One of the abominable things which proceed out of the corrupt heart of
man, as represented by our Saviour, is pride. "God resisteth the proud,
but giveth grace to the humble." "The Lord hates a proud look." "Every
one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord." That pride is
criminal and that humility is commendable will doubtless be admitted by
all who believe the Scriptures.
Pride, however, is one of the chief sources of war. It is pride that
makes men glory in their strength and prowess; it is pride that hinders
them from confessing their faults and repairing the injury done to
others.
Although pride is commonly condemned in the abstract, yet it is
generally commended in soldiers and fanned by every species of art and
adulation, not only by men of the world but too often by those who bear
the Christian name. And why is it necessary to inflame the pride of
soldiers? Because it is well understood that soldiers without pride are
not fit for their business.
If war is a Christian duty, why should not the example and precepts of
Christ, instead of the example of the heroes of this world, be exhibited
to those who fight to stimulate them? Is not Christ as worthy of
imitation as the Caesars and Alexanders of this world? He was a
triumphant conqueror; he vanquished death and hell, and purchased
eternal redemption for his people; but he conquered by resignation and
triumphed by his death. Here is an example worthy of the highest
emulation. And why not animate soldiers by it? Only because it would
unnerve their arms for war and render them harmless to their foes.
It is so common to compliment the pride of soldiers that, instead of
considering it that abominable thing which the Lord hates, they consider
it a virtue. We frequently hear "gentlemen of the sword," as they are
styled, in reply to the flattery bestowed upon them, frankly declare
that it is their highest ambition to obtain the praise of their
fellow-citizens; and, of course, they confess that they are seeking the
praise of men more than the praise of God. These gentlemen, however, are
far less criminal than those who lavish flattery on them; for doubtless
most of them are sincere and think themselves in the way of their duty,
while their profession often leads them, necessarily, from the means of
knowing correctly what is duty. While professing Christians have been
taught from their cradles that the profession of arms is not merely an
allowable but a noble employment, it is easy for them to slide into the
current and go with the multitude to celebrate victories and to eulogize
heroes, without once reflecting whether they are imitating their Lord
and Master. But is it not time for Christians to examine and ascertain
if war is tolerated in the gospel of peace before they join in
festivities to celebrate its bloody feats? How would a pagan be
astonished if he had been taught the meek, lowly, and forgiving spirit
and principles of the gospel, without knowing the practice of
Christians, to see a host of men, professing to be influenced by these
blessed principles, marshaled in all the pomp of military parade,
threatening destruction to their fellow-mortals! Would he not conclude
that either he or they had mistaken the genius of the gospel, or that
they believed it to be but a fable?
It is a notorious fact, which requires no confirmation, that military
men, decorated with finery and clad in the glitter of arms, instead of
being meek and lowly in their temper and deportment, are generally
flushed with pride and haughtiness; and, indeed, what purpose do their
decorations and pageantry answer but that of swelling their vanity?
Their employment is not soft and delicate. Other men who follow rough
employments wear rough clothing; but the soldier's occupation is not
less rough than the butcher's, though, in the world's opinion, it is
more honorable to kill men than to kill cattle.
But if war has a natural tendency to inflame, and does inflame and
increase the pride of men, it is criminal; it does that which the Lord
hates, and it must be highly criminal to engage in it.
III. WAR NECESSARILY INFRINGES ON THE CONSCIENCES OF MEN, AND THEREFORE
IS CRIMINAL
Liberty of conscience is a sacred right delegated to man by his Creator,
who has given no authority to man to infringe in the least on the
conscience of his fellow-man. Though a man, by following the dictates of
his conscience, may be injured by men, yet they have no authority to
deprive him of the rights of conscience. To control the conscience is
alone the prerogative of God. That man has no right to violate the
conscience of his fellow-man is a truth which few, under the light of
the gospel, since the days of ignorance and superstition, have ventured
to call in question.
But military governments, from their very nature, necessarily infringe
on the consciences of men. Though the word of God requires implicit
obedience to rulers in all things not contrary to the Scriptures, it
utterly forbids compliance with such commands as are inconsistent with
the gospel. We must obey God rather than man, and fear God as well as
honor the king. But governments, whether monarchial or republican, make
laws as they please, and compel obedience at the point of the sword.
They declare wars, and call upon all their subjects to support them.
Offensive war, by all professing Christians, is considered a violation
of the laws of Heaven; but offensive war is openly prosecuted by
professing Christians under the specious name of self-defense. France
invaded Spain, Germany, and Russia; England invaded Holland and
Denmark; and the United States invaded Canada, under the pretense of
defensive war. The fact is, however, that no man can, on gospel
principles, draw a line of distinction between offensive and defensive
war so as to make the former a crime and the latter a duty, simply
because the gospel has made no such distinction. But while many
Christians profess to make the distinction, and to consider offensive
war criminal, they ought to have the liberty to judge, when war is
waged, whether it is offensive or defensive, and to give or withhold
their aid accordingly; otherwise they are not permitted the free
exercise of their consciences.
