{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35883/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35883","id":"gutenberg_35883","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35883","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: History - Warfare","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Peace -- Religious aspects -- Christianity","War -- Religious aspects -- Christianity"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Rose Mawhorter and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive/Canadian Libraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: DAVID LOW DODGE]\n\n\n\n\n  WAR INCONSISTENT\n  WITH THE\n  RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST\n\n  BY\n  DAVID LOW DODGE\n\n  WITH AN INTRODUCTION\n  BY\n  EDWIN D. MEAD\n\n  PUBLISHED FOR THE INTERNATIONAL UNION\n  GINN & COMPANY, BOSTON\n  1905\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1905, BY\n  THE INTERNATIONAL UNION\n\n  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED\n\n  55.8\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                  PAGE\n\nINTRODUCTION                                                       vii\n\nWAR INCONSISTENT WITH THE RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST                   1\n\n  WAR IS INHUMAN:\n\n     I. Because it hardens the heart and blunts the tender\n          feelings of mankind                                        2\n\n    II. War is inhuman, as in its nature and tendency it\n          abuses God's animal creation                               6\n\n   III. War is inhuman, as it oppresses the poor                     8\n\n    IV. War is inhuman, as it spreads terror and distress\n          among mankind                                             12\n\n     V. War is inhuman, as it involves men in fatigue, famine,\n          and all the pains of mutilated bodies                     14\n\n    VI. War is inhuman, as it destroys the youth and cuts\n          off the hope of gray hairs                                16\n\n   VII. War is inhuman, as it multiplies widows and orphans,\n          and clothes the land in mourning                          18\n\n  WAR IS UNWISE:\n\n      I. Because, instead of preventing, it provokes insult\n           and mischief                                             23\n\n     II. War is unwise, for instead of diminishing, it increases\n           difficulties                                             26\n\n    III. War is unwise, because it destroys property                28\n\n     IV. War is unwise, as it is dangerous to the liberties of\n           men                                                      30\n\n      V. War is unwise, as it diminishes the happiness of\n           mankind                                                  34\n\n     VI. War is unwise, as it does not mend, but injures, the\n           morals of society                                        36\n\n    VII. War is unwise, as it is hazarding eternal things for\n           only the chance of defending temporal things             42\n\n   VIII. War is unwise, as it does not answer the professed\n           end for which it is intended                             44\n\n  WAR IS CRIMINAL:\n\n      I. Going to war is not keeping from the appearance\n           of evil, but is running into temptation                  47\n\n     II. War is criminal, as it naturally inflames the pride\n           of man                                                   49\n\n    III. War necessarily infringes on the consciences of\n           men, and therefore is criminal                           52\n\n     IV. War is criminal, as it is opposed to patient suffering\n           under unjust and cruel treatment                         56\n\n      V. War is criminal, as it is not doing to others as we\n           should wish them to do to us                             60\n\n     VI. War is inconsistent with mercy, and is therefore\n           criminal 61\n\n    VII. War is criminal, as the practice of it is inconsistent\n           with forgiving trespasses as we wish to be forgiven\n           by the final judge                                       63\n\n   VIII. Engaging in war is not manifesting love to enemies\n           or returning good for evil                               64\n\n     IX. War is criminal, because it is actually rendering\n           evil for evil                                            67\n\n      X. War is criminal, as it is actually doing evil that good\n           may come; and this is the best apology that can\n           be made for it                                           71\n\n     XI. War is opposed to the example of the Son of God,\n           and is therefore criminal                                72\n\n  OBJECTIONS ANSWERED                                               77\n\nHYMN                                                               121\n\nTHE MEDIATOR'S KINGDOM NOT OF THIS WORLD: BUT SPIRITUAL            123\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nTo David Low Dodge of New York belongs the high honor of having written\nthe first pamphlets published in America directed expressly against the\nwar system of nations, and of having founded the first peace society\never organized in America or in the world. His first pamphlet, _The\nMediator's Kingdom not of this World_, was published in 1809. His second\nand more important pamphlet, _War Inconsistent with the Religion of\nJesus Christ_, was prepared for the press in 1812. This was two years\nbefore the publication of Noah Worcester's _Solemn Review of the Custom\nof War_, which was issued in Boston on Christmas Day, 1814. Early in\n1812 Mr. Dodge and his friends in New York deliberated on the expediency\nof forming a peace society; but on account of the excitement attending\nthe war with Great Britain this was postponed until 1815. In August of\nthat year the New York Peace Society, the first in the world, was\norganized, with Mr. Dodge as its president. This was four months before\nthe organization of the Massachusetts Peace Society (December 26, 1815)\nunder the leadership of Noah Worcester, and nearly a year before the\nEnglish Peace Society, the first in Europe, was formed (June 14, 1816)\nin London.\n\nThe preeminent historical interest attaching to Mr. Dodge's pioneering\nwork in the peace cause in this country would alone justify and indeed\nseem to command the republication of his pamphlets at this time, when\nthe great ideas for which he so courageously and prophetically stood are\nat last winning the general recognition of humane and thoughtful men.\nBut it is not merely historical interest which warrants a revival of\nattention to these almost forgotten papers. Their intrinsic power and\nworth are such as make their reading, especially that of the second\nessay, _War Inconsistent with the Religion of Jesus Christ_, which\nstands first in the present volume, edifying and inspiring to-day.\nMarked by few literary graces and cast in a theological mold which the\ncritical thought of the present has in large measure outgrown, there is\na force of thought, a moral earnestness, a persevering logic, a common\nsense, a hatred of inhumanity, a passion for justice, a penetration and\na virtue in them, which commends them to the abiding and reverent regard\nof all who work for the peace and order of the world. Among such workers\nto-day are men of various political philosophies, and perhaps only a\nsmall minority are nonresistants of the extreme type of David L. Dodge;\nbut to that minority, we cannot fail to remark, belongs the greatest and\nmost influential of all the peace prophets of this time, Leo Tolstoi.\nNone can read these old essays without being impressed by the fact that\ntheir arguments are essentially the same as those of the great Russian.\nThere is little indeed of the Tolstoian thunder and lightning, the\npathos, wrath, and rhetoric, the poetry and prophecy, in these\nold-fashioned pages; but the doctrine is the same as that of _Bethink\nYourselves!_ and _Patriotism versus Christianity_. In his central\nthought and purpose, in his religious trust and reliance upon the\nChristian principle, the New York merchant was a Tolstoi a hundred years\nbefore his time.\n\nDavid Low Dodge was born June 14, 1774, in that part of Pomfret,\nConnecticut, now called Brooklyn. This was the home of Israel Putnam;\nand David Dodge's father, a farmer and carpenter, was Putnam's neighbor\nand friend,--may well have been near him when in April, 1775, upon\nhearing of the battle of Lexington, he left his plow in the furrow and\nstarted to join the forces gathering at Cambridge. David Dodge's father,\ngrandfather, and great-grandfather each bore the name of David Dodge.\nThe great-grandfather was a Congregational minister, who was understood\nto have come from Wales,--a learned and wealthy man, who was for a while\nsettled in the vicinity of Cape Ann in Massachusetts. The grandfather,\nwho also received a liberal education, probably in England, came into\nthe possession of his father's estate, for that day a large one, and we\nare not informed whether he followed any profession or regular business.\nHe was a man fully six feet tall, of great muscular power, and a lover\nof good horses, on which he spent much time and money. He married Ann\nLow, from a wealthy Massachusetts family, and settled in Beverly, where\ntheir sons David and Samuel were born, and where the family fortunes\nbecame much embarrassed. About 1757 the family removed to Pomfret,\nConnecticut, and the boys, whose education at the hands of their mother\nhad been but slight, were apprenticed, David to a carpenter and Samuel\nto a shoemaker. Their father, obtaining at this time a commission in the\narmy invading Canada, met his death in a bateau which attempted to\ndescend the falls of the Oswego and was dashed to pieces on the rocks\nwith the loss of every soul on board.\n\nDavid Low Dodge's mother, when a girl, was Mary Stuart, and when she\nmarried his father, in 1768, was a widow bearing the name of Earl. The\nyoung husband hired a small farm, the wife by her industry and economy\nhad furniture sufficient to begin housekeeping, and the little home was\nfounded in which David Low Dodge's only sister Mary was born in 1770.\nThree years later the father hired a more expensive place in the same\ntown, where the boy was born in 1774. \"During that year,\" he writes in\nhis autobiography, \"my father became serious, and commenced family\nprayer. He was educated in the old semi-Arminian views of his mother and\nthe halfway covenant. My mother was a rigid Calvinist of the Whitefield\nschool. Neither of them ever made a public profession of religion, but\nthey were careful to observe external ordinances, catechize their\nchildren, and give religious instruction. They were honest, industrious,\ntemperate, kind-hearted people, universally respected and esteemed by\nall who were acquainted with them.\"\n\nSuch was the atmosphere in which the boy grew up. \"The American\nRevolution at this period was convulsing the whole country, drafting and\nenlisting soldiers. Wagons were needed for the army, and by the advice\nof the Putnams, the old general and his son Israel, who was about two\nyears younger than my father, he was induced to engage in the\nmanufacture of continental wagons. He hired a convenient place for\ncarpenters and blacksmiths, took several journeymen into the family,\nand embarked all his earnings in the business.\" The boy's half-brothers,\nWilliam and Jesse Earl, entered the army at the tender ages of fourteen\nand sixteen, endured battles, sickness, and every privation, and both\ndied towards the close of the war, the event almost wrecking the nervous\nsystem of the mother, a woman of acute sensibility. Thus early were the\nhorrors of war brought personally home to the boy. He remembered hearing\nthe distant cannonading when New London was burned by the British, and\nthe exclamation of the man beside him, \"Blood is flowing to-day.\" \"News\ncame the next morning that the forts were stormed, the garrisons put to\nthe sword, New London burnt, and the British were marching upon Norwich,\nand would proceed up into the country. My mother wrung her hands, and\nasked my father if we had not better pack up some things to secrete\nthem.\"\n\nThe boy's education was slight and fragmentary. The summer he was six\nyears old he attended the school of a venerable Irish maiden lady about\nsixty years of age, learning Watts' _Divine Songs_, texts of Scripture,\nand the _Shorter Catechism_. From the age of seven to fourteen--the\nfamily now living on a farm in the neighboring town of Hampton--he\nattended the district school for two terms each winter, having no access\nto any other books than the primer, spelling book, arithmetic, and\nBible. \"I used often, when not at work in the shop evenings, to retire\nto the old kitchen fireplace, put my lamp into the oven, and, sitting\nwith my back against it, take my arithmetic, slate, and pencil, and try\nto cipher a little. I often think how I should have been delighted to\nhave had one fifth part of the advantages enjoyed by most of my\ndescendants.\" Confined to the house for seven weeks a little later as\nthe result of accidents, he turned hungrily to such books as he could\nsecure--Dilworth's _Arithmetic_, Webster's _Abridged Grammar_, and\nSalmon's _Universal English Geography_. \"This opened a new and\nastonishing field to me for contemplation. I now obtained the first\nglimpse of the boundaries of land and water, of the lofty mountains, and\nof the mighty rivers which had cut their channels through the earth. I\nread and surveyed the maps and meditated upon them until I began to\nlecture to my young companions, and was considered quite learned in\ngeography. Having an object in view, I began to thirst for knowledge,\nand succeeded in borrowing in succession _The Travels of Cyrus_,\n_Xerxes' Expedition into Greece_, _The History of Alexander the Great_,\nand _Hannibal's Invasion of Rome_.\" He proposed and brought about the\nformation of a society of young men in the town, for the improvement of\nminds and manners. There were fourteen young men, with an equal number\nof young women presently added, each furnishing a useful book as the\nbeginning of a library. \"We obtained some of the British classics, such\nas the _Spectator_, _Guardian_, etc., with a few histories; the subjects\nformed a foundation for conversation when we met together.\"\n\nNow the young man's ambition turned from farming to school-teaching. He\nbegan with district schools, becoming a successful teacher from the\nstart, prosecuting his own studies assiduously in every leisure hour,\nfired with a desire to improve the schools, which were everywhere as\nwretched as can well be imagined. For some months in 1795 he left\nteaching to join other young men in building a bridge at Tiverton, Rhode\nIsland. Then he attended the academy at North Canterbury, Connecticut,\nunder the charge of the eminent teacher, John Adams. \"This was the only\nopportunity I ever enjoyed of attending a good school, and this was\nabridged to fulfill my engagement to teach the town school in\nMansfield.\" In 1796 he opened a private school in Norwich, adding the\nnext year a morning school for young ladies and an evening school for\napprentices and clerks, all of which flourished. During this time he was\nprofoundly interested in religious matters, attending many revivals and\nbecoming more and more concerned with moral and social problems. Now,\ntoo, he married, his wife being a daughter of Aaron Cleveland of\nNorwich, a strong character, afterwards a clergyman, \"whose name you\nwill find enrolled among the poets of Connecticut,\" and who as early as\n1775 published a poem on slavery, which, condemning slavery as wholly\nantichristian, attracted a good deal of notice. He was the first man in\nConnecticut to arraign slavery publicly. Elected to the General Assembly\nfrom Norwich on that issue, he introduced a bill in behalf of\nemancipation.\n\nWith health somewhat impaired and with family cares increasing, David\nDodge now turned from teaching to trade. First it was as a clerk in\nNorwich, then as a partner in a general store, then as head of various\ndry goods establishments in Hartford and other Connecticut towns, always\nand everywhere successful. In 1805 Messrs. S. and H. Higginson of\nBoston, cousins of his wife, a firm of high standing and large capital,\nmade him a proposition to enter into a copartnership with a view to\nestablishing an extensive importing and jobbing store in the city of New\nYork; and he accepted the proposition, going to New York the next year\nto take charge of the concern in that city. He took a store in Pearl\nStreet, and the year afterwards the family took possession of the house\nconnected with the store, still reserving the house in Hartford as a\nretreat in case of yellow fever in New York. From this time until his\ndeath, April 23, 1852, New York was, with occasional interruptions, his\nhome and the center of his varied and ever enlarging activities. Just\nbefore the outbreak of the war with England his partners became bankrupt\nthrough losses in extensive shipping of American produce to Europe.\n\"Bonaparte sprung his trap upon more than a million dollars of their\nproperty.\" Mr. Dodge now established cotton factories in Connecticut,\nand later commenced anew the dry goods business in New York, his home\nfor years alternating between New York and the Norwich neighborhood; and\nfor the nine years following 1835 he occupied a large farm in\nPlainfield, New Jersey.\n\nActive as was his business life, and faithful his devotion to his large\nbusiness affairs,--and he came to rank with the most prominent mercantile\nmen of his day,--his mind was always intent upon social and religious\nsubjects. \"During the years of 1808 to 1811 our business became extensive\nand demanded much thought and attention; yet I think my affections were on\nthe subject of religion.\" Revivals of religion, the interests of his\nchurch in Norwich or New York, the improvement of the lives of his\nfactory operatives, the organization in New York of the Christian Friendly\nSociety for the Promotion of Morals and Religion,--such were the objects\nwhich commanded him. Throughout his long residence in New York he was a\nprominent worker in the Presbyterian church, for many years an elder in\nthe church. He took a leading part in organizing the New York Bible\nSociety and the New York Tract Society, was much engaged in the early\nmissionary movements in New York, and in promoting the education of young\nmen for the ministry. He was a lover of knowledge, a great reader, and one\nwho thought and wrote as he read. Deeply interested in history, ancient\nand modern, his chief interest was in theological discussion. He was\nfamiliar with the chief theological controversies of the day, and upon\nmany of them committed his views to writing. His knowledge of the Bible\nwas remarkable; he read it through critically in course forty-two times.\nHe held firmly the Calvinistic system of doctrine, and he addressed to his\nchildren a series of letters, characterized by great ability and logical\nforce, in defense of the faith, and constituting together a compendious\nsystem of theology.\n\nSeveral of these letters are included in the memorial volume published\nfor the family in 1854 under the editorial supervision of Rev. Matson M.\nSmith. This volume contains, besides the two essays on war here\nreprinted, and various verses and letters, the interesting autobiography\nwhich he prepared, at the request of his children, a few years before\nhis death, and a supplementary biographical sketch by his pastor, Rev.\nAsa D. Smith. In the mass of manuscripts which he left behind was an\nessay upon \"The Relation of the Church to the World,\" and one upon\n\"Retributive Judgment and Capital Punishment,\"--to which he was sharply\nopposed. He was opposed indeed to so much in human governments as now\nconstituted,--\"whose ultimate reliance,\" he said, \"is the sword,\" and\nwhose laws he felt to be so often contrary to the laws of Christ to\nwhich he gave his sole allegiance,--that he would neither vote nor hold\noffice. Strict and inflexible as he was in his views of political and\nreligious duty, he was one of the most genial and delightful of men, a\nChristian in whom there was no guile, fond of the young, affectionate,\ncourteous, \"given to hospitality,\" \"careful habitually to make even the\nconventionalities of life a fitting accompaniment and expression of the\ninward principle of kindness.