesanic Book of the Laws, 71, 78
Ambrose, 89-91 Barth, Karl, 216
American Peace Society, 192-93 Basil the Great, 78
Amphyctionic Council, 36 Bayle, Pierre, 161, 188

Anabaptists, 88, 152-57 Belgium, 206-7
Andromache, 22 Bennett, John, 222
Anglicans, 188, 193, 198, 200, 215, Bentham, Jeremy, 179
219 Benzoni, 167
Anthony of Navarre, 146 Bethmann-Holweg, 206
Apocalypticism, 50, 54 Beza, Theodore, 146
Apostolic decrees, 77 Bikini, 229
Aratus, 20 Bismarck, 190, 194, 206
Arbitration, 36-37, 11647, 196-97; Bloch, von, 197
see also Hague Tribunal Blockade, 211
Arcadius, 99 Bloodshed, abhorrence of, 77, 94,
Aristophanes, 22, 24-26 104, 120

Aristotle, 26, 39, 166-67 Bogomili, 115
Aries, Council of, 80-81 Bohemian Brethren, 121
Armenia, 70 Bohemund, 112
291
Boniface, Roman general, 93, 95; Church, theory of, 92, 137, 143-44,
missionary, 101 153-55

Bourbon, house of, 146 Churchill, Winston, 225, 236, 243
Braddock, 171 Cicero, 41-42, 54, 90-91, 93, 95-96,
Brainerd, David, 169 108
Brethren, Church of, 152, 163, 189, Claudian, 32
215 Clemency, 28, 42
Bright, John, 194, 199-203, 252-53 Clemens, Samuel, 193
Brittain, Vera, 212, 225 Clement of Alexandria, 72, 77, 80,
Bruning, Chancellor, 217 84
Bryan, William Jennings, 196 Clerical abstention from war, 90,
Burrough, Edward, 158 109, 138-39, 188

Clerical in war,
Byzantine attitude to the crusade, participation 88,
112-13 114, 129, 189

Clermont, Council of, 111, 130
Cadoux, C. J.,
69 Clichthove, 127, 129
Caesar, Julius, 42, 108 Clotilde, 103
Cairns, Principal, 267 Clovis, 103
Calamy, Edmund, 149 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 223

Calhoun, Robert Lowrie, 234 Colet, John, 127, 130
Calvin (ism) 58, 144-47
, Coligny, 147
Canaanites, 27, 46, 154, 167 Combes, Gustave, 80
Carthage, 21, 37, 38, 75, 93, 94
Comenius, 181
Caryl, Joseph, 150

Commodianus, 74
Casas, Bartholomeo de las, 166 Communism, 267
Cathari, 115-16 Comnena, Anna, 114
Catholic Association for Interna-
Concord, 26, 42, 87, 96, 128, 134
Conde", 146
tional Peace, 234
Catholic Church, 67, 193, 198, 200, Congregationalism 188, 193, 198,
200, 202, 215, 219
215, 219, 233
Conscience, according to Abelard,
Celsus, 68-69, 72, 83, 89
107; according to Bonaventura,
Channing, William Ellery, 192
107; to Thomas
according
Charles I (England) , 147
Aquinas, 108; conscience of
Charles II (England) , 165, 170
others, 160; relativized in seven-
Charles V (empire) , 127 teenth century, 161-62
Charles VIII (France) , 122
Conscientious objection, legally
Chelciky, Peter, 119-20
recognized, 161
Chivalry, 123, 185 Constantine 14, 27, 53, 60, 67, 84-87,
Christian, Archbisop of Mainz, 104 94-95, 102, 154
Christian Century, 222, 233 Corneille, 174
Chrodield, 105 Cortez, 166
Chrysippus, 21 Cosmopolitanism, 34, 35
Chrysostom, 89 Cousins, Norman, 259
292
INDEX
Covenant, 30, 35-36, 42, 50, 51, 54, Dubois, Pierre, 120, 127-28
139-40, 146 Dukhobors, 195, 210
Coventry, 225 Dutch Reformed, 193
Cromwell, Oliver, 147-51
Cruce, Eymeric de, 177, 179-80 Edwards, Jonathon, 169
Crusade, American Civil War as, Eiren, 17-18
198; American Revolution as,
Egypt, 33, 36, 69, 89
188; critiqueof, 242-43; Crom- Election, doctrine of, 14344
well's, 147-51; decline of, 221; Elijah, 92
First World War as, 205-10; for Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 191
peace, 211-15; in the New Testa- Empedocles, 29
ment, 56-57; in the Old Testa- Epicurus (Epicurean), 28, 181
ment, 44-52; in the Middle Ages, Episcopalian. See Anglican
14;Reformed churches views 1
on, Erasmus, 127, 131-35, 143, 157, 159,

