Front Page Titles (by Subject) CHAPTER V: Of Spoil and Rapine in War. - The Rights of War and Peace (2005 ed.) vol. 3 (Book III)
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
CHAPTER V: Of Spoil and Rapine in War. - Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace (2005 ed.) vol. 3 (Book III) 
The Rights of War and Peace, edited and with an Introduction by Richard Tuck, from the Edition by Jean Barbeyrac (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005). Vol. 3.
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The copyright to this edition, in both print and electronic forms, is held by Liberty Fund, Inc.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Of Spoil and Rapine in War.
I.The Goods of an Enemy may be spoiled, or taken away.I. Cicero, in the third of his Offices, declares,1It is not against the Law of Nature to spoil or plunder him whom it is lawful to kill. No wonder then if the Law of Nations allows to spoil and waste an Enemy’s Lands and Goods,<574> since it permits him to be killed.2Polybius tells us in the fifth of his History, by the Right of War it is lawful to take away, or destroy, the Forts, Havens, Cities, Men, Ships, Fruits of the Earth, and such like Things of an Enemy. And we read in Livy,3There are certain Rights of War, which, as we may do, so we may suffer, as the burning of Corn, the pulling down of Houses, the taking away of Men and Cattle. We may find in History, almost in every Page, the dismal Calamities of War, whole Cities destroyed, or their Walls thrown down to the Ground, Lands ravaged, and every Thing set on fire. And we may observe, these Things are lawful to be done, even to those that surrender themselves. The Townsmen, says Tacitus,4freely set open their Gates, and yielded themselves, and all they had, to the Romans, whereby they only saved their Lives: Artaxata was burnt by the Romans.
II.Even those that are sacred, which how to be understood.II. 1. Neither does the1 mere Law of Nations exempt sacred Things, that are consecrated, either to the true GOD, or to false Divinities, setting aside the Consideration of other Duties, (of which we will treat hereafter) from these Insults of War. Pomponius, the Civilian, tells us, When Places are taken from the Enemy,2all Things therein cease to be sacred. Cicero, in his fourth Oration against Verres, observes,3The Victory made all the sacred Things of Syracuse profane. The Reason of which is this, because those Things that are called sacred, are not of such a Nature, that the Moment they are consecrated to Religion, Men4 cannot more dispose of them, and make them serve to the Uses of Life, but they5 belong to the<575> Publick, and are termed sacred on Account of the religious Use to which they were intended. For Instance, when one People submit themselves to another Nation, or King, they then deliver up what is called divine, as appears from the Form which we havea elsewhere quoted, out of Livy; to which agrees that in Plautus’s Amphitryo,
2. Ulpian infers therefore,6 that there is a publick Right, even in Things that are sacred.7Pausanias tells us, that it was a common Custom with the Greeks and Barbarians, that Things sacred should be at the Disposal of the Conqueror. So when Troy was taken, the Image of Jupiter Hercaeus fell to the Share of Sthenelus: And he brings many other Examples of the like Custom. Thucydides, Lib. iv. It was a Law among the Grecians, that he who was Master of any Country, whether great or small, was also of the Temples. To which also that in Tacitus agrees, All the Ceremonies, Temples, and Images, in the Italick Towns, were at the Disposal, and under the Power of the Romans.