\" A face as strong as it is gentle, and as\ngentle as it is strong, is that which looks at us in the beautiful\nportrait preserved in the family treasures, and a copy of which forms\nthe frontispiece of the present volume.\n\nThe character and influence of the family which he founded in New York,\nduring the three generations which have followed, constitute an\nimpressive witness to David Dodge's force and worth, his religious\nconsecration, and high public spirit. At the junction of Broadway and\nSixth Avenue stands the statue of his son, William Earl Dodge, whose\nlife of almost fourscore years ended in 1883. For long years the head of\nthe great house of Phelps, Dodge & Co., the manager of immense railway,\nlumber, and mining interests, the president of the New York Chamber of\nCommerce, a representative of New York in Congress, a leader in large\nwork for temperance, for the freedmen, for the Indians, for theological\neducation, for a score of high patriotic and philanthropic interests,\nNew York had in his time no more representative, more useful, or more\nhonored citizen. And what is said of him may be said in almost the same\nwords of William Earl Dodge, his son, who died but yesterday, and who\ncombined broad business and philanthropic activities in the same strong\nand influential way as his father and grandfather before him. President\nof many religious and benevolent associations, he was pre-eminently a\npatriot and an international man. The logic of his life and of his\nheritage placed him naturally at the head of the National Arbitration\nCommittee, which was appointed at the great conference on international\narbitration held at Washington in the spring of 1896, following the\nanxiety attendant upon President Cleveland's Venezuelan message,--a\ncommittee which, under his chairmanship, and since his death that of\nHon. John W. Foster, has during the decade rendered such great service\nto the peace and arbitration cause in this country. It is to be noted\nalso that the names of his son and daughter, Cleveland H. Dodge and\nGrace H. Dodge, names so conspicuously associated to-day with\ncharitable, religious, and educational efforts in New York, are\nassociated, too, like his with the commanding cause of the world's peace\nand better organization; both names stand upon the American Committee of\nthe Thirteenth International Peace Congress, which met in Boston in\n1904. Thus have the generations which have followed him well learned and\nstrongly emphasized the lesson taught by David Dodge almost a century\nago, that war is \"inhuman, unwise, and criminal,\" and \"inconsistent with\nthe religion of Jesus Christ.\"\n\nIt was in 1805 that a startling personal experience prompted the train\nof thought which soon and forever made David L. Dodge the advocate of\nthe thorough-going peace principles with which his name is chiefly\nidentified, and led him to condemn all violence, even in self-defense,\nin dealings between men, as between nations. Accustomed to carry pistols\nwhen traveling with large sums of money, he was almost led to shoot his\nlandlord in a tavern at Providence, Rhode Island, who by some blunder\nhad come into his room at night and suddenly waked him. The thought of\nwhat his situation and feelings would have been had he taken the man's\nlife shocked him into most searching thinking. For two or three years\nhis mind dwelt on the question. He turned to the teaching and example of\nChrist, and became persuaded that these were inconsistent with violence\nand the carrying of deadly weapons, and with war. The common churchman\nsanctioned such things, but not the early Christians; and he found\nstrong words condemning war in Luther and Erasmus, the Moravians and\nQuakers. Discussing the matter with many pious and Christian men, he\nfound them generally avoiding the gospel standard. He was shocked by the\n\"general want of faith in the promises\"; but he himself laid aside at\nonce his pistols and the fear of robbers. He became absolutely convinced\nthat fighting and warfare were \"unlawful for the followers of Christ\";\nand from now on he began to bear public testimony against the war\nspirit.\n\nEarly in the spring of 1809 he published his essay, _The Mediator's\nKingdom not of this World_, which attracted so much attention that in\ntwo weeks nearly a thousand copies were sold. Three literary men joined\nin preparing a spirited and sarcastic criticism of it; and he\nimmediately published a rejoinder. _The Mediator's Kingdom_ was\nrepublished in Philadelphia and in Providence, and Mr. Dodge writes\ntruly: \"These publications gave the first impulse in America, if we\nexcept the uniform influence of the Friends, to inquiry into the\nlawfulness of war by Christians. Some who were favorable to the\ndoctrines of peace judged that, with a bold hand, I had carried the\nsubject too far; and doubtless, as it was new and had not been much\ndiscussed, I wrote too unguardedly, not sufficiently defining my terms.\nThe Rev. Dr. Noah Worcester was one who so judged, and a few years after\nhe published his very spirited and able essay, _The Solemn Review of\nWar_.\" This famous essay of Worcester's represents the platform of the\ngreat body of American peace workers for a century, the position of men\nlike Channing and Ladd and Jay and Sumner; but to a nonresistant and\nopponent even of self-defense, like David Dodge, these seemed the\nexponents of a halfway covenant.\n\nMr. Dodge entered into private correspondence on the lawfulness of war\nwith Rev. Lyman Beecher, Rev. Aaron Cleveland, his father-in-law, Rev.\nJohn B. Romeyn, and Rev. Walter King. He preserved among his manuscripts\nletters of twenty-five pages from Dr. Romeyn and Mr. Cleveland, and\ncopies of his reply to Dr. Romeyn (one hundred and thirty-two pages) and\nto Dr. Beecher (forty-four pages). Important letters from Dr. Beecher\nand Governor Jay he had lost. All these took the position of Dr.\nWorcester, sanctioning strictly defensive war in extreme cases,--all\nexcept Mr. Cleveland, who finally came into complete accord with Mr.\nDodge, and published two able sermons on \"The Life of Man Inviolable by\nthe Laws of Christ.\"\n\nEarly in 1812 the friends of peace whom Mr. Dodge had gathered about him\nin New York conferred upon the forming of a peace society, \"wholly\nconfined to decided evangelical Christians, with a view to diffusing\npeace principles in the churches, avoiding all party questions.\" There\nbeing at this juncture, however, intense political feeling over the\nthreatened war with Great Britain, they feared their motives would be\nmisapprehended, and decided for the moment simply to act individually in\ndiffusing information. Mr. Dodge was appointed to prepare an essay on\nthe subject of war, stating and answering objections; and, removing at\nthis time to Norwich, he there, in a period of great business\nperplexity, completed his remarkable paper on \"War Inconsistent with the\nChristian Religion,\" which was published in the very midst of the war\nwith England.\n\nUpon his return to New York, the friends of peace there had two or three\nmeetings relative to the organization of a society; and in August, 1815,\nthey formed the New York Peace Society, of between thirty and forty\nmembers, their strict articles of association condemning all war,\noffensive and defensive, as wholly opposed to the example and spirit and\nprecepts of Christ. The peace societies formed immediately afterwards in\nMassachusetts, Ohio, Rhode Island, and London were organized, according\nto Mr. Dodge, without any knowledge of each other, the movements being\nthe simultaneous separate results of a common impulse. Of the New York\nsociety Mr. Dodge was unanimously elected president. Monthly meetings\nwere arranged, and at the first of these Mr. Dodge read an address upon\n\"The Kingdom of Peace under the Benign Reign of Messiah,\" of which a\nthousand copies were at once printed and circulated. Within two years\nthe society had increased to sixty members, men active not only against\nwar--which the society regarded as \"the greatest temporal evil, as\nalmost every immorality is generated in its prosecution, and poverty,\ndistress, famine, and pestilence follow in its train\"--but in all the\nbenevolent enterprises of that day. \"Several respectable clergymen\nunited with the society,--Rev. Drs. E. D. Griffin and M. L. Parvine,\nRev. E. W. Baldwin (to whose pen we were much indebted), Rev. Samuel\nWhelpley, and his son, Rev. Melancthon Whelpley, Rev. H. G. Ufford, and\nRev. S. H. Cox. Dr. Cox, however, afterwards entertained different views\non the subject.\"\n\nThe New York Peace Society had friendly correspondence with all the\nother peace societies, and for several years took two hundred copies of\nDr. Worcester's _Friend of Peace_. This seems finally to have\ncontributed to divide the society, some relinquishing the nonresistant\nviews of Mr. Dodge and adopting Worcester's less extreme position. But\nour brave Tolstoian was a \"thorough,\" and never wavered. \"If it was\nmorally wrong for individuals to quarrel and fight, instead of returning\ngood for evil,\"--these are his last words on the subject in his\nautobiography,--\"it was much more criminal for communities and nations\nto return evil for evil, and not strive to overcome evil with good. In\nfact, the great barrier to our progress was the example of our fathers\nin the American Revolution. That they were generally true patriots, in\nthe political sense of the term, and many hopefully pious, I would not\ncall in question, while I consider them as ill directed by education as\nSt. Paul was when on his way to Damascus.\"\n\nThe New York Peace Society maintained its existence and work for many\nyears. In 1828 it united with other societies in the creation of the\nAmerican Peace Society, which was organized in New York on May 8 of that\nyear on the initiative of William Ladd. After this the New York society\nseems to have done little separate work, and finally its independent\nexistence ceased. Mr. Dodge assisted in the organization of the new\nnational society, and presided at its first annual meeting, May 13,\n1829. He was chosen a member of its board of directors, and later became\na life director, maintaining his connection with the society until his\ndeath in 1852, faithful to the end to the radical views by which he had\nbecome so powerfully possessed almost half a century before.\n\nFor two generations New York has been without a local peace society. The\nservices of eminent individual citizens of the city and state of New\nYork for the peace cause during that period, however, have been signal.\nJudge William Jay of New York was for a decade president of the American\nPeace Society,--the important decade covering the great peace congresses\nin Europe at the middle of the last century; and it was his proposal\nthat an arbitration clause should be attached to all future commercial\ntreaties which furnished the basis for the most constructive debates of\nthe first congress, that at London in 1843. The three really important\nmembers of the American delegation at The Hague Conference were citizens\nof New York,--Andrew D. White, Seth Low, and Frederick W. Holls. A\nremarkable plan adopted by the New York State Bar Association suggested\nimportant features of The Hague Court as finally constituted. It is a\ncitizen of New York, Andrew Carnegie, who has given $1,500,000 for a\nworthy building for the court at The Hague,--a temple of peace. Mr.\nCarnegie, whose influence in behalf of international fraternity is\nperhaps second to that of no other to-day, has also given $5,000,000 to\nestablish a pension fund for \"heroes of peace,\" whose heroism, too long\ncomparatively neglected, he rightly sees to be not less than the heroism\nof the soldier. The most important series of arbitration conferences in\nrecent times have been those at Lake Mohonk, in the state of New York,\narranged by Albert K. Smiley,--conferences of growing size and\nimportance, commanding world-wide attention, and performing for this\ncountry almost the same service performed for France and England by\ntheir national peace congresses. Finally, it must not be forgotten that\nTheodore Roosevelt, the President of the United States, through whose\ninitiative the second Hague Conference will presently meet, is also a\ncitizen of New York.\n\nAt this very time a promising movement is gaining head to organize once\nmore in David Dodge's city a New York Peace Society. At one of the\nrecent Mohonk conferences a large committee of New York men, under the\nchairmanship of Mr. Warner Van Norden, was formed for conference with\nthis end in view. Upon the American committee of the International Peace\nCongress which met in Boston in 1904 were no less than sixteen residents\nof the city of New York,--Andrew Carnegie, Hon. Oscar S. Straus, Hon.\nGeorge F. Seward, Walter S. Logan, Felix Adler, William D. Howells, Mrs.\nCharles Russell Lowell, Mrs. Anna Garlin Spencer, Miss Grace H. Dodge,\nRev. Josiah Strong, Rev. Charles E. Jefferson, Cleveland H. Dodge,\nGeorge Foster Peabody, Professor John B. Clark, Leander T. Chamberlain,\nand J. G. Phelps Stokes. In the week following the Boston congress a\nseries of great peace meetings was held in New York, at the Cooper Union\nand elsewhere, arranged by members of this committee; and out of all\nthis a new impulse has come to plans for local organization in New York.\nAs one result a strong society was formed by the Germans of the city,\nand a large Women's Peace Circle has since been organized and begun\nimportant educational work. The larger New York Peace Society is now\ncertainly a thing of the near future. To the men and women who will\nconstitute that society, the noble body of those now working in their\nvarious ways in the great city for the cause of peace, is dedicated\nespecially this republication of the old essays of David Dodge, the\nfounder of the first peace society in the world, who by his pioneering\nand prophetic service gave to New York a place so significant in the\nhistory of what is to-day the world's most commanding cause.\n\n  SEPTEMBER, 1905                                   EDWIN D. MEAD\n\n\n\n\nWAR INCONSISTENT WITH THE RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST\n\nHumanity, wisdom, and goodness at once combine all that can be great and\nlovely in man. Inhumanity, folly, and wickedness reverse the picture,\nand at once represent all that can be odious and hateful. The former is\nthe spirit of Heaven, and the latter the offspring of hell. The spirit\nof the gospel not only breathes \"glory to God in the highest, but on\nearth peace, and good will to men.\" The wisdom from above is first pure,\nthen peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated; but the wisdom from\nbeneath is earthly, sensual, and devilish.\n\nIt is exceedingly strange that any one under the light of the gospel,\nprofessing to be guided by its blessed precepts, with the Bible in his\nhand, while the whole creation around him is so often groaning under the\nweight and terrors of war, should have doubts whether any kind of wars\nunder the gospel dispensation, except spiritual warfare, can be the\ndictate of any kind of wisdom except that from beneath; and much more\nso, to believe that they are the fruit of the Divine Spirit, which is\nlove, joy, and peace.\n\nAn inspired apostle has informed us from whence come wars and fightings.\nThey come from the lusts of men that war in their members. Ever since\nthe fall, mankind have had naturally within them a spirit of pride,\navarice, and revenge. The gospel is directly opposed to this spirit. It\nteaches humility, it inculcates love, it breathes pity and forgiveness\neven to enemies, and forbids rendering evil for evil to any man.\n\nBelieving as I do, after much reflection and, as I trust, prayerful\ninvestigation of the subject, that all kinds of carnal warfare are\nunlawful upon gospel principles, I shall now endeavor to prove that WAR\nis INHUMAN, UNWISE, and CRIMINAL, and then make some general remarks,\nand state and answer several objections. In attempting to do this I\nshall not always confine myself strictly to this order of the subject,\nbut shall occasionally make such remarks as may occur, directly or\nindirectly, to show that the whole genius of war is contrary to the\nspirit and precepts of the gospel.\n\n\n\n\nWAR IS INHUMAN\n\n\nI. BECAUSE IT HARDENS THE HEART AND BLUNTS THE TENDER FEELINGS OF\nMANKIND\n\nThat it is the duty of mankind to be tender-hearted, feeling for the\ndistress of others, and to do all in their power to prevent and\nalleviate their misery, is evident not only from the example of the Son\nof God but the precepts of the gospel.\n\nWhen the Saviour of sinners visited this dark and cruel world he became\na man of sorrow and was acquainted with grief, so that he was touched\nwith the feeling of our infirmities. He went about continually healing\nthe sick, opening the eyes of the blind, unstopping the ears of the\ndeaf, raising the dead, as well as preaching the gospel of peace to the\npoor. He visited the houses of affliction and poured the balm of\nconsolation into the wounded heart. He mourned with those who mourned,\nand wept with those that wept. Love to God and man flowed from his soul\npure as the river of life, refreshing the thirsty desert around him. He\nwas not only affectionate to his friends but kind to his enemies. He\nreturned love for their hatred, and blessing for their cursing. When he\nwas surrounded by all the powers of darkness and resigned himself into\nthe hands of sinners to expiate their guilt, and they smote him on the\ncheek and plucked off the hair, he \"was dumb and opened not his mouth.\"\nWhile suffering all the contempt and torture which men and devils could\ninvent, instead of returning evil for evil he prayed for his murderers\nand apologized for his persecutors, saying, \"Father, forgive them, for\nthey know not what they do.\"\n\nThe apostle exhorts Christians, saying, \"Be ye kind and tender-hearted,\nforgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.\"\n\nAuthority in abundance might be quoted to show that the spirit of the\ngospel absolutely requires the exercise of love, pity, and forgiveness,\neven to enemies.\n\nBut who will undertake to prove that soldiers are usually kind and\ntender-hearted, and that their employment has a natural tendency to\npromote active benevolence, while it requires all their study of mind\nand strength of body to injure their enemies to the greatest extent?\n\nThough we often hear of the generosity and attention of soldiers to\nprisoners, and notwithstanding I am willing to allow that feelings of\nhumanity are not altogether obliterated from every soldier, yet much of\nthis apparent kindness may flow from a desire of better treatment\nthemselves should circumstances be reversed, or from a hope of the\napplause of mankind. My object, however, is not to prove that all\nsoldiers are destitute of humanity, but that their occupation has a\nnatural tendency and actually does weaken their kind and tender\nfeelings, and harden their hearts.\n\nIs it not a fact that those who are engaged in the spirit of war, either\nin the council or in the field, are not usually so meek, lowly, kind,\nand tender-hearted as other men? Does the soldier usually become kind\nand tender-hearted while trained to the art of killing his fellow-man,\nor more so when engaged in the heat of the battle, stepping forward over\nthe wounded and hearing the groans of the expiring? Does he actually put\non bowels of tenderness, mercy, and forgiveness, while he bathes his\nsword in the blood of his brother? Do these scenes generally change the\nlion into the lamb? On the contrary, do not the history of ages and the\nvoice of millions bear testimony that the whole trade of war has a\nnatural tendency to blunt the tender edge of mercy and chill all the\nsympathizing feelings of the human heart? Who that is a parent, having\nan uncommonly hard-hearted and unfeeling son, would send him into the\ncamp to subdue his inhumanity and to stamp upon him kind and tender\nfeelings? If war has not a natural tendency to harden the heart, permit\nme to inquire why mankind do not usually feel as much at the distress\noccasioned by war as by other calamities?