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 assassin 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
multitude 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
God. Assassins do not stroll out of the circle of God's providence. Not
only is their breath in his hand, but the weapons they hold are under
his control. Besides, God's children are dear to him, and he shields
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 God 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 assassin, if he is killed, goes to hell,
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, God only can know whether one man will
assassinate 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 assassin, 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. God 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 God 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 God and is the common law of God 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 God 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 God 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 God, 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
institute divine worship from such fitness of things independently of
the existence of God; for the will of God to man seems as necessary to
lay a foundation of moral obligation and to direct man's obedience as
the existence of God is necessary to lay a foundation of religious
worship. Should it be asked whether the laws of God 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 God 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 Assembly's Shorter Catechism, in the answer to
this question: "What is the duty which God requires of man? Answer: The
duty which God 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 constitution of things exists independently of God; but it is
believed to be as much the effect of his power and goodness as anything
else. And if God is not the author of all the laws both in the natural
and moral world, it may reasonably be inquired, who is?
If God 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
God's laws were intended to be temporary, under certain circumstances,
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 God 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 God, it originates in the very nature
and perfections of God himself, and can never be known by man any
farther than the nature and perfections of God are known. A standard of
right and wrong independent of God, 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 God, as it
would be to talk of an eternal wisdom or an eternal omnipotence,
independent of the existence of God.
But if the statement of the objector is meant only to imply a rule of
right and wrong emanating from the nature and perfections of God, and
coincident with his laws, then, admitting the propriety of the terms
moral law, nature of things, etc., the objection, if it proves anything,
may prove quite too much for its advocates; for under certain
circumstances it has been consistent with this rule of moral right and
wrong utterly to exterminate nations, to destroy men, women, and
children, and show them no mercy.
Besides, the whole force of the objection rests on the supposition that
no laws which have existed, and which were not contrary to the moral
law, can be abrogated under the Christian dispensation or be
inconsistent with the precepts of the gospel. It hence follows that
whatever has been morally right and lawful for men to do must forever
remain right and lawful to be done. This is a necessary result from the
premises; but no Christian can consistently subscribe to this. The
premises must, therefore, be unsound and the objection of no force.
If literal sacrifices, slavery, and many other practices which are
totally abolished under the Christian dispensation were not contrary to
the moral law under the Old Testament economy, why may not the same be
true of war? Why may not the gospel forbid war as consistently as it can
forbid slavery?
_Objection fourth._ The nature of religion and morality under the
ancient dispensation was the same as under the new. Love to God and man
was the substance of the law and the prophets; and though truth under
the former was inculcated more by types and ceremonies, yet the essence
of religion was the same under that as under the present dispensation;
and as war was not inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion
then, it cannot be inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion
now, under like circumstances.
_Answer._ It is readily admitted that the essence of religion is the
same under the present as under the former dispensation, both requiring
at all times and in all actions holy exercises of heart in cordial
obedience to divine command; yet the laws for external conduct under the
two dispensations differ widely, and the practice of war involves much
of the external conduct of men. It was never right for men to indulge
unholy feelings in the act of war, but the external act was required as
a means of executing the divine vengeance; the gospel does not command,
but seems plainly to forbid, the external act of war.
But to suppose that saints under the gospel can ever be placed in
circumstances like those of the ancient church is to suppose that they
may be put under the same typical economy which has vanished away, given
place to the substance, and ceased to be binding even on the natural
Israelites. To be in like circumstances they must also be made the
executors of God's wrath, to inflict vengeance, by his particular
command, on idolatrous and rebellious nations. The Israelites had the
same high authority to exterminate the Canaanites and subdue the
idolatrous nations about Palestine that the holy angels had to destroy
Sodom and Gomorrah.
It is perfectly plain that if God should positively command Christians
to take the weapons of war and not only repel invasion but actually
exterminate nations, it would be their duty to obey, and a refusal would
be open rebellion against God. The Old Testament saints received such
commands, but Christians have no such authority, which makes a material
difference in circumstances.
Some general observations relative to the different dispensations of the
church of God may illustrate this topic more fully.
The Old Testament economy has sometimes, perhaps without reason, been
divided into the Adamic, Patriarchal, and Mosaic dispensations of the
church; but as the latter was more full and complete, and as the
distinction between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations is common, I
shall confine my remarks chiefly to that distinction, though I consider
the great distinction to be between the Old and New Testament economies.
The Old Testament economy, in general, was typical of the New. Under the
former dispensation literal and temporal things typified spiritual and
everlasting things under the latter. The nation of Israel, chosen and
separated from all other nations, typified the true Israel of God, who
are chosen out of every nation and sanctified and set apart as a holy
nation and peculiar people, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God. The
land of Canaan was a type of the heavenly Canaan. Jerusalem was a type
of the New Jerusalem from above. Mount Zion and the royal throne of
Israel, which were in Jerusalem, typified the heavenly Zion and the
throne of the true David who now reigns in glory. The sacrifices were
types of spiritual offerings. The Israelites had enemies within and foes
without, literal weapons of war and literal warfare, typical of
spiritual foes, spiritual armor, and spiritual warfare.[1] Their kings
were seated on the throne of the Lord (see 1 Chron. xxix. 23). At the
command of God they judged and made war and conquered their enemies and
thus typified the Son of God who is now on the throne of his Father
David, and who in righteousness judges and makes war and rides forth
conquering and to conquer. The ancient promises and threatenings were
mostly temporal, but typical of spiritual and everlasting promises and
threatenings. Doubtless the gospel was preached by types and figures
under the Old Testament economy, and the saints of old looked upon those
temporal things merely as shadows representing a more enduring
substance. When they looked upon Canaan, the land of promise, they
viewed it as a type of the heavenly Canaan, and confessed that they were
strangers and pilgrims on earth seeking a better country. When they
looked on the bleeding lamb they beheld, by the eye of faith, the Lamb
of God who taketh away the sins of the world.