3. Wherefore the People themselves changing their Minds, may turn any Thing sacred into profane, which the Civilians,8Paulus and9Venulejus, plainly intimate. And in Times of Necessity, Sacred Things10have been converted, even<576> by those who consecrated them, to the Uses of War, as by11Pericles, but with a Promise of full Restitution, by12Mago, in Spain, the13Romans, in the Mithridatic War, by Sylla, Pompey,14Caesar,15 and others. Tiberius Gracchus says in Plutarch,16 ἱερὸν καὶ ἄσυλον οὑδὲν οὔτως ἐστιν, &c. There is nothing so sacred, so inviolable, as Things consecrated to the Gods, and yet no Body hinders the People from using, changing or removing them at their Pleasure. Our Temples, says Seneca17 in the Controversies, are stript for the State, and we melt the Vessels consecrated to the Gods to pay our Soldiers. And Trebatius18 the Lawyer in Caesar’s Time, That is profane, which from being Sacred, or Religious, is converted to the Use of Men and into Property. Thus Germanicus used this Right of Nations against the Marsi, as Tacitus19 relates, He destroyed all Things both sacred and profane, and levelled with the Ground that most famous Temple among those Nations which they called the Temple of Tansanes: To this we may add that of Virgil,
Pausanias20 observes, that Things consecrated to the Gods used to be taken by the Conquerors; and Cicero21 calls it the Law of Arms, speaking of P. Servius, He took away, says he, the Images, and the Ornaments of the Enemy’s City, taken by<577> Force and Valour, by the Law of Arms, and Right of Conquest. So22Livy concerning the Ornaments taken out of the Temples at Syracuse by Marcellus, and brought to Rome, said they were got by the Right of War. And23C. Flaminius in his Oration for M. Fulvius, The Images were carried away, which is commonly done at the taking of Cities. Also Fulvius24 calls this very Thing the Right of War. And Caesar25 in Sallust relating the Miseries that usually fall on the Conquer’d, mentions the robbing of the Temples.
4. It is true however that, if it be believed, that there is any Deity in this or that Image, then to break or spoil it, is to them that are of that Opinion, a great Impiety. And upon this Supposition they that commit such Things are so often accused of Wickedness, and even of violating the Law of Nations; but if the Enemy be of another Opinion, then it is not so. As it was not only permitted, but commanded the Jews, (Deut. vii. 5.) utterly to abolish the Idols of the Gentiles; for that they were forbid to take them to themselves, the Reason was, to create in the Hebrews the greater Detestation of their Superstitions, by supposing that the very Touch of them was polluting: And not that what was consecrated to strange Gods should be spared, as Josephus26expounds it; doubtless in Flattery to the Romans, as he does in the Exposition of another Precept, of not naming the Gods of the Heathen, which he explains by27 not speaking reproachfully of them; whereas the true Sense is that they should not name them with any Honour and Reverence, or without testifying an Abhorrence. For the Hebrews knew certainly, by the immediate Instruction of GOD himself, that there resided in those Images neither the Spirit of GOD, nor good Angels, or any Virtue of the Stars, as the deluded Gentiles imagined; but wicked Daemons, and such as are destructive to Mankind. Therefore Tacitus justly said, in describing the Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews,28All Things sacred to us, are profane to them. No wonder then if we read of so many Idol-Temples burnt by the Macchabees.1Mac. v. and 10. So also Xerxes, when he destroyed the Images of the Grecians, did nothing against the Law of Nations, tho’ the Grecian Writers29 cry out upon it as a heinous Crime, to render their Enemy odious. For the Persians30 did not believe there was any Divinity in them; but they<578> imagined the Sun was the only true GOD,31 and Fire one of his Parts. By the Hebrew Law, as the same Tacitus rightly observes,32none were allowed to enter the Temple but the Priests only.
5. But Pompey,33 says the same Author, entred the Temple by the Right of Conquest; or as St. Augustine relates it,34none with the Devotion of a Suppliant, but by the Right of a Conqueror. He did well to spare the Temple, and the Treasures of it, tho’ as Cicero35 expressly said, out of meer Shame, and to avoid Occasions of Reproach, not out of any Reverence; but he did ill to enter it again, as in Contempt of the true GOD, which the Prophets so highly blame the Chaldeans for; (Daniel v. 23.) for which Cause some think it was so ordered by the Divine Providence, that the same Pompey should be killed at Casius, a Promontory of Egypt, as it were in sight of Judea; but if we consider the Opinion of the Romans,36 there was nothing done by him against the Law of Nations. So Josephus [[37 mentioning the Destruction of the same Temple by Titus, adds that it was done, τῷ τον̂ πολέμου νόμῳ, by the Right of War.]]