\n\nIt would be truly astonishing, were it not so common, to see with what\ncomposure the generality of mankind hear the account of barbarous and\ndestructive battles. They may have some little excitement when they hear\nof savages--whose religion teaches them revenge--using the tomahawk and\nscalping knife; but when thousands are torn to pieces with shot and\nshells and butchered with polished steels, then it becomes a very polite\nand civil business, and those who perish are contemplated as only\nreclining on a bed of honor. If an individual in common life breaks a\nbone or fractures a limb, all around him not only sympathize but are\nready to aid in alleviating his distress; but when thousands are slain\nand ten thousand wounded in the field of battle, the shock is but\ntrifling, and the feelings are soon lost in admiring the gallantry of\nthis hero and the prowess of that veteran. And why all this sensibility\nat the pains of an individual, and all this indifference at the\nsufferings of thousands, if war has not a natural tendency to harden the\nheart and destroy the tender feelings of mankind?\n\nIt is a fact, however, so notorious that the spirit and practice of war\ndo actually harden the heart and chill the kind and tender feelings of\nmankind, that I think few will be found to deny it, and none who have\never known or felt the spirit of Christ.\n\nThe spirit of war must be very unlike the spirit of the gospel, for the\ngospel enforces no duty the practice of which has a natural tendency to\nharden men's hearts, but in proportion as they are influenced by its\nspirit and actuated by its principles they will be humane; therefore, if\nwar hardens men's hearts it is not a Christian duty, and of course it\ncannot be right for Christians to engage in it.\n\n\nII. WAR IS INHUMAN, AS IN ITS NATURE AND TENDENCY IT ABUSES GOD'S ANIMAL\nCREATION\n\nWhen God at first created man, he gave him authority over the beasts of\nthe field, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the deep. After he\nhad swept away the old ungodly world of mankind for their violence with\nall the animal creation, except those in the ark, he was pleased to\nrenew to Noah the same privilege of being lord over the animal world.\n\nIt may not perhaps be improper here to digress a little and remark that\nthis appears to have been the original bounds of man's authority,--that\nof having dominion only over the animal world and not over his\nfellow-man. It appears that God reserved to himself the government of\nman, whom he originally created in his own image; from which it may be\ninferred that man has no lawful authority for governing his fellow-man\nexcept as the special executor of divine command, and that no government\ncan be morally right except that which acknowledges and looks up to God\nas the supreme head and governor.\n\nBut to return: although the animal world is put under the dominion of\nman for his use, yet he has no authority to exercise cruelty towards it.\n\"For the merciful man regardeth the life of his beast.\" God is very\nmerciful to his creatures; he not only hears the young ravens when they\ncry but he opens his hand and supplies the wants of the cattle upon a\nthousand hills.\n\nThough God has decorated the earth with beauty and richly clothed it\nwith food for man and beast, yet where an all-devouring army passes,\nnotwithstanding the earth before them is like the garden of Eden, it is\nbehind them a desolate wilderness; the lowing ox and bleating sheep may\ncry for food, but, alas! the destroyer hath destroyed it.\n\nThe noble horse, which God has made for the use and pleasure of man,\nshares largely in this desolating evil. He is often taken, without his\ncustomary food, to run with an express, until, exhausted by fatigue, he\nfalls lifeless beneath his rider. Multitudes of them are chained to the\nharness with scanty food, and goaded forward to drag the baggage of an\narmy and the thundering engines of death, until their strength has\nfailed, their breath exhausted, and the kindness they then receive is\nthe lash of the whip or the point of a spear. In such scenes the comfort\nof beasts is not thought of, except by a selfish owner who fears the\nloss of his property.\n\nBut all this is trifling compared with what these noble animals, who\ntamely bow to the yoke of man, suffer in the charge of the battle; the\nhorse rushes into the combat not knowing that torture and death are\nbefore him. His sides are often perforated with the spur of his rider,\nnotwithstanding he exerts all his strength to rush into the heat of the\nbattle, while the strokes of the sabers and the wounds of the bullets\nlacerate his body, and instead of having God's pure air to breathe to\nalleviate his pains, he can only snuff up the dust of his feet and the\nsulphurous smoke of the cannon, emblem of the infernal abode. Thus he\nhas no ease for his pains unless God commissions the bayonet or the\nbullet to take away his life.\n\nBut if such is the cruelty to beasts in prosecuting war, what is the\ncruelty to man, born for immortality?\n\nNo wonder that those who feel so little for their fellow-men should feel\nless for beasts.\n\nIf war is an inhuman and cruel employment, it must be wrong for\nChristians to engage in it.\n\n\nIII. WAR IS INHUMAN, AS IT OPPRESSES THE POOR\n\nTo oppress the poor is everywhere in the Scriptures considered as a\ngreat sin: \"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the\nneedy, now will I arise, saith the Lord\"; \"Whoso stoppeth his ears at\nthe cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself and not be heard\"; \"What\nmean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the\npoor? saith the Lord God of hosts.\"\n\nThe threatenings against those who oppress the poor, and the blessings\npronounced upon those who plead their cause, are very numerous in the\nScriptures. The threatenings are so tremendous and awful that all men\nought to consider well before they are active in any step which has a\nnatural tendency to oppress the poor and needy.\n\nThat war actually does oppress the poor may be heard from ten thousand\nwretched tongues who have felt its woe. Very few, comparatively, who are\ninstigators of war actually take the field of battle, and are seldom\nseen in the front of the fire. It is usually those who are rioting on\nthe labors of the poor that fan up the flame of war. The great mass of\nsoldiers are generally from the poor of a country. They must gird on the\nharness and for a few cents per day endure all the hardships of a camp\nand be led forward like sheep to the slaughter. Though multitudes are\nfascinated to enlist by the intoxicating cup, the glitter of arms, the\nvainglory of heroes, and the empty sound of patriotism, yet many more\nare called away contrary to their wishes by the iron hand of despotic\nlaws. Perhaps a parent is enrolled whose daily labor was hardly\nsufficient to supply a scanty pittance for a numerous offspring, who are\nin his absence crying for bread. And why all this sorrow in this poor\nand needy family? Because the husband and father is gone, and probably\ngone forever, most likely to gratify the wishes of some ambitious men\nwho care as little as they think of his anxious family. Perhaps an only\nson is taken from old, decrepit parents, the only earthly prop of their\ndeclining years; and with cold poverty and sorrow their gray hairs are\nbrought down to the dust.\n\nWar cannot be prosecuted without enormous expenses. The money that has\nbeen expended the last twenty years in war would doubtless have been\nsufficient not only to have rendered every poor person on earth\ncomfortable--so far as money could do it--during the same period, but,\nif the residue had been applied to cultivate the earth, it would have\nliterally turned the desert into a fruitful field. Only the interest of\nthe money that has been expended in a few years by the European nations\nin prosecuting war would have been sufficient, under proper direction,\nto educate every poor child on earth in the common rudiments of\nlearning, and to support missionaries in abundance to convey the gospel\nof peace to every creature. What a noble employment if those nations had\nexerted their powers for these objects as much as they have for injuring\neach other! And what a difference would have appeared in the world!\nBlessings would have fallen on millions ready to perish, instead of\ndesolation, terror, and death.\n\nThe vast expenses of war must be met by corresponding taxes, whether by\nduties on merchandise or direct taxes on real estate; yet they fall most\nheavily on the poor. Whatever duty the merchant pays to the customhouse,\nhe adds the amount to the price of his goods, so that the consumer\nactually pays the tax. If a tax is levied on real estate, the product of\nthat estate is raised to meet it, and whoever consumes the product pays\nthe tax. In times of war the prices of the necessaries of life are\ngenerally very much increased, but the prices of the labor of the poor\ndo not usually rise in the same proportion, therefore it falls very\nheavily on them. When the honest laborers are suddenly called from the\nplow to take the sword and leave the tilling of the ground, either its\nseed is but sparingly sown or its fruit but partially gathered, scarcity\nensues, high prices are the consequence, and the difficulty greatly\nincreased for the poor to obtain the necessaries of life, especially if\nthey were dependent on the product of a scanty farm which they are now\ndeprived of cultivating. Many a poor widow, who has been able in times\nof peace to support her fatherless children, has been obliged in times\nof war in a great measure to depend on the cold hand of charity to\nsupply their wants.\n\nThe calamities of war necessarily fall more on the poor than on the\nrich, because the poor of a country are generally a large majority of\nits inhabitants.\n\nThese are some of the evils of war at a distance, but when it comes to\ntheir doors, if they are favored personally to escape the ferocity of\nthe soldiers, they fly from their habitations, leaving their little all\nto the fire and pillage, glad to escape with their lives, though\ndestitute and dependent; and when they cast round their eyes for relief,\nthey only meet a fellow-sufferer, who can sympathize with them but not\nsupply their wants. Thus does war not only oppress the poor but adds\nmultitudes to their number who before were comfortable.\n\nIf war actually does oppress the poor, then we may infer that in its\nnature and tendency it is very unlike the genius of the gospel, and not\nright for Christians to engage in it.\n\n\nIV. WAR IS INHUMAN, AS IT SPREADS TERROR AND DISTRESS AMONG MANKIND\n\nIn the benign reign of Messiah the earth will be filled with the\nabundance of peace; there will be nothing to hurt or destroy; every one\nwill sit quietly under his own vine and fig tree, having nothing to\nmolest or make him afraid. But in times of war, mankind are usually full\nof anxiety, their hearts failing them for fear, looking for those things\nwhich are coming upon our wicked world.\n\nOne of the most delightful scenes on earth is a happy family where all\nthe members dwell together in love, being influenced by the blessed\nprecepts of the gospel of peace. But how soon does the sound of war\ndisturb and distress the happy circle! If it is only the distant thunder\nof the cannon that salutes the ear, the mother starts from her repose,\nand all the children gather round her with looks full of anxiety to know\nthe cause. Few women can so command their feelings as to hide the cause;\nand let it be said to the honor of the female sex that they have\ngenerally tender feelings, which cannot easily be disguised at the\ndistress of their fellow-beings. Perhaps a mother's heart is now wrung\nwith anguish in the prospect that either the partner of her life or the\nsons of her care and sorrow, or both, are about to be called into the\nbloody field of battle. Perhaps the decrepit parent views his darling\nson leaving his peaceful abode to enter the ensanguined field, never\nmore to return. How soon are these joyful little circles turned into\nmourning and sorrow!\n\nWho can describe the distress of a happy village suddenly encompassed by\ntwo contending armies--perhaps so early and suddenly that its\ninhabitants are aroused from their peaceful slumbers by the confused\nnoise of the warriors more ferocious than the beasts that prowl in the\nforest? Were it not for the tumult of the battle, shrieks of distress\nfrom innocent women and children might be heard from almost every abode.\nChildren run to the arms of their distracted mothers, who are as unable\nto find a refuge for themselves as for their offspring. If they fly to\nthe streets they are in the midst of death: hundreds of cannon are\nvomiting destruction in every quarter; the hoofs of horses trampling\ndown everything in their way; bullets, stones, bricks, and splinters\nflying in every direction; houses pierced with cannon shot and shells\nwhich carry desolation in their course; without, multitudes of men\nrushing with deadly weapons upon each other with all the rage of tigers,\nplunging each other into eternity, until the streets are literally\ndrenched with the blood of men. To increase the distress, the village is\ntaken and retaken several times at the point of the bayonet. If the\ninhabitants fly to their cellars to escape the fury of the storm, their\nbuildings may soon be wrapt in flames over their heads.\n\nAnd for what, it may be asked, is all this inhuman sacrifice made?\nProbably to gain the empty bubble called honor,--a standard of right and\nwrong without form or dimensions. Let no one say that the writer's\nimagination is heated while it is not in the power of his feeble pen to\nhalf describe the horror and distress of the scenes which are by no\nmeans uncommon in a state of war.\n\nIf such are some of the effects of war, then it must be a very inhuman\nemployment, and wrong for Christians to engage in it.\n\n\nV. WAR IS INHUMAN, AS IT INVOLVES MEN IN FATIGUE, FAMINE, AND ALL THE\nPAINS OF MUTILATED BODIES\n\nTo describe the fatigues and hardships of a soldier's life would require\nthe experience of a soldier, so that only some of their common\nsufferings can be touched upon by a person who is a stranger to the\nmiseries of a camp.\n\nA great majority of those who enter the ranks of an army are persons\nunaccustomed to great privations and severe fatigues; hence the great\nproportion of mortality among fresh recruits. Their habits and strength\nare unable to endure the hard fare, rapid and constant marches generally\nimposed upon them in active service.\n\nThe young soldier commonly exchanges a wholesome table, a comfortable\ndwelling, an easy bed, for bad food, the field for his house, the cold\nearth for his bed, and the heavens over him for his covering. He must\nstand at his post day and night, summer and winter; face the scorching\nsun, the chilling tempest, and be exposed to all the storms of the\nseason, without any comfortable repose; perhaps during most of the time\nwith a scanty allowance of the coarsest food, and often destitute of\nany, except the miserable supply he may have chance to plunder,--not\nenough to satisfy but only to keep alive the craving demands of nature;\noften compelled to march and countermarch several days and nights in\nsuccession, without a moment to prepare his provisions to nourish him\nand glad to get a little raw to sustain his life. Frequently this\nhardship is endured in the cold and inclement season, while his tattered\nclothing is only the remains of his summer dress. Barefooted and half\nnaked, fatigued and chilled, he becomes a prey to disease, and is often\nleft to perish without a human being to administer to him the least\ncomfort. If he is carried to a hospital, he is there surrounded by the\npestilential breath of hundreds of his poor fellow-sufferers, where the\nbest comforts that can be afforded are but scanty and dismal.\n\nBut all this is comparatively trifling to the sufferings of the wounded\non the field of battle. There thousands of mangled bodies lie on the\ncold ground hours, and sometimes days, without a friendly hand to bind\nup a wound; not a voice is heard except the dying groans of their\nfellow-sufferers around them. No one can describe the horrors of the\nscene: here lies one with a fractured skull, there another with a\nsevered limb, and a third with a lacerated body; some fainting with the\nloss of blood, others distracted, and others again crying for help.\n\nIf such are some of the faint outlines of the fatigues and sufferings of\nsoldiers, then their occupation must be an inhuman employment, for they\nare instrumental in bringing the same calamities on others which they\nsuffer themselves; and of course it is unfriendly to the spirit of the\ngospel, and wrong for Christians to engage in it.\n\n\nVI. WAR IS INHUMAN, AS IT DESTROYS THE YOUTH AND CUTS OFF THE HOPE OF\nGRAY HAIRS\n\nMankind are speedily hastening into eternity, and it might be supposed\nsufficiently fast without the aid of all the ingenuity and strength of\nman to hurry them forward; yet it is a melancholy truth that a great\nproportion of the wealth, talents, and labors of men are actually\nemployed in inventing and using means for the premature destruction of\ntheir fellow-beings.\n\nOne generation passes away, and another follows in quick succession. The\nyoung are always the stay and hope of the aged; parents labor and toil\nfor their children to supply their wants and to educate them to be\nhappy, respectable, and useful, and then depend upon them to be their\nstay and comfort in their declining years. Alas, how many expectations\nof fond parents are blasted! Their sons are taken away from them and\nhurried into the field of slaughter.\n\nIn times of war the youth--the flower, strength, and beauty of the\ncountry--are called from their sober, honest, and useful employments, to\nthe field of battle; and if they do not lose their lives or limbs, they\ngenerally lose their habits of morality and industry. Alas! few ever\nreturn again to the bosom of their friends. Though from their mistaken\nand fascinating views of a soldier's life and honor they may be\ndelighted in enlisting, and merry in their departure from their peaceful\nhomes, yet their joy is soon turned into pain and sorrow. Unthinking\nyouth, like the horse, rushes thoughtlessly into the battle. Repentance\nis then too late; to shrink back is death, and to go forward is only a\nfaint hope of life. Here on the dreadful field are thousands and\nhundreds of thousands driven together to slaughter each other by a few\nambitious men, perhaps none of whom are present. A large proportion are\nprobably the youth of their country, the delight and comfort of their\nparents. All these opposing numbers are most likely persons who never\nknew or heard of each other, having no personal ill-will, most of whom\nwould in any other circumstances not only not injure each other but be\nready to aid in any kind office; yet by the act of war they are ranged\nagainst each other in all the hellish rage of revenge and slaughter.\n\nNo pen, much less that of the writer's, can describe the inhumanity and\nhorrors of a battle. All is confusion and dismay, dust and smoke\narising, horses running, trumpets blasting, cannon roaring, bullets\nwhistling, and the shrieks of the wounded and dying vibrating from every\nquarter. Column after column of men charge upon each other in furious\nonset, with the awful crash of bayonets and sabers, with eyes flashing\nand visages frightfully distorted with rage, rushing upon each other\nwith the violence of brutish monsters; and when these are literally cut\nto pieces others march in quick succession, only to share the same cruel\nand bloody tragedy. Hundreds are parrying the blows; hundreds more are\nthrusting their bayonets into the bowels of their fellow-mortals, and\nmany, while extricating them, have their own heads cleft asunder by\nswords and sabers; and all are hurried together before the tribunal of\ntheir Judge, with hearts full of rage and hands dyed in the blood of\ntheir brethren.\n\nO horrid and debasing scene! my heart melts at the contemplation, and I\nforbear to dwell upon the inhuman employment.\n\n\nVII. WAR IS INHUMAN, AS IT MULTIPLIES WIDOWS AND ORPHANS, AND CLOTHES\nTHE LAND IN MOURNING\n\nThe widow and fatherless are special objects of divine compassion, and\nChristianity binds men under the strongest obligation to be kind and\nmerciful towards them, as their situation is peculiarly tender and\nafflicting.\n\n\"A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widow, is God in his\nholy habitation.\" \"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father\nis this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction.\"\n\nTo be active in any measure which has a natural tendency to wantonly\nmultiply widows and orphans in a land is the height of inhumanity as\nwell as daring impiety.