Front Page Titles (by Subject) CHAPTER III: Question I - Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
CHAPTER III: Question I - Hugo Grotius, Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty 
Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty, ed. and with an Introduction by Martine Julia van Ittersum (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006).
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.
Article I. Is any war just?
Article II. Is any war just for Christians?
Article III. Is any war just for Christians, against Christians?
Article IV. Is any war just for Christians, against Christians, from the standpoint of all law?
Accordingly, before we enter into a discussion of prize and booty, we must dispose of a certain question regarding war, namely: Can any war be just?[14′]
To be sure, no one has ever succeeded in representing this as a doubtful issue without also rejecting a large part of Holy Writ, together with the supreme benefactions conferred by the Divine and Eternal Spirit, that is to say, civil order and the lawful authority of magistrates. In earlier times the Manichees were included in this subversive group, and even now there are persons who revive many errors of the Manichees, under a new name. The ignorant teachings of the Manichaean sect, however, both in regard to the question propounded above and on other matters, were refuted long ago by Augustine;a nor has our own age lacked authorities to beat back with unanswerable arguments the recrudescent tide of superstition released by fanatics.
In our opinion there is less need to refute the doctrines of such fanatics than there is to strengthen the stand taken by other persons, who do not profess the said doctrines but who nevertheless lack an adequate under-standing of the reason for adopting a different belief. Therefore, we shall elucidate this point, as follows.
He who wills the attainment of a given end,Formal Exposition of Article I wills also the things that are necessary to that end.a God wills that we should protect ourselves, retain our hold on the necessities of life, obtain that which is our due, punish transgressors, and at the same time defend the state, executing its orders as well as the commands of its magistrates. All this is plainly revealed in the laws set forth in the preceding chapter.b But these divine objectives sometimes constitute causes for undertaking and carrying on war. In fact, they are of such a nature that it is very often impossible for us to attain them without recourse to warfare, as is indicated in the definition of war already formulated.c Just as a certain natural conflict is waged, so to speak, between dryness and moisture, or between heat and cold, so there is a similar conflict between justice and injustice. Indeed, factual evidence clearly shows that there are in existence many men of a bloodthirsty, rapacious, unjust, and nefarious disposition, traitors to their native lands and disparagers of sovereign power—men who are strong, too, and equipped with weapons—who must be conquered in battle (as Tacitus puts it) in order that they may be brought to book as criminals. Thus it is God’s Will that certain wars should be waged; that is to say (in the phraseology of the theologians),d certain wars are waged in accordance with God’s good pleasure. Yet no one will deny that whatsoever God wills, is just.e Therefore, some wars are just; or, in other words, it is permissible to wage war.
Nor is there even any pretext for objecting to these just wars. For the persons who hate war, base their hatred either upon its causes or upon its effects. The theologians and the philosophers have levelled many severe criticisms at such causes as ambition, avarice, and dissension; yet the same authorities, despite their censorious attitude towards un-just wars, do not by any means deny that certain wars are just. As for the critics whose condemnation of war is based upon its effects, such persons fall into the all-too-frequent error of failure to distinguish between τὸ καθ’ αὑτὸ καὶ τὸ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, “the essential and the incidental.” For, granting that damage and destruction frequently occur in the course of a war even when it is justly waged, nevertheless, we cannot raise any objection on this ground, when those who are fighting for a righteous reason have as their purpose the conservation of their own lives and property. Every act should be judged by its essential nature, not on the basis of additional and extraneous factors. “Virtue is never increased by its consequences”;a neither, therefore, can it be impaired by its consequences. In other words, as the Stoicsb quite rightly taught, acts that spring from virtue should be deemed righteous in the light of their very inception and not because of their perfect execution. In so far as concerns the actual outcome in the majority of cases, however, it is permissible to assert that God customarily interposes His judgement in the fortunes of war in such a way that success falls not infrequently on the side where right also lies.
First Formal Exposition of Articles II and IIIAs for a certain fanciful belief entertained by some persons—namely, that warfare was formerly permissible but has become illicit since Christ propounded His teachings, or at least that this is the case as regards wars among Christians—that supposition might be viewed with tolerance if it were interpreted as meaning that there always exists in any war, on one side or the other, some guilt unworthy of the name of Christian; but in the present instance, when the said persons maintain that both sides are necessarily committing a sin, their contention is the height of absurdity.