III.Yea, and Sepulchres, adding a Caution.III. What we have said of Things sacred, may also be understood of Things1 religious, (or Sepulchres) for these also do not belong to the Dead, but to the Living, whether a People, or a Family. Wherefore Pomponius observes, in the abovementioned Place, that as sacred Things, so likewise Sepulchres cease to be such, when taken by the Enemy; and2Paulus the Lawyer says, The Sepulchres of our Enemies are not religious to us, and therefore we may take the Stones thereof, and put them to any Use. Which yet is so to be understood, that no Violence be offered to the Bodies of the Dead, which3 we have shewed in another Place, to be contrary to the Rights of Burial established by the Law of Nations.
IV.How far Fraud may be used in this Case.IV. This I shall also here repeat, that the Goods of our Enemies may be taken away from them, not only by plain Force, by the Law of Nations, but even by Fraud, so it be without Treachery; nay, in this Case,1 we may solicit others to betray our Enemy. For, in regard to such Sort of Actions, less vicious and very common, the Law of Nations now uses a Kind of Connivance, as the civil Laws do with respect to Prostitution and Usury.<579>
[1 ]Neque est contra naturam, &c. (Cap. VI.) Suetonius relates, that Nero having received Advice of some Commotions in Gaul, was thought to be very well pleased with the News, because he had an Occasion of plundering those rich Provinces by Right of War. Adeoque lente ac secure tulit, gaudentis etiam suspicionem praeberet, tamquam occasione nata spoliandarum Jure Belli opulentissimarum provinciarum. Vit. Neron. Cap. XL. St. Cyprian says, that when a City is taken by an Enemy, all those who are within it, are liable to be plundered. Sic quum irruptione hostili civitas aliqua possessa est, omnes simul captivitas vastat. De mortalitate, (p. 159. Edit. Brem.) Grotius.
[2. ]He says, that in taking or destroying these Kinds of Things, the Enemy is weakened, and our own Affairs advanced. Cap. XI. p. 501, 502. Edit. Amstel.
[3. ]It is the Deputies of Athens who speak thus in the Assembly of the Aetolians, and say that is not the Subject of their Complaint. Neque id se queri, quod hostilia ab hoste passi forent: Esse enim quaedam Belli Jura, quae ut facere, ita pati, sit fas: Sata exuri, dirui tecta, praedas hominum pecorumque agi; misera magis, quam indigna, patienti esse. Lib. XXXI. Cap. XXX. Num. 2.
[4. ]Sed oppidani, portis sponte patefactis, &c. Annal. Lib. XIII. Cap. XLI. Num. 3.
[1 ]Jus Gentium merum, says our Author, that is to say, that which not only grants Impunity, but even authorizes of itself to act, so that we do nothing in Conscience but what is just and innocent, whilst there is no other Consideration drawn from Duty, which engages us to abate of our Right.
[2. ]Quum loca capta sunt, &c. Digest. Lib. XI. Tit. VII. De religiosis, & sumtibus funerum, &c. Leg. XXXVI. It is upon this Tertullian founds the Reproach he casts upon the Pagans, of paying little Respect to their own Divinities: “Wars, says he, generally occasion the Taking, and the Ruin of Cities; which cannot be done without Offence to the Gods; for the Victor spares the Temples no more than he does the Walls of the Place; the Priests are exposed to Slaughter as well as the Citizens; the sacred as well as the profane Goods are plundered: So that the Romans commit as many Sacrileges as they make Conquests, as often as they triumph over Men they triumph over the Gods; and the Statues of captive Divinities make Part of all the Spoils of their conquered Enemies, which are preserved to this Day.” Porro bella & victoriae, &c. Apologetic. (Cap. XXV.) He says lower the same Thing of the destroying of Temples. Et bene, quod si quid adversi, &c. (Cap. XL.) Grotius.
[3. ]He says Marcellus did not touch those Things out of a Principle of Religion. Has tabulas [quibus interiores templi Minervae parietes vestiebantur] &c. In Verr. Lib. IV. Cap. LV.