But suppose this principle adopted by governments. Could they prosecute
war while they left every individual in the free exercise of his
conscience to judge whether such war was offensive or defensive and to
regulate his conduct accordingly? Would it be possible for governments
to carry on war if they depended for support on the uncertain opinion of
every individual? No; such a procedure would extinguish the vital
strength of war and lay the sword in the dust. The fact is well known,
and monarchs declare war and force their subjects to support it. The
majority in republican governments declare war and demand and enforce
obedience from the minority.
Though the constitutions of governments may, in the most solemn manner,
guarantee to citizens the free exercise of their consciences, yet
governments find it necessary practically to make an exception in
relation to war, and a man may plead conscientious motives in vain to
free himself from contributing to the support of war.
I think it proper here to notice what has appeared to me a gross
absurdity among some Christians in this land. They have openly declared
that in their opinion the late war was offensive; that it was contrary
to the laws of God, and that they were opposed to it; but though they
wished not to support it because it was criminal, yet they said, if they
were called on in a constitutional way, they would support it. Thus did
they publicly declare that they would, under certain circumstances, obey
man rather than God.
But soldiers actually resign up their consciences to their commanders,
without reserving any right to obey only in such cases as they may judge
not contrary to the laws of God. Were they at liberty to judge whether
commands were morally right or not, before they yielded obedience, it
would be totally impracticable for nations to prosecute war. Ask a
general if his soldiers have the privilege of determining whether his
commands are right or not, and he will tell you it is their duty only to
obey.
Suppose that a general and his army are shut up in a city in their own
country, and that provisions are failing; that an army is advancing for
their relief, but cannot reach the place until all means of sustenance
will be consumed; that the inhabitants cannot be let out without
admitting the besiegers; and that in this extremity, to preserve his
army for the defense of his country, the commander orders his men to
slay the inhabitants, doing this evil that good may come. But some
conscientious soldiers refuse to obey a command to put the innocent to
the sword for any supposed good. What must be the consequence? Their
lives must answer for their disobedience. Nor is this contrary to the
usages of war. And Christians satisfy their consciences upon the false
principle that soldiers are not accountable for their conduct, be it
ever so criminal, if they obey their commanders; all the blame must fall
on the officers, which involves the absurdity of obeying man rather than
God. Thus soldiers must be metamorphosed into something besides moral
and accountable beings in order to prosecute war; and, in fact, they are
treated generally not as moral agents but as a sort of machinery to
execute the worst of purposes.
The only plausible method of which I can conceive to avoid the above
consequences requires that soldiers should not practically resign their
consciences, but, when commands which are morally wrong are given, that
they should refuse obedience and die as martyrs. But to enter an army
with such views would be to belie the very oath of obedience which they
take. Besides, who could execute the martyrs and be innocent? In this
way all might become martyrs, and the army be annihilated.
But if war does not admit the free exercise of conscience on Christian
principles, then it is criminal for Christians to become soldiers, and
the principles of war must be inconsistent with the principles of
Christianity.
IV. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT IS OPPOSED TO PATIENT SUFFERING UNDER UNJUST
AND CRUEL TREATMENT
That patient suffering under unjust and cruel treatment from mankind is
everywhere in the gospel held up to view as the highest Christian virtue
probably few professing Christians will deny.
But notwithstanding this truth is generally admitted, there is very
commonly introduced a carnal, sophistical mode of reasoning to limit, or
explain away, this precious doctrine, which is peculiar to the gospel
and which distinguishes it from all other kinds of morality and religion
on earth. It has relation, it is said, only to matters of religion and
religious persecution,--as if the gospel required mankind actually to
regard a little wealth and a few temporal things more than all religious
privileges and life itself; for, by this human maxim, men may fight to
defend the former, but not the latter. And this maxim is built on the
supposition that Christians are not bound strictly by gospel precepts in
relation to temporal things, but only in relation to spiritual things.
Hence it is said that the martyrs conducted nobly in refusing to fight
for the privilege of worshiping the true God, but if Christians now
refuse to fight to defend their money and their political freedom they
act in a dastardly manner and violate the first principles of nature.
Thus are temporal regarded more than spiritual and everlasting things.
The precepts of the gospel, however, unequivocally forbid returning evil
for evil, and enjoin patient sufferings under injurious and cruel
treatment. A few instances shall be quoted: "Now we exhort you,
brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support
the weak, be patient towards all men. See that none render evil for evil
to any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves,
and unto all men." "If, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it
patiently, this is acceptable with God." The apostle James, in his
solemn denunciation against oppressors, says, "Ye have condemned and
killed the just, and he doth not resist you"; he then immediately
exhorts the Christians, saying, "Be patient therefore, brethren, unto
the coming of the Lord." "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having
compassion one for another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous,
not rendering evil for evil, railing for railing; but contrariwise
blessings, knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit
a blessing." "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?"