For the law of nature—that is to say, the law instilled by God into the heart of created things, from the first moment of their creation, for their own conservation—is law for all times and all places,a inasmuch as the Divine Will is immutable and eternal. This is the conclusion reached by Socrates, as quoted in Plato’s Minos.b The validity of such law for all times is proclaimed by Sophocles,c when he says:
Its validity for all places is recognized by Empedoclesd in these lines:
But the law of war is a phase of the law of nature, a point supported by the foregoing discussion and correctly explained by Josephuse in the following statement: φύσεως γὰρ νόμος ἰσχυρὸς ἐν ἅπασι τὸ ζη̑ν ἐθἑλειν, διὰ του̑το καὶ τοὺς φανερω̑ς ἀφαιρουμἑνους ἔμα̑ς τούτου πολεμίους ἔγούμεθα. “For the law of nature is the law in force among all beings, which imposes upon them the will to live; and precisely herein lies our reason for regarding as enemies those persons who manifestly desire to deprive us of life.” Moreover, we see other living creatures similarly engaged in strife, impelled by a certain natural instinct and acting not[15′] only in defence of their lives but also for the sake of their conjugal companions (so to speak), their offspring, their homes, and their sustenance. Therefore, if this law is valid for all times, it is valid even for times after the advent of Christ; if it is valid for all places, it is valid even among Christians.a
Let us demonstrate the same point in another way.Second Formal Exposition of Articles II and III That which is approved by the universal consent of all peoples is law for all and in regard to all. But war falls under this head; for any precept of the law of nature must necessarily be a precept of the law of nations, since it clearly enjoys the support of reason. Thus Hermogenianusb ascribes the authorization of wars to the law of nations; and Florentinusc derives from the same source authorization for the protection of one’s body and for the repulsion of all injuries. Baldus,d the finest philosopher among the jurists, adopts an identical view when he says that reason has recourse to arms whenever justice cannot be secure without arms. Furthermore, throughout the world, explored by now almost in its entirety, no nation has been found that does not regard as lawful the prosecution of its rights, even by armed force. What, indeed, is the nature of the threat to adversaries implicit in the ramparts of walled cities (so lofty even in times of peace!), in boundary fortifications, in the guards posted at city gates, if it be not the threat of war? But if the law in question exists for all and in regard to all, then it must surely exist even for Christians against Christians, since we certainly do not deny that the latter form a part of mankind, and since the logical principle involved is, moreover, the same, inasmuch as Christians both suffer and inflict injury—even, at times, armed injury. For the term “Christians” is employed here with reference to the profession of that name, rather than to the imitation of Christ’s life which proves that we are truly Christians.e Let us grant that we are brothers; but, unless I am mistaken, it is right that I should repulse with arms a brother who is eager to slay me and who is already brandishing his weapons!
Formal Exposition of Article IVTherefore, according to every kind of law, it is permissible to wage war. For we have already made it sufficiently clear that warfare is compatible with divine law, that is to say, with the law of nature and the law of nations; and the precepts of these two bodies of law certainly cannot be invalidated by civil law.a As Cicerob observed, civil precepts do not necessarily form a part of the law of nations, but the precepts of the latter ought to be recognized as a part of civil law. For even citizens, since they are also human beings, should desire what all humanity desires; and as human beings, representing the handiwork of God, they are obliged to obey the dictates imposed by Him through nature. Furthermore, wars have a bearing not only upon the safety of individuals, but also upon the defence of the state and its magistrates. It is for this reason that there is no state which has refrained entirely from establishing some provision relative to the law of war. As a matter of fact, the most illustrious legislators have devoted a chief part of their labours to the task of decreeing rewards for the brave and punishments for the cowardly. Roman law, indeed, is justly regarded as having attained to the highest degree of perfection in the magnitude and long duration of its sway; and if we search this field for the authoritative opinions of jurists and the imperial regulations of the Caesars, we shall find whole chapters “Concerning Captives and Postliminium,” “Concerning Military Matters,” and “Concerning Veterans,” as well as others dealing with the privileges accorded to soldiers.c Again, if we turn to the papal Decrees,d many of these will be found—whether issued by the pontiffs themselves or assembled from the statements of ancient writers—which quite clearly proclaim the justice of wars.