[4. ]Revera non eripiuntur humanis usibus. These are our Author’s Terms, which I recite to defend him against a false Criticism, which, tho’ it has no other Foundation than Want of due Attention, and a Desire to censure, is however proposed with great Confidence. The late Mr. Cocceius, in his Dissertation De evocatione Sacrorum, Sect. II. § 24. blames our Author, as pretending that sacred Things, whilst they remain such, are not entirely exempt from profane Uses. But the whole Sequel of the Discourse shews, he means only, that those Things do not acquire the Quality of holy and sacred, as an indelible Character, of which they cannot be deprived; but that the Sovereign, who made them so, by devoting them to the Uses of Religion, may make them return into Commerce, and thereby become profane again. Gronovius, and Mr. Vandermuelen have very well explained this, in their Notes; and if the Author who made the Extract in the Bibliotheca Germanica, (Vol. I. p. 55.) had taken the Trouble to read the Passage in the Original, he would have had Occasion to find Fault with the inexcusable Inadvertency and Rashness of the German Civilian, who had made it his Business to criticise our Author almost every where; he would not at least have given Room to believe that he approves a Censure so ill founded.
[5. ]See Thucydides, Lib. IV. (Cap. XCVIII. Ed. Oxon.) And Tacitus, Annal. Lib. III. (Cap. LXXI. Num. 2.) This Custom appears also from a Passage of Polybius, which we shall cite below, Chap. XII. § 7. See also Marsilius Patavinus, in his Defensor Pacis, &c. Cap. V. § 2. Nicolas Boerius, Decis. LXIX. Num. 1. Aegidius Bossius, Practic. Criminal. De foro competente, Num. 101. Cathmannus, Consil. C. Num. 30. Grotius.
[a ]B. ii. ch. 5. § 31.
[6. ]Publicum jus in sacris, in sacerdotibus, in magistratibus, consistit. Digest. Lib. I. Tit. I. De justitia & jure, Leg. I. § 2. See Mr. Noodt’s Comment upon this Title, p. 5. and upon Tit. VIII. De divis. rerum. &c. p. 27.
[7. ]It is in a Place where he endeavours to shew that Augustus was not the first that seized, by Right of War, upon Things consecrated to the Gods. In Arcad. seu. Lib. VIII. p. 275. Edit. Graec. Wech. Cap. XLVI. Edit. Kuhn.
[8. ]Quamvis sacra profana fieri [possunt]. Digest. Lib. XLV. Tit. I. De verborum obligationibus, Leg. LXXXIII. § 5.
[9. ]Where he speaks of the Nullity of conditional Stipulations, in which the Sale of Things sacred, or of such other as do not enter into Commerce, is supposed; a Condition which is considered as impossible; though the Impossibility may afterwards cease; that is, as we see, for Instance, that what is sacred may become profane. Quum quis sub hac conditione stipulatus sit, si rem sacram aut religiosam Titius vendiderit, vel Forum aut Basilicam, & hujusmodi res, quae publicis usibus in perpetuum relictae sunt, ubi omnino conditio jure impleri non potest, vel id facere ei non liceat: Nullius momenti fore stipulationem, proinde ac si ea conditio, quae naturâ impossibilis est, inserta esset. Nec ad rem pertinet, quod jus mutari potest, & id, quod nunc impossibile est postea possibile fieri: Non enim secundum futuri temporis jus, sed secundum praesentis, aestimari debet Stipulatio. Ibid. Leg. CXXXVII. § 6.