\n\nI will venture to say that no one circumstance in our world has so\ngreatly multiplied widows and fatherless children as that of war. What\nhas humanity ever gained by war to counterbalance simply the afflictions\nof the widow and fatherless? I verily believe nothing comparatively. I\nam well aware that a very popular plea for war is to defend, as it is\nstyled, \"our firesides, our wives and children\"; but this generally is\nonly a specious address to the feelings, to rouse up a martial spirit\nwhich makes thousands of women and children wretched where one is made\nhappy. I am sensible that those will sneer at my opinion who regard more\nthe honor that comes from men than they do the consolation of the widow\nand the fatherless.\n\nIn times of war thousands of virtuous women are deprived of their\nhusbands and ten thousands of helpless children of their fathers. The\nlittle tender children may now gather round their disconsolate mothers,\nanxiously inquiring about their fathers, remembering their kind visages,\nrecollecting how they used fondly to dandle them on their knees and\naffectionately instruct them; but now they are torn from their embraces\nby the cruelty of war, and they have no fathers left them but their\nFather in heaven.\n\nIt is probably no exaggeration to suppose that in Europe there are now\ntwo hundred thousand widows and a million fatherless children occasioned\nby war. What a mass of affliction! humanity bleeds at the thought! These\nchildren must now roam about without a father to provide for, protect,\nor instruct them. They now become an easy prey to all kinds of vice;\nmany probably will be trained up for ignominious death, and most of them\nfit only for a soldier's life, to slaughter and to be slaughtered,\nunless some humane hand kindly takes them under its protection.\n\nAnd here I cannot help admiring the spirit of Christianity. It is owing\nto the blessed spirit and temper of the gospel of peace that many of the\nevils of war are so much ameliorated at the present day as well as the\ninhuman slavery of men.\n\nThe numerous asylums that now exist for the relief of the needy, the\nwidow, and the fatherless are some of the precious fruits of\nChristianity; and if this spirit were universal the bow would soon be\nbroken to pieces, the spear cut asunder, and the chariots of war burnt\nwith fire, and wars would cease to the ends of the earth.\n\nAnd is it not the duty of all who name the name of Christ to do all in\ntheir power to counteract this destroying evil?\n\nWar not only multiplies widows and orphans but clothes the land in\nmourning. In times of war multitudes of people are clothed with ensigns\nof mourning. Here are gray-headed parents shrouded in blackness, weeping\nfor the loss of darling sons; there are widows covered with veils\nmourning the loss of husbands, and refusing to be comforted; children\ncrying because their fathers are no more. Cities and villages are\ncovered in darkness and desolation; weeping and mourning arise from\nalmost every abode.\n\nAnd it may be asked, What inhuman hand is the cause of all this sorrow?\nPerhaps some rash man, in the impetuosity of his spirit, has taken some\nunjust, high ground, and is too proud to retrace a step, and had rather\nsee millions wretched than to nobly confess that he had been in the\nwrong.\n\nSurely Christians cannot be active in such measures without incurring\nthe displeasure of God, who styles himself the father of the fatherless\nand the judge and avenger of the widow.\n\nThus I have shown that war is inhuman and therefore wholly inconsistent\nwith Christianity, by proving that it tends to destroy humane\ndispositions; that it hardens the hearts and blunts the tender feelings\nof men; that it involves the abuse of God's animal creation; that it\noppresses the poor; that it spreads terror and distress among mankind;\nthat it subjects soldiers to cruel privations and sufferings; that it\ndestroys the youth and cuts off the hope of the aged; and that it\nmultiplies widows and orphans and occasions mourning and sorrow.\n\nThe fact that war is inhuman is indeed one of those obvious truths which\nit is difficult to render more plain by argument; those who know in what\nwar consists cannot help knowing that it is inhuman.\n\nWhat Mr. Windham said with reference to the inhumanity of slavery may be\nsaid of the inhumanity of war. In one of his speeches in the House of\nCommons against the slave trade he stated his difficulty in arguing\nagainst such a trade to be of that kind which is felt in arguing in\nfavor of a self-evident proposition. \"If it were denied that two and two\nmade four, it would not be a very easy task,\" he said, \"to find\narguments to support the affirmative side of the question. Precisely\nsimilar was his embarrassment in having to prove that the slave trade\nwas unjust and inhuman.\"\n\nWhoever admits that the slave trade is inhuman must admit that war is\ninhuman in a greater variety of ways and on a much larger scale.\n\nThe inhumanity of the slave trade was the great and, finally, triumphant\nargument by which it was proved to be inconsistent with Christianity.\n\nThe advocates of slavery, like the advocates of war, resorted to the Old\nTestament for support; but it appeared that slavery, as it appears that\nwar, was permitted and approved of for reasons and on principles\npeculiar to the ancient economy. This is apparent as well from the\ndifference between the general design of the old and new dispensations\nas from the whole genius and spirit of the gospel. Hence those who\nopposed the slave trade argued from the general nature and spirit of\nChristianity as the strongest ground which could be taken. If slavery\nwas inconsistent with this, it ought not to be tolerated; but slavery is\ninhuman and is therefore inconsistent with Christianity. Exactly the\nsame is true of war, nor can anything short of an express revelation\nfrom God, commanding war or slavery, render either of them justifiable.\n\nIt deserves to be distinctly considered that the gospel contains little\nor nothing directly by way of precept against slavery; but slavery is\ninconsistent with its general requirements and inculcations and is\ntherefore wrong. But war, besides being inconsistent with the genius and\nspirit of the gospel, is prohibited by those precepts which forbid\nretaliation and revenge and those which require forgiveness and good\nwill.\n\nIt is plain, then, that he who does not advocate and defend the slave\ntrade, to be consistent, must grant that war is incompatible with\nChristianity, and that it is a violation of the gospel to countenance\nit.\n\n\n\n\nWAR IS UNWISE\n\n\nThat the principles and practice of war are unwise I argue:\n\n\nI. BECAUSE, INSTEAD OF PREVENTING, THEY PROVOKE INSULT AND MISCHIEF\n\nThe maxim, that in order to preserve peace, mankind must be prepared for\nwar, has become so common, and sanctioned by such high authority, that\nfew question its wisdom or policy; but if stripped of its specious garb,\nit may appear to proceed not from that wisdom which came down from\nabove, which is \"first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be\nentreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and\nwithout hypocrisy\"; and if it is not the wisdom from above, then it must\nbe the wisdom from beneath.\n\nAre not pride, avarice, and revenge the seeds of all kinds of carnal\nwarfare? From these grow all the quarreling among children, the discord\namong families, the bickerings, law suits, and broils among neighbors,\nthe boxing among bullies, the dueling among modern gentlemen, and wars\namong nations. They all originate from one and the same spirit.\n\nNow, is the mild, meek, and peaceable man, unarmed, more liable to\ninspire jealousy in others that he is about to insult and abuse them\nthan the high-toned duelist who constantly carries with him deathly\nweapons? Does he, in fact, so often get into difficulty, quarreling and\nfighting? The respectable Society of Friends stands a living monument to\nanswer the question.\n\nOn the principles of self-defense, as they are styled, if one man\nsuspects an injury from another, unless he is naturally a more powerful\nman, he must take a cane, as the principles of self-defense require a\nsuperior power in your own hand, either by art or muscular strength.\nWhen the other learns the suspicions and sees the preparation, he in his\nturn must take a bludgeon to preserve the balance of power and proclaim\na threatening to awe his antagonist, who must now take a sword and\nreturn a threatening in order to maintain his dignity; for it will not\ndo for men of honor to retract, however much they may be in the wrong.\nThe other, again, must take a deathly weapon for his defense, and\nnothing is now wanting but an unhappy meeting to set each other's blood\na flowing.\n\nMuch in the same way do nations often get into desperate warfare. One\nnation is busily increasing its military strength on the plausible maxim\nof preserving peace and maintaining its rights. Another nation views the\npreparations with a jealous eye, and also goes to work on the same\nprinciple to make formidable preparations. All the nations around take\nthe alarm, and on the same principle begin active preparations, all\nvying with each other to become the most formidable. If one sends an\nambassador to inquire the cause of the great preparations, the answer\nalways is, let the motive be what it may, _For their own defense_. Then\nthe other makes new exertions and begins to fortify towns on the\nconfines of his neighbor, who must not only do the same but march a\nlarge army for the defense of his frontier; and the other must do\nlikewise. By this time, if no old quarrel remained unsettled, perhaps\none charges the other with encroachment on territory; the other denies\nthe charge, and contends sharply for his pretended rights. Ministers may\nbe interchanged, and while negotiations are pending a high tone must be\ntaken by both parties, for this is an essential principle in the\ndoctrine of self-defense; the contrary would betray weakness and fear.\nNewspapers must be ushered forth with flaming pieces to rouse, as it is\ncalled, the spirit of the countries, so as to impress upon the populace\nthe idea that the approaching war is just and necessary, for all wars\nmust be just and necessary on both sides. In the meantime envoys\nextraordinary may be sent to other powers by each party to enlist their\naid,--most of whom are already prepared for war,--and each one selects\nhis side according to his interests and feelings. At length the\n_ultimatum_ is given and refused, and the dreadful conflict commences.\nFew wars, however, begin in this slow and progressive mode; a trifling\naggression is sufficient to blow up the flame with nations already\nprepared.\n\nThus, we see, nations resemble bulldogs who happen to meet. They will\nfirst raise their hairs, show their teeth, then growl, and then seize\nupon each other with all their strength and fury; and bulldogs have\nsomething of the same kind of honor, for they scorn to retreat.\n\nHence we see that the acknowledged principles of defensive war are the\nvital springs of most of the wars that agitate and desolate our world.\nThe pretended distinction between offensive and defensive war is but a\nname. All parties engaged in war proclaim to the world that they only\nare fighting in defense of their rights, and that their enemies are the\naggressors; while it may be impossible for man to decide which are most\nin the wrong.\n\nThe popular maxim of being prepared for war in order to be at peace may\nbe seen to be erroneous in fact, for the history of nations abundantly\nshows that few nations ever made great preparations for war and remained\nlong in peace. When nations prepare for war they actually go to war, and\ntell the world that their preparations were not a mere show.\n\nThus we may see that the principles and preparations of war actually\nengender war instead of promoting peace; and of course they are unwise,\nand, if unwise, then it is folly for Christians to engage in them.\n\n\nII. WAR IS UNWISE, FOR INSTEAD OF DIMINISHING, IT INCREASES DIFFICULTIES\n\nAs the principles and preparations of war have a natural tendency to\ngenerate war and are actually the cause of a great proportion of the\nwars which do exist, so actual hostilities have a natural tendency to\nincrease difficulties and to spread abroad the destroying evil.\n\nIt is almost impossible for any two nations to be long engaged in war\nwithout interfering with the rights and privileges of other nations,\nwhich generally awakes their jealousy and resentment, so that most of\nthe surrounding nations are drawn into the destructive vortex, which is\nthe more easily done, as war inflames the martial spirit in other\nnations not engaged, and rouses up the desperate passions of men.\nBesides, the belligerent nations are not content with suffering\nthemselves, but use every art and persuasion to get the neighboring\nnations to join them; and they are generally too successful, for it\nseldom happens that two nations engage in war for a length of time and\nconclude a peace before they have involved other nations in their\ndifficulties and distresses, and often a great proportion of the world\nis in arms.\n\nMoreover, the nations who first engage in the contest always widen the\nbreach between themselves by war.\n\nIt is much easier settling difficulties between individuals or nations\nbefore actual hostilities commence than afterwards. Mankind are not apt\nto be any more mild and accommodating in a state of actual warfare.\nBesides, new difficulties constantly arise. The passions become\ninflamed, and charges are often made of violating the established laws\nof civilized warfare, which laws, however, are generally bounded only by\nthe strength of power. If one party makes an incursion into the other's\nterritory and storms a fortified place and burns the town, the other\nparty must then make a desperate effort to retaliate the same kind of\ndestruction, to a double degree, on the towns of their enemy.\nRetaliation, or \"rendering evil for evil,\" is not only allowed by\nMahometans and pagans, but is an open and avowed principle in the\ndoctrine of self-defense among professed Christian nations; not only is\nit sanctioned by the laity, but too often by the priests who minister in\nthe name of Jesus Christ.\n\nBoth of the contending parties generally seize on each other's\npossessions wherever they can get hold of them, whether on the seas or\non the land. The barbarous spoliations on each other stir up the\npassions of the great mass of their inhabitants, until they esteem it a\nvirtue to view each other as natural and perpetual enemies, and then\ntheir rulers can prosecute the war with what they call vigor.\n\nCan the wound now be so easily healed as it could have been before it\nbecame thus lacerated and inflamed? Facts speak to the contrary, and\nnations seldom attempt negotiations for peace under such circumstances.\nThey generally prosecute the war with all their power until one party or\nthe other is overcome, or until both have exhausted their strength, and\nthen they may mutually agree to a temporary peace to gain a little\nrespite, when perhaps the original matter of dispute has become\ncomparatively so trifling that it is almost left out of the account.\n\nWith a small spirit of forbearance and accommodation how easily might\nthe difficulties have been settled before such an immense loss of blood\nand treasure!\n\nIf war does actually increase, instead of diminishing, difficulties,\nthen it must be very unwise to engage in it.\n\n\nIII. WAR IS UNWISE, BECAUSE IT DESTROYS PROPERTY\n\nProperty is what a great proportion of mankind are struggling to obtain,\nand many at the hazard of their lives. Though in some instances they may\nmisuse it, yet it is the gift of God, and when made subservient to more\nimportant things, it may be a blessing to individuals and communities.\nIt has in it, therefore, a real value, and ought not to be wantonly\ndestroyed while it may be used as an instrument for benefiting mankind.\n\nIt is a notorious fact that war does make a great destruction of\nproperty. Thousands of individuals on sea and on land lose their all,\nfor the acquisition of which they may have spent the prime of their\nlives. Ships on the high seas are taken, often burnt or scuttled, and\nvaluable cargoes sent to the bottom of the deep, some possibly laden\nwith the necessaries of life and bound to ports where the innocent\ninhabitants were in a state of famine. Whole countries are laid waste by\nonly the passing of an immense army: houses are defaced, furniture\nbroken to pieces, the stores of families eaten up, cornfields trodden\ndown, fences torn away and used for fuel, and everything swept in its\ntrain as with the besom of destruction more terrible to the inhabitants\nthan the storms of heaven when sent in judgment. Beautiful towns are\noften literally torn to pieces with shot and shells. Venerable cities,\nthe labor and pride of ages, are buried in ashes amid devouring flames,\nwhile in melancholy grandeur the fire and smoke rise to heaven and seem\nto cry for vengeance on the destroyers.\n\nNotwithstanding an avaricious individual or nation may occasionally in\nwar acquire by plunder from their brethren a little wealth, yet they\nusually lose on the whole more than they gain. On the general scale the\nloss is incalculable. It is not my object to examine the subject in\nrelation to any particular nation or war, but upon the general scale in\napplication to all warlike nations and all wars under the light of the\ngospel.\n\nIf war does destroy property, reduce individuals to beggary, and\nimpoverish nations, then it is unwise to engage in it.\n\n\nIV. WAR IS UNWISE, AS IT IS DANGEROUS TO THE LIBERTIES OF MEN\n\nLiberty is the gift of God, and ought to be dear to every man; not,\nhowever, that licentious liberty which is not in subordination to his\ncommands. Men are not independent of God. He is their creator,\npreserver, and benefactor. In his hand their breath is, and he has a\nright to do what he will with his own; and the Judge of all the earth\nwill do right. As man is not the creator and proprietor of man, he has\nno right to infringe on his liberty or life without his express divine\ncommand; and then he acts only as the executor of God. Man, therefore,\nbears a very different relation to God from what he does to his\nfellow-man.\n\nThe whole system of war is tyrannical and subversive of the fundamental\nprinciples of liberty. It often brings the great mass of community under\nthe severe bondage of military despotism, so that their lives and\nfortunes are at the sport of a tyrant. Where martial law is proclaimed,\nliberty is cast down, and despotism raises her horrid ensign in its\nplace and fills the dungeons and scaffolds with her victims.\n\nSoldiers in actual service are reduced to the most abject slavery, not\nable to command their time for a moment, and are constantly driven about\nlike beasts by petty tyrants. In them is exhibited the ridiculous\nabsurdity of men rushing into bondage and destruction to preserve or\nacquire their liberty and save their lives.\n\nWhen the inhabitants of a country are cruelly oppressed by a despotic\ngovernment, and they rise in mass to throw off the yoke, they are as\noften as otherwise crushed beneath the weight of the power under which\nthey groaned, and then their sufferings are greatly increased; and if\nthey gain their object after a long and sanguinary struggle, they\nactually suffer more on the whole than they would have suffered had they\nremained in peace. It is generally the providence of God, too, to make a\npeople who have thrown off the yoke of their oppressor smart more\nseverely under the government of their own choice than they did under\nthe government which they destroyed. This fact ought well to be\nconsidered by every one of a revolutionary spirit.\n\nWar actually generates a spirit of anarchy and rebellion which is\ndestructive to liberty. When the inhabitants of a country are engaged in\nthe peaceable employments of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce,\nanarchy and rebellion seldom happen. When these useful employments\nflourish, abundance flows in on every side, gentleness and humanity cast\na smile over the land, and pleasure beams in almost every countenance.