First Informal Exposition of Article INow let us consider the testimony of Holy Writ. Although this method of proof is ἄτεχνον, “not derived from the art [of logic],” it is indeed by far the most certain method. For just as the Will of God—constituting the norm of justice, as we have already indicated—is revealed to us through nature, so also is it revealed through the Scriptures.
But God has commanded that wars be waged, as undertakings congruous with His Will,a and has furthermore declared Himself to be their Author and Aid.b He has even accepted the appellation “a man of war” as appropriate to His own majesty.c This same point is borne out by the divinely inspired pronouncement of the high priest who assured Abraham that God had delivered Abraham’s enemies into his hands;d and also by the words of the wise woman Abigail,e addressed to King David: “. . . my lord fighteth the battles of the Lord.” Indeed, the very fact that God endowed the state established by Himself with this institution of war,f as a form of defence, alone affords sufficient proof that the said institution is just and should be adopted by other nations whenever a like reason exists. Moreover, I believe all sane men will agree that he who lays down laws to regulate a given act does not disapprove of the act itself, and that this is especially true as applied to God, who does nothing without purpose or erroneously. Yet God prescribed regulations for warfare, through Moses,g and again, through the forerunner of Christ, as recorded in the New Testament.h With reference to the latter passage, Augustinei says: “. . . if Christian doctrine condemned all wars, [the soldiers] who sought [ John’s advice], according to the Gospel [of Luke], would have received, instead [of the advice they did receive], the following counsel of salvation: that they should cast away their arms and withdraw completely from military service. The counsel given them, however, was this: ‘Do violence to no man . . .; and be content with your wages.’ Surely [ John] was not prohibiting military service for those to whom he addressed the precept that their due wage [as soldiers] should suffice.”
Second Informal Exposition of Article IThe principle stated above1 —namely, that he to whom a given end[16′] is pleasing, cannot be displeased by what is necessary to that end—may be deduced from authoritative passages no less than by a logical process, since all of the laws thus far propounded are also inscribed in Holy Writ. For He who bids us love our neighbour as ourselves,a gives first place to the true love of self, regarded as the πρωτότυπον, or prototype, whose ἔκτυπος, or image, is love for others.b If we combine this maxim with the precept laid down by the Creator for mankind,c we shall arrive not only at the conclusions incorporated in the First and Third Laws, but also at those expressed in the Second and Fourth.2 Indeed, since we are admonished by God to deliver them that are drawn unto death,d we are under a particularly solemn obligation to deliver ourselves. Yet again, we are bidden to “give to him that needeth,”e and therefore we are bidden to avert need from ourselves. The Fifth and Sixth Laws, too, are implicit in these passages: “Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the Lord”;f “. . . with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”;g “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise”h (what ye would not have done unto you, do ye not unto others).i,3 Christ does indeed show us that the law of nations requires that good be done to the doers of good; yet He also says: “. . . all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”a This same doctrine was expressed in the Old Law,b which goes so far as to prohibit us strictly from showing compassion to evildoers. But it often happens that, owing to the power of our adversaries, we are unable to defend ourselves and our possessions, exact that which is due us, or enforce punishment, save by resorting to armed force. Therefore, it is permissible to wage war.
Other laws, too, are found to have a firm foundation in the Sacred Scriptures. For example, when the advantages of social organization are pointed out to us [in the Book of Ecclesiastes],c we acquire an understanding of the origin of the state; just as we come to understand the sanctity of magistrates, when Pauld asserts in no uncertain terms that magistrates “are ordained of God.” From this same source the force of civil laws is derived, as is the power of judgement, given from above by Jesus Himself,e the Author thereof. Thus Divine Wisdom—of which all human wisdom is but ἀπορρώξ, “a fragment,” or offshoot, as it were—is represented as saying:f “Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.” Again, what could be clearer than the exhortation of Paul?g “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.” In all the works of the philosophers—howsoever numerous and wheresoever found—there is no finer passage regarding the justice of magistrates. Do you ask who is the [true] author of this exhortation? The Author is God. For what purpose is it formulated? For your own good. And since God wills that the authority of magistrates shall be sacrosanct, does He not also approve of arms, whereby at times that authority must be defended? But will God extend to magistrates an avenging sword for use against unarmed culprits while refusing to give them a weapon against culprits who are armed, thus affording grounds for that incitement to all wickedness, the belief that “Whatever sin is committed by the many, goes unpunished”?a By no means! For the individual who sins alone ought not to be in a worse position than those persons who add to their own direct transgressions another evil—namely, the exposure of many people to the contagion of crime, and attack by open violence upon the laws and the public peace—and who are not therefore more in the right than other sinners, but rather, less susceptible to fear and shame.
