War Inconsistent With The Religion Of Jesus Christ Part 6

To what a state has sin reduced our world? Is not the church covered with darkness and the people with gross darkness? A man may now engage in war with his fellow-man and openly return evil for evil, and still remain in respectable standing in most of the churches, being at the same time highly applauded and caressed by the world lying in wickedness!

But if we are here to be directed and at last to be judged by the gospel, no man can return evil for evil, in war or otherwise, without aggravated guilt.

X. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT IS ACTUALLY DOING EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME; AND THIS IS THE BEST APOLOGY THAT CAN BE MADE FOR IT

That it is an evil to spread distress, desolation, and misery through a land and to stain it with the blood of men probably none will deny. War, with its attending horrors, is considered by all, even those who advocate and prosecute it, to be the greatest evil that ever befalls this wicked, bleeding, suffering world.

Though men go to war primarily to gratify their corrupt pa.s.sions,--for they can never propose the attainment of any good by war which shall be commensurate with the natural and moral evils that will be occasioned by the acquisition,--yet the prospect of attaining some supposed good must be held out as a lure to the mult.i.tude and a means of self-justification.

Usually the object of war is pompously represented to be to preserve liberty, to produce honorable and lasting peace, and promote the happiness of mankind; to accomplish which, liberty, property, and honor--that honor which comes from men--must be defended, though war is the very thing that generally destroys liberty, property, and happiness, and prevents lasting peace. Such is the good proposed to be attained by the certain and overwhelming evil of war.

But no maxim is more corrupt, more false in its nature, or more ruinous in its results than that which tolerates doing evil that good may come.

Nor can any defend this maxim without taking the part of infidels and atheists, to whom it appropriately belongs, and with whose principles and practice alone it is consistent.

The apostle Paul reprobates this maxim in the severest terms, and he considered it the greatest scandal of Christian character to be accused of approving it: "As we be slanderously reported," says he, "and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil that good may come; whose d.a.m.nation is just."

Now if war is in fact an evil, and it is prosecuted with a view to attain some good, then going to war is doing evil that good may come. It is therefore doing that which scandalizes Christian character; that which is wholly irreconcilable with the principles of the gospel, and which it is highly criminal for any man or nation to do.

XI. WAR IS OPPOSED TO THE EXAMPLE OF THE SON OF G.o.d, AND IS THEREFORE CRIMINAL

The example of the Son of G.o.d is the only perfect model of moral excellence, and his moral conduct, so far as he acted as man, remains a perfect example for Christians.

But did he appear in this world as a great military character, wearing a sword of steel, clothed with military finery, and surrounded by glittering soldiers, marching in the pomp and parade of a warrior? No; he was the meek and lowly Jesus, despised and rejected of men. He was King of kings and Lord of lords, but his kingdom was not of this world.

Had his kingdom been of this world, then would he have appeared as an earthly conqueror, and his servants would have been warriors.

Though a prince, he was the Prince of Peace. At his advent the angels sang, "Glory to G.o.d in the highest, on earth peace, good will to men."

"He came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them." He was the Lamb of G.o.d, meek and lowly. He followed peace with all men; he returned good for evil and blessing for cursing, and "when he was reviled he reviled not again." Finally, he was "brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." That he did this as a necessary part of his mediatorial work need not be denied; but that he intended it also as an example to his followers is fully confirmed by an inspired apostle, who says, "If, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with G.o.d.

For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him who judgeth righteously."

Christ taught his disciples the doctrines of peace, and commanded them to take up the cross and follow him; to live in peace and to follow peace with all men. His last gift to them was peace. He said to them, when about to send them into the world, "Behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves"; thus teaching them what treatment they might expect and what character they must maintain among wicked men. The nature of lambs and wolves is too well known for any one to mistake this figurative representation. Wolves are fierce, b.l.o.o.d.y, and ravenous beasts; but lambs are mild, inoffensive, and unresisting, having no means of relief but by flight. Now if a host of professing Christian warriors, marshaled under the ensign of a preying eagle or a prowling lion, clothed in all the splendor of deathly armor, and rus.h.i.+ng forward to destroy their fellow-creatures, are in figurative language but _lambs_, I confess I am at a loss where to look for the _wolves_! Do these warlike Christians appear mild as lambs and harmless as doves, kind and tender-hearted, doing good to all, to friends and foes, as they have opportunity? Can fighting be living peaceably with all men? Is it returning good for evil, and overcoming evil with good? If not, it is not imitating the example of Christ.

If Christians were like Christ, their warfare would not be carnal, but spiritual, corresponding with the armor which he has provided. They would conquer by faith and overcome by the blood of the Lamb, not counting their lives dear to themselves.