\nTo turn the attention of a nation from these honest employments to _that\nof war_ is an evil of unspeakable magnitude. The great object in times\nof war is to rouse up what is styled the spirit of the country,--which,\nin fact, is nothing but inflaming the most destructive passions against\nits own peace and safety. If you infuse into a nation the spirit of war\nfor the sake of fighting a foreign enemy, you do that which is often\nmost dangerous to its own liberties; for if you make peace with the\ncommon enemy, you do not destroy the spirit of war among your own\ninhabitants; pride, discontent, and revenge will generally agitate the\nwhole body, so that anarchy and confusion will fill the land, and\nnothing but a despotic power can restrain it; and often absolute\ndespotism is too feeble to withstand it, and the only remedy is again to\nseek a common enemy. Nations have sometimes waged war against other\nnations because there was such a spirit of war among their own\ninhabitants that they could not be restrained from fighting, and if they\nhad not a common foe they would fight one another. So when a nation once\nunsheathes the sword, it cannot easily return the sword again to the\nscabbard, but must keep it crimsoned with the blood of man until \"they\nwho take the sword shall perish with the sword,\" agreeably to the\ndenunciation of Heaven.\n\nTo inflame a mild republic with the _spirit of war_ is putting all its\nliberties to the utmost hazard, and is an evil that few appear to\nunderstand or appreciate. No person can calculate the greatness of the\nevil to transform the citizens of a peaceful, industrious republic into\na band of furious soldiers; and yet the unhappy policy of nations is to\ncultivate a martial spirit that they may appear grand, powerful, and\nterrific, when in fact they are kindling flames that will eventually\nburn them up root and branch.\n\nIn confirmation of what has been said, if we examine the history of\nnations we shall find that they have generally lost their liberties in\nconsequence of the spirit and practice of war. Thus have republics who\nhave boasted of their freedom lost their liberty one after another, and\nthat this has resulted from the very nature of war and its inseparable\nevils is evident from the fact that so violent and deadly is this\ncurrent of ruin, republics have generally sunk down to the lowest abyss\nof tyranny and despotism, or have been annihilated and their inhabitants\nscattered to the four winds of heaven. Indeed, what nation that has\nbecome extinct did not first lose its liberty by war, and then hasten to\nits end under the dominion of those passions which war inflames?\n\nDo nations ever enjoy so much liberty as when most free from the spirit\nof war? Are their liberties ever so little endangered as when this\nspirit is allayed and all its foreign excitements removed? Do not\nnations that have partially lost their civil liberties gradually regain\nthem in proportion as they continue long without war? Is it not a common\nsentiment that the liberties of a people are in danger when war\nengrosses their attention? On the whole, is it not undeniable that peace\nis favorable to liberty, and that war is its enemy and its ruin? If so,\nwhat can be more unwise, what more opposite to every dictate of sound\nwisdom and policy, than the spirit and practice of war?\n\n\nV. WAR IS UNWISE, AS IT DIMINISHES THE HAPPINESS OF MANKIND\n\nHappiness is the professed object which most men are striving to obtain.\nAlas! few, comparatively, seek it where it is alone to be found. But\nthat happiness which flows from the benevolent spirit of the gospel is\nto be prized far above rubies; it is a treasure infinitely surpassing\nanything that can be found merely in riches, honors, and pleasures.\n\nBut war always diminishes the aggregate of happiness in the world. When\nnations wage war upon each other, all classes of their inhabitants are\nmore or less oppressed. They are subjected to various privations;\nprosperity declines; external sources of happiness are mostly dried up;\nanxiety for friends, loss of relations, loss of property, the fear of\npillage, severe services, great privations, and the dread of conquest\nkeep them constantly distressed. They are like the troubled sea that\ncannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.\n\nThose actually engaged in war generally suffer privations and hardships\nof the severest kind. Even the sage counselors who declare wars are\noften in so great anxiety and pain as to the result of their enterprises\nas to be unable quietly to refresh themselves with food or sleep.\n\nAll the rejoicings occasioned by military success are fully counterbalanced\nby the pain and mortification of the vanquished; and, in short, all the\ninterest and happiness resulting from war to individuals and nations are\ndearly bought, and are at the expense of other individuals and nations.\n\nIt is because war has no tendency to increase, but does in fact greatly\ndiminish, happiness that it is so universally regarded and lamented as\nthe greatest evil that visits our world. Hence fasting has generally\nbeen practiced by warlike Christian nations to deplore the calamity, to\nhumble themselves before God, and to supplicate his mercy in turning\naway the judgment.\n\nThough fasting and deep humility before God is highly suitable for\nsinners, with a hearty turning away from their sins and humble\nsupplication for God's mercy through the mediation of Christ, yet those\nfasts of nations who have voluntarily engaged in war and are determined\nto prosecute it until their lusts and passions are gratified do not\nappear to be such fasts as God requires.\n\nDoes it not appear absurd for nations voluntarily to engage in war, and\nthen to proclaim a fast to humble themselves before God for its evils,\nwhile they have no desire to turn away from them, but, on the contrary,\nmake it an express object to seek the divine aid in assisting them\nsuccessfully to perpetuate it?\n\nWe often see contending nations, all of whom cannot be right, on any\nprinciple, proclaiming fasts, and chanting forth their solemn _Te Deums_\nas each may occasionally be victorious. Though such clashing hymns\ncannot mingle in the golden censer, yet few Christians seem to question\nthe propriety of quarreling and fighting nations each in their turn\nsupplicating aid in their unhallowed undertakings and returning thanks\nin case of success. Doubtless many would consider it as solemn mockery\nto see two duelists before their meeting supplicating God's blessing\nand protection in the hour of conflict, and then to see the victor\nreturning thanks for his success in shedding the blood of his brother;\nand yet, when nations carry on the business by wholesale (if I may be\nallowed the expression) it is considered a very pious employment. The\nLord has said, \"And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine\neyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your\nhands are full of blood.\"\n\nPenitent Christians may weep and mourn with propriety for their own sins\nand the sins of the nations, with a hearty desire not only to forsake\ntheir own iniquities, but that the nations may be brought to confess and\nforsake their sins and turn from them to the living God. It is true that\nwar is a judgment in God's providence. It is also a sin of the highest\nmagnitude and ought to be repented of. It is a crime so provoking to\nHeaven that other calamities generally attend it. The famine, fire, and\npestilence often attend its horrors and spread distress through a land.\nWar with its attending evils unquestionably diminishes the aggregate of\nhappiness in the world, and is therefore unwise.\n\n\nVI. WAR IS UNWISE, AS IT DOES NOT MEND, BUT INJURES, THE MORALS OF\nSOCIETY\n\nThe strength, defense, and glory of a country consists primarily in the\ngood moral character of its inhabitants. The virtuous and the good are\nthe salt that preserve it from ruin. Says the Rev. Dr. Miller in his\nsermon on the death of Dr. Rogers (pages 366 and 388 of the Memoirs),\n\"It is manifest from the whole tenor of his word that God is slow to\ninflict heavy judgments upon a nation in which many of his people dwell;\nthat he often spares it, spreads over it the protection of his\nprovidence, and finally delivers it for their sake; and, of course, that\nthe presence of his beloved children, speaking after the manner of men,\nis a better defense than chariots and horsemen, a better defense than\nall the plans of _mere_ politicians, than all the skill, courage, and\nactivity of _mere_ warriors.\" Again, \"I have no doubt that it is as\ngreat and precious a truth at this day as it ever was, that a praying\npeople are, under God, the greatest security of a nation.\"\n\nWhen the inhabitants of a country become generally profane and dissolute\nin their manners, slaves to dissipation and vice, it is usually God's\nprovidence soon to visit them in his wrath and let loose the instruments\nof his destroying vengeance; how important, therefore, in a temporal\npoint of view, is the preservation of good morals to a nation. But no\nevent has so powerful a tendency to destroy the morals of a people as\nthat of actual war. It draws the attention of the inhabitants from\nuseful employments; it generates curiosity, dissipation, and idleness,\nand awakes all the furious passions of men.\n\nWar occasions a great profanation of the Sabbath. Under God's providence\nthe Sabbath has always been a great barrier against vice, and the\nobservance of it is indispensable to good morals.\n\nIn time of war the Sabbath among soldiers is often a day of parade. In\nthe streets of the best-regulated cities may be seen soldiers marching,\nflags flying, drums and fifes playing, and a rabble of children\nfollowing in the train. Now all this is not only calculated to dissipate\nall reverential respect for the solemnities of the day among the\nsoldiers, but is calculated to destroy the respect and observance of the\nday with which the children and youth have been inspired. Add to this,\nflags are suspended from the windows of taverns and grogshops to entice\nin the youth by the intoxicating cup. In the camp the Sabbath is almost\nforgotten and rendered a common day. Armies from professing Christian\nnations as often begin offensive operations on the Sabbath as on any\nother day; and professing Christians not only tolerate all this but\napprove of it as a work of necessity and mercy.\n\nWar occasions dishonesty. In countries where armies are raised by\nvoluntary enlistment all kinds of deception and art are practiced by\nrecruiting officers, and connived at by their governments, to induce the\nheedless youth to enlist. The honor and glory of the employment is held\nup to view in false colors; the importance of their bounty and wages are\nmagnified; the lightness of the duty and opportunities for amusements\nand recreation are held out; and probably one half have the assurances\nof being noncommissioned officers, with a flattering prospect of a\nspeedy advancement; and prospects of plunder are also held out to their\ncupidity. These deceptive motives are daily urged under the stimulating\npower of ardent spirits and the fascinating charms of martial music and\nmilitary finery. Many a young man who has entered the rendezvous from\ncuriosity or for the sake of a dram, without the least idea of joining\nthe army, has been entrapped into intoxication, and his hand then\ngrasped the pen to seal his fate.\n\nRecruits after joining the army find from experience that most of the\nallurements held out to them to enlist were but a deception, and from\nlust and want they often become petty thieves and plunderers to repay\nthem for their great privations, fatigues, and sufferings.\n\nWar occasions drunkenness,--one of the greatest evils and most\ndestructive to morality, as a multitude of other vices necessarily\nfollow in its train. Many a young man has entered the military ranks\n_temperate_, and has returned from them a _sot_. All the enticements of\nliquor are exhibited in the most inviting forms to youth in the streets\nby the recruiting officer, to tempt them to enlist; and while those who\nhave enrolled themselves remain at the rendezvous, they are probably\nevery day intoxicated with the inebriating poison, soul and body, and\nsoon the habit becomes confirmed. While in actual service their fatigues\nare so great that they greedily lay hold on the destroying liquor\nwherever they can find it to exhilarate their languid frames, even if\nthey had not before acquired an insatiable thirst; and soon this\ndetestable evil will become so enchanting that they will not only barter\naway their wages for it but their necessary clothing. If they survive\nthe campaign and return to their homes, they are often the visitors of\ngrogshops and taverns, and by their marvelous stories attract the\npopulace around them, who must join them in circulating the cup; and\nthus they spread this destroying evil all around.\n\nWar occasions profaneness. Profaneness is an abomination in the sight of\nGod: \"For the Lord will not hold him guiltless who taketh his name in\nvain.\" Profaneness draws down the judgments of heaven, \"for because of\nswearing the land mourneth.\"\n\nThat soldiers are generally considered more profane than other men is\nevident, because it has become a proverb that \"such a person is as\nprofane as a soldier, or a man-of-war's man.\" Young men who have been\ntaught to revere the name of the God of their fathers may shudder at the\nawful profanations that fill their ears when they first enter an army;\nbut if destitute of grace in the heart, the sound will soon cease to\noffend, and they will eagerly inhale the blasphemous breath and become\nchampions in impiety. For want of habit they may not swear with so easy\na grace as the older soldiers; they will for that reason make great\nexertions and invent new oaths, which will stimulate their fellows again\nto exceed in daring impiety. Seldom does a soldier return from the camp\nwithout the foul mouth of profanity. Astonishing to think that those who\nare most exposed to death should be most daring in wickedness!\n\nWar occasions gambling. A great proportion of the amusements of the camp\nare petty plays at chance, and the stake usually a drink of grog. The\nplay is fascinating. Multitudes of soldiers become established gamblers\nto the extent of their ability, and often, if they return to society,\nspread the evil among their neighbors.\n\nWar begets a spirit of quarreling, boxing, and dueling; and no wonder\nthat it should, for the whole business of war is nothing else but\nquarreling and fighting. The soldier's ambition is to be a bully, a\nhero, and to be careless of his own life and the lives of others. He is\ntherefore impatient in contradiction, receives an insult where none was\nintended, and is ready to redress the supposed injury with the valor of\nhis own arms; for it will not do for soldiers to shrink from the contest\nand be cowards.\n\nWar destroys the habits of industry and produces idleness. Industry is\nnecessary to good morals as well as to the wealth and happiness of a\ncountry, and every wise government will take all laudable means to\nencourage it; but a large proportion of common soldiers who may return\nfrom the armies have lost the relish and habits of manual labor and are\noften found loitering about in public places, and if they engage in any\nkinds of labor, it is with a heavy hand and generally to little purpose.\nThey therefore make bad husbands, unhappy neighbors, and are worse than\na dead weight in society. Their children are badly educated and provided\nfor, and trained up to demoralizing habits, which are handed down from\ngeneration to generation.\n\nThese immoralities, and many more that might be named, are not confined\nto soldiers in time of war, but they are diffused more or less through\nthe whole mass of community; and war produces a general corruption in a\nnation, and is therefore unwise, even in a temporal point of view. But\nwhen we consider the natural effects of these immoralities on the souls\nof men, all temporal advantages are in comparison annihilated. In this\nschool of vice millions are ripening for eternal woe. The destroying\ninfluence will spread and diffuse itself through the whole mass of\nsociety unless the spirit of the Lord lifts up a standard against it.\n\nThe state of morals, so much depressed by the American Revolution, was\nonly raised by the blessed effusions of God's holy spirit.\n\nIf war does actually demoralize a people, then no wise person can\nconsistently engage in it.\n\n\nVII. WAR IS UNWISE, AS IT IS HAZARDING ETERNAL THINGS FOR ONLY THE\nCHANCE OF DEFENDING TEMPORAL THINGS\n\nSays our blessed Saviour: \"For what is a man profited, if he should gain\nthe whole world, and lose his own soul?\"\n\nThe loss of a soul infinitely exceeds all finite calculations. It is not\nonly deprived forever and ever of all good but is plunged into misery\ninexpressible and everlasting. All temporal things dwindle to nothing\nwhen placed in comparison with eternal realities. The rights, liberties,\nand wealth of nations are of little value compared with one immortal\nsoul. But astonishing to think that millions and millions have been put\nat everlasting hazard only for the chance of defending temporal things!\n\nThe habits and manners of a soldier's life are calculated, as we have\nalready seen, to demoralize them, to obliterate all early serious\nimpressions, to introduce and confirm them in the most daring wickedness\nand fit them for everlasting destruction. And notwithstanding God may\nhave occasionally, to display his sovereign power, snatched some\nsoldiers from the ranks of rebellion and made them the heirs of his\ngrace, yet no sober Christian will say that the army is a likely place\nto promote their salvation; but, on the contrary, must acknowledge that\nit is a dangerous place for the souls of men. It may be assumed as an\nundeniable fact that the great mass of soldiers are notoriously depraved\nand wicked. With but few exceptions their impiety grows more daring the\nlonger they practice war; and when it is considered that thousands and\nthousands of such are hurried by war prematurely into eternity, with all\ntheir sins unpardoned, what an amazing sacrifice appears only for some\nsupposed temporal good. But when it is remembered that this infinite\nsacrifice is made merely for the chance of obtaining some temporal\nadvantage, the folly of war appears in more glaring colors, as the\nbattle is not always to the strong. Those who are contending for their\nrights, and are least in the wrong, are about as often unsuccessful as\notherwise, and then they very much increase their evils in a temporal\npoint of view. A wise man would not engage in a lawsuit to recover a\ncent, admitting that it was his just due, if the trial put to the hazard\nhis whole estate. But this bears no comparison with _one soul_ in\ncompetition with all temporal things; and yet men, professing to be\n_wise_, not only put one soul at hazard but millions, not for the\n_chance_ of defending all temporal good, but often for a mere bubble,\nthe hollow sound of honor; and many of those who are watching for souls,\nand must give an account, instead of sounding the alarm, approve of it.\n\nAll who engage in war, either in the field or otherwise, practically\nregard _time_ more than eternity, and _temporal_ more than _eternal_\nthings.\n\nIf souls are of more value than temporal things, and eternity of more\nconsequence than time, it must be _unwise_ to engage in a war and put\nsouls to immediate hazard of everlasting ruin, and totally wrong for\nChristians to engage in it.\n\n\nVIII. WAR IS UNWISE, AS IT DOES NOT ANSWER THE PROFESSED END FOR WHICH\nIT IS INTENDED\n\nThe professed object of war generally is to preserve liberty and produce\na lasting peace; but war never did and never will preserve liberty and\nproduce a lasting peace, for it is a divine decree that all nations who\ntake the sword shall perish with the sword. War is no more adapted to\npreserve liberty and produce a lasting peace than midnight darkness is\nto produce noonday light.\n\nThe principles of war and the principles of the gospel are as unlike as\nheaven and hell. The principles of war are terror and force, but the\nprinciples of the gospel are mildness and persuasion. Overcome a man by\nthe former and you subdue only his natural power, but not his spirit;\novercome a man by the latter, and you conquer his spirit and render his\nnatural power harmless. Evil can never be subdued by evil. It is\nreturning good for evil that overcomes evil effectually. It is,\ntherefore, alone the spirit of the gospel that can preserve liberty and\nproduce a lasting peace. Wars can never cease until the principles and\nspirit of war are abolished.\n\nMankind have been making the experiment with war for ages to secure\nliberty and a lasting peace; or, rather, they have ostensibly held out\nthese objects as a cover to their lusts and passions. And what has been\nthe result? Generally the loss of liberty, the overturning of empires,\nthe destruction of human happiness, and the drenching of the earth with\nthe blood of man.