• ' Only '—because intentional homicides were to he kept from ironiniunioii for twenty years {Ep. ccxvii. 5G). The soldier gets olf with three.
672
WAR
he, however, does not venture to brand military service as uncliristian. Asceticism led then and afterwards to extravafjant and heretical develop- ments, but Basil had enou^di jjood sense to prevent him from declining to bracket ' Christian ' and ' siildier' toftether.
The problem of the army at this period was complicated by the increasini; number of mercen- aries who were pourinf; into the legions. ' The military spirit had almost died out amon<j the Romans. Ever since the 3rd cent, the military profession had been declining in the public esteem. Iteeruits were branded on entering the service, as if they were slaves in an ergastulum. The aversion to military service appears to have been growing.' * Efibrts were naturally made to avert the lowering and paganizing of the legions. By A.D. 416 Tlieo- dosius II. had strictly forbidden any pagan to enter the army ; it was to be composed entirely of Christian soldiers, and uncontaniinated by heathen recruits. The ideal was ' a lovely company ' ; only Theodosius was not a Cromwell, and the supply of honest and godly men was inadequate. Now, if men occasionally mutilated themselves rather than enter the army, it was natural that Christian scruples should also opei'ate against the service, when service had become otherwise unpopular. The steadying verdict was given by Augustine in the opening of the 5th century. On this, as on many other points of dogma and practice, his opinion came to be virtually authoritative. It was not an abstract decision. He was consulted by some officers on the matter, among others by Boniface, the distinguished military governor of N. Africa.t and his correspondence with them presents liis mature opinion. Intrinsically, he holds, Christianity does not forbid military service ; otherwise, John the Baptist would not have allowed the soldiers to remain in the army.J Besides, think not only of David but of the centurions whom Jesus and Peter praised. In the present situation of mankind some must fight against the barbarians in defence of order and justice ; every one has his own gift from God, and military service is at least a subdivision of Labour in the one king- dom of the Lord. He repudiates militarism ; few writers in the early Church speak more sternly of the callousness, the havoc, and the senseless re- taliation which war maj' breed ; war for war's sake is wrong. Also, even in a just war, ferocity and treachery are inconsistent with a Christian soldier's duty (' When a promise is made, it has to be kept even with the enemy against whom you are fighting '), as he tells Boniface. He would have heartily agreed with Seneca, who canonized Scipio Africanus, ' non quia niagnos exercitus duxit, . . . sed ob egregiam moderationem pieta- temque' {Ep. Mor. Ixxxvi.). He emphasizes the need of personal religion, in view of the many temptations incident to military life. In short, the Christian soldier now becomes a definite type, more definite than the eiaefSr]s arpaTidiTTi^ of Ac 10'. This attitude was widely accepted. What Augus- tine did was(i.) tore-affirm not only the legitimacy but, for certain men, the duty of serving in the army, and (ii.) to suggest some of the principles which should determine war. He includes among just wars (in which, he admits, terrible sutt'ering is caused [de C'iu. Dei, xix. 7]) even a war for the purpose of humbling some arrogant power — the ' debellare superbos ' of Vergil's time. He assigns
* Samuel Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Roman Empire, London, 1898, p. 196.
t Cf. J. Sloffait, ' .St. Augustine's Advice to an Army Officer,' in Ezp, 8th ser., xi. (1910] 409.
I This passage is referred to in the prayer of the (13th cent. ?) Benedictio novi militis, tlie bishop blessing the sword flf,'ainst heretics, paf^ans, and plotters, and then bidding the recruit ' esto miles pacificus, strenuus, fidelis, et deo devotus.'
WAR
a paternal authority to the Boman State, in virtue of which war may be a disciplinary measure for the good of other peojiles. But into the details and consequences of this Augustinian philosophy and moraiization of var we cannot enter. The relevant point here is to note that Augustine's opinions, expressed incidentally (a) in some of his commentaries like the sixth book of the Qums- tio»'um in Heptateucluim, or (h) in his correspond- ence with Christian officers and officials, or (c) in the treatise c. Faustum (xxii. 74 11'.), possess a significance which attaches to no individual judg- ment prior to himself, and for the first time present a considered judgment upon war from the Christian standpoint. They express the central good sense of the Church, which declines to identify Christi- anity with either the negation or the glorification of warfare.
(a) In the commentary on Joshua (vi. 10) he claims that a rigiiteous war, and a riKhteous war alone, justifies the use of stratagems and spies such as Joshua employed. ' Rijliteovis wars may be defined as wars to avenge wrongs, when a nation or state has to be attaclied for neglecting either to nialte repara- tion for some misdeeds conmiitted by its own citizens or to restore what has been wrongfully seizefl.'