Thus we may see that almost the whole of the Old Testament economy was
typical and temporary, and not intended to be perfect and everlasting.
But under the gospel dispensation we have a new covenant and better
promises which are intended to be perfect and everlasting. It is
therefore more proper for those who live under this new and perfect
dispensation to look at the substance than at the shadow for a rule of
duty. Errors are often and easily propagated by reasoning from analogy
and introducing it as proof of sentiments instead of illustration. This
is frequently done in relation to the Old Testament economy and common
political government. It is not uncommon to hear ministers, in their
political sermons, reason and infer just as if there were a perfect
parallel between the Jewish theocracy and political governments, when at
the head of one was the Lord of hosts and at the head of the others are
but men; when one was the church of the living God, and the others are
but human institutions. They not unfrequently speak of God's driving out
the heathen before his American Israel and planting them in a goodly
land, as though there were a perfect parallel between the Americans
driving the Indians from their native soil and taking possession of it
themselves, without divine commission, and the Israelites going at the
express command of God and taking possession of Canaan. Thus they
endeavor to keep up a parallel between God's ancient church and civil
governments. The economy of God's ancient covenant people was by no
means a political institution in the popular sense, but it was a
dispensation of the church of God, and in its rites, ceremonies, and
government was typical of the kingdom of Messiah under his mediatorial
reign, and differed widely in its nature, origin, and design from mere
political governments; therefore all reasoning drawn from a supposed
analogy between them is specious and false. The Israelites had no
authority to enact laws or to alter God's laws one iota; their duty was
implicitly to obey them.
But if Christians take their authority for going to war from the
practice of the Old Testament saints, their example will prove too much;
it will not only allow war, but _offensive war_ in its most dreadful
forms.
_Objection fifth._ Abraham went to war, not like the Israelites at the
command of God, yet he met with the divine approbation when he returned
from the slaughter of the kings; he, therefore, must have acted on a
universal law still in force; and as Christians are called the children
of Abraham they ought, of course, to imitate his example in such things
as God approved.
_Answer._ Abraham, like the Israelites, was under a typical dispensation
and practiced rites and ceremonies which were a shadow of good things to
come. That he acted without divine command, in the war referred to, is
more than we are warranted to say. He was a prophet and the friend of
God and probably was acquainted with the divine will on this subject.
Christians are not called the children of Abraham because they imitate
his example in war, but because they exercise like precious faith with
him. If Christians are warranted to imitate the example of Abraham in
all things which were tolerated by God, then they may sacrifice cattle,
practice polygamy, and buy and hold slaves. But if they object to his
example as a rule of duty in these instances, why not object to his
example as a rule of duty in the case of war?
But to say that he acted from some universal law still in force is
taking for granted the question in dispute, and cannot be admitted
without evidence.
The war waged by Abraham against the kings was, I apprehend, offensive
rather than defensive; for Lot, his brother's son, whom he rescued, did
not then belong to his family or kingdom, but was separated from him and
was also a patriarch, a father of nations, and a prince or head over his
own house or kingdom.
It appears very evident that offensive as well as defensive war was
tolerated under the patriarchal economy, as may be seen from the words
of the inspired Jacob when blessing his sons (Gen. xlviii. 22). That,
as well as the Mosaic dispensation, was typical, and doubtless war was
allowed under both for the same reasons.
But there can be no doubt that whoever attempts to justify war by the
example of Abraham may equally justify the slavery of our fellow-men;
and whoever depends on his example for authority for engaging in war, to
be consistent, must advocate and defend the doctrine of slavery.
_Objection sixth._ It appears to be a universal law of God that "whoso
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." If one man, or
one nation, attacks another and sheds his blood, his own must be shed in
return. Hence this precept not only authorizes taking away the life of a
murderer, but authorizes nations to repel by war nations that wage war
against them.
_Answer._ Whether this was a precept given to man as a rule of duty or
not is very questionable, though it has generally been so construed, at
least since the dark ages of the church; and it is still more
questionable whether it is a universal and perpetual law.
If we attend to the phraseology of this decree of God, we shall find it
to be very different from that of the precepts, generally, delivered to
Moses. God did not say to Noah, as he often did to Moses, thou shalt do
this, or that, but he said, "_I will require the life of man_," etc. If
God had designed to delegate executive authority to Noah and his
descendants to execute retributive judgment on the manslayer, the
connection of the whole language must have been altered, for God
declared what he would do himself. It appears, therefore, to have been
God's _decree_, and the promulgation of _his_ law by which he would
inflict righteous judgment on the guilty; the penalty was intended as a
warning to deter mankind from violence, the sin for which the old world
was swept away. And I see no reason why this threatening should not be
considered parallel with the decrees of Christ,--that "all they that
take the sword shall perish with the sword; he that leadeth into
captivity shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword must
be killed with the sword; here is the faith and the patience of the
saints." Why the former should be considered as a rule of obedience for
man, and these latter passages not so, I am unable to say. "He that
killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword" is as positive as
"whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
It may be observed that the faith and patience of the saints is here
spoken of in such a way as to imply that they exercised and manifested
their faith and patience when they were put to death by violence or
carried into captivity. And, indeed, how could their faith and patience
appear if they, like the wicked world, returned evil for evil, carried
into captivity, and killed with the sword?