\n\nIn most other pursuits mankind generally gain wisdom by experience; but\nthe experiment of war has not been undertaken to acquire wisdom. It has,\nin fact, been undertaken and perpetuated for ages to gratify the corrupt\ndesires of men. The worst of men have delighted in the honors of\nmilitary fame and it is what they have a strong propensity for; and how\ncan a Christian take pleasure in that employment which is the highest\nambition of ungodly men? The things that are highly esteemed among men\nare an abomination in the sight of God. Is it not, therefore, important\nthat every one naming the name of Christ should bear open testimony\nagainst the spirit and practice of war and exhibit the spirit and temper\nof the gospel before the world that lieth in wickedness, and let their\nlights shine before men?\n\nBut what can the men of the world think of such Christians as are daily\npraying that wars may cease to the ends of the earth, while they have\ndone nothing and are doing nothing to counteract its destructive\ntendency? Alas! too many are doing much by their lives and conversation\nto support its spirit and principles. Can unbelievers rationally\nsuppose such prayers to be sincere? Will they not rather conclude that\nthey are perfect mockery? What would be thought of a man daily praying\nthat the means used for his sick child might be blessed for his\nrecovery, when he was constantly administering to him known poison? With\nthe same propriety do those Christians pray that war may come to a final\nend, while they are supporting its vital principles.\n\nIt is contrary to fact that war is calculated to preserve liberty and\nsecure a lasting peace; for it has done little else but destroy liberty\nand peace and make the earth groan under the weight of its terror and\ndistress.\n\nIt is contrary to the word of God that war is calculated to promote\npeace on earth and good will toward men. The law that is to produce this\nhappy effect will not be emitted from the council of war or the smoke of\na camp; but the law shall go forth out of Zion, and the Lord shall\nrebuke the strong nations and they shall beat their swords into\nplowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; then nations shall no\nmore lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn the art of\nwar any more; then shall the earth be filled with the abundance of peace\nand there shall be nothing to hurt or destroy. It is reserved alone for\nthe triumph of the gospel to produce peace on earth and good will to\nmen.\n\nIf war does actually provoke insult and mischief; if it increases\ndifficulties, destroys property and liberty; if it diminishes happiness,\ninjures the morals of society, hazards eternal for only the chance of\ndefending temporal things, and, finally, does not answer the end for\nwhich it was intended, then it must be _very unwise_ to engage in it,\nand it must be wrong for Christians to do anything to promote it, and\nright to do all in their power to prevent it.\n\n\n\n\nWAR IS CRIMINAL\n\n\nI am now to show that war, when judged of on the principles of the\ngospel, is highly criminal.\n\n\nI. GOING TO WAR IS NOT KEEPING FROM THE APPEARANCE OF EVIL, BUT IS\nRUNNING INTO TEMPTATION\n\n... I would have it understood that I consider every act of mankind\nwhich is palpably contrary to the spirit and precepts of the gospel\n_criminal_.\n\nIt is an express precept of the gospel to abstain from all appearance of\nevil. \"Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation\" is also an\nexpress command of Christ.\n\nA person desiring not only to abstain from evil, but from the very\nappearance of it, will suffer wrong rather than hazard that conduct\nwhich may involve doing wrong. He will be so guarded that if he errs at\nall he will be likely to give up his right when he might retain it\nwithout injuring others.\n\nNo person, it is believed, will attempt to maintain that there is no\nappearance of evil in carnal warfare, or that it is not a scene of great\ntemptation.\n\nOne great object of the gospel is to produce good morals, to subdue the\nirascible passions of men and bring them into sweet subjection to the\ngospel of peace.\n\nBut war cannot be prosecuted without rousing the corrupt passions of\nmankind. In fact, it is altogether the effect of lust and passion. In\ntimes of war almost every measure is taken for the express purpose of\ninflaming the passions of men, because they are the vital springs of\nwar, and it would not exist without them. Those who are engaged in war,\nboth in the council and in the field, have a feverish passion, which\nvaries as circumstances may happen to change. Those who are actually\nengaged in the heat of battle are usually intoxicated with rage. Should\nthis be denied by any one, I would appeal to the general approbation\nbestowed on the artist who displays most skill in painting scenes of\nthis kind. He who can represent the muscular powers most strongly\nexerted, the passions most inflamed, and the visage most distorted with\nrage, will gain the highest applause. The truth of the assertion is,\ntherefore, generally admitted. Some men, perhaps, may be so much under\nthe influence of pride as to have the appearance of stoical indifference\nwhen their antagonists are at some distance, but let them meet sword in\nhand and the scene is at once changed.\n\nThe temptations for those who constitute, or those who encourage and\nsupport, armies to commit or to connive at immorality are too various\nand too multiplied to be distinctly mentioned.\n\nWho can deny that war is altogether a business of strife? But, says an\ninspired apostle, \"where envying and strife is, there is confusion and\nevery evil work.\"\n\nNow, if war is a scene of confusion and strife and every evil work, it\nis impossible for any one to engage in it and avoid the appearance of\nevil or be out of the way of temptation; those who are armed with\ndeathly weapons and thirsting for the blood of their fellow-mortals\nsurely cannot be said to exhibit no appearance of evil. But if engaging\nin wars is putting on the appearance of evil and running into\ntemptation, then it is highly criminal to engage in it.\n\n\nII. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT NATURALLY INFLAMES THE PRIDE OF MAN\n\nOne of the abominable things which proceed out of the corrupt heart of\nman, as represented by our Saviour, is pride. \"God resisteth the proud,\nbut giveth grace to the humble.\" \"The Lord hates a proud look.\" \"Every\none that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord.\" That pride is\ncriminal and that humility is commendable will doubtless be admitted by\nall who believe the Scriptures.\n\nPride, however, is one of the chief sources of war. It is pride that\nmakes men glory in their strength and prowess; it is pride that hinders\nthem from confessing their faults and repairing the injury done to\nothers.\n\nAlthough pride is commonly condemned in the abstract, yet it is\ngenerally commended in soldiers and fanned by every species of art and\nadulation, not only by men of the world but too often by those who bear\nthe Christian name. And why is it necessary to inflame the pride of\nsoldiers? Because it is well understood that soldiers without pride are\nnot fit for their business.\n\nIf war is a Christian duty, why should not the example and precepts of\nChrist, instead of the example of the heroes of this world, be exhibited\nto those who fight to stimulate them? Is not Christ as worthy of\nimitation as the Caesars and Alexanders of this world? He was a\ntriumphant conqueror; he vanquished death and hell, and purchased\neternal redemption for his people; but he conquered by resignation and\ntriumphed by his death. Here is an example worthy of the highest\nemulation. And why not animate soldiers by it? Only because it would\nunnerve their arms for war and render them harmless to their foes.\n\nIt is so common to compliment the pride of soldiers that, instead of\nconsidering it that abominable thing which the Lord hates, they consider\nit a virtue. We frequently hear \"gentlemen of the sword,\" as they are\nstyled, in reply to the flattery bestowed upon them, frankly declare\nthat it is their highest ambition to obtain the praise of their\nfellow-citizens; and, of course, they confess that they are seeking the\npraise of men more than the praise of God. These gentlemen, however, are\nfar less criminal than those who lavish flattery on them; for doubtless\nmost of them are sincere and think themselves in the way of their duty,\nwhile their profession often leads them, necessarily, from the means of\nknowing correctly what is duty. While professing Christians have been\ntaught from their cradles that the profession of arms is not merely an\nallowable but a noble employment, it is easy for them to slide into the\ncurrent and go with the multitude to celebrate victories and to eulogize\nheroes, without once reflecting whether they are imitating their Lord\nand Master. But is it not time for Christians to examine and ascertain\nif war is tolerated in the gospel of peace before they join in\nfestivities to celebrate its bloody feats? How would a pagan be\nastonished if he had been taught the meek, lowly, and forgiving spirit\nand principles of the gospel, without knowing the practice of\nChristians, to see a host of men, professing to be influenced by these\nblessed principles, marshaled in all the pomp of military parade,\nthreatening destruction to their fellow-mortals! Would he not conclude\nthat either he or they had mistaken the genius of the gospel, or that\nthey believed it to be but a fable?\n\nIt is a notorious fact, which requires no confirmation, that military\nmen, decorated with finery and clad in the glitter of arms, instead of\nbeing meek and lowly in their temper and deportment, are generally\nflushed with pride and haughtiness; and, indeed, what purpose do their\ndecorations and pageantry answer but that of swelling their vanity?\nTheir employment is not soft and delicate. Other men who follow rough\nemployments wear rough clothing; but the soldier's occupation is not\nless rough than the butcher's, though, in the world's opinion, it is\nmore honorable to kill men than to kill cattle.\n\nBut if war has a natural tendency to inflame, and does inflame and\nincrease the pride of men, it is criminal; it does that which the Lord\nhates, and it must be highly criminal to engage in it.\n\n\nIII. WAR NECESSARILY INFRINGES ON THE CONSCIENCES OF MEN, AND THEREFORE\nIS CRIMINAL\n\nLiberty of conscience is a sacred right delegated to man by his Creator,\nwho has given no authority to man to infringe in the least on the\nconscience of his fellow-man. Though a man, by following the dictates of\nhis conscience, may be injured by men, yet they have no authority to\ndeprive him of the rights of conscience. To control the conscience is\nalone the prerogative of God. That man has no right to violate the\nconscience of his fellow-man is a truth which few, under the light of\nthe gospel, since the days of ignorance and superstition, have ventured\nto call in question.\n\nBut military governments, from their very nature, necessarily infringe\non the consciences of men. Though the word of God requires implicit\nobedience to rulers in all things not contrary to the Scriptures, it\nutterly forbids compliance with such commands as are inconsistent with\nthe gospel. We must obey God rather than man, and fear God as well as\nhonor the king. But governments, whether monarchial or republican, make\nlaws as they please, and compel obedience at the point of the sword.\nThey declare wars, and call upon all their subjects to support them.\n\nOffensive war, by all professing Christians, is considered a violation\nof the laws of Heaven; but offensive war is openly prosecuted by\nprofessing Christians under the specious name of self-defense. France\ninvaded Spain, Germany, and Russia; England invaded Holland and\nDenmark; and the United States invaded Canada, under the pretense of\ndefensive war. The fact is, however, that no man can, on gospel\nprinciples, draw a line of distinction between offensive and defensive\nwar so as to make the former a crime and the latter a duty, simply\nbecause the gospel has made no such distinction. But while many\nChristians profess to make the distinction, and to consider offensive\nwar criminal, they ought to have the liberty to judge, when war is\nwaged, whether it is offensive or defensive, and to give or withhold\ntheir aid accordingly; otherwise they are not permitted the free\nexercise of their consciences.\n\nBut suppose this principle adopted by governments. Could they prosecute\nwar while they left every individual in the free exercise of his\nconscience to judge whether such war was offensive or defensive and to\nregulate his conduct accordingly? Would it be possible for governments\nto carry on war if they depended for support on the uncertain opinion of\nevery individual? No; such a procedure would extinguish the vital\nstrength of war and lay the sword in the dust. The fact is well known,\nand monarchs declare war and force their subjects to support it. The\nmajority in republican governments declare war and demand and enforce\nobedience from the minority.\n\nThough the constitutions of governments may, in the most solemn manner,\nguarantee to citizens the free exercise of their consciences, yet\ngovernments find it necessary practically to make an exception in\nrelation to war, and a man may plead conscientious motives in vain to\nfree himself from contributing to the support of war.\n\nI think it proper here to notice what has appeared to me a gross\nabsurdity among some Christians in this land. They have openly declared\nthat in their opinion the late war was offensive; that it was contrary\nto the laws of God, and that they were opposed to it; but though they\nwished not to support it because it was criminal, yet they said, if they\nwere called on in a constitutional way, they would support it. Thus did\nthey publicly declare that they would, under certain circumstances, obey\nman rather than God.\n\nBut soldiers actually resign up their consciences to their commanders,\nwithout reserving any right to obey only in such cases as they may judge\nnot contrary to the laws of God. Were they at liberty to judge whether\ncommands were morally right or not, before they yielded obedience, it\nwould be totally impracticable for nations to prosecute war. Ask a\ngeneral if his soldiers have the privilege of determining whether his\ncommands are right or not, and he will tell you it is their duty only to\nobey.\n\nSuppose that a general and his army are shut up in a city in their own\ncountry, and that provisions are failing; that an army is advancing for\ntheir relief, but cannot reach the place until all means of sustenance\nwill be consumed; that the inhabitants cannot be let out without\nadmitting the besiegers; and that in this extremity, to preserve his\narmy for the defense of his country, the commander orders his men to\nslay the inhabitants, doing this evil that good may come. But some\nconscientious soldiers refuse to obey a command to put the innocent to\nthe sword for any supposed good. What must be the consequence? Their\nlives must answer for their disobedience. Nor is this contrary to the\nusages of war. And Christians satisfy their consciences upon the false\nprinciple that soldiers are not accountable for their conduct, be it\never so criminal, if they obey their commanders; all the blame must fall\non the officers, which involves the absurdity of obeying man rather than\nGod. Thus soldiers must be metamorphosed into something besides moral\nand accountable beings in order to prosecute war; and, in fact, they are\ntreated generally not as moral agents but as a sort of machinery to\nexecute the worst of purposes.\n\nThe only plausible method of which I can conceive to avoid the above\nconsequences requires that soldiers should not practically resign their\nconsciences, but, when commands which are morally wrong are given, that\nthey should refuse obedience and die as martyrs. But to enter an army\nwith such views would be to belie the very oath of obedience which they\ntake. Besides, who could execute the martyrs and be innocent? In this\nway all might become martyrs, and the army be annihilated.\n\nBut if war does not admit the free exercise of conscience on Christian\nprinciples, then it is criminal for Christians to become soldiers, and\nthe principles of war must be inconsistent with the principles of\nChristianity.\n\n\nIV. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT IS OPPOSED TO PATIENT SUFFERING UNDER UNJUST\nAND CRUEL TREATMENT\n\nThat patient suffering under unjust and cruel treatment from mankind is\neverywhere in the gospel held up to view as the highest Christian virtue\nprobably few professing Christians will deny.\n\nBut notwithstanding this truth is generally admitted, there is very\ncommonly introduced a carnal, sophistical mode of reasoning to limit, or\nexplain away, this precious doctrine, which is peculiar to the gospel\nand which distinguishes it from all other kinds of morality and religion\non earth. It has relation, it is said, only to matters of religion and\nreligious persecution,--as if the gospel required mankind actually to\nregard a little wealth and a few temporal things more than all religious\nprivileges and life itself; for, by this human maxim, men may fight to\ndefend the former, but not the latter. And this maxim is built on the\nsupposition that Christians are not bound strictly by gospel precepts in\nrelation to temporal things, but only in relation to spiritual things.\nHence it is said that the martyrs conducted nobly in refusing to fight\nfor the privilege of worshiping the true God, but if Christians now\nrefuse to fight to defend their money and their political freedom they\nact in a dastardly manner and violate the first principles of nature.\nThus are temporal regarded more than spiritual and everlasting things.\n\nThe precepts of the gospel, however, unequivocally forbid returning evil\nfor evil, and enjoin patient sufferings under injurious and cruel\ntreatment. A few instances shall be quoted: \"Now we exhort you,\nbrethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support\nthe weak, be patient towards all men. See that none render evil for evil\nto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves,\nand unto all men.\" \"If, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it\npatiently, this is acceptable with God.\" The apostle James, in his\nsolemn denunciation against oppressors, says, \"Ye have condemned and\nkilled the just, and he doth not resist you\"; he then immediately\nexhorts the Christians, saying, \"Be patient therefore, brethren, unto\nthe coming of the Lord.\" \"Finally, be ye all of one mind, having\ncompassion one for another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous,\nnot rendering evil for evil, railing for railing; but contrariwise\nblessings, knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit\na blessing.\" \"For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his\nears are open to their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against them\nthat do evil. And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of\nthat which is good?\"\n\nA patient, forbearing, suffering disposition is peculiar to the lamblike\ntemper of the gospel, and is wholly opposed to the bold, contending,\ndaring spirit of the world which leads mankind into quarreling and\nfighting.\n\nIt is generally admitted, I believe, that it is the duty of Christians\npatiently to suffer the loss of all temporal things, and even life\nitself, rather than willfully violate any of God's commands. If, then,\nit is the duty of a Christian patiently to suffer death rather than\nbear false witness against his neighbor, be he friend or foe, is it not\nequally his duty patiently to suffer death rather than kill his\nneighbor, whether friend or foe? Not merely taking away the life of our\nneighbor is forbidden, but every exercise of heart and hand which may\nhave a natural tendency to injure him. But which is the greatest\nevil,--telling a lie, or killing a man? By human maxims you may do the\nlatter to save your life, but not the former; though the former might\ninjure no one but yourself, while the latter, besides injuring yourself,\nmight send your neighbor to eternal destruction.\n\nThe spirit of martyrdom is the true spirit of Christianity. Christ\nhimself meekly and submissively died by the hands of his enemies, and\ninstead of resistance, even by words, he prayed, \"Father, forgive them,\nfor they know not what they do.\" Stephen, when expiring under a shower\nof stones from his infuriate murderers, prayed, \"Lord, lay not this sin\nto their charge.