[10. ]As by the Syracusans, in Timoleon’s Time, which Plutarch informs us of, in the Life of that great Captain. (p. 247. E. Vol. I. Edit. Wech.) The People of the Island of Chios, not having Money to pay the Fine laid on them by Mithridates, sold the Ornaments of their Temples. Appian, Bell. Mithridatic. (p. 339. Edit. Amstel. 201. H. Steph.) Sylla being in Want of Money, during the War against the same Mithridates, took what was most valuable amongst the Things consecrated to the Gods, in the Temples of Olympia, Epidaurus, and Delphos.Plutarch, in ejus Vit. (p. 459. Vol. I.) Appian. Bell. Mithridatic. (p. 346, 347. Edit. Amstel. 206. H. Steph.) He afterwards returned the Value of them, if we may believe Diodorus Siculus, in Excerpt. Peiresc. (p. 406.) Augustus, in a like Necessity, borrowed Money out of the Treasures kept in the Temples. Appian, Bell. Civil. Lib. V. (p. 1082. Edit. Amst. 678. H. Steph.) Sacred Things were also made Use of upon other Occasions, besides War. We see in Cassiodorus, that Agapetus, Bishop of Rome, had pledged the sacred Vessels. Var. XII. 20. The Emperor Heraclius, in great Necessity, coined the Church Plate into Money; but returned the Value of it afterwards, as Theophanes tells us. See also Anna Comnena, Lib. V. (Cap. I.) and Lib. VI. (Cap. II.) Cromer. Rerum Polon. Lib. XXIII. (p. 516. Edit. Basil. 1655.) The Discourse of Laurentianus, in Bembo, Lib. VI. and what we shall say below, Chap. XXI. § 23. in the Text and Notes. Grotius.
[11. ]Our Author took this without doubt from Thucydides, Lib. II. Cap. XIII. and from Diodorus Siculus, Lib. XII. Cap. XL. who both say, that Pericles, intending to shew the Athenians, that they had wherewithal to undertake War, represented to them, that besides the Money and Vessels of the Temples, they might take the Gold of Minerva’s Statue, to whom they might restore as much after having made Use of it for the good of the Publick.
[12. ]He plundered the Temples of the City of Cadiz, then in Alliance with Carthage. Non aerario modo eorum, [Gaditanorum] sed etiam Templis spoliatis, &c.Livy, Lib. XXVIII. Cap. XXXVI. Num. 3.
[13. ]Our Author had undoubtedly in his Thoughts, what Appianus Alexandrinus informs us, that the Senate, being in want of Money to defray the Expences of the War against Mithridates, decreed, that the Things, consecrated by Numa Pompilius for the Sacrifices, should be sold. De bell. Mithridat. p. 317. Edit. Amstel. (185. H. Steph.)
[14. ]I find nothing on that Head, in the Authors who have writ the Life and Actions of Pompey, except what Dion Cassius says, near the beginning of Lib. XLI. of his History; which is, that Pompey got a Decree of the Senate, that the Money in the publick Treasury, and all the Presents, offered to the Gods at Rome, should be carried with him into Campania. But, as the same Historian adds a little lower, (p. 174. Edit. H. Steph.) Nothing was touched of all that, for fear of Caesar, after the Return and Report of the Deputies, which were sent to him.
[15. ]Our Author probably remembred what he had read in Suetonius; that Caesar when in Gaul, plundered the Temples, that were full of the Offerings, which had been made to the Gods: In Gallia sana templaque Deûm, donis referta, expilavit. Cap. LIV. See also Dion Cassius, Lib. XLII. and XLIII. Caesar himself however, to justify the civil War in which he had engaged, complains amongst other Things, that the Money had been taken out of the Temples by the opposite Party: Pecuniae a municipiis exiguntur, & a fanis tolluntur: Omnia divina & humana jura permiscentur. De Bell. Civil. Lib. I. Cap. VI.
[16. ]Vit. Tiber. & C. Gracch. p. 832. A. Vol. I. Edit. Wech.
[17. ]Pro republica plerumque templa nudantur, & in usum stipendii dona conflamus, Lib. IV. Excerpt. Controv. IV.