From the foregoing observations it follows that some public wars are just. This same conclusion may be confirmed in yet another way.
Third Informal Exposition of Article IFor anyone who approves of the institutions established for the attainment of an end, can scarcely fail to approve of the end itself even much more emphatically; and no one is ignorant of the fact that tribute is an institution established primarily for purposes of war. Tacitusb spoke truly when he said: “there can be no tranquillity among nations unless there are armies, there can be no armies without pay, and pay cannot be provided without the exaction of tribute.” But God Himself,[17′] speaking both through Christ and through the Apostle Paul, ordains the payment of tribute.a Therefore, from this argument, too, it follows that some wars are approved by God as just.
First Informal Exposition of Article IITo the preceding assertion, I shall add the phrase, “even wars on the part of Christians.” For everything permitted prior to the establishment of the Law of Christ and not expressly prohibited by Him, is permissible for Christians;b we have already shown, and it is universally admitted, that there were just wars before the time of Christ; and He prohibited none of the things that were just according to the law of nature, among which (as we have observed) wars were included.Second Informal Exposition of Article II Furthermore, Christ changed no part of the Old Lawc that pertained in any way to justice and moral usage in human activities, under which head we place warfare. The contention that warfare was clearly approved,Third Informal Exposition of Article II is quite convincingly supported, moreover, by the above-citedd opinions of both John the Baptist and Paul.
First Informal Exposition of Article IIISome wars, then, are just for Christians. This conclusion is applicable even to some wars against Christians, that is to say, against persons who profess Christianity. For, by definition and in accordance with the very nature of opposites,e war is just when waged against those who commit injustice; but some Christians commit evil and unjust deeds, a fact to which Christ bears witness;f and therefore, it is lawful to proceed against such Christians with armed force.
Second Informal Exposition of Article IIIAgain, Christians are subject to punishment; for it is to them that Paula speaks, in the passage above quoted. Indeed, those persons whom reverence for the most sacred of names has been unable to restrain from injurious conduct, are perhaps deserving of punishment by no means less severe than that merited by others. But certain penalties cannot be exacted without warfare. Consequently, even as it is unquestionably true that just wars were waged among the Hebrews,b despite the fact that they were bound to one another by ties not only of religion but also of government and blood relationship, so it cannot properly be doubted that similar conflicts may arise among Christians.
At the same time, one must admit that persons who furnish grounds for war by their injurious acts, are certainly not complying with the duties imposed upon Christians, since the followers of Christ are subject to a special and solemn obligation of love and concord, surpassing the common bond that unites all mankind. On the other hand, the arguments above set forth are in no sense incompatible with the prohibition laid down by Christ Himself and also by the philosophers (particularly the Platonists), against τὸ ἀνταδικει̑ν, “the requital of injury.” For, in the light of the fairly extensive consideration we have already givenc to the subject of punishments, we are able to perceive just what it is that these authorities condemn.
In the first place, it is quite obvious that the precepts in question were addressed to private individuals, or to servants of the Church whom Christ chose to regard in this connexion as private individuals; and it is equally obvious that those acts [of individual vengeance] are rightly prohibited, which would disturb the whole order of the state, shattering the public peace, if they were permitted. This point has been brought out in our discussion of the Ninth Law. Thus a rule of ancient lawd declares that action which may be taken publicly through a magistrate is prohibited for private persons, lest occasion be given for graver disturbances. In another context, we shall see how far the application of this rule should be extended. Meanwhile, suffice it to say that the precepts which we are discussing, clearly do not refer to the public use of arms. If we took the contrary view, we should be subscribing to the accusation brought by Celsus and Julian, enemies of our faith, who falsely declared that the Christians, in abolishing revenge, were abolishing all laws, together with magistracies and the punishment of malefactors. This is so far from being the truth that, on the contrary, our theologiansa place Punishment in the category of the virtues, regarding her as the handmaiden of Justice. A second fault susceptible of condemnation in connexion with vengeance, stands out so plainly that it could be left unmentioned. This is the fault involved when the cause of the avenger is unjust. A third fault consists in exceeding the limits of vengeance appropriate to the transgression. Senecab has said that the second fault is incompatible with justice, and the third, with clemency. A fourth fault arises when vengeance is inflicted in a spirit of injustice, or in other words, when neither the good of the person punished nor the common good is kept in view. The two faults last named are mentioned by that same Senecac in a single passage, [the description of an occasion on which Plato refrained from inflicting punishment and explained his self-restraint in these words: “I am angry;] I should be apt to do more than I ought, and with too much pleasure.”