14347 175, 179
Cynics, 24, 34, 67 Eschatology, 21, 50, 63, 75-76, 92,
Cyprian, 68, 70, 73 155, 238, 242
Cyreniacs, 28 Essenes, 28
Euripides, 22, 174
Dante, 121, 127 Eusebius of Caesarea, 84, 87, 92-93
David, 45-46
Davidson, Randall, 207 Federation, 183, 235
DeBoer, Hans, 226 Fellowship of Reconciliation, 208,
Deborah, 44 220
Decius, 68,85 Fetiales, 41
Defoe, Daniel, 185 Feudalism, 105
Delaware Indians, 171 Fisher, John (Admiral) , 190, 206-7,
Delphic oracle, 37 247

Denarius, 58 Ford, John, 233, 267
De Soto, 166 Foreign aid, 256
Determinism, 126, 236 Fontonoy, Battle of, 185
Deus non vult, 118, 199 Fosdick, Harry Emerson, 214
Deus vult, 112 Fox, George, 157, 261
Dewsbury, William, 158 Francis I (France) , 127-28, 195
Diocletian, 85 Francis II (France) , 146
Diodor of Tarsus, 87 Franck, Sebastian, 127
Diogenes, 29, 34 Franklin, Benjamin, 171
Dion of Prusa, 26 Frederick the Great, 184
Dionysius of Alexandria, 77 Frederick the Wise, 141

Disarmament, 197, 214, 217, 256
Disciples of Christ, 198, 200, 215 Gainas, 99
Donatism, 102 Galerius, 68, 85
Dresden, 226 Gallienus, 29
Drogheda, massacre, 150 Gamaliel, 140
293
Gandhi, 216, 240, 257 Holmes, John Haynes, 219
Geneva, 145 Holofernes, 108
Gibbs, Herbert, 168 Hoover, Herbert, 211
Gideon, 48, 121 Homer, 19, 22
Giovanni de Vincenza, 111 Hopkins, Samuel, 192
Gladstone, William Ewart, 200 Horace, 23, 32
Gnostics, 82, 115, 239 Hotman, 146
Goerdeler, Carl, 244 Huguenots, 147, 173
Golden Age, 20-22, 43, 106, 174 Humanity, Humanitas, Humanite*,
Goodman, Christopher, 146 28, 42, 127-29, 145, 159, 162,
Gratian, 106 177-78, 184-86, 191, 243
Guilt, sole, 99, 205, 212 Hus (ites) , 120-21
Guise, house of, 146 Hutterites, 156
Gulliver's Travels, 175-76 Huxley, Aldous, 212
Grotius, Hugo, 178, 188
Idolatry in theRoman army, 73-74
Hagedorn, Herman, 228 Indian Mutiny, 201
Hague Tribunal, 196-97 Indians. See Aborigines
Hamburg, bombing of, 225, 243 Innocent III, 119

Harnack, Adolf, 76 Inquisition, 114-15
Hegel, Georg W., 206 Irenaeus, 73, 75, 83
Henry III (France), 146, 161 Iroquois, 171
Henry IV (France) 146, 161, Isaiah, 87
Henry VIII (England) 127 ,
Hercules, 18 James of Nisibis, 70