The original threatening has been fulfilled by the providence, and
sometimes by the express command, of God. As Noah was the head of the
new world and the father of nations, it seems to have had reference to
nations rather than to individuals; and all nations that have shed blood
in war must, in their turn, have their own blood shed; so that all they
that take the sword may perish with the sword agreeably to the
threatening made known to Noah, and to those announced by Christ.
But, admitting that the law quoted in the objection was intended as a
rule of duty for man, it does not appear that it was designed to be
universal and perpetual. Before the flood no authority appears in any
sense to have been delegated to man to shed the blood of man. So far
from executing the penalty of death or causing it to be executed upon
Cain, who was of the wicked one and slew his brother, notwithstanding
his guilty forebodings, God threatened a sevenfold vengeance on him who
should presume to do it.
Under the Mosaic dispensation many crimes were punishable with death
according to positive precept; but God, for wise reasons, did not always
have the penalty executed. David was guilty of murder and adultery, both
capital crimes; yet he was permitted to live.
All kinds of vindictive punishment under the Christian dispensation
appear to be absolutely forbidden. By vindictive I mean that which is
intended to vindicate the law, as executing strict justice, and prevent
offenses only, as taking away life, but which is not designed to promote
the individual good of the person punished. That punishment which is
designed and which has a tendency to promote the good of the punished,
as well as to deter offenders, I consider to be strictly disciplinary or
corrective, and consistent with the spirit and precepts of the gospel.
Says an apostle, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place
unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith
the Lord." "For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God."
It has been said that this only forbids a revengeful temper, but this
evasion will not do; for Christians are here forbidden to do the very
thing which God declares he will do himself, and he does nothing but
what is holy.
"Render to no man evil for evil," is a positive precept without any
limitation, and which admits of no evasion; and it must plainly rescind
the law of shedding man's blood because he had shed the blood of man.
But the exclamation is often made, What, not punish a murderer with
death! Little do those who make this exclamation think that they
themselves also are sinners and that every sin deserves not only
temporal death but God's wrath and curse forever, and that they are in
like condemnation unless redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. For such, it
might be well to inquire if they know "what manner of spirit they are
of."
The most prominent characteristic of Messiah's reign over men in this
world is mercy, since he has secured the rights and honor of the divine
government by the sacrifice of himself so that the guilty may live. He
has given his life as a ransom and taken the world into his hands as the
ruler, judge, and rewarder, and offers the chief of sinners mercy; and
the merits of his blood are sufficient to cleanse from all sin as well
against man as against God. And who can help being astonished at the
amazing difference between his laws and his dealings with men, and those
sanguinary laws of men according to which under the light of the gospel
they punish with death.
The professed principle and design of these laws is strict justice; but
were men dealt with according to strict justice by him who rules above,
who would be able to stand? These laws of men accept no atonement for
capital offenses; no mercy is offered, for none is provided for those
who incur their penalty; but the gospel offers mercy to the chief of
sinners while it condemns those who reject the offers. Capital offenders
will never be condemned by civil governments for the rejection of
offered mercy, for no mercy is provided for them. How unlike the divine
government! But Christians are commanded to be merciful, as their Father
in heaven is merciful, who showers down blessings on the evil and
unthankful. Our Master has told us that with what judgment we judge we
shall be judged; and with what measure we mete it shall be measured to
us again; that if we forgive we shall be forgiven; and if we forgive not
we shall not be forgiven; and that if we show no mercy we shall have
judgment without mercy.
Christians ought to ponder the subject well before they advocate the
consistency and safety of dispensing justice without mercy. Let them
learn what that meaneth, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice."
_Objection seventh._ "Every purpose is established by counsel, and with
good advice make war"; "For by wise counsel thou shalt make war," etc.
Here war is recognized as a duty under certain circumstances, and the
manner in which it is to be undertaken is pointed out, viz., by wise
counsel.
_Answer._ The inspired Proverbs are maxims of wisdom illustrated, for
the most part, by some familiar subject that existed at the time they
were delivered. The object here is not to inculcate the lawfulness of
war but the necessity of sound wisdom in relation to the actions of men;
and the subject of war appears to be introduced merely to illustrate
this idea. The counsel and wisdom of men in relation to their temporal
and worldly concerns are often worthy of imitation in reference to
spiritual things; for the children of this world are, in some sense,
wiser in their generation than the children of light, and the conduct of
worldly men is often very appropriately introduced to illustrate
Christian duty. Our Lord says, "What king, going to war with another
king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten
thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?"
Doubtless our Lord's design was to warn people to count the cost before
they professed to be followers of him, that they might not be deceived
and discouraged, and that they might act from principle and not from
hypocrisy. But he inculcated these things by referring to the example of
kings in their consultations about war. And it is believed that the
passages before cited are of similar import. These references to war,
being introduced merely for the illustration of other subjects, will no
more prove the lawfulness of war than the reference of the apostle to
the Olympic games, for illustration, will prove the lawfulness of those
heathen feats. But if this explanation should not be satisfactory, it
may be observed that the Proverbs were written under the Old Testament
economy which tolerated offensive as well as defensive war; whence it
does not appear that any war can be undertaken under the present
dispensation, "by wise counsel," except that which is spiritual; so that
if the ancient was typical of the new dispensation, then the passages
quoted will now apply only to spiritual warfare.
