War Inconsistent With The Religion Of Jesus Christ Part 7

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 G.o.d, 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 circ.u.mstances 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 G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstances.

_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 circ.u.mstances 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 circ.u.mstances they must also be made the executors of G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d. The Old Testament saints received such commands, but Christians have no such authority, which makes a material difference in circ.u.mstances.

Some general observations relative to the different dispensations of the church of G.o.d may ill.u.s.trate 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. 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 G.o.d they judged and made war and conquered their enemies and thus typified the Son of G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 a.n.a.logy and introducing it as proof of sentiments instead of ill.u.s.tration. 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 G.o.d, and the others are but human inst.i.tutions. They not unfrequently speak of G.o.d'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 G.o.d and taking possession of Canaan. Thus they endeavor to keep up a parallel between G.o.d's ancient church and civil governments. The economy of G.o.d's ancient covenant people was by no means a political inst.i.tution in the popular sense, but it was a dispensation of the church of G.o.d, 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 a.n.a.logy between them is specious and false. The Israelites had no authority to enact laws or to alter G.o.d'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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, we shall find it to be very different from that of the precepts, generally, delivered to Moses. G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d declared what he would do himself. It appears, therefore, to have been G.o.d'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 pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d. 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, G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d."

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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d. 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 ill.u.s.trated, 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 ill.u.s.trate 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 ill.u.s.trate 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 pa.s.sages before cited are of similar import. These references to war, being introduced merely for the ill.u.s.tration of other subjects, will no more prove the lawfulness of war than the reference of the apostle to the Olympic games, for ill.u.s.tration, 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 pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d."

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 dest.i.tute, 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 p.r.o.nounced 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d and civil rulers are not to bear the sword in vain, and Christians may lawfully do what G.o.d ordains to be done.

_Answer._ That civil government, so called in distinction from religious government, is ordained by G.o.d is fully admitted, and also that G.o.d ordains whatsoever comes to pa.s.s. 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 mult.i.tude of instances from Scripture.

Persons therefore may be very wicked in doing what G.o.d ordains to be done, if they act without his command.