WAR INCONSISTENT WITH THE
RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST
by David Low Dodge
I am now to show that war, when judged on the principles of the gospel, is highly criminal.
1. Going to war is not keeping from the appearance
of evil, but is running into temptation
I would have it understood that I consider every act of mankind which is palpably contrary to the spirit and precepts of the gospel criminal. It is an express precept of the gospel to abstain from all appearance of evil. “Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation” is also an express command of Christ. A person desiring not only to abstain from evil, but from the very appearance of it, will suffer wrong rather than hazard that conduct which may involve doing wrong. He will be so guarded that, if he errs at all, he will be likely to give up his right when he might retain it without injuring others. No person, it is believed, will attempt to maintain that there is no appearance of evil in carnal warfare, or that it is not a scene of great temptation.
One great object of the gospel is to produce good morals, to subdue the irascible passions of men, and bring them into sweet subjection to the gospel of peace. But war cannot be prosecuted without rousing the corrupt passions of mankind. In fact, it is altogether the effect of lust and passion. In times of war, almost every measure is taken for the express purpose of inflaming the passions of men, because they are the vital springs of war, and it would not exist without them. Those who are engaged in war, both in the council and in the field, have a feverish passion that varies as circumstances may happen to change. Those who are actually engaged in the heat of battle are usually intoxicated with rage. Should this be denied by anyone, I would appeal to the general approbation bestowed on the artist who displays most skill in painting scenes of this kind. He who can represent the muscular powers most strongly exerted, the passions most inflamed, and the visage most distorted with rage, will gain the highest applause. The truth of the assertion is, therefore, generally admitted. Some men, perhaps, may be so much under the influence of pride as to have the appearance of stoical indifference when their antagonists are at some distance, but let them meet sword in hand and the scene is at once changed.
The temptations for those who constitute, or those who encourage and support, armies to commit or to connive at immorality are too various and too multiplied to be distinctly mentioned.
Who can deny that war is altogether a business of strife? “But,” said an inspired apostle, “where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.” If war is a scene of confusion and strife and every evil work, it is impossible for anyone to engage in it and avoid the appearance of evil or be out of the way of temptation; those who are armed with deadly weapons and thirsting for the blood of their fellow-mortals surely cannot be said to exhibit no appearance of evil. But, if engaging in wars is putting on the appearance of evil and running into temptation, then it is highly criminal to engage in it.
2. War is criminal, as it naturally inflames the pride of man
One of the abominable things that proceed out of the corrupt heart of man, as represented by our Savior, is pride. “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” “The Lord hates a proud look.” “Everyone 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 shouldn’t 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? Isn’t 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. 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? A pagan would 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.
3. 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 that 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, all 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 was 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. In republican governments, the majority declares war and demands and enforces obedience from the minority.[4]
Though the constitutions of governments may, in the most solemn manner, guarantee to citizens the free exercise of their consciences, yet governments find it a practical necessity 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 [5] 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 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, for all practical purposes, 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 that 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.
4. 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, sophisticated 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 themselves 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, then 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 feebleminded, 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, said, “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 tenderhearted, be courteous, not rendering evil for evil, railing for railing; but blessings instead, 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, and suffering disposition is peculiar to the lamb-like temper of the gospel, and is wholly opposed to the bold, contending, and daring spirit of the world that 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 that 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 their lives with patient submission as witnesses for Jesus – and this at a time when “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.” [6]
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 also the most extreme contrast to the spirit of war.
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 that 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 deadly 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.
5. War is criminal, as it is not doing to others
as we should wish them to do to us
Our blessed Savior said, “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.” 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.
6. War is inconsistent with mercy, and is therefore criminal
Mercy is the grand characteristic of the gospel, and the practice of mercy is the indispensable duty of man. “Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” “For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” “For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy.”
Mercy is that disposition which inclines us to relieve distress, to forgive injuries, and to promote the best good of those who are not deserving. Mercy in us towards our enemies implies seeking and pursuing their best good for time and eternity. It is sinful to exercise any affection towards enemies short of that benevolence or mercy which involves the advancement of their best good, and Christians may not suspend this disposition, or do evil that any supposed good may come; for no law can be of higher authority than the express precept of Christ which requires this disposition towards enemies, and of course no other consideration can be paramount to this, for nations are as much bound as individuals.
It is surely too grossly absurd for any to pretend that destroying the property and lives of enemies is treating them mercifully, or pursuing their best good for time and eternity. Nor can any so impose upon their imaginations as to think that injuring mankind is treating them with benevolence or mercy.
But the direct object of war is injury to enemies; and the conduct of soldiers generally speaks a language not easily to be misunderstood. Though soldiers are not always as bad as they might be, their tender mercies are often but cruelty. When they storm a fortified place and do not put all the captives to the sword, they are complimented for exercising mercy, merely because they were not so cruel as they might have been. But shall a highway robber be called an honest man because he takes but half the money of him whom he robs? Is it an act of mercy, when a man encroaches on your property, to take away his life? Do nations exercise mercy towards each other when they enter into bloody wars in consequence of a dispute that shall govern a small portion of territory? Or does a nation show mercy to another that has actually invaded its rights by falling upon the aggressor and doing all the injury in its power? This surely is not forgiving injuries. And when two contending armies come in contact and rush on each other with all the frightful engines of death and cut each other to pieces, they do not appear to me as merciful, kind, and tender-hearted, forgiving one another in love, even as God for Christ’s sake forgives his children. Yet this is the rule by which they should act and by which they will at last be judged.
But the whole system of war is opposed to mercy, and is therefore altogether unlike the spirit of the gospel, and must be criminal.