[18. ]Eo accedit, quodTrebatius, &c. ApudMacrob. Saturnal. Lib. III. (Cap. III.) The Grammarian Servius, speaking of the Temple of Ceres, which stood without the Gates of Troy, says, that Aeneas, who appointed that Place for the Rendezvous of his People, well knew, that it had been profaned before: Nam Aeneas scit ante esse profanatum. In Aeneid. II. (Ver. 713.) He makes the same Remark upon III. IX. and XII. Books. And he says on Eclogue VII. that Presents, offered to the Gods, are sacred so long as they have not been rendered profane: Dona autem oblata numinibus, tamdiu sacra sunt, & dona possunt dici, quamdiu non fuerint profanata. (In Ver. 31.) Grotius.
[19. ]Profana simul & sacra, &c. Annal. Lib. I. Cap. LI. Num. 2.
[20. ]In the Passage cited above upon Paragraph II. of this Chapter, Note 7.
[21. ]P. Servilius quae signa atque ornamenta ex urbe hostium vi & virtute capta,Belli Legeatque imperatoria jure sustulit, &c. In Var. Lib. I. (Cap. XXI.) Virgil mentions a Shield, which the Greeks had taken out of the Temple of Neptune, where it had been consecrated
Aeneid. Lib. V. (Ver. 359, 360.) Fabius Maximus, as Plutarch relates, after having taken Tarentum, caused a Statue of Hercules of an extraordinary Bigness to be carried to Rome, leaving the Tarentines the rest of their Gods, because offended against them for their Crimes. Vit. Fab. Max. (p. 187. C. Vol. I.) To this may be referred the Passage of Tertullian, which we have cited above, § 2. Note 2. and another from the same Father, where he says the same Thing: Tot deinde de Deis, quot de gentibus triumphi: Manent & simulacra captiva: Et utique sentiunt, quos non amant. Ad Nationes, Lib. II. (Cap. XVII.) Grotius.
[22. ]Ornamenta urbis, signa, tabulasque, &c. Lib. XXV. Cap. XL. Num. 2.
[23. ]Ambraciam oppugnatam & captam, &c. Idem, Lib. XXXVIII.
[24. ]Fulvius, in the Speech he made to justify his Conduct, asks whether this was the only City exempt from the Rights of War: Nisi Syracusarum, &c. Idem, (Lib. XXXI. Cap. IV. Num. 12.) See also Polybius, Excerpt. Legat. XXVI. Grotius.
[25. ]Quae belli saevitia esset, quae victis acciderent, &c. (Bell. Catilen. Cap. L. p. 156. Edit. Wass.) Cosroez plundered a Church in Antioch, as Procopius relates, Persic. Lib. II. [Cap. IX. but preserved the Building for a certain Sum paid him.] See Cromer, Rerum Polon. Lib. XVII. (p. 402.) Grotius.
[26. ]The two Laws ill explained, are in the same Place of that Author: Let no one speak ill of the Gods, held by other States to be such. Let no one plunder the Temples of Strangers, nor take away any Thing consecrated to any God. Antiq. Jud. Lib. IV. Cap. VIII.
[27. ]See the foregoing Note. He says elsewhere, that their Law forbids them to scoff at, or speak ill of, those whom Strangers hold for Gods; because of the Name of GOD, which they bear. Contra Apion. Lib. II. p. 1077. D. Others believe, and with more Reason, that the Jewish Historian intended hereby to explain another Law, namely, that of Exodus xxii. 28. where the Original says in so many Words, Thou shalt not revile the Gods. By the Gods, the Legislator manifestly understands the Magistrates, as appears from the following Words, which are a Comment upon those that go before, Nor curse the Rulers of thy People. But Josephus has taken the Word Gods in the literal Sense; and if he did so sincerely, the Motive our Author mentions, no doubt contributed to his falling into that Error.
[28. ]Profana illic omnia, quae apud nos sacra. Histor. Lib. V. Cap. IV. Num. 1.
[29. ]Trogus Pompeius, imitating without doubt the Language of the Greek Authors, from whom he composed his History, says, in Justin’s Abridgment, which we have, that Xerxes seemed to have designed to make War upon the Gods as well as upon Men: Ante navalis praelii congressionem miserat Xerxes quatuor millia armatorum Delphos, ad templum Apollinis diripiendum: Prorsus quasi non cum Graecis tantum sed & cum Diis immortalibus bellum gereret. Lib. II. Cap. XII. Num. 8, 9. See the Passage of Cicero cited in the following Note.