On the whole, if to engage in war is not avoiding the appearance of evil, but is running into temptation; if it inflates the pride of men; if it infringes on the rights of conscience; if it is not forgiving trespa.s.ses as we wish to be forgiven; if it is not patient suffering under unjust and cruel treatment; if it is not doing to others as we would have them do to us; if it is not manifesting love to enemies and returning good for evil; if it is rendering evil for evil; if it is doing evil that good may come; and if it is inconsistent with the example of Christ, then it is altogether contrary to the spirit and precepts of the gospel and is highly criminal. Then Christians cannot engage in war or approve of it without incurring the displeasure of Heaven.

In view of the subject, if what has been said is in substance correct, and of this I desire the reader conscientiously to judge, then the criminality of war and its inconsistency with the gospel are undeniable.

It is admitted by all that war cannot exist without criminality somewhere, and generally where quarreling and strife are, there is blame on both sides. And how it is that many Christians who manifest a laudable zeal to expose and counteract vice and wickedness in various other forms are silent on the subject of war, silent as to those parts or practices of war which are manifestly and undisputably criminal, is to me mysterious. There has been a n.o.ble and persevering opposition against the inhuman and cruel practice of the slave trade; and by the blessing of G.o.d the efforts against it have been successful, probably, for the time, beyond the most sanguine expectations. When the lawfulness of this practice was first called in question, it was violently defended as well by professing Christians as by others. Comparatively few Christians fifty years ago doubted the propriety of buying and holding slaves; but now a man advocating the slave trade could hardly hold in this vicinity a charitable standing in any of the churches. But whence has arisen so great a revolution in the minds of the ma.s.s of professing Christians on this subject? It has happened not because the spirit or precepts of the gospel have changed, but because they are better understood.

Christians who have been early educated to believe that a doctrine is correct, and who cherish a respect for the instructions of their parents and teachers, seldom inquire for themselves, after arriving at years of maturity, unless something special calls up their attention; and then they are too apt to defend the doctrine they have imbibed before they examine it, and to exert themselves only to find evidence in its favor.

Thus error is perpetuated from generation to generation until G.o.d, in his providence, raises up some to bear open testimony against it; and as it becomes a subject of controversy, one after another gains light, and truth is at length disclosed and established. Hence it is the solemn duty of every one, however feeble his powers, to bear open testimony against whatever error prevails, for G.o.d is able from small means to produce great effects.

There is at present in many of our churches a n.o.ble standard lifted up against the abominable sin of intemperance, the greatest evil, perhaps, war excepted, in the land, and this destructive vice has already received a check from which it will never recover unless Christians relax their exertions. But if war is a greater evil than drunkenness, how can Christians remain silent respecting it and be innocent?

Public teachers consider it to be their duty boldly and openly to oppose vice. From the press and from the pulpit they denounce theft, profaneness, Sabbath breaking, and intemperance; but war is a greater evil than all these, for these and many other evils follow in its train.

Most Christians believe that in the millennial day all weapons of war will be converted into harmless utensils of use, that wars will cease to the ends of the earth, and that the benign spirit of peace will cover the earth as the waters do the seas. But there will be then no new gospel, no new doctrines of peace; the same blessed gospel which we enjoy will produce "peace on earth and good will to men." And is it not the duty of every Christian now to exhibit the same spirit and temper which will be then manifested? If so, let every one "follow the things that make for peace," and the G.o.d of peace shall bless him.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

As was proposed, a number of objections to the general sentiments that have been advocated shall be stated and answered.

_Objection first._ Shall we stand still and suffer an a.s.sa.s.sin to enter our houses without resistance and let him murder ourselves and families?

_Answer._ I begin with this because it is generally the first objection that is made to the doctrine of peace by all persons, high and low, learned and unlearned; notwithstanding it is an objection derived from a fear of consequences and not from a conviction of duty, and might with the same propriety have been made to the martyrs who, for conscience'

sake, refused to repel their murderers with carnal weapons, as to Christians who, for conscience' sake, refuse at this day to resist evil.

No Christian will pretend that defense with carnal weapons is not criminal, if the gospel really forbids it, let the consequences of nonresistance be what they may. For the requisitions of the gospel are the rule of duty. But I presume the objection above stated arises altogether from an apprehension of consequences rather than from regard to duty.

Every candid person must admit that this objection is of no force, until the question whether the gospel does or does not prohibit resistance with deathly weapons is first settled. It might, therefore, justly be dismissed without further remark; but as mankind are often more influenced by supposed consequences than by considerations of duty, and as the objection is very popular, it may deserve a more particular reply.