A patient, forbearing, suffering disposition is peculiar to the lamblike
temper of the gospel, and is wholly opposed to the bold, contending,
daring spirit of the world which leads mankind into quarreling and
fighting.
It is generally admitted, I believe, that it is the duty of Christians
patiently to suffer the loss of all temporal things, and even life
itself, rather than willfully violate any of God's commands. If, then,
it is the duty of a Christian patiently to suffer death rather than
bear false witness against his neighbor, be he friend or foe, is it not
equally his duty patiently to suffer death rather than kill his
neighbor, whether friend or foe? Not merely taking away the life of our
neighbor is forbidden, but every exercise of heart and hand which may
have a natural tendency to injure him. But which is the greatest
evil,--telling a lie, or killing a man? By human maxims you may do the
latter to save your life, but not the former; though the former might
injure no one but yourself, while the latter, besides injuring yourself,
might send your neighbor to eternal destruction.
The spirit of martyrdom is the true spirit of Christianity. Christ
himself meekly and submissively died by the hands of his enemies, and
instead of resistance, even by words, he prayed, "Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do." Stephen, when expiring under a shower
of stones from his infuriate murderers, prayed, "Lord, lay not this sin
to their charge." St. Paul testified that he was not only ready to be
bound but to die for the Lord Jesus. The early martyrs resigned up their
lives with patient submission as witnesses for Jesus,--and this at a
time, when, Sir Henry Moncrief Wellwood in his Sermons, page 335, says,
"Tertullian has told us that Christians were sufficiently numerous to
have defended themselves against the persecutions excited against them
by the heathen, if their religion had permitted them to have recourse to
the sword."
The spirit of martyrdom is the crowning test of Christianity. The martyr
takes joyfully the spoiling of his goods, and counts not his life dear
to himself.
But how opposite is the spirit of war to the spirit of martyrdom! The
former is bold and vindictive, ready to defend property and honor at the
hazard of life, ready to shed the blood of an enemy. The latter is meek
and submissive, ready to resign property and life rather than injure
even an enemy. Surely patient submission under cruel and unjust
treatment is not only the highest Christian virtue but the most extreme
contrast to the spirit of war.
Now if it is a duty required by the gospel not to return evil for evil,
but to overcome evil with good; to suffer injustice and to receive
injury with a mild, patient, and forgiving disposition,--not only in
words but in actions,--then all kinds of carnal contention and warfare
are criminal and totally repugnant to the gospel, whether engaged in by
individuals or by communities.
Can it be right for Christians to attempt to defend with hostile weapons
the things which they profess but little to regard? They profess to have
their treasure not in this world but in heaven above, which is beyond
the reach of earthly invaders, so that it is not in the power of earth
or hell to take away their dearest interests. There may be a propriety
in the men of the world exclaiming that their dearest rights are invaded
when their property and political interests are infringed upon; but it
is a shame for Christians to make this exclamation, while they profess
to believe that their dearest interest is in the hand of Omnipotence,
and that the Lord God of hosts is their defense.
Whoever, without divine command, dares to lift his hand with a deathly
weapon against the life of his fellow-man for any supposed injury denies
the Christian character in the very act, and relies on his own arm
instead of relying on God for defense.
V. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT IS NOT DOING TO OTHERS AS WE SHOULD WISH THEM
TO DO TO US
Says our blessed Saviour, "All things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the
prophets." Now if we wish men to be kind and forbearing to us, we must
be kind and forbearing to them; if we wish them to return love for
hatred and good for evil, then we must return love for hatred and good
for evil; if we wish not to be injured by men, then we must not injure
them; if we wish not to be killed, then we must not kill.
But what is the practical language of war? Does the man who is fighting
his fellow-man and exerting all his strength to overcome him really wish
to be overcome himself and to be treated as he is striving to treat his
enemy? Can it be believed that England, in the late war, wished France
to do to her what she endeavored to do to France; or that the latter
really desired in return what she endeavored to inflict on England? If
not, both violated this express precept of Christ.
None can say, consistently with the principles of the gospel, that they
wish to be killed by their enemies; therefore none can, consistently
with those principles, kill their enemies. But professing Christians do
kill their enemies, and, notwithstanding all they may say to the
contrary, their actions speak louder than their words. It is folly for a
man to say he does not wish to do a thing while he is voluntarily
exerting all his powers to accomplish it.
But if the act of war does violate this express precept of Christ, then
it must be exceedingly criminal to engage in it.