[30. ]This is the Reason given for it by Asconius Pedianus, whom our Authorcites in the Margin. Cicero, to aggravate the Crime of Verres, who had plundered amongst others the Temple of Delos, sacred to Apollo, says that even the Persians, who, when they carried the War into Greece, had declared it against both the Gods and Men, (the Roman Orator here speaks the Language of the Greek Authors) being arrived at Delos, with a Fleet of a thousand Sail, did not violate or touch the Temple in question. Tantaque ejus auctoritas religionis & est, & semper fuit, ut ne Persae quidem, &c. In Verr. Lib. I. Cap. XVIII. The antient Commentator observes upon that, that the Persians made no Scruple to destroy Temples and Statues, because, according to the Ideas of their Nation, they believed, that no Temples ought to be built to the Gods; and the rather, because the whole World would scarce suffice for the Temple of the Sun alone, which those People adored: Diis Hominibusquequia non solum hostes erant, utpote Barbari; verum etiam, more gentis suae, nulla Diis in terris templa condenda esse credebant; praesertim, quum uni Soli, quem venerarentur, vix mundus ipse sufficeret. Our Author cites also in a little Note, what Diogenes Laertius says, that the Magi condemned the Use of Statues. Lib. I. § 6. Edit. Amstel. See Menage upon it, and the Index Philologicus of Mr. Le Clerc upon Stanley’s History of the Eastern Philosophy, at the Word Statuae.
[31. ]The Reader may see upon this Head the History of the antient Persians, writ in Latin by the late Mr. Hyde, a learned Englishman, who has endeavoured to prove, that those People of old adored neither Fire, nor the Sun, but the true GOD; which, he believes, is to this Day the Religion of some of their Descendants.
[32. ]Ad fores [Templi Hierosolymitani] tantum Judaeo aditus: limine, praeter Sacerdotes, arcebantur. Hist. Lib. V. Cap. VIII. Num. 2.
[33. ]Romanorum primus, Cn. Pompeius Judaeos domuit. TemplumqueJure Victoriaeingressus est. Histor. Lib. V. Cap. IX. Num. 1.
[34. ]Pompeius ergo, Populi Romani praeclarissimus Princeps, Judaeam cum exercitu ingressus, civitatem capit, templumque reserat, non devotione supplicis, sedJure Victoris, De Civit. Dei, Lib. XVIII. Cap. XLV.
[35. ]At Cn. Pompeius, captis Hierosolymis, &c. Orat. pro L. Flacco, Cap. XXVIII.
[36. ]There is besides another Reason, which might justify the Pagans against the Reproach of Sacrilege, even when they plundered the Temples of the Gods whom they acknowledged as such. And that is, because they imagined, that when a City was taken, the Gods, who were adored in it, abandoned their Temples and Altars at the same Time; especially after they had been called out, they and all the sacred Things, with certain Ceremonies. See the learned Gronovius’s Note upon § 2. of this Chapter, and the Dissertation of Mr. Cocceius, De evocatione Sacrorum.
[37. ]Debell. Jud. Lib. VII. Cap. XXIV. p. 56. G. Titus says elsewhere, that he was desirous of saving the Temple, and so to forget the Right of War. Cap. XXXIV. p. 963. F.
[1 ]Sepulchres were consecrated to the infernal Gods, whereas sacred Things were for the other Gods. See Mr. Noodt upon the Digest, Lib. I. Tit. VIII. p. 58.
[2. ]Sepulcra hostium, &c. Digest, Lib. XLVII. Tit. XII. De sepulcro violato, Leg. IV.
[3. ]It suffices to say, that this is of no Use either for our Defence, the Support of our Rights, or in a Word for any lawful End of War.
[1 ]See what is said upon the foregoing Chapter, § 18. Note 10.