\" St. Paul testified that he was not only ready to be\nbound but to die for the Lord Jesus. The early martyrs resigned up their\nlives with patient submission as witnesses for Jesus,--and this at a\ntime, when, Sir Henry Moncrief Wellwood in his Sermons, page 335, says,\n\"Tertullian has told us that Christians were sufficiently numerous to\nhave defended themselves against the persecutions excited against them\nby the heathen, if their religion had permitted them to have recourse to\nthe sword.\"\n\nThe spirit of martyrdom is the crowning test of Christianity. The martyr\ntakes joyfully the spoiling of his goods, and counts not his life dear\nto himself.\n\nBut how opposite is the spirit of war to the spirit of martyrdom! The\nformer is bold and vindictive, ready to defend property and honor at the\nhazard of life, ready to shed the blood of an enemy. The latter is meek\nand submissive, ready to resign property and life rather than injure\neven an enemy. Surely patient submission under cruel and unjust\ntreatment is not only the highest Christian virtue but the most extreme\ncontrast to the spirit of war.\n\nNow if it is a duty required by the gospel not to return evil for evil,\nbut to overcome evil with good; to suffer injustice and to receive\ninjury with a mild, patient, and forgiving disposition,--not only in\nwords but in actions,--then all kinds of carnal contention and warfare\nare criminal and totally repugnant to the gospel, whether engaged in by\nindividuals or by communities.\n\nCan it be right for Christians to attempt to defend with hostile weapons\nthe things which they profess but little to regard? They profess to have\ntheir treasure not in this world but in heaven above, which is beyond\nthe reach of earthly invaders, so that it is not in the power of earth\nor hell to take away their dearest interests. There may be a propriety\nin the men of the world exclaiming that their dearest rights are invaded\nwhen their property and political interests are infringed upon; but it\nis a shame for Christians to make this exclamation, while they profess\nto believe that their dearest interest is in the hand of Omnipotence,\nand that the Lord God of hosts is their defense.\n\nWhoever, without divine command, dares to lift his hand with a deathly\nweapon against the life of his fellow-man for any supposed injury denies\nthe Christian character in the very act, and relies on his own arm\ninstead of relying on God for defense.\n\n\nV. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT IS NOT DOING TO OTHERS AS WE SHOULD WISH THEM\nTO DO TO US\n\nSays our blessed Saviour, \"All things whatsoever ye would that men\nshould do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the\nprophets.\" Now if we wish men to be kind and forbearing to us, we must\nbe kind and forbearing to them; if we wish them to return love for\nhatred and good for evil, then we must return love for hatred and good\nfor evil; if we wish not to be injured by men, then we must not injure\nthem; if we wish not to be killed, then we must not kill.\n\nBut what is the practical language of war? Does the man who is fighting\nhis fellow-man and exerting all his strength to overcome him really wish\nto be overcome himself and to be treated as he is striving to treat his\nenemy? Can it be believed that England, in the late war, wished France\nto do to her what she endeavored to do to France; or that the latter\nreally desired in return what she endeavored to inflict on England? If\nnot, both violated this express precept of Christ.\n\nNone can say, consistently with the principles of the gospel, that they\nwish to be killed by their enemies; therefore none can, consistently\nwith those principles, kill their enemies. But professing Christians do\nkill their enemies, and, notwithstanding all they may say to the\ncontrary, their actions speak louder than their words. It is folly for a\nman to say he does not wish to do a thing while he is voluntarily\nexerting all his powers to accomplish it.\n\nBut if the act of war does violate this express precept of Christ, then\nit must be exceedingly criminal to engage in it.\n\n\nVI. WAR IS INCONSISTENT WITH MERCY, AND IS THEREFORE CRIMINAL\n\nMercy is the grand characteristic of the gospel, and the practice of\nmercy is the indispensable duty of man. \"Be ye merciful, as your Father\nalso is merciful\"; \"For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the\ngood, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust\"; \"Blessed are the\nmerciful, for they shall obtain mercy\"; \"For he shall have judgment\nwithout mercy, that hath showed no mercy.\"\n\nMercy is that disposition which inclines us to relieve distress, to\nforgive injuries, and to promote the best good of those who are ill\ndeserving. Mercy in us towards our enemies implies seeking and pursuing\ntheir best good for time and eternity. It is sinful to exercise any\naffection towards enemies short of that benevolence or mercy which\ninvolves the advancement of their best good, and Christians may not\nsuspend this disposition, or do evil that any supposed good may come;\nfor no law can be of higher authority than the express precept of\nChrist which requires this disposition towards enemies, and of course no\nother consideration can be paramount to this, for nations are as much\nbound as individuals.\n\nIt is surely too grossly absurd for any to pretend that destroying the\nproperty and lives of enemies is treating them mercifully, or pursuing\ntheir best good for time and eternity. Nor can any so impose upon their\nimaginations as to think that injuring mankind is treating them with\nbenevolence or mercy.\n\nBut the direct object of war is injury to enemies; and the conduct of\nsoldiers generally speaks a language not easily to be misunderstood.\nThough soldiers are not always as bad as they might be, their tender\nmercies are often but cruelty. When they storm a fortified place and do\nnot put all the captives to the sword, they are complimented for\nexercising mercy, merely because they were not so cruel as they might\nhave been. But shall a highway robber be called an honest man because he\ntakes but half the money of him whom he robs? Is it an act of mercy,\nwhen a man encroaches on your property, to take away his life? Do\nnations exercise mercy towards each other when they enter into bloody\nwars in consequence of a dispute which shall govern a small portion of\nterritory? or does a nation show mercy to another that has actually\ninvaded its rights by falling upon the aggressor and doing all the\ninjury in its power? This surely is not forgiving injuries. And when two\ncontending armies come in contact and rush on each other with all the\nfrightful engines of death and cut each other to pieces they do not\nappear to me as merciful, kind, and tender-hearted, forgiving one\nanother in love, even as God for Christ's sake forgives his children.\nYet this is the rule by which they should act and by which they will at\nlast be judged.\n\nBut the whole system of war is opposed to mercy, and is therefore\naltogether unlike the spirit of the gospel, and must be criminal.\n\n\nVII. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS THE PRACTICE OF IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH\nFORGIVING TRESPASSES AS WE WISH TO BE FORGIVEN BY THE FINAL JUDGE\n\nOur Saviour says: \"If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly\nFather will also forgive you; but if ye forgive not men their\ntrespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses\";\n\"Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.\"\n\nHere it is evident that the everlasting salvation of men depends on\ntheir exercising forgiveness towards their enemies; for if they forgive\nnot, they will not be forgiven of God, and with what measure they mete\nto others, it will be measured to them again.\n\nTo forgive is to pass by an offense, treating the offender not according\nto his desert, but as though he had done nothing amiss.\n\nBut do the principles of war lead individuals or nations to pass by\noffenses and to treat offenders as if they were innocent? Do they not,\non the contrary, require justice and exact the very last mite? Has it\nthe aspect of forgiveness for us, when an enemy trespasses on our\nrights, to arm with weapons of slaughter and meet him on the field of\nbattle? Who, while piercing the heart of his enemy with a sword, can\nconsistently utter this prayer: \"Father, forgive my trespasses, as I\nhave forgiven the trespasses of this my enemy\"? But this, in reference\nto this subject, is the only prayer the gospel warrants him to make. And\nprofessing Christian nations, while at war and bathing their swords in\neach other's blood to redress mutual trespasses, are daily in their\npublic litanies offering this prayer; but is it not obvious that either\ntheir prayers are perfect mockery, or they desire not to be forgiven but\nto be punished to the extent of their deserts?\n\nIf individuals or nations desire that God would forgive their\ntrespasses, then they must not only pray for it, but actually exercise\nforgiveness towards those who trespass against them; and then they may\nbeat their useless swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning\nhooks and learn war no more.\n\nBut it must be very criminal to engage in war, or to tolerate it in any\nway, if it is inconsistent with the forgiveness of injuries as we hope\nto be forgiven, and in this respect violates the precepts of the gospel.\n\n\nVIII. ENGAGING IN WAR IS NOT MANIFESTING LOVE TO ENEMIES OR RETURNING\nGOOD FOR EVIL\n\nReturning good for evil and manifesting benevolence to enemies is,\nperhaps, the most elevated and noble part of Christian practice,--the\ninculcation of which in the gospel exalts Christianity far above any\nother form of religion and proves it to be not only divine but\nefficacious to subdue the turbulent and corrupt passions of men; and for\nthese reasons this part of duty ought to be zealously advocated and\ndiligently performed by every one who bears the Christian name.\n\nThe ablest writers who have defended the divine origin of the Scriptures\nagainst infidels have urged this topic as constituting conclusive\nevidence in their favor; and unbelievers, instead of attempting to meet\nthe argument fairly, have urged the inconsistency of Christians in\nacting contrary to so conspicuous a rule of duty; and such is and ever\nhas been the most powerful weapon that infidels can wield against\nChristianity. But it is the will of God that by welldoing we should put\nto silence the ignorance of foolish men. Let Christians act in strict\nconformity to this part of Christian practice, and they will wrest from\nthe infidel's hand his strongest weapon.\n\nThat exercising benevolence towards enemies and returning good for evil\nis inculcated as one of the most important doctrines of the gospel is\nevident as well from the whole tenor of the New Testament as from the\nexpress commands of the Son of God: \"I say unto you, Love your enemies,\nbless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for\nthem that despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the\nchildren of your Father in heaven\"; \"If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if\nhe thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire\non his head\"; \"Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.\"\n\nSuch are some of the divine precepts on this subject. So different,\nhowever, are the laws of war among Christian nations, that rendering\ncomfort or relief to enemies is considered high treason, and they punish\nwith death the performance of the very duty which God commands as a\ncondition of eternal life!\n\nThe common sense of every man revolts from the idea that resisting an\nenemy by war is returning good for evil. Who would receive the thrust of\na sword as an act of kindness? Was it ever considered that killing a man\nwas doing good to him? Has not death always been considered the greatest\nevil which could be returned for capital crimes? But the principles of\nwar not only allow enemies to return evil for evil by killing one\nanother, but secure the highest praise to him who kills the most. It is\noften said of those who distinguish themselves in butchering their\nfellow-men, that \"they cover themselves with glory!\"\n\nNations, when they go to war, do not so much as pretend to be actuated\nby love to their enemies; they do not hesitate to declare in the face of\nHeaven that their object is to _avenge_ their wrongs. But, says an\ninspired apostle, \"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place\nunto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith\nthe Lord.\" Retributive judgment, the execution of strict justice, or\nvengeance, God declares often, belongs to him. He has reserved it in his\nown hand as his sovereign prerogative.\n\nIt is not very surprising that savage pagans should glory in revenge,\nbut that those should do so who have the Bible in their hands, and\nprofess to take it as the rule of their faith and practice, is truly\nastonishing. Still more astonishing is it that some ministers of the\ngospel not only connive at but approve of the spirit and practice of\nrevenge by war.\n\nBut though the whole tenor of the gospel absolutely enjoins returning\ngood for evil and blessing for cursing; yet the open and avowed\nprinciples of war are to return evil for evil, violence for violence.\n\nNow if the principles of war are so directly opposed to the principles\nof the gospel, if the practice of war is so perfectly contrary to\nChristian practice, then it must be very criminal for Christians not to\nbear open testimony against war, and much more criminal to do anything\nto promote it.\n\n\nIX. WAR IS CRIMINAL, BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY RENDERING EVIL FOR EVIL\n\nIt is a fact which can neither be disguised nor controverted that the\nwhole trade of war is returning evil for evil. This is a fundamental\nprinciple in the system of self-defense. Therefore every exertion in the\npower of contending nations is made to inflict mutual injury, not merely\nupon persons in public employment and upon public property, but\nindiscriminately upon all persons and property. Hence it is an\nestablished rule of what is styled \"civilized warfare\" that if one party\ntakes a person suspected of being a spy, they put him to death; which\nact is retaliated by the other the first opportunity. If one party\nstorms a fortified place and puts the garrison or the inhabitants to the\nsword, the other, in their defense, must retaliate the same thing, and,\nif possible, to a greater degree. If one side executes a number of\ncaptives for some alleged extraordinary act, the other, on the\nprinciples of self-defense, may execute double the number; the first may\nthen, on the same principles, double this number; and so they may\nproceed to return evil for evil, till one or the other yields.\n\nThe principles of self-defense require not merely an eye for an eye and a\ntooth for a tooth, but for one eye two eyes, for one tooth two teeth. They\nrequire the retaliation of an injury to a double degree,--otherwise, there\nwould be no balance in favor of the defensive side; but as both parties\nmust always be on the defense, both must, of course, retaliate to a double\ndegree. Thus war is aggravated and inflamed, and its criminality raised to\nthe highest pitch.\n\nThe doctrine of retaliation is not only openly avowed and practiced by\nprofessing Christian nations, but is sometimes defended before national\ncouncils by professing Christians of high standing in churches. \"O! tell\nit not in Gath! publish it not in the streets of Askelon! lest the\ndaughters of the uncircumcised triumph!\"\n\nThat the retaliation of injury, of whatever kind it may be and to\nwhomsoever it may be offered, is most absolutely and unequivocally\nforbidden by the whole spirit of the gospel dispensation, as well as by\nits positive precepts, surely can never be fairly controverted.\n\nSays the great Author and finisher of our faith, \"Ye have heard that it\nhath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say\nunto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the\nright cheek, turn to him the other also.\" Whether the literal import of\nthese words be contended for or not, they cannot fairly be construed as\nteaching anything short of a positive and unconditional prohibition of\nthe retaliation of injury. Had our Lord added to these words the maxim\nof the world, \"If any man assaults you with deathly weapons, you may\nrepel him with deathly weapons,\" it would have directly contradicted the\nspirit of this command and made his sayings like a house divided against\nitself.\n\nThe apostles largely insist upon this doctrine of their divine Master,\nthus: \"Recompense to no man evil for evil\"; \"Be ye all of one mind, not\nrendering evil for evil, or railing for railing\"; \"See that none render\nevil for evil to any man.\" These comprehensive passages make no\nconditions or limitations, and are, therefore, applicable to all men and\nbinding upon all in all situations and circumstances under the light of\nthe gospel; but had they added, \"If any man injures you, you may return\nhim an injury and repel violence with violence,\" it would have been most\npalpably absurd, and the precepts of the gospel would have been truly\nwhat infidels have asserted they are,--a series of gross contradictions.\n\nBut I repeat that the open and avowed principles of war, even among\nChristian nations, are those of returning evil for evil. Surely, nations\nneither aim nor pretend to aim at the best good of their enemies; but,\non the contrary, their real and professed object in the sight of God and\nman is to do them, while at war, all the injury in their power. What\nmeans that language which conveys instructions to those who command\nships of war, to _sink_, _burn_, and _destroy_, if it does not mean evil\nto enemies? Why do nations encourage the cupidity of men by licensing\nand letting loose swarms of picaroons on their enemies, if it is not to\ninflict evil on them? But all this is sanctioned under the notion of\nself-defense, and, as though it were a light thing for men thus publicly\nto trample on the laws of the gospel, they lift up their daring hands to\nheaven and supplicate God's help to assist them in violating his own\ncommands! No apology can be made for such proceedings until it is shown\nthat war is not returning evil for evil.\n\nBut what is it to return evil for evil?\n\nWhen one man is injured by another and returns injury, he returns evil\nfor evil and violates those precepts of the gospel which have been\nquoted. When one association of men is injured by another association\nand the injured returns an injury, evil is returned for evil and those\nprecepts are violated. When one nation infringes on the rights of\nanother and they in return infringe on the aggressor's rights, they\nreturn evil for evil and violate those precepts. When one nation\ndeclares war against another and is repelled by war, evil is returned\nfor evil and those precepts are violated. But these things are\nconstantly practiced, without a blush or a question as to their\npropriety; and God is supplicated to aid in the business.\n\nTo what a state has sin reduced our world? Is not the church covered\nwith darkness and the people with gross darkness? A man may now engage\nin war with his fellow-man and openly return evil for evil, and still\nremain in respectable standing in most of the churches, being at the\nsame time highly applauded and caressed by the world lying in\nwickedness!\n\nBut if we are here to be directed and at last to be judged by the\ngospel, no man can return evil for evil, in war or otherwise, without\naggravated guilt.\n\n\nX. WAR IS CRIMINAL, AS IT IS ACTUALLY DOING EVIL THAT GOOD MAY COME; AND\nTHIS IS THE BEST APOLOGY THAT CAN BE MADE FOR IT\n\nThat it is an evil to spread distress, desolation, and misery through a\nland and to stain it with the blood of men probably none will deny. War,\nwith its attending horrors, is considered by all, even those who\nadvocate and prosecute it, to be the greatest evil that ever befalls\nthis wicked, bleeding, suffering world.\n\nThough men go to war primarily to gratify their corrupt passions,--for\nthey can never propose the attainment of any good by war which shall be\ncommensurate with the natural and moral evils that will be occasioned by\nthe acquisition,--yet the prospect of attaining some supposed good must\nbe held out as a lure to the multitude and a means of self-justification.