Hereford, 120 Janus, Temple of, 31, 87
Heretics, war against, 115-16 Jeremiah, 30, 113
Herodotus, 24, 34 Jericho, 48
Hesiod, 20 Jerome, 87
Heyricke, 149 Jerusalem, 17, 50, 112
Hezekiah, 49 Jews, modern, 218, 242, 258, 265
High, Stanley, 221 Joachim of Brandenburg, 141
Hindenberg, 217 John Frederick, 140
Hindus, 240 John of Capistrano, 119
Hippolytus, 76, 78 John the Baptist, 61
Hiroshima, 226, 243, 261 Johnson, Samuel, 162
History, deterministic, 126, 236-37; Joshua, 48, 82
God in, 95, 138; theory of cycli- Judas of Galilee, 57
cal, 21 Judd, Sylvester, 192
Hitler, Adolf, 216-18, 225, 244, 265 Julian the Apostate, 89, 97
Hobbes, Thomas, 188 Just war, Anglican views on, 142;
Hobhouse, L. T., 162 Christianized by Augustine, 'jSS^
Hodgkin, Henry, 208 98; colonial American views on,

Holl, Karl, 207 170; critique of, 182, 244-48;
294
INDEX
Just war cont'd Macdonald, Ramsay, 162, 208
formulation in antiquity, 14; Machiavelli, Niccolo, 123-27, 138,
Greek code of, 38-39; Hebrew 145, 262
code of, 42-43; in the Middle MacLeish, Archibald, 214
Ages, 103-8; in the Renaissance, Magdeburg Confession, 142, 146
121-22; Luther's view on, 139-40; Magistrate, inferior, 141, 146, 148
New Testament texts for, 57-61; Man, doctrine of, 83, 91, 125, 152,
Roman code of, 41-42 162-63, 211, 216, 235-38, 253
Justin Martyr, 72, 77 Manchuria, 204, 212
Juvenal, 23, 26, 54 Manasseh, 49
Marcion, 82
Kant, Immanuel, 182 Marcus Aurelius, 29, 30, 54, 68
Katherine the Great, 184
Marseillaise, 187
Keitel, Field Marshal, 243 Marshall, S. L., 265
Kellogg-Briand treaties, 214 Marsilius of Padua, 121, 127
Kennan, George F., 236, 260-61 Martin of Tour, 81, 88
Kenya, 257, 265 Mary Tudor, 146
Kissinger, Henry A., 232
Massinissa, 38
Knox, John, 146 Massive retaliation, 231, 266-67
Mather, Cotton, 167-68
Lactantius, 73, 75-76, 78
Mausbach, Joseph, 207
Lafollette, Robert, 209
Maximilianus, 70
Lateran Council, Fourth, 109
Mediation, 36, 214; see also Arbitra-
League of Nations, 215 tion
Leclercq, 69
Meleager, 35
Lenin, Nikolai, 238
Melito of Sardis, 74, 86
Leonard of Lichtenstein, 156
Leonardo da Vinci, 186 Menelaus, 22
Lilburne, John, 160

Mennonites, 152, 163, 170, 189, 252
Lloyd George, David, 162, 203 Metempsychosis, 29

Louis XIV (France), 183 Methodists, 189, 198, 200
Louis XV (France) , 185 Military imagery in the New Testa-
Louis of Bavaria, 117 ment, 64-65

Love, Christian, 54, 96, 139, 238, Milne, A. A., 212
246 Milvian Bridge, battle of, 85
Lucretius, 28 Moffatt, James, 64
Luke, 61 Molokans, 195

