It is a fact which can neither be disguised nor controverted that the
whole trade of war is returning evil for evil. This is a fundamental
principle in the system of self-defense. Therefore every exertion in the
power of contending nations is made to inflict mutual injury, not merely
upon persons in public employment and upon public property, but
indiscriminately upon all persons and property. Hence it is an
established rule of what is styled "civilized warfare" that if one party
takes a person suspected of being a spy, they put him to death; which
act is retaliated by the other the first opportunity. If one party
storms a fortified place and puts the garrison or the inhabitants to the
sword, the other, in their defense, must retaliate the same thing, and,
if possible, to a greater degree. If one side executes a number of
captives for some alleged extraordinary act, the other, on the
principles of self-defense, may execute double the number; the first may
then, on the same principles, double this number; and so they may
proceed to return evil for evil, till one or the other yields.
The principles of self-defense require not merely an eye for an eye and a
tooth for a tooth, but for one eye two eyes, for one tooth two teeth. They
require the retaliation of an injury to a double degree,--otherwise, there
would be no balance in favor of the defensive side; but as both parties
must always be on the defense, both must, of course, retaliate to a double
degree. Thus war is aggravated and inflamed, and its criminality raised to
the highest pitch.
The doctrine of retaliation is not only openly avowed and practiced by
professing Christian nations, but is sometimes defended before national
councils by professing Christians of high standing in churches. "O! tell
it not in Gath! publish it not in the streets of Askelon! lest the
daughters of the uncircumcised triumph!"
That the retaliation of injury, of whatever kind it may be and to
whomsoever it may be offered, is most absolutely and unequivocally
forbidden by the whole spirit of the gospel dispensation, as well as by
its positive precepts, surely can never be fairly controverted.
Says the great Author and finisher of our faith, "Ye have heard that it
hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say
unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the
right cheek, turn to him the other also." Whether the literal import of
these words be contended for or not, they cannot fairly be construed as
teaching anything short of a positive and unconditional prohibition of
the retaliation of injury. Had our Lord added to these words the maxim
of the world, "If any man assaults you with deathly weapons, you may
repel him with deathly weapons," it would have directly contradicted the
spirit of this command and made his sayings like a house divided against
itself.
The apostles largely insist upon this doctrine of their divine Master,
thus: "Recompense to no man evil for evil"; "Be ye all of one mind, not
rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing"; "See that none render
evil for evil to any man." These comprehensive passages make no
conditions or limitations, and are, therefore, applicable to all men and
binding upon all in all situations and circumstances under the light of
the gospel; but had they added, "If any man injures you, you may return
him an injury and repel violence with violence," it would have been most
palpably absurd, and the precepts of the gospel would have been truly
what infidels have asserted they are,--a series of gross contradictions.
But I repeat that the open and avowed principles of war, even among
Christian nations, are those of returning evil for evil. Surely, nations
neither aim nor pretend to aim at the best good of their enemies; but,
on the contrary, their real and professed object in the sight of God and
man is to do them, while at war, all the injury in their power. What
means that language which conveys instructions to those who command
ships of war, to _sink_, _burn_, and _destroy_, if it does not mean evil
to enemies? Why do nations encourage the cupidity of men by licensing
and letting loose swarms of picaroons on their enemies, if it is not to
inflict evil on them? But all this is sanctioned under the notion of
self-defense, and, as though it were a light thing for men thus publicly
to trample on the laws of the gospel, they lift up their daring hands to
heaven and supplicate God's help to assist them in violating his own
commands! No apology can be made for such proceedings until it is shown
that war is not returning evil for evil.
But what is it to return evil for evil?
When one man is injured by another and returns injury, he returns evil
for evil and violates those precepts of the gospel which have been
quoted. When one association of men is injured by another association
and the injured returns an injury, evil is returned for evil and those
precepts are violated. When one nation infringes on the rights of
another and they in return infringe on the aggressor's rights, they
return evil for evil and violate those precepts. When one nation
declares war against another and is repelled by war, evil is returned
for evil and those precepts are violated. But these things are
constantly practiced, without a blush or a question as to their
propriety; and God is supplicated to aid in the business.
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 passions,--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 multitude 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 damnation
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 GOD, AND IS THEREFORE
CRIMINAL
The example of the Son of God 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 God 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 God, 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 God.
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, bloody, 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 rushing 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
trespasses 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 noble and persevering opposition
against the inhuman and cruel practice of the slave trade; and by the
blessing of God 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 mass 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 God, 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 God is able from small means to
produce great effects.
There is at present in many of our churches a noble 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 God of peace shall bless him.