_Objection eighth._ When the soldiers demanded of John the Baptist what
they should do, one of the directions which he gave them was to be
content with their wages. If their occupation had been unlawful, then he
would not have directed them to be contented with the wages of
wickedness.
_Answer._ John the Baptist was under the Mosaic economy, the new
dispensation not having commenced. He was but the forerunner of the
Lord, a herald to sound his approach. But he gave the soldiers another
direction, viz., to "do violence to no man," obedience to which is
totally incompatible with war, as that is nothing else but violence.
Only hinder soldiers from doing violence to any man and you stop at once
the whole progress of war; therefore, if the directions of John are
insisted on as gospel authority, they will prove, probably, much more
against the lawfulness of war than in favor of it.
_Objection ninth._ The Centurion and Cornelius were Christians and
soldiers and highly approved of God for their faith and piety; nor were
they directed by Christ or his apostles to renounce their profession;
therefore the profession of arms is not inconsistent with Christian
duty.
_Answer._ They were first soldiers and then Christians; and we have no
evidence that they continued in the profession of arms; nor are we
warranted to say that they were not directed to renounce that
profession, as the Scriptures are silent on the subject. Peter, it
appears, tarried a number of days with Cornelius, and he doubtless
explained to him the spirit and precepts of the gospel; and it is very
probable that neither Cornelius nor the Centurion continued soldiers in
any other sense than they were soldiers of Christ, as the idolatrous
rites enjoined on the Roman soldiers were totally inconsistent with the
Christian character, aside from the unlawfulness of war itself. Besides,
the Roman soldiers were as often engaged in offensive as in defensive
war; therefore, if the argument has any force on the question, it will
tolerate not only defensive but offensive war, and also the idolatrous
rites of the Roman armies.
_Objection tenth._ Our Lord paid tribute money, which went to support
military power, but he would not contribute to the support of a wicked
thing, therefore war is not inconsistent with Christianity.
_Answer._ A distinguished trait of the Christian religion is peace. The
command is, "Follow peace with all men." "Blessed are the peacemakers:
for they shall be called the children of God."
Our Lord set the example of giving no just cause of offense to any.
Tribute was demanded of him unjustly according to the existing laws, but
lest fault should be found, he wrought a miracle and paid it. Money is a
temporal thing, and belongs to the governments of this world, as the
various coins bear the ensign of the nation by whom they were made; but
the Christian's treasure is not in this world, and when the rulers of this
world call for that which bears their own image and superscription,
Christians have no right to withhold from them their dues, for they must
"render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." For this cause they ought
to pay tribute and resign up temporal things without a murmur to temporal
governments, and leave it with Caesar to manage the things of Caesar. Thus
far are Christians warranted to act, from the example of Christ and the
precepts of the gospel; but how does the lawfulness of war follow from
Christians rendering to Caesar his due? Is it because some of the money
goes to support war? Probably, of the money which our Lord paid as much
went to the support of idolatry and the games of the day as to the support
of war. Now if the argument is sound, we may not only prove by it the
lawfulness of war but the lawfulness of idolatry and many other abominable
things practiced by the heathen governments.
_Objection eleventh._ Our Lord, just before his crucifixion, commanded
his disciples to take swords, and, if any were destitute, to sell their
garments and procure them, as they would no longer have his personal
presence to protect them; and as they were to encounter great trials and
difficulties, they must, besides relying on providence, take all prudent
means for their defense and preservation.
_Answer._ That our Lord did not direct them to take swords for
self-defense is evident because he told them that two were enough, and
because the disciples never made any use of them after their Master
directed Peter to put up his and pronounced a penalty on all who should
have recourse to swords afterwards. But the design seems to have been to
show by example in the most trying situation where self-defense was
justifiable, if in any case, that the use of the sword was utterly
prohibited under the gospel economy, and to show the criminality and
danger of ever using deathly weapons against mankind afterwards. If
Christ's kingdom had been of this world, then, he tells us, his servants
would have fought; but his kingdom being not of this world, the weapons
of their warfare were not carnal but spiritual. He therefore rebuked
them for their mistaken zeal, healed the wound they made, and forbade
the use of the sword.
_Objection twelfth._ Christians are commanded to be in subjection to
civil rulers who are God's ministers to execute wrath on the wicked and
are ministers of good to the church; therefore Christians are bound to
take the sword at their command; for civil government is ordained of God
and civil rulers are not to bear the sword in vain, and Christians may
lawfully do what God ordains to be done.
_Answer._ That civil government, so called in distinction from religious
government, is ordained by God is fully admitted, and also that God
ordains whatsoever comes to pass. But there is a great difference
between his decretive and his preceptive will. The former is not a rule
of duty for man without the latter; the latter is always a rule of duty.
This fact might be proved by a multitude of instances from Scripture.
Persons therefore may be very wicked in doing what God ordains to be
done, if they act without his command.
That civil governments and civil rulers exist only by God's decretive
will, which is fulfilled by his providence and not by his preceptive
will, is evident because God has never authorized the appointment of
them or given any precepts or any commands as a code of laws to any
denomination or class of people as such, distinct from his own covenant
people or church; and this fact I beg leave to submit as a conclusive
evidence that civil governments and civil rulers exist only by God's
decretive will and not by his preceptive will. Under the ancient
dispensation no laws or directions were given to any class of men, as
such, other than God's own covenant people or church, unless some
special commands on singular occasions, or the general command to repent
and turn to God, be excepted.
