WAR INCONSISTENT WITH THE
RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST
by David Low Dodge
As was proposed, a number of objections to the general sentiments that have been advocated shall be stated and answered.
1. What if we are attacked by an assassin?
Objection. Shall we stand still and suffer an assassin to enter our houses without resistance and let him murder our families and ourselves?
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. 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. Now it is made to Christians who, for conscience’ sake, refuse at this day to resist evil. Let the consequences of nonresistance be what they may, no Christian will pretend that defense with carnal weapons is not criminal if the gospel really forbids it, for the command of the gospel is the rule of duty. But I presume that this objection 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 deadly weapons is first settled. It might, therefore, justly be dismissed without further remark; but as mankind is 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 deadly 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. The response would probably be made 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, and it 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. 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. 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 with mankind, because war is so congenial to its 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. We have reason to believe that this objection is often made merely to ward off the arrows of conviction that 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 those who trust in him out of all their trouble. He will make even their enemies to be at peace with them. 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 those who do evil; and who is he who will harm you if you are followers of that which is good? But if you suffer for righteousness’ sake, you should be happy, and not be afraid of their terror, or troubled. If God thus protects his children, who can be against them? Isn’t 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 unable to save? Aren’t the hosts of heaven at his command? Aren’t 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. The blessed Savior said, “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 deadly 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, only God can know before the event has taken place whether one man will assassinate another. 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.
2. Self-defense is the first law of nature
Objection. Self-defense, and, if necessary, with deadly weapons, is the first law of nature. All of the animals in 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 is 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 that 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. “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.”
3. War is consistent with moral law
Objection. 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. 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 indefinable 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 those who 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 standards 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? 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. Instead, 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. 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 unnecessary, since 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 shortsighted, 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. Hence, a revelation is necessary 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 the 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, the 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 must follow 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?
4. The essence of morality in the Old
and New Testaments is the same
Objection. 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. Since 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, 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, which were types of spiritual foes, spiritual armor, and spiritual warfare.[7] Their kings were seated on the throne of the Lord (see 1 Chronicles 29:23). At the command of God they judged, 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, makes war, and rides forth conquering and to conquer. The ancient promises and threats were mostly temporal, but typical of spiritual and everlasting promises and threats. 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 takes 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 frequently 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 it was typical of the kingdom of the 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 to obey them implicitly.
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.
5. Abraham’s war was approved by God
Objection. 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. Since 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 that 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 the same precious faith with him. If Christians are warranted to imitate the example of Abraham in all things that 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, as I understand it, offensive rather than defensive. 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 inspired words of Jacob when blessing his sons (Genesis 48:22). The Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations were types, 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.
6. The shedding of blood is a universal law
Objection. 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 also 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,” and “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 others 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. All nations that have shed blood in war must, in their turn, have their own blood shed, so that all those who take the sword may perish with the sword agreeably to the threatening made known to Noah, and to those announced by Christ.
But, if we were to admit that the law quoted in the objection was intended as a rule of duty for man, then 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 only prevent offenses (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. An apostle said, “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 also 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 the 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 has taken the world into his hands as the ruler, judge, and rewarder, and offers mercy to the chief of sinners. The merits of his blood are sufficient to cleanse from all sin against man as well 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 we shall be judged with the same judgment we dispense; that it shall be measured to us with the measure we use; that we shall be forgiven if we forgive; that we shall not be forgiven if we do not forgive; and that we shall have judgment without mercy if we show no mercy.
Christians ought to ponder the subject well before they advocate the consistency and safety of dispensing justice without mercy. Let them learn the meaning of, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.”
7. We are told to seek counsel when waging war
Objection. “Every purpose is established by counsel, and with good advice make war.” “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: namely, by wise counsel.
Answer. The inspired Proverbs are maxims of wisdom illustrated. For the most part, they were delivered by some familiar subject that existed at the time. 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 said, “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 cited previously 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. Therefore, 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.
8. John the Baptist did not rebuke the soldiers
Objection. When the soldiers demanded of John the Baptist what they should do, one of the directions that 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 only the forerunner of the Lord, a herald to sound his approach. But he gave the soldiers another direction, i.e. 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, then they will prove much more against the lawfulness of war than in favor of it.
9. The centurion and Cornelius were not rebuked
Objection. 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. It is very probable that neither Cornelius nor the Centurion continued as 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 also offensive war, and also the idolatrous rites of the Roman armies.
10. Jesus himself paid tribute
Objection. Our Lord paid tribute money that 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. 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 inscription, 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. 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.
11. Christ told his Apostles to get swords
Objection. 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 his away 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 deadly 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.
[7] Says the Rev. Dr. Scott, in his Essay, p. 422: “We ought not therefore to fear our enemies because he will be with us, and if God is for us, who can be against us? Or who can doubt but he who is in us is greater than he who is in the world? This was typically intimated in the promises made to Israel respecting their wars with the Canaanites and other nations, which were shadows and figures of the good fight of faith.” Bishop Horne, in his preface to the Psalms, views the subject in the same light.