In the first place, I would observe that the supposition of the objector relates to a very extreme case, a case which has very rarely, if ever, occurred to Christians holding to nonresistance with deathly weapons, and it bears little or no resemblance to the general principles or practices of war which are openly advocated and promoted by professing Christians. Should an event like that supposed in the objection take place, it would be a moment of surprise and agitation in which few could act collectedly from principle. What was done would probably be done in perturbation of mind. But war between nations is a business of calculation and debate, affording so much time for reflection that men need not act from sudden and violent impulse, but may act from fixed principle. In this respect, therefore, war is a very different thing from what is involved in the objection which does not in the least affect the principles or practice of systematic warfare. It is not uncommon to hear persons who are hopefully pious, when pressed by the example and the precepts of Christ against war, acknowledge that most of the wars which have existed since the gospel dispensation cannot be justified on Christian principles; yet these very persons are never heard to disapprove of the common principles of war, or to counteract them by their lives and conversation before a wicked world; but, on the contrary, they will often eulogize heroes, join in the celebration of victories, and take as deep an interest in the result of battles as the warriors of this world; and if their conduct is called in question, they will attempt to justify it by pleading the necessity of self-defense, and immediately introduce the above objection which is by no means parallel with the general principles and practices of all wars.

The truth is, war is a very popular thing among mankind, because it is so congenial to their natural dispositions; and, however gravely some men may, at times, profess to deplore its calamity and wickedness, it is too evident that they take a secret pleasure in the approbation of the mult.i.tude and in the fascinating glory of arms; and we have reason to believe that this objection is often made merely to ward off the arrows of conviction which would otherwise pierce their consciences.

The objection, however, wholly overlooks the providence and promise of G.o.d. a.s.sa.s.sins do not stroll out of the circle of G.o.d's providence. Not only is their breath in his hand, but the weapons they hold are under his control. Besides, G.o.d's children are dear to him, and he s.h.i.+elds them by his protecting care, not suffering any event to befall them except such as shall be for his glory and their good. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He has promised to be a very present help to them in every time of need, and to deliver them that trust in him out of all their trouble. He will make even their enemies to be at peace with them. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous and his ears are open to their prayers, but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil; and who is he that will harm you if ye be followers of that which is good? But if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye, and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. If G.o.d be thus for his children, who can be against them? Is not the arm of the Lord powerful to save, and a better defense to all who trust in him than swords and guns? Whoever found him unfaithful to his promises or feeble to save? Are not the hosts of heaven at his command? Are not his angels swift to do his will? "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them." If the Lord is on their side, Christians have no cause to fear what man can do unto them. Says the blessed Saviour, "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it."

If consequences are rightly examined, they may prove to be of more importance than at first supposed. If the gospel does forbid resistance with deathly weapons, then he who saves his temporal life by killing his enemy may lose his eternal life; while he who loses his life for Christ's sake is sure of everlasting life. Thus the Christian, if he is killed, goes to heaven; but the a.s.sa.s.sin, if he is killed, goes to h.e.l.l, and the soul of the slayer is in danger of following. Whoever kills another to prevent being killed himself, does it on presumption; for, whatever may be the appearances, G.o.d only can know whether one man will a.s.sa.s.sinate another, before the event has taken place. Men, however, seem to think little of killing or being killed by fighting, whether in single combat or on the field of general battle, though they shudder at the idea of being put to death by an a.s.sa.s.sin, unless they can inflict or attempt to inflict on him the same evil.

But the objection is usually made on the supposition that the doctrine in question requires Christians to stand still and rather court the dagger than otherwise. This is an unfair statement, for it would be presumption to stand still when there was a chance of escape. Besides, the Christian must act on the defensive, not with carnal, but with spiritual weapons, which are more powerful when exercised in faith than swords or spears.

Probably no instance can be found of robbers murdering such as conscientiously held to nonresistance. It is resistance that provokes violence; forbearance and good will repress it. But if instances of this kind may be found, it is no evidence against the doctrine in question any more than against the principles of the Martyrs. G.o.d may, for wise reasons, call away some of his children by the hands of murderers; if so, instead of losing, they save their lives.

_Objection second._ Self-defense, and, if necessary, with deathly weapons, is the first law of nature. All the animal creation are armed with means of defense, and the principles of the gospel are not contrary to the principles of nature; therefore self-defense is not inconsistent with Christianity.

_Answer._ It is admitted that the laws of the gospel are not contrary to the primitive laws of nature; but it is by no means granted that they are consistent with the laws of corrupt nature. In consequence of the revolt of man the earth was cursed for his sake. It appears probable that before the fall of man animals were harmless and docile; and it is not improbable that when the curse shall be removed, when the earth shall be filled with righteousness and peace, the lion and the lamb may literally lie down together. At present, indeed, the dove, the lamb, and some other animals have no means of defense, unless flight be considered such. And while warriors are figuratively represented by ferocious beasts, real Christians are represented by lambs and doves. So far as nature is made to speak fairly on the subject, it speaks in favor of the doctrine which has been advocated.