The king on the throne of Israel was as truly an officer in the church
of God as the high priest who entered into the holy of holies. Both were
set apart and anointed with the holy oil, at the command of God, and
both were types of the Son of God. The king as much typified his kingly
office as the priest did his priestly office. Both were necessary parts
of that complete shadow of good things then to come.
Under the gospel dispensation no authority from God is to be found for
appointing and setting apart civil rulers, nor are there any directions
given to civil rulers, _as such_, how to conduct in their office, unless
those who rule in the church are called civil rulers. All the precepts
and directions in the gospel, excepting such as were special (as those
which related only to the apostles) or such as are universal (relating
alike to all men), are given to the disciples as members of Christ's
kingdom, who are not of this world, even as he was not of this world.
The Son of God came into the world to set up the kingdom of heaven,
which is a perfect and everlasting kingdom and distinct from all other
kingdoms which are to be destroyed to give place to his divine and
heavenly reign. He came in the likeness of men, sin excepted, and laid
down his life a ransom for the world, and then rose a triumphant
conqueror, and in the complex character of God and man, as Mediator, he
took the universe, his purchased possession, into his hands as a
lawgiver, judge, and rewarder. He took the scepter when it departed from
Judah, and is exalted far above all principality and power and might and
dominion, and has a name above every name, all executive power in heaven
and earth being given to him as Mediator. Thus, as Mediator, the kingdom
of heaven is his kingdom. He reigns not only as King of kings and Lord
of lords but seated on the throne of his father David, he is forever
King in Zion and is head over all things to his church. His kingdom is
not of this world, neither are his subjects of this world, though some
of them are in it.
He sent out his disciples to appear in a distinct character from the
world and to be a light to it by imitating his example and by exhibiting
his spirit and temper. They ought not to say, as the Jews did, that they
have no king but Caesar, for they have an everlasting King and kingdom
and laws perfect and eternal. They should, therefore, set their
affections on things above and not on things beneath.
While the kingdoms of this world exist, Christians must remain in
captivity to them and must obey all their laws which are not contrary to
the laws of the gospel; otherwise they cannot remain peaceful, harmless,
and blameless in the midst of a wicked world before whom they must shine
as lights.
Though the church is now in captivity, yet her redemption draweth nigh,
for God will soon "overthrow the throne of kingdoms," and the thrones
will be cast down and the princes of this world will come to naught. The
stone which was cut out of the mountain without hands will dash them to
pieces, as the potter's vessel is shivered, and will become a great
mountain and fill the whole earth; then the kingdom and the dominion and
the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to
the people of the saints of the most high God whose kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom and of whose dominion there shall be no end.
Though God, by his decree, has ordained civil governments and
established kingdoms, and will by his providence make them subservient
to the good of his church and people, and notwithstanding it is the duty
of Christians to be in subjection to them and pay tribute, yet it does
not follow that their genius and laws may not often be contrary to the
genius and laws of the gospel, and when they are so Christians must not
obey them nor count their lives dear to themselves. It should be
distinctly remembered that when Christians were exhorted and commanded
to be obedient to civil rulers, they were under heathen, idolatrous,
civil governments, and those civil governments were by no means
congenial with the spirit and precepts of the gospel; still Christians
were commanded to be in subjection to them; not, however, without
limitation, for they utterly refused obedience in many instances and
nobly suffered or died as martyrs.
Thus civil government may be an ordinance of God, may be subservient to
the good of the church, may be an instrument in God's hands of executing
his wrath, and Christians may be bound to obey magistrates in all things
not contrary to the gospel; and yet it will not follow that Christians
may consistently with the gospel take up the sword or do anything to
countenance war.
If it be the duty of Christians to take the sword and enter the field of
battle at the command of their civil rulers, then there could be no
impropriety in having armies wholly made up of real Christians,
especially since it is the duty of every man to become a Christian; and
as professing Christian nations are almost constantly fighting each
other, it would be perfectly proper for hosts of pious saints to be
daily engaged in shedding each other's blood. But how would it appear,
how does it appear, for those who have drunk into the same peaceful and
heavenly spirit, who are united together by the tender ties of the
Redeemer's blood, who are all members of the same family, and who hope
through divine grace to dwell together in everlasting love and
blessedness, to be fighting one another here with relentless fury?
Let us contemplate the subject, in this point of view, a little further.
Suppose an English and an American frigate in the time of war, both
manned entirely with real Christians, should meet in a neutral port.
Ought they not then to conduct towards each other as brethren of one
common Lord? As they are all members of the same family and have all
been redeemed by the same blood, and sanctified by the same divine
spirit, they surely must have the most tender affection for each other,
and it would be highly proper for them to meet together for Christian
fellowship, worship, and communion. Suppose, then, that they
occasionally go on board each other's ships for religious worship; that
their chaplains lead in their devotions, using such petitions as
these--praying that they may be all of one heart and one mind in the
knowledge of Christ, knit together in the bonds of Christian love; that
they may have much of the wisdom from above which is first pure, then
peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated; that they may do good to all as
they have opportunity, especially to the household of faith; that they
may be meek and gentle as lambs and harmless as doves; that they may be
kind and forgiving and that, like their Divine Master, they may return
good for evil and have their affections on things above and not on
things beneath; after which they unitedly partake of the symbols of
Christ's broken body and shed blood, and then part with the tenderest
tokens of Christian fellowship and love. They leave the port and meet
again at sea. It now becomes their duty, on the principles of war,
instead of meeting as Christian brethren, to meet as raging tigers and
discharge the flaming engines of death on each other; and in order to
perform "their duty to their God and country," they must exert all their
power and skill to destroy one another. The dreadful struggle and
carnage must be continued by both parties as long as both can fight.