Montaigne, Michel, 127, 129
Lurting, Thomas, 163-64
Lusitania, 209 Montanism, 76
Luther, Martin, 136-42, 216, 241 Montesquieu, Charles, 186
Lutheranism, 189, 200, 215, 219 Montreal, 169
More, St. Thomas, 127, 130
Lysander, 37
Morley, John, 203
Maccabees, 43, 45, 52, 90 Moses, 47, 54, 82, 90, 97, 167, 238
295
f
Mournful mood, 98, 112, 139, 145, Pacifism con t d
221-22 early church, 66-84; eschatologi-
Muentzer, Thomas, 15940, 143 cal, 81; Greek, 28-29; Hebrew,
Muhlenberg, John, 189 30-31; humanist, 127-35; legalistic,
Mumford, Lewis, 259 53, 81, 154; medieval, 118-21;
Musonius, 24 New Testament, 61-63; pruden-
Mussolini, 246 tial, 31, 34, 159, 179, 181-82, 193,
249; redemptive, 30, 82-83; Ro-
Nagasaki, 226, 261 man, 29-30; see also Arbitration,
Napier, John, 186 Peace of God, Meditation.

Napoleon, 183 Palmerstom, 201-2
National self-interest, 255 Panaitios, 42
Nationalism, 177, 181, 208 Panhellenism, 28, 34
Natural law, 38-40, 106, 108, 137, Papen, von, 217
154, 168, 178, 206, 253-55 Paracelsus, 129
Nelson, Horatio, 207 Paul of Samosata, 70
Neoplatonism, 29, 95 Paulinus of Nola, 89
Nero, 23, 30 Pax, 18
Neutrality, American, 218 Pax Gallica, 183
New England Nonresistance Soci- Pax Romana, 27, 31, 32, 55, 64, 69,
ety, 193 73, 83, 86-88, 235

New Testament, 53-65, 240-41 Peace, by concession, 27; by con-
Nicholas II (Russia) 197, 204
, quest; 31-32; by magnanimity,
Niebuhr, Reiiihold, 216, 222 27-28; by righteousness, 30, 54;
Niger, 118 concept in antiquity, 17; in the

Nike*, 18 New Testament, 55; through bal-
Nikolaos, 28 ance of power, 33, 122, 124, 190;
Nonviolence, 257 through politics, 157, 252;
Norman conquest, 109 through poverty, 29; through
Novacovitch, Mileto, 116 trust in God, 30
Noyes, John Humphrey, 192 Peace of God, 110-12, 123

Peace societies, 191-93
Oath, 111, 154 Peacemakers, 64
Odysseus, 22 Pearl Harbor, 218, 220
Okinawa, 247 Penance for killing, 79, 119
Old Testament interpretation, 153 Penn, William, 170, 178-80
Olympic games, 36 Pennington, Isaac, 159, 163
Origen, 69, 72, 74-76, 78, 82-84, 92 Peters, Hugh, 151
Orosius, 23, 87 Pharisees, 57
Ottaviani, Cardinal, 234 Philemon, 17
Ovid, 21 Philip of Macedon, 31
Philistines, 27, 35, 45
Pacifism, Anabaptist, Quaker, 153- Phillips, Samuel, 168
65; ascetic, 82; critique of, 248-51; Philoromus, 79
296
INDEX
Pilate, 58 Resistance, right of, 106, 141, 146-
Pindar, 24 47, 186-88
Pity, 174, 203 Revolution, American, 185, 187-89;
Pius XII, 263 French, 183; Puritan, 147-51
Pizarro, 166 Roberts, Richard, 208
Plateia, battle of, 34 Roman decadence, 23, 74, 94
Plato, 38-40, 95 Romans, 13, 58, 83
Plotinus, 29, 84 Romantic movement, 206
Plutarch, 34-35 Romulus, 23, 74
Poitiers, battle of, 118 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 225
Poland, 157 Roosevelt, Theodore, 196-97
Police, 60, 79, 81, 240 Rotterdam, 225
Political theory, Anabaptist, 155-56; Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 182-83
early church, 74-75, 83-84; medie- Royden, Maude, 218
val, 105; Of American Revolu- Russell, Bertrand, 162, 212, 238,
of 259
tion, 188; Luther, 137-38;
Puritan, 146-47 Rush-Bagot Agreement, 196
Russians, dealing with, 259
Polytheism and war, 87
Pompeius Trogus, 94
Sabbath, no warfare on, 43, 90
Ponet, John, 146
Saint Bartholomew Massacre, 146
Population problem, 258 Saint Bernard, 114
Postel, Guillaume, 127-28
Saint Francis, 119
Prince, Thomas, 169 Saint Louis, 118
Propertius, 32 Saint Peter, 58, 103
Protection, theory of, 156, 251; Saint Pierre, Abb de, 183
peril of, 245 Sallust, 23, 94
Presbyterians, 151, 193, 198, 208, Salms, Count of, 104
215, 219 Samuel, 48
Prudentius, 88 Sarajevo, 205
Prussia, 184 Saul, 46
Pyncheon, 168 Schweitzer, Albert, 259
Pythagoreans, 29 Schwenckfelders, 170
Scipio Africanus, 21, 42