For punishment, according to our preceding analysis of terms, consists properly in the repayment of that which is owed by the part to the whole as a result of wrongdoing; and therefore, it ought to be directed to the public interest. Together with this observation, one should take into account the fact (already brought out in the aforesaid analysis) that it is frequently better for the sinner himself, that wickedness should not be allowed to go unpunished. Herein lies the purport of Augustine’sa declaration that nothing is more infelicitous than the felicity of sinners.
Surely, then, if it is not always our duty to remit punishments, far less can it be our duty to remit that which is owed us on the basis of reciprocal justice. For even the precepts that apparently favour remission do[18′] not command us to renounce indiscriminately and to fling away,b as it were, that which belongs to us. In fact, men of saintly character have never scrupled to obtain what was their due, either through judicial procedure or, when other means were lacking, through the just application of force. What those precepts do command, is that we should yield in preference to involving ourselves in sin or becoming an impediment to the public welfare. In many cases, however, it is advantageous not only for our own sake but also because of the example set before the public, that we should possess that which is rightfully ours.
Informal Exposition of Article IVTherefore, according to the opinions which we have cited, divine law is not opposed to all wars. Furthermore, since law as a whole is rightly divided into the divine branch and the human branch, and since we have already shown that some wars have a basis in divine law, it follows from the doctrinec which denies the validity of human law whenever the latter branch comes into conflict with the divine, that those same wars are just from the standpoint of all law.
So far our citations have been drawn from divine testimony.d From this same source many additional arguments could be derived, if[19′] we combined that testimony with the logical considerations expounded in preceding passages and based upon nature itself.
We turn next to that human authority which is of course more open to question, but which nevertheless carries considerable weight. Now, such authority is divided into two kinds: that derived from facts, and that derived from words.
Informal proofs relative to whole question, based on examplesFor, assuming that the actions of just men are properly regarded as just—in other words, assuming that example is of paramount importance in the decision of all questions—I shall cite the following sources: the age when men lived under the guidance of nature,a which supplies the example of the warring Abraham; the [Old] Law itself,b which gives us Moses and David as examples; New Testament history,c including more than one reference to centurions as well as the request made by Paul himself for a military guard against the snares of his enemies; and the centuries following thereafter,d with their record of numerous exceedingly pious emperors and most Christian kings who waged wars even against men bearing the name of Christians. And what of the written accounts which relate that wars were carried on by those illustrious ancients, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, Samuel, and various prophets who were quickened by the same true faith in Christ that quickens us?e From these examples, it follows that some wars are just for the faithful.