When half of their crews are wallowing in their blood and expiring in
agonies, a violent effort must be made by one or both to board the other
and end the contest sword in hand. Those hands which recently saluted
each other with Christian love now plunge the envenomed steel into their
brethren's bosoms. At length one is vanquished and yields to the other.
Those who remain alive after the conflict again unite in prayer and give
thanks to God that he has given them courage and strength to fight so
nobly, and that he has shielded their lives in the hour of battle. Thus
they again resume their Christian fellowship and communion. This mutual
fellowship, communion, and love are perfectly consistent with Christian
character and are required by it. The conduct which has been supposed as
enemies when fighting is also entirely consistent with the principles of
war and with the character of warriors, and is such as would be highly
applauded and admired by the world. But is it not obviously and
perfectly absurd and perfectly incompatible with the principles of the
gospel for Christians to act in this twofold character? If, however, it
is the duty of Christians to obey the command of their rulers and engage
in war, then it would be perfectly proper for what has been supposed to
take place. Christians may one day surround the table of the Lord
together, and the next kill and destroy each other.
The god of this world, not being yet chained down to hell, deceives the
nations and gathers them together to battle; but the children of peace,
the citizens of Zion, ought not to mingle with them or listen to the
deceiver. They should take to themselves not carnal weapons but the
whole armor of God, that they may be able to stand in an evil day and to
quench all the fiery darts of Satan.
_Objection thirteenth._ To deny the right of the magistrate to call on
his subjects to take the sword is to deny that he is an avenger to
execute wrath, though the gospel expressly declares that he is.
_Answer._ This conclusion does not follow unless it is a fact that God
cannot and does not actually make him the instrument of doing it, by his
providence, without his command; for, as we have already observed, men
may fulfill the decrees of God under his providence, without his
command, and be very criminal in the deed. God raised up the king of
Assyria and made him the rod of his anger, to chastise his people and to
execute wrath upon the ungodly nations around. "Howbeit he meant not so,
but it was in his heart to _cut off_ nations not a few." And God
declared, with reference to him, "that when he had performed his whole
work he would punish the fruit of his stout heart and the glory of his
high looks." It will not be contended that warlike nations are commanded
by God to destroy and trample down the nations of the earth as the dust
of their feet; yet, when they do so, they doubtless fulfill his high
decree and are avengers to execute his wrath on a wicked world.
The beast represented in the Revelation with seven heads and ten horns
has generally been considered as an emblem of nations. These ten horns,
or powers, are to hate the great harlot of Babylon; to eat her flesh
and burn her with fire; and though they destroy the greatest enemy of
the church, and in this way are ministers of good to her, yet they
receive their power and their seat and their authority from the old
serpent, the dragon. And a magistrate or king may be a minister of good
to the church and an avenger to execute wrath, and still be very wicked
in the deed and use very unlawful means to accomplish the end. While he
fulfills the decree of Heaven, he acts not in obedience to the command
of God, but to the dictates of his own lusts and passions.
_Objection fourteenth._ The passages of Scripture which have been quoted
against retaliation and which inculcate love to enemies and the
returning of good for evil have reference to individuals in their
conduct towards each other, but have no relation to civil government and
are not intended as a rule of duty for one nation towards another; they
therefore have no bearing on the subject of war.
_Answer._ Those precepts of the gospel appear to be binding universally
without any limitation, and men have no right to limit that which God
has not limited. If the commands of the gospel are binding upon every
one in his individual capacity, then they must be binding upon every one
in any collective body, so that whatever is morally wrong for every
individual must be equally wrong for a collective body; and a nation is
only a large number of individuals united so as to act collectively as
one person. Therefore, if it is criminal for an individual to lie,
steal, quarrel, and fight, it is also criminal for nations to lie,
steal, quarrel, and fight. If it is the duty of an individual to be kind
and tender-hearted and to have a forgiving and merciful disposition, it
is likewise the duty of nations to be kind, forgiving, and merciful. If
it is the duty of an individual to return good for evil, then it is the
duty of nations to return good for evil.
It is self-evident that individuals cannot delegate power to communities
which they do not possess themselves. Therefore, if every individual is
bound to obey the precepts of the gospel and cannot as an individual be
released from the obligation, then individuals have no power to release
any collective body from that obligation. To say that God has given to
nations a right to return evil for evil is begging the question, for it
does not appear and cannot be shown that God has restricted the precepts
of the gospel to individuals, or that he has given any precepts to
nations as such, or to any other community than his own covenant people
or church. This objection makes government an abstraction according with
the common saying, "Government is without a soul."
No practice has a more corrupt tendency than that of attempting to limit
the Scriptures so as to make them trim with the corrupt practices of
mankind. Whoever, for the sake of supporting war, attempts to limit
these precepts of the gospel to individuals and denies that they are
binding upon nations destroys one of the main pillars by which the
lawfulness of war is upheld. The right of nations to defend themselves
with the sword is argued on the supposed right of individual
self-preservation; as it is said to be right for individuals to defend
themselves with deathly weapons, so it is lawful for nations to have
recourse to the sword for defense of their rights. But if these passages
are applicable to individuals and prohibit them from acts of
retaliation, and if the rights of nations are founded on the rights of
individuals, then nations have no right to retaliate injury.