Quakers, 152, 157-65, 170-72, 179, Scipio Nasica, 38
189, 193-94, 198, 208, 252 Sedgwick, Obadaiah, 148
Quintius Curtius, 23 Seleucids, 51
Seneca, 23, 29, 30, 181
Ramsay, Paul, 221 Sennacherib, 49
Raven, Charles E., 212 Sepulveda, 166-67
Raymond of Agiles, 112 Sermon on the Mount, 61-63, 91, 98,
Regulus, 41, 93 154, 165, 181, 200, 249, 260
Renaissance, 122-35 Shakespeare, William, 174
Requirement, The, 166 Shalom, 17
297
Shepherd, "Dick," 212 Truce of God, 110-12, 123
Sherman, General, 224 Truman, Harry, 243
Sisera, 44, 48 Turk, 113, 118, 128, 137, 140, 163,
Socrates, 39, 181, 268 178-79, 183, 190
Solomon, 45 Twain, Mark. See Clemens, Samuel
Sophists, 34, 39, 124 Tyrannicide, 106, 108, 109, 154
Sorokin, Pitirim, 237
Smith, William, 163 Ulpian, 39
Socinus, Faustus, 157 Unitarians, 198
Sparta, 19, 33, 142, 146 United Nations, 256
Speyer, Diet of, 141 Universals, 107
Spykman, Nicholas, 264 Urban II, 111
Standish, Miles, 168
State personified, 41, 107, 126 Valens, 99-100
Stead, W. T., 203 Vattel, Emeric de, 185
Sterne, Laurence, 195 Versailles, treaty of, 217
Stilicho, 99 Victor, title, 85
Stoics, 20, 22, 26, 35, 37, 43, 53, 87, 217
Vienna, treaty of,
90, 128, 174, 206 Vim vi repellere, 104, 253
Suttner, Bertha von, 194, 223
Vinoba Bhave, 257
Sulla, 42
Virgil, 22, 31, 42
Sully, 183
Virtues, Christian, 54, 55, 124, 261-
Swift, Jonathan, 175-77 62
Synesius, 88, 99
Vitricius, 78
Vittoria, Francesco, 106, 166
Tacitus, 23, 124
Vives, Juan, 127, 129
Taft, William Howard, 196
Vocationalism, 63, 97, 121, 139, 156
Tares, Parable of, 92
Voltaire, Francois, 174-75, 177
Tatian, 71
Tawney, R. H., 242 119
Waldenses,
Templars, 114, 118
Walker, George, 149-50
Temple, William, 267
War, American Civil, 198-99, 224,
Tertullian, 73-84
235; American Revolution, 185,
Theodosius I, 95, 100
187-89; Anglo-Dutch, 184-85; Bis-
Theodosius II, 88
marck's, 198; Boer, 198, 203;
Thucydides, 124 costly, 24, 27; Crimean, 190, 200-
Thomas, Aquinas, 67, 106 201; First World, 194, 198, 205-10,
Thundering Legion, 68 232; French Revolution, 187;
Tibullus, 32 Franco-Prussian, 198, 204;holy,
Tiberius, 58, 61 44, 209; Hundred Years', 117; ir-
Tilly, 151 rational, 24, 26; Kappell, 141;
Tolstoy, Leo, 195, 204 Korean, 244-45, 265; Mexican,
Transmigration, 115 198-99; Napoleonic, 190, 198; of
Troeltsch, Ernst, 205-7 religion, 144-47; of 1812, 191,
298
INBEX
Wars cont'd Williams, Roger, 169
199; Peasants', 125-26, 140; Pelo- Wilson, Woodrow, 196, 208-9, 212
ponnesian, 22, 37; Persian, 22, 34; Woolman, John, 172
Puritan Revolution, 147-51; Rus- World Council of Churches, 230
so-Japanese, 204; Second World, World Court, 215
198, 216-18, 231, 236, 240, World government, 256
245, 264; Seven Years', 185; Span- Worms, Diet of, 135
ish-American, 198, 200; Thirty Wycliffe, John, 119
Years', 151, 173; Trojan, 22; see
also Just war and Crusade
Xenophon, 27
Warfare, aerial, 225-26; bacterio-
logical, 231; carnal, 82, 159; deg- Yahweh, as god of war, 47-52, 103
radation of, 223-29; limited, 230;
nuclear, 226-30, 233 Zealot, 57, 58