Informal proofs relative to whole question, based on recorded opinionAgain, since it is rightly maintained that those things are just and pious which have been so adjudged by just and pious men (not to mention the entire number of the philosophers, or the jurisconsults, none of whom has expressed any doubt on this point), I shall quote a very few of the opinions formulated by persons highly esteemed for their piety and erudition. The following assertion was made by Augustine:f“The functions of vengeance may be discharged by virtuous men acting with virtuous intent, just as they may be discharged by a judge, or by the law.” The same author wrote:g “Not for nothing have these institu-tions been established: kingly power, and the lawful authority of judicial inquisitors; the clawlike instruments of the torturer; the arms of the soldier; the discipline of the absolute master, and even the severity of the good father. All of the things above mentioned have their methods, causes, reasons, uses. When they are feared, the wicked are held in check, and the good dwell in tranquillity among the wicked.” This passage, too, is taken from Augustine:a “The greedy urge to inflict harm, cruel vengefulness, an unappeased and unappeasable spirit, savage rebellion, lust for dominion and any similar trait that may appear—these are the things that law finds blameworthy in warfare. Frequently, in order that such things may also be punished in accordance with law, war itself—of the kind necessarily waged against the violence of opponents, whether by divine command or at the instance of some lawfully constituted sovereign power —is undertaken by good men, who find themselves involved in an order of human events that constrains them, as a matter of justice, either to issue or to obey commands to this effect. Wherefore, John does not instruct the soldiers to abandon their arms, and Christ directs that tribute be paid to Caesar; for, on account of wars, it is necessary that pay be provided for the soldiery.” Augustineb also supplies us with this correct and extremely concise statement: “Among the true worshippers of God, even wars themselves have a pacific character, being waged not because of cupidity or cruelty, but because of an earnest desire for peace, with the purpose of restraining the wicked and giving support to the virtuous.” Hec takes into account not only divine law, but human law as well, saying: “When a soldier slays a man in obedience to the power under which that soldier has been legitimately enrolled, he is not charged with homicide by any law of his own state.” One among many observations made by Jeromed runs as follows: “He who smites the wicked because of their wickedness, and holds the implements of destruction for the purpose of putting to death the vilest sinners, is a minister of God.” It was Jerome,e too, who said: “He is not cruel, who slays the cruel.” The words of Ambrosea may also be cited: “The courage which by warlike means protects the fatherland from alien enemies, or defends the weak at home, or guards one’s comrades against bandits, is just in the fullest sense of the term.”
Accordingly, whether we obey the guidance of nature (which we must obey, even though it be unwillingly), whether we heed the teachings of Holy Writ (from which it is sinful to dissent), whether or not we are also influenced in some degree either by the example or by the pronouncements of famous men—in short, whatsoever line of reasoning, whatsoever authority, we embrace—we mustConclusion I conclude that: Some wars are just for Christians, against Christians, from the standpoint of all law.b
[a. ]Particularly, in Against Faustus [XXII. lxxiv].
[a. ]Scotus, 41, dist. 1, only qu. [in Scriptum Oxoniense, I, dist. 41, n. 11].
[b. ]In Chap. ii.
[c. ]At end of Chap. ii, supra, p. 50.
[d. ]Rainerius of Pisa, Pantheologia, word bellum, ii.
[e. ]See Rule I.
[a. ]Lucan [The Civil War, IX. 571].
[b. ]Cicero, On Ends, IV [III. ix. 32].
[a. ]See Arist., The Art of Rhetoric, I. xiii  and ibid. xv [6–7]; id., Nic. Ethics, V. x [V. vii. 1–2]; Cicero, On Invention, II [liii]; Institutes, I. ii. 11; Th. Aq. I–II, qu. 94, art. 5.
[b. ][p. 316 b.]
[c. ]Antigone [456–7].
[d. ][Nature and Principles of Things in Fragments, lines 426–7.]
[e. ]Jewish War, III. xxv [III. 370].
[a. ]Th. Aq. I–II, qu. 93, art. 6 and qu. 94, art. 3.
[b. ]Dig. I. i. 5.
[c. ]Ibid. 3.
[d. ]On Code, III. xxxiv. 2, n. 69.
[e. ]See Th. Aq. II–II, qu. 108, art. 1, ad 3.
[a. ]Dig. I. i. 9; Th. Aq. I–II, qu. 95, art. 2; Plato, Minos [p. 316 a–c].
[b. ]On Duties, III [xvii. 69].
[c. ]Institutes, II. xi and Dig. XLIX. xvii, and in many places in the last book of the Code.
[d. ]Decretum, II. xxiii; ibid. I. i. 7.
[a. ]Judges, xx. 18; 1 Samuel, xxiii. 2 and 38 [xxiii. 8]; 2 Samuel, v. 19; see also Legnano, De Bello, xi.
[b. ]Psalms, xviii. 35 ; ibid. cxliv, at beginning.
[c. ]Exodus, xv. 3.
[d. ]Genesis, xiv. 20.
[e. ]1 Samuel, xxv. 28.
[f. ]Sacred history, passim.
[g. ]Deuteronomy, xx. 10.
[h. ]Luke, iii. 14.
[i. ]Letters, iv [v. 15], To Marcellus, cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 1. 2.
[1. ]Supra, p. 52, “Formal Exposition of Article I.”
[a. ]Leviticus, xix. 18; Matthew, xix. 19.
[b. ]See Scotus, 29, dist. 1, only qu. [Scriptum Oxoniense, III, dist. 28, n. 2]; Th. Aq. II–II, qu. 26, art. 4.