7. War is criminal, as it is inconsistent with forgiving
trespasses as we wish to be forgiven
Our Savior said: “If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses.” “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”
Here it is evident that the everlasting salvation of men depends on their exercising forgiveness towards their enemies; for if they forgive not, they will not be forgiven of God, and with what measure they mete to others, it will be measured to them again.
To forgive is to pass by an offense, treating the offender not according to his desert, but as though he had done nothing amiss.
But do the principles of war lead individuals or nations to pass by offenses and to treat offenders as if they were innocent? Do they not, on the contrary, require justice and exact the very last mite? Has it the aspect of forgiveness for us, when an enemy trespasses on our rights, to arm with weapons of slaughter and meet him on the field of battle? Who, while piercing the heart of his enemy with a sword, can consistently utter this prayer: “Father, forgive my trespasses, as I have forgiven the trespasses of this my enemy”? But this, in reference to this subject, is the only prayer the gospel warrants him to make. And professing Christian nations, while at war and bathing their swords in each other’s blood to redress mutual trespasses, are daily in their public litanies offering this prayer; but is it not obvious that either their prayers are perfect mockery, or they desire not to be forgiven but to be punished to the extent of their deserts?
If individuals or nations desire that God would forgive their trespasses, then they must not only pray for it, but also actually exercise forgiveness towards those who trespass against them; and then they may beat their useless swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and learn war no more.
But it must be very criminal to engage in war, or to tolerate it in any way, if it is inconsistent with the forgiveness of injuries as we hope to be forgiven, and in this respect violates the precepts of the gospel.
8. Engaging in war is not manifesting love
to enemies or returning good for evil
Returning good for evil and manifesting benevolence to enemies is, perhaps, the most elevated and noble part of Christian practice – the inculcation of which in the gospel exalts Christianity far above any other form of religion, and proves it to be not only divine but efficacious to subdue the turbulent and corrupt passions of men; and for these reasons this part of duty ought to be zealously advocated and diligently performed by everyone who bears the Christian name.
The ablest writers who have defended the divine origin of the Scriptures against infidels have urged this topic as constituting conclusive evidence in their favor. Unbelievers, instead of attempting to meet the argument fairly, have urged the inconsistency of Christians in acting contrary to so conspicuous a rule of duty. Such is and ever has been the most powerful weapon that infidels can wield against Christianity. But it is the will of God that by doing good we should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Let Christians act in strict conformity to this part of Christian practice, and they will wrest from the infidel’s hand his strongest weapon.
That exercising benevolence towards enemies and returning good for evil is inculcated as one of the most important doctrines of the gospel is evident as well from the whole tenor of the New Testament as from the express commands of the Son of God: “I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father in heaven.” “If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.” “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Such are some of the divine precepts on this subject. So different, however, are the laws of war among Christian nations, that rendering comfort or relief to enemies is considered high treason, and they punish with death the performance of the very duty that God commands as a condition of eternal life!
The common sense of every man revolts from the idea that resisting an enemy by war is returning good for evil. Who would receive the thrust of a sword as an act of kindness? Was it ever considered that killing a man was doing good to him? Has not death always been considered the greatest evil that could be returned for capital crimes? But the principles of war not only allow enemies to return evil for evil by killing one another, but also secure the highest praise to him who kills the most. It is often said of those who distinguish themselves in butchering their fellow men that “they cover themselves with glory!”
Nations, when they go to war, do not so much as pretend to be actuated by love to their enemies. They do not hesitate to declare in the face of Heaven that their object is to avenge their wrongs. But, said an inspired apostle, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ saith the Lord.” Retributive judgment, the execution of strict justice, or vengeance, God declares often, belongs to him. He has reserved it in his own hand as his sovereign prerogative.
It is not very surprising that savage pagans should glory in revenge, but that those should do so who have the Bible in their hands, and profess to take it as the rule of their faith and practice, is truly astonishing. It is still more astonishing that some ministers of the gospel not only connive at but also approve of the spirit and practice of revenge by war.
But though the whole tenor of the gospel absolutely enjoins returning good for evil and blessing for cursing; yet the open and avowed principles of war are to return evil for evil, and violence for violence.
If the principles of war are so directly opposed to the principles of the gospel, if the practice of war is so perfectly contrary to Christian practice, then it must be very criminal for Christians not to bear open testimony against war, and much more criminal to do anything to promote it.
9. War is criminal, because it is
actually rendering evil for evil
It is a fact, which can neither be disguised nor disputed, 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 two eyes for one eye, and two teeth for one tooth. 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 is 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 disputed.
The great Author and finisher of our faith said, “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 is 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 deadly weapons, you may repel him with deadly 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? Isn’t 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.
10. War is criminal, as it is actually
doing evil that good may come
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; and to accomplish this, 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,” said he, “and as some affirm that we say, ‘Let us do evil that good may come,’ whose damnation is just.”
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.
11. 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 said, “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 anyone 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. 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 deadly armor, and rushing forward to destroy their fellow creatures, are in figurative language but lambs, then I confess that 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 tenderhearted, 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, then 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 that 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. If it is so, 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 indisputably 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 into question, it was violently defended by professing Christians as well 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 a charitable standing in any of the churches in this vicinity. But whence has arisen so great a revolution in the minds 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 is disclosed and established. Hence it is the solemn duty of everyone, 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 farming tools, 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 that 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 that will be then manifested? If so, let everyone “follow the things that make for peace,” and the God of peace shall bless him.
[4] Transcriber’s note – This is only true if the government is truly acting democratically. There are many examples in which a small number of elected officials have prosecuted a war without the support of the majority of their constituents.
[5] Transcriber’s note – The author refers to the war of 1812, which was opposed by the New England states.
[6] Sir Henry Moncrief Wellwood in his Sermons, page 335.