Weizsacker, Carl F. von, 260 Zeno, 20
Wesley, John, 189 Ziska, 121
William of Orange, 146 Zwingli, Ulrich, 143-44
299
134377

Christian Attitudes To War and Peace PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christian Attitudes To War and Peace PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christian Attitudes To War and Peace PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

261 Bl62c Cowl 14-75

Bainbon, Roland Herbert, 1S94-

Christian attitudes toward

"PUNCH" ON CHRISTMAS, 1914

Copyright 1960 by Abingdon Press

All rights in this book are reserved.

Abingdon Press, Nashville 2, Tennessee,

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 60-12064

SET TTP, PRINTED, AND BOUND BV THE

COLLEAGUE IN COURSES AND COMRADE IN CAUSES

1. Ideals o Peace in Antiquity 17

2. The Classical Origins of the Just War 83

3. The Origins of the Crusading Idea

4. War and Peace in the New Testament 53

,5. The Pacifism of the Early Church 66

6. The Theory of the Just War in the

7. From the Just War to the

8. The Renaissance Utopia and the

9. Wars of Religion 136

10. The Historic Peace Churches and War

11. The Enlightenment 173

12. From Waterloo to Armageddon: A

14. Past and Present 230

J5. What Then? 252

Guide to Literature 289

Frontispiece. Christmas number of Punch, 1914.

The Stele o the Vultures, drawn from the photograph in

Greek Warfare, a detail from an Athenian vase, drawn

A coin of Tiberius from A.D. 22, drawn* from the photo-

Constantine's victory at the Milvian Bridge, from the

duction of the miniature in Henri Auguste Omont, Minia-

The capture of Jerusalem in 1099 from a miniature of

The Monk in Armor, Holbein's caricature for Erasmus'

Plundering in the Turkish War Geisberg, Die

Horrors of the Thirty Years War from Jacques Callot,

tion in Hermann von Nasse, Jacques Callot (Leipzig,

The Marseillaise in 1792 from the reproduction in Wey-

Opponents of War Pilloried: Ramsay Macdonald from

1935), p. 428 213

Punch on Aerial Warfare. (March 25, 1914 and June 15,

1938) 226, 227

Magnitude by Casualties of the Wars of Europe

A. Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics. Boston: (Porter

may thus prove emancipating if it shows that old rules no longer

apply. It may at the same

Chronologically they emerged in just this order. The early Church

justice conceived in terms of and property, but on behalf of an

recognized the depravity of man. The question

depravity and the problem came

the auspices of the state. The crusade belongs to a theocratic view

In the Renaissance in Italy the just-war theory took on new life

Necessarily there is a shift from the objective to the subjective and

meaning of the term

concept was, however, slight; because if peace were not identical

Philosophers engage in lengthy quest

to being simply the absence

varying degrees. The Assyrians and their forerunners, the Sumerians,

glorified by the Hellenes. The early Homeric poems exhibit pro-

gratify the vanity or ambition of leaders or kings and they fought to