_Objection fifteenth._ Christians, with comparatively few exceptions,
have not doubted the lawfulness of war, and many have actually fought
and bled on the field of battle and considered themselves in the way of
their duty. And shall all our pious forefathers be condemned for
engaging in war?
_Answer._ It is admitted that many pious people have engaged in war, but
they might have been in an error on this subject as well as on many
other subjects. Many of our pious forefathers engaged in the slavery of
their fellow-men, and thought themselves in the way of their duty; but
does it follow that they were not in an error? The circumstance that
multitudes defend a sentiment is no certain evidence of its truth. Some
of the reformers were objected to because the multitude were against
them. Popularity, however, ever has influenced and ever will influence
mankind more than plain gospel duty, until the earth shall be filled
with the abundance of peace. But notwithstanding this, it is not right
to follow the multitude to do evil. All ought to remember that they have
no right to follow the example of any one any further than that example
coincides with the example of Christ or the precepts of the gospel; all
other standards are fallible and dangerous.
If real Christians have, from mistaken zeal, prayed against each other
and fought each other and shed each other's blood, this does not justify
war.
_Objection sixteenth._ If Christians generally should adopt these
sentiments, it would be impossible for them to subsist in this world in
its present state, and if they did continue it must be in abject
slavery. They would become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the
tyrannical and oppressive, and would only encourage them in their deeds
of wickedness. The injustice of men must be restrained or the earth will
again be filled with violence. The necessity of the case is such that
mankind would be warranted to take up arms to maintain their rights and
repel oppressors, if the Scriptures were silent on the subject.[2]
_Answer._ We have the history of the heathen world to teach us what
mankind are without the light of revelation. They are full of all
unrighteousness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of enmity, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity; they are proud, boasters, without natural
affection, implacable, unmerciful. Now the very design of the gospel is
to subdue and overcome these abominable passions and dispositions; not
however by returning violence for violence but by producing virtues
directly contrary. The great duty of Christians is to be a light to this
wicked world by exhibiting in their conduct and conversation the spirit
and temper of the gospel. If such were the practice of Christians, we
have reason to believe that wicked men would be overawed and deterred
from their violence in a great measure. Besides, if all real Christians
should utterly refuse to bear arms for the destruction of their
fellow-men, it would greatly diminish the strength and boldness of
warlike nations, so that it would be impracticable for them to prosecute
war with the vigor and fury that they now do.
But if the gospel prohibits war, then to urge the necessity of the case
against the commands of God is open rebellion against his government as
well as total distrust of his word and providence.
If Christians live in habitual obedience to God's commands, they have
the promise that all things shall work together for their good, and they
have no reason to fear them that kill the body and after that "have no
more that they can do."
It is strange that Christians should have so great a reluctance to
suffer inconvenience in worldly things for the sake of the gospel. The
scoffs and persecutions of the world and the fear of the loss of worldly
things are powerful barriers against _Christian_ warfare. The gospel
teaches us that all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
persecution, and that through much tribulation the saints must enter
into the kingdom of heaven; and is it not plainly owing wholly to their
conformity to the world that they now suffer so little persecution and
practice so little self-denial? If there is reserved for them an eternal
weight of glory, what if they, like their Divine Master, should not have
where to lay their heads? If they are to inherit a crown of immortal
glory, what if they are called to suffer the loss of earthly things? If
they are hereafter to reign as kings and priests unto God, what if they
are not ranked among the great and honorable of the earth? If they
suffer with Christ, then will they also reign with him; but if they deny
him, he also will deny them; and if they are ashamed of him, he will
also be ashamed of them before his Father and the holy angels. Let
Christians then obey his commands and trust to his protection while they
resolutely abstain from the wicked practices of the world.
_Objection seventeenth._ It is the duty of mankind to use means for the
preservation of life and liberty; they must till the ground, if they
expect a crop. It would be presumptuous for them to pray for and to
expect their daily bread without using such means as God has put in
their power to obtain it; and it would be equally presumptuous to expect
the preservation of their lives and liberties without using such means
to preserve and defend them as God has put into their hand; they must
act as well as pray.
_Answer._ That using means is the duty of Christians, there can be no
doubt; but they must be such as God has appointed, and not such as human
wisdom may dictate. There is no dispute as to the propriety of using
means, but only as to the kind of means which Christians ought to use.
The weapons of their warfare are not carnal, but spiritual, and they are
mighty through God to the pulling down the strongholds of sin and Satan.
It is often said, If you wish to put a stop to war, spread the gospel
through the world. We would inquire, If the gospel tolerates war, how
will its universal diffusion put a stop to war?
As has already been observed, it would be open rebellion to do what God
has forbidden, and high-handed presumption to ask his aid in the things
which he has prohibited.
_Objection eighteenth._ Some ecclesiastical historians inform us that
Christians in the early ages of the church, though they contended so
firmly for the faith as to suffer martyrdom rather than submit to
idolatry, yet did not refuse to bear arms in defense of their country,
even when called upon by heathen magistrates, and their example ought to
have weight with us.
_Answer._ The testimony of the early Fathers is entitled to regard, but
must not be considered as infallible authority, for they were men of
like passions with others and cannot be followed safely any farther than
they followed Christ. But the weight of their testimony on the subject,
I apprehend, will be found to stand directly against the lawfulness of
war on Christian principles.