But corrupt nature strongly dictates many things quite contrary to the precepts of the gospel; and no doctrine will be given up more reluctantly by corrupt nature than that of the lawfulness of war, because no doctrine is more congenial with the depraved feelings and propensities of unsanctified men, for their "feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of G.o.d before their eyes."

_Objection third._ The precepts of the gospel are consistent with the moral law, or the eternal nature of things, which is forever the standard of right and wrong to all moral beings in the universe; and war has been prosecuted consistently with this rule of right and wrong; therefore war cannot be contrary to the precepts of the gospel.

_Answer._ This is an objection founded on an undefinable something aside from divine precept; yet as some terms in it have been much used in polemic divinity by men of eminent talents and piety, whose praise is in the churches, I think it neither proper nor modest to dissent from so high authority without offering some reasons. I shall, therefore, make a few general observations on what is called the moral law, the eternal rule of right and wrong, or the nature of things; all of which phrases, I believe, have been occasionally used by eminent writers as conveying the same ideas.

I cannot agree with such as suppose that a moral law or nature of things exists independently of the will of G.o.d and is the common law of G.o.d and man. It appears to me as inconsistent to suppose a law to exist without a lawgiver as to suppose a world to exist without a creator. If G.o.d is the only eternal and independent Being in the universe, and if all things are the work of his power and goodness, then the supposition that an eternal law exists independently of him appears to me to be absurd, as on this supposition there exists a law without a lawgiver and an effect without a cause. If G.o.d is not the author of all things, then there must be more than one eternal cause of things.

To suppose that the reason and fitness of things independently of the will of G.o.d, either in his works, his providence, or word, can be a rule of man's duty appears to me as inconsistent as to suppose that men might inst.i.tute divine wors.h.i.+p from such fitness of things independently of the existence of G.o.d; for the will of G.o.d to man seems as necessary to lay a foundation of moral obligation and to direct man's obedience as the existence of G.o.d is necessary to lay a foundation of religious wors.h.i.+p. Should it be asked whether the laws of G.o.d are not founded on the eternal nature and fitness of things, I would answer that such a supposition appears to me no more reasonable than to suppose that his power is founded on the eternal capacity of things; for the capacity of things has just as much reality and eternity in it to found the omnipotence of G.o.d upon, as the reason and nature of things have to found his infinite wisdom or justice upon.

I therefore dissent from all standard of moral obligation which are supposed to exist aside from, and independently of, the divine will; and fully agree with the a.s.sembly's Shorter Catechism, in the answer to this question: "What is the duty which G.o.d requires of man? Answer: The duty which G.o.d requires of man is obedience to his revealed will."

Should it, however, be said that things do exist aside from the divine will, that it does not depend on the divine will, but on the nature of things, that two and two make four, or that a thing cannot be in motion and at rest at the same time, it is by no means admitted that this order or const.i.tution of things exists independently of G.o.d; but it is believed to be as much the effect of his power and goodness as anything else. And if G.o.d is not the author of all the laws both in the natural and moral world, it may reasonably be inquired, who is?

If G.o.d is the moral governor of the world, then all his laws over men, as moral beings, must be moral laws; and to make a distinction between the laws designed to regulate the moral conduct of men, and to call some of them moral and others by different names, seems to me not necessary, while I find no such distinction in the Scriptures. Because some of G.o.d's laws were intended to be temporary, under certain circ.u.mstances, they were no less of a moral nature on that account; neither was it any less criminal to violate them.

As created things are in some respects constantly changing, and as the relations of things are often varied, so a law may be relatively right at one time and relatively wrong at another. But as man is frail and short-sighted, and is incapable of seeing the end from the beginning, he is totally unable of himself to judge what is and what is not right, all things considered; hence the necessity of a revelation from G.o.d to direct his steps.

That there is a fitness of things and a standard of moral right and wrong cannot be denied; but, instead of being founded in a supposed nature of things independent of G.o.d, it originates in the very nature and perfections of G.o.d himself, and can never be known by man any farther than the nature and perfections of G.o.d are known. A standard of right and wrong independent of G.o.d, whether by the name of moral law or nature of things, is what never has been and never can be intelligibly defined. It is like a form without dimensions, like a foundation resting on nothing. It is, therefore, in my opinion, as extravagant to talk of an eternal nature of things, without reference to the laws of G.o.d, as it would be to talk of an eternal wisdom or an eternal omnipotence, independent of the existence of G.o.d.