[c. ]Genesis, i. 28 and 29.
[2. ]For the content of the numbered laws and rules mentioned by Grotius here and in many other chapters of the Commentary, see appendix A.
[d. ]Proverbs, xxiv. 11.
[e. ]2 Corinthians, viii, whole chap.; Ephesians, iv. 28.
[f. ]Proverbs, xx. 10.
[g. ]Matthew, vii. 2.
[h. ]Luke, vi. 31.
[i. ]Matthew, vi. 46 [vii. 12].
[3. ]quae nolis, ne feceris: these four words are underscored in the Latin manuscript, indicating that Grotius regarded them as part of the quoted matter; but the phrase is evidently his own, introduced to emphasize the relationship between the Golden Rule and the laws in question. The marginal citation in the Latin manuscript corresponding in its position to this negative paraphrase of the Golden Rule, is Matthew, vi. 46. Since the chapter cited contains only 34 verses in the King James version, the reference has been altered to read Matthew, vii. 12, where the Golden Rule appears in substantially the same form as in the passage cited immediately above from the Gospel According to St. Luke (vi. 31).
[a. ]Matthew, xxvi. 52.
[b. ]Deuteronomy, xiii [xii] at end. See also Ambrose, On Duties, I [xxx].
[c. ]iv. 9.
[d. ]Romans, xiii. 1.
[e. ]John, xix. 11.
[f. ]Proverbs, viii. 14 ff. [11–16].
[g. ]Romans, xiii. 1 ff.
[a. ]Lucan [The Civil War, V. 260].
[b. ]Histories, IV [lxxiv].
[a. ]Matthew, xxii. 21; Romans, xiii. 7.
[b. ]St. James, i. 21 and 25; Th. Aq. I–II, qu. 107, last art.
[c. ]Matthew, v. 17; see also Decretum, I. vi. 3.
[d. ]In First and Second Informal Expositions of Art. I, supra, pp. 56 ff.
[e. ]See at end of Chap. ii, supra, p. 50.
[f. ]Matthew, vii. 22.
[a. ]Romans, xiii. 4. See also Th. Aq. II–II, qu. 104, art. 6.
[b. ]Judges, xx.
[c. ]Chap. ii, supra, pp. 29–33.
[d. ]Dig. L. xvii. 176.
[a. ]Th. Aq. II–II, qu. 72, art. 3; ibid. qq. 108 and 158 [art. 1, ad 3]; Sylvester, on word ira, ii and iii, and on word vindicta.
[b. ]On Mercy, I. xx and II. iv.
[c. ]On Anger, III. xii.
[a. ]On the Sermon of Our Lord on the Mount [II. xxiv. 79].
[b. ]Augustine, Letters, iv, To Marcellus, cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 1. 2. Add Letters, I, To Boniface, cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 4. 42, 51, and 52.
[c. ]Acts, v. 29.
[d. ]See Exposition of Arts. [I,] II, III, and IV, supra, this chapter.
[a. ]Genesis, xiv. 15.
[b. ]Exodus, xvii. 9; Numbers, xxxi. 7; 1 Samuel, xvii. 48.
[c. ]Matthew, viii. 8; ibid. xxvii. 54; Mark, xv. 39; Luke, vii. 6 [viii. 8]; Acts, x. 1 [x. 5]; ibid. xxix. 17, 23 [xxiii. 17, 23].
[d. ]See accounts in histories of France, Germany, and other nations.
[e. ]Hebrews, xi. 32; add 1 Chronicles, v. 20.
[f. ]Evangelical Questions, I. x, cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 5. 15 .
[g. ]Letters, liv [vi], To Macedonius, cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 5. 17 .
[a. ]Against Faustus, XXII. lxxiv, cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 1. 4.
[b. ]De Diversis Ecclesiae Observationibus cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 1. 6.
[c. ]Augustine, On the City of God, I. xxvi, cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 5. 12 .
[d. ]On Ezekiel, IV [III. ix], cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 5. 28 .
[e. ]On Isaiah [V] xiii, cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 5. 27 .
[a. ]On Duties, I. xxvii , cited in Decretum, II. xxiii. 3. 5.
[b. ]Agrees with Th. Aq. II–II, qu. 40, art. 1; Martinus Laudensis, De Bello, Qq. 9, 32, and 45.