Erasmus, who was an eminent scholar, and who was probably as well
acquainted with the sentiments of the primitive Fathers as any modern
writer, in his _Antipolemus, or Plea against War_, replies to the
advocates of war as follows: "They further object those opinions or
decrees of the Fathers in which war seems to be approved. Of this sort
there are some, but they are only late writers, who appeared when the
true spirit of Christianity began to languish, and they are very few;
while, on the other hand, there are innumerable ones among the writers
of acknowledged sanctity which absolutely forbid war; and why should the
few rather than the many intrude themselves into our mind?"
Barclay, who examined the writings of the Fathers on this subject, says,
"It is as easy to obscure the sun at midday as to deny that the
primitive Christians renounced all revenge and war."
Clarkson, who also examined the Fathers, declares that "every Christian
writer of the second century who notices the subject makes it unlawful
for Christians to bear arms."
Clarkson has made copious extracts from the writings of the Fathers
against war, a few of which, as quoted by him and others, shall be
inserted here.
Justin Martyr and Tatian both considered the devil the author of war.
Justin Martyr, while speaking of the prophecies relating to the days of
peace, says, "That this prophecy is fulfilled you have good reason to
believe, for we who in times past killed one another do not now fight
with our enemies." Clarkson adds, "It is observable that the word
'fight' does not mean to strike, beat, or give a blow, but to fight in
war; and the word 'enemy' does not mean a common adversary who has
injured us, but an enemy of state."
Irenaeus says that Christians in his day "had changed their swords and
their lances into instruments of peace, and that they knew not how to
fight."
Maximilian and a number of others in the second century actually
suffered martyrdom for refusing, on gospel principles, to bear arms.
Celsus made it one of his charges against the Christians that they
refused to bear arms for the Emperor. Origen, in the following century,
admitted the fact and justified the Christians on the ground of the
unlawfulness of war itself.
Tertullian, in his discourse to Scapula, tells us "that no Christians
were to be found in the Roman armies."
In his declaration on the worship of idols he says, "Though the soldiers
came to John and received a certain form to be observed, and though the
Centurion believed, yet Jesus Christ, by disarming Peter disarmed every
soldier afterwards; for custom can never sanction an illicit act."
Again, in his _Soldier's Garland_, he says: "Can a soldier's life be
lawful, when Christ has pronounced that he who lives by the sword shall
perish by the sword? Can one who professes the peaceable doctrine of the
gospel be a soldier when it is his duty not so much as to go to law? And
shall he who is not to avenge his own wrongs be instrumental in bringing
others into chains, imprisonment, torment, and death?"
He tells us, also, that the Christians in his day were sufficiently
numerous to have defended themselves if their religion had permitted
them to have recourse to the sword.
There are some marvelous accounts of Christian soldiers related by
Eusebius; but Valesius, in his annotations on these accounts, has
abundantly proved them to be fabulous, though he was not opposed to war
and could have had no other object but to support the truth. Eusebius,
in his orations on Constantine, uses such extravagant adulation, which
falls but little short of idolatry, that his account of Christian
warriors ought to be received with great caution, especially when we
recollect that church and state were, in his day, united.
On the whole, it is very evident that the early Christians did refuse to
bear arms, and although one of their objections was the idolatrous rites
connected with military service, yet they did object on account of the
unlawfulness of war itself.
We have no good evidence of Christians being found in the armies until
we have evidence of great corruption in the church. But admitting that
we had good evidence that there were professing Christians in the army
at an early period of the church, I apprehend it would be of little
importance, for the idolatrous rites and ceremonies of the heathen
armies were of such a nature as to be totally inconsistent with
Christian character, and the example of idolatrous Christians surely
ought to have no weight.
Some objections of less importance might be stated which have from time
to time been made against the sentiments here advocated; but to state
and reply to everything that might be said is not necessary. Specious
objections have been and still are made to almost every doctrine of
Christianity. Mankind can generally find some plausible arguments to
support whatever they wish to believe. The pleas in favor of war are
very congenial with the natural feelings of the human heart, and unless
men will examine with a serious, candid, and prayerful disposition to
ascertain the truth as it is in Jesus, they will be very likely to
imbibe and defend error.[3]
The writer, though far from supposing that everything he has said on a
subject that has been so little discussed is free from error, is
conscious of having endeavored to examine it with seriousness and
candor, and feels satisfied that the general sentiments he has advanced
are according to godliness. He sincerely hopes that every one who may
peruse these pages will do it in the meek and unbiased spirit of the
gospel, and then judge whether war can be reconciled with the lamblike
example of Christ; whether it is really forgiving the trespasses of
enemies, loving and doing them good, and returning good for evil; for if
it is not, it is unquestionably inconsistent with the spirit and the
precepts of Christianity.
All who earnestly desire and look for the millennial glory of the church
should consider that it can never arrive until the spirit and practice
of war are abolished. All who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity
cannot but ardently desire that wars may cease to the ends of the earth
and that mankind should embrace each other as brethren. If so, is it not
their duty to do all in their power to promote so benevolent an object?
Ought not every individual Christian to conduct in such a manner that if
every other person imitated his example it would be best for the whole?
If so, would they not immediately renounce everything that leads to wars
and fightings and embrace everything which would promote that glorious
reign of righteousness and peace for which they earnestly hope, long,
and pray? "The work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of
righteousness, quietness and assurance forever."