\n\nUsually the object of war is pompously represented to be to preserve\nliberty, to produce honorable and lasting peace, and promote the\nhappiness of mankind; to accomplish which, liberty, property, and\nhonor--that honor which comes from men--must be defended, though war is\nthe very thing that generally destroys liberty, property, and happiness,\nand prevents lasting peace. Such is the good proposed to be attained by\nthe certain and overwhelming evil of war.\n\nBut no maxim is more corrupt, more false in its nature, or more ruinous\nin its results than that which tolerates doing evil that good may come.\nNor can any defend this maxim without taking the part of infidels and\natheists, to whom it appropriately belongs, and with whose principles\nand practice alone it is consistent.\n\nThe apostle Paul reprobates this maxim in the severest terms, and he\nconsidered it the greatest scandal of Christian character to be accused\nof approving it: \"As we be slanderously reported,\" says he, \"and as some\naffirm that we say, Let us do evil that good may come; whose damnation\nis just.\"\n\nNow if war is in fact an evil, and it is prosecuted with a view to\nattain some good, then going to war is doing evil that good may come. It\nis therefore doing that which scandalizes Christian character; that\nwhich is wholly irreconcilable with the principles of the gospel, and\nwhich it is highly criminal for any man or nation to do.\n\n\nXI. WAR IS OPPOSED TO THE EXAMPLE OF THE SON OF GOD, AND IS THEREFORE\nCRIMINAL\n\nThe example of the Son of God is the only perfect model of moral\nexcellence, and his moral conduct, so far as he acted as man, remains a\nperfect example for Christians.\n\nBut did he appear in this world as a great military character, wearing a\nsword of steel, clothed with military finery, and surrounded by\nglittering soldiers, marching in the pomp and parade of a warrior? No;\nhe was the meek and lowly Jesus, despised and rejected of men. He was\nKing of kings and Lord of lords, but his kingdom was not of this world.\nHad his kingdom been of this world, then would he have appeared as an\nearthly conqueror, and his servants would have been warriors.\n\nThough a prince, he was the Prince of Peace. At his advent the angels\nsang, \"Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will to men.\"\n\"He came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them.\" He was the Lamb\nof God, meek and lowly. He followed peace with all men; he returned good\nfor evil and blessing for cursing, and \"when he was reviled he reviled\nnot again.\" Finally, he was \"brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as\na sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.\" That\nhe did this as a necessary part of his mediatorial work need not be\ndenied; but that he intended it also as an example to his followers is\nfully confirmed by an inspired apostle, who says, \"If, when ye do well,\nand suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.\nFor hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us,\nleaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin,\nneither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled\nnot again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to\nhim who judgeth righteously.\"\n\nChrist taught his disciples the doctrines of peace, and commanded them\nto take up the cross and follow him; to live in peace and to follow\npeace with all men. His last gift to them was peace. He said to them,\nwhen about to send them into the world, \"Behold I send you forth as\nlambs among wolves\"; thus teaching them what treatment they might expect\nand what character they must maintain among wicked men. The nature of\nlambs and wolves is too well known for any one to mistake this\nfigurative representation. Wolves are fierce, bloody, and ravenous\nbeasts; but lambs are mild, inoffensive, and unresisting, having no\nmeans of relief but by flight. Now if a host of professing Christian\nwarriors, marshaled under the ensign of a preying eagle or a prowling\nlion, clothed in all the splendor of deathly armor, and rushing forward\nto destroy their fellow-creatures, are in figurative language but\n_lambs_, I confess I am at a loss where to look for the _wolves_! Do\nthese warlike Christians appear mild as lambs and harmless as doves,\nkind and tender-hearted, doing good to all, to friends and foes, as they\nhave opportunity? Can fighting be living peaceably with all men? Is it\nreturning good for evil, and overcoming evil with good? If not, it is\nnot imitating the example of Christ.\n\nIf Christians were like Christ, their warfare would not be carnal, but\nspiritual, corresponding with the armor which he has provided. They\nwould conquer by faith and overcome by the blood of the Lamb, not\ncounting their lives dear to themselves.\n\nOn the whole, if to engage in war is not avoiding the appearance of\nevil, but is running into temptation; if it inflates the pride of men;\nif it infringes on the rights of conscience; if it is not forgiving\ntrespasses as we wish to be forgiven; if it is not patient suffering\nunder unjust and cruel treatment; if it is not doing to others as we\nwould have them do to us; if it is not manifesting love to enemies and\nreturning good for evil; if it is rendering evil for evil; if it is\ndoing evil that good may come; and if it is inconsistent with the\nexample of Christ, then it is altogether contrary to the spirit and\nprecepts of the gospel and is highly criminal. Then Christians cannot\nengage in war or approve of it without incurring the displeasure of\nHeaven.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn view of the subject, if what has been said is in substance correct,\nand of this I desire the reader conscientiously to judge, then the\ncriminality of war and its inconsistency with the gospel are undeniable.\n\nIt is admitted by all that war cannot exist without criminality\nsomewhere, and generally where quarreling and strife are, there is blame\non both sides. And how it is that many Christians who manifest a\nlaudable zeal to expose and counteract vice and wickedness in various\nother forms are silent on the subject of war, silent as to those parts\nor practices of war which are manifestly and undisputably criminal, is\nto me mysterious. There has been a noble and persevering opposition\nagainst the inhuman and cruel practice of the slave trade; and by the\nblessing of God the efforts against it have been successful, probably,\nfor the time, beyond the most sanguine expectations. When the lawfulness\nof this practice was first called in question, it was violently defended\nas well by professing Christians as by others. Comparatively few\nChristians fifty years ago doubted the propriety of buying and holding\nslaves; but now a man advocating the slave trade could hardly hold in\nthis vicinity a charitable standing in any of the churches. But whence\nhas arisen so great a revolution in the minds of the mass of professing\nChristians on this subject? It has happened not because the spirit or\nprecepts of the gospel have changed, but because they are better\nunderstood.\n\nChristians who have been early educated to believe that a doctrine is\ncorrect, and who cherish a respect for the instructions of their parents\nand teachers, seldom inquire for themselves, after arriving at years of\nmaturity, unless something special calls up their attention; and then\nthey are too apt to defend the doctrine they have imbibed before they\nexamine it, and to exert themselves only to find evidence in its favor.\nThus error is perpetuated from generation to generation until God, in\nhis providence, raises up some to bear open testimony against it; and as\nit becomes a subject of controversy, one after another gains light, and\ntruth is at length disclosed and established. Hence it is the solemn\nduty of every one, however feeble his powers, to bear open testimony\nagainst whatever error prevails, for God is able from small means to\nproduce great effects.\n\nThere is at present in many of our churches a noble standard lifted up\nagainst the abominable sin of intemperance, the greatest evil, perhaps,\nwar excepted, in the land, and this destructive vice has already\nreceived a check from which it will never recover unless Christians\nrelax their exertions. But if war is a greater evil than drunkenness,\nhow can Christians remain silent respecting it and be innocent?\n\nPublic teachers consider it to be their duty boldly and openly to oppose\nvice. From the press and from the pulpit they denounce theft,\nprofaneness, Sabbath breaking, and intemperance; but war is a greater\nevil than all these, for these and many other evils follow in its train.\n\nMost Christians believe that in the millennial day all weapons of war\nwill be converted into harmless utensils of use, that wars will cease to\nthe ends of the earth, and that the benign spirit of peace will cover\nthe earth as the waters do the seas. But there will be then no new\ngospel, no new doctrines of peace; the same blessed gospel which we\nenjoy will produce \"peace on earth and good will to men.\" And is it not\nthe duty of every Christian now to exhibit the same spirit and temper\nwhich will be then manifested? If so, let every one \"follow the things\nthat make for peace,\" and the God of peace shall bless him.\n\n\nOBJECTIONS ANSWERED\n\nAs was proposed, a number of objections to the general sentiments that\nhave been advocated shall be stated and answered.\n\n_Objection first._ Shall we stand still and suffer an assassin to enter\nour houses without resistance and let him murder ourselves and families?\n\n_Answer._ I begin with this because it is generally the first objection\nthat is made to the doctrine of peace by all persons, high and low,\nlearned and unlearned; notwithstanding it is an objection derived from\na fear of consequences and not from a conviction of duty, and might with\nthe same propriety have been made to the martyrs who, for conscience'\nsake, refused to repel their murderers with carnal weapons, as to\nChristians who, for conscience' sake, refuse at this day to resist evil.\nNo Christian will pretend that defense with carnal weapons is not\ncriminal, if the gospel really forbids it, let the consequences of\nnonresistance be what they may. For the requisitions of the gospel are\nthe rule of duty. But I presume the objection above stated arises\naltogether from an apprehension of consequences rather than from regard\nto duty.\n\nEvery candid person must admit that this objection is of no force, until\nthe question whether the gospel does or does not prohibit resistance\nwith deathly weapons is first settled. It might, therefore, justly be\ndismissed without further remark; but as mankind are often more\ninfluenced by supposed consequences than by considerations of duty, and\nas the objection is very popular, it may deserve a more particular\nreply.\n\nIn the first place, I would observe that the supposition of the objector\nrelates to a very extreme case, a case which has very rarely, if ever,\noccurred to Christians holding to nonresistance with deathly weapons,\nand it bears little or no resemblance to the general principles or\npractices of war which are openly advocated and promoted by professing\nChristians. Should an event like that supposed in the objection take\nplace, it would be a moment of surprise and agitation in which few could\nact collectedly from principle. What was done would probably be done in\nperturbation of mind. But war between nations is a business of\ncalculation and debate, affording so much time for reflection that men\nneed not act from sudden and violent impulse, but may act from fixed\nprinciple. In this respect, therefore, war is a very different thing\nfrom what is involved in the objection which does not in the least\naffect the principles or practice of systematic warfare. It is not\nuncommon to hear persons who are hopefully pious, when pressed by the\nexample and the precepts of Christ against war, acknowledge that most of\nthe wars which have existed since the gospel dispensation cannot be\njustified on Christian principles; yet these very persons are never\nheard to disapprove of the common principles of war, or to counteract\nthem by their lives and conversation before a wicked world; but, on the\ncontrary, they will often eulogize heroes, join in the celebration of\nvictories, and take as deep an interest in the result of battles as the\nwarriors of this world; and if their conduct is called in question, they\nwill attempt to justify it by pleading the necessity of self-defense,\nand immediately introduce the above objection which is by no means\nparallel with the general principles and practices of all wars.\n\nThe truth is, war is a very popular thing among mankind, because it is\nso congenial to their natural dispositions; and, however gravely some\nmen may, at times, profess to deplore its calamity and wickedness, it is\ntoo evident that they take a secret pleasure in the approbation of the\nmultitude and in the fascinating glory of arms; and we have reason to\nbelieve that this objection is often made merely to ward off the arrows\nof conviction which would otherwise pierce their consciences.\n\nThe objection, however, wholly overlooks the providence and promise of\nGod. Assassins do not stroll out of the circle of God's providence. Not\nonly is their breath in his hand, but the weapons they hold are under\nhis control. Besides, God's children are dear to him, and he shields\nthem by his protecting care, not suffering any event to befall them\nexcept such as shall be for his glory and their good. Whoever touches\nthem touches the apple of his eye. He has promised to be a very present\nhelp to them in every time of need, and to deliver them that trust in\nhim out of all their trouble. He will make even their enemies to be at\npeace with them. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous and his\nears are open to their prayers, but the face of the Lord is against them\nthat do evil; and who is he that will harm you if ye be followers of\nthat which is good? But if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are\nye, and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. If God be\nthus for his children, who can be against them? Is not the arm of the\nLord powerful to save, and a better defense to all who trust in him than\nswords and guns? Whoever found him unfaithful to his promises or feeble\nto save? Are not the hosts of heaven at his command? Are not his angels\nswift to do his will? \"Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth\nto minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?\" \"The angel of the\nLord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.\" If\nthe Lord is on their side, Christians have no cause to fear what man\ncan do unto them. Says the blessed Saviour, \"Whosoever will save his\nlife shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall\nfind it.\"\n\nIf consequences are rightly examined, they may prove to be of more\nimportance than at first supposed. If the gospel does forbid resistance\nwith deathly weapons, then he who saves his temporal life by killing his\nenemy may lose his eternal life; while he who loses his life for\nChrist's sake is sure of everlasting life. Thus the Christian, if he is\nkilled, goes to heaven; but the assassin, if he is killed, goes to hell,\nand the soul of the slayer is in danger of following. Whoever kills\nanother to prevent being killed himself, does it on presumption; for,\nwhatever may be the appearances, God only can know whether one man will\nassassinate another, before the event has taken place. Men, however,\nseem to think little of killing or being killed by fighting, whether in\nsingle combat or on the field of general battle, though they shudder at\nthe idea of being put to death by an assassin, unless they can inflict\nor attempt to inflict on him the same evil.\n\nBut the objection is usually made on the supposition that the doctrine\nin question requires Christians to stand still and rather court the\ndagger than otherwise. This is an unfair statement, for it would be\npresumption to stand still when there was a chance of escape. Besides,\nthe Christian must act on the defensive, not with carnal, but with\nspiritual weapons, which are more powerful when exercised in faith than\nswords or spears.\n\nProbably no instance can be found of robbers murdering such as\nconscientiously held to nonresistance. It is resistance that provokes\nviolence; forbearance and good will repress it. But if instances of this\nkind may be found, it is no evidence against the doctrine in question\nany more than against the principles of the Martyrs. God may, for wise\nreasons, call away some of his children by the hands of murderers; if\nso, instead of losing, they save their lives.\n\n_Objection second._ Self-defense, and, if necessary, with deathly\nweapons, is the first law of nature. All the animal creation are armed\nwith means of defense, and the principles of the gospel are not contrary\nto the principles of nature; therefore self-defense is not inconsistent\nwith Christianity.\n\n_Answer._ It is admitted that the laws of the gospel are not contrary to\nthe primitive laws of nature; but it is by no means granted that they\nare consistent with the laws of corrupt nature. In consequence of the\nrevolt of man the earth was cursed for his sake. It appears probable\nthat before the fall of man animals were harmless and docile; and it is\nnot improbable that when the curse shall be removed, when the earth\nshall be filled with righteousness and peace, the lion and the lamb may\nliterally lie down together. At present, indeed, the dove, the lamb, and\nsome other animals have no means of defense, unless flight be considered\nsuch. And while warriors are figuratively represented by ferocious\nbeasts, real Christians are represented by lambs and doves. So far as\nnature is made to speak fairly on the subject, it speaks in favor of the\ndoctrine which has been advocated.\n\nBut corrupt nature strongly dictates many things quite contrary to the\nprecepts of the gospel; and no doctrine will be given up more\nreluctantly by corrupt nature than that of the lawfulness of war,\nbecause no doctrine is more congenial with the depraved feelings and\npropensities of unsanctified men, for their \"feet are swift to shed\nblood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace\nhave they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes.\"\n\n_Objection third._ The precepts of the gospel are consistent with the\nmoral law, or the eternal nature of things, which is forever the\nstandard of right and wrong to all moral beings in the universe; and war\nhas been prosecuted consistently with this rule of right and wrong;\ntherefore war cannot be contrary to the precepts of the gospel.\n\n_Answer._ This is an objection founded on an undefinable something aside\nfrom divine precept; yet as some terms in it have been much used in\npolemic divinity by men of eminent talents and piety, whose praise is in\nthe churches, I think it neither proper nor modest to dissent from so\nhigh authority without offering some reasons. I shall, therefore, make a\nfew general observations on what is called the moral law, the eternal\nrule of right and wrong, or the nature of things; all of which phrases,\nI believe, have been occasionally used by eminent writers as conveying\nthe same ideas.\n\nI cannot agree with such as suppose that a moral law or nature of things\nexists independently of the will of God and is the common law of God and\nman. It appears to me as inconsistent to suppose a law to exist without\na lawgiver as to suppose a world to exist without a creator. If God is\nthe only eternal and independent Being in the universe, and if all\nthings are the work of his power and goodness, then the supposition that\nan eternal law exists independently of him appears to me to be absurd,\nas on this supposition there exists a law without a lawgiver and an\neffect without a cause. If God is not the author of all things, then\nthere must be more than one eternal cause of things.\n\nTo suppose that the reason and fitness of things independently of the\nwill of God, either in his works, his providence, or word, can be a rule\nof man's duty appears to me as inconsistent as to suppose that men might\ninstitute divine worship from such fitness of things independently of\nthe existence of God; for the will of God to man seems as necessary to\nlay a foundation of moral obligation and to direct man's obedience as\nthe existence of God is necessary to lay a foundation of religious\nworship. Should it be asked whether the laws of God are not founded on\nthe eternal nature and fitness of things, I would answer that such a\nsupposition appears to me no more reasonable than to suppose that his\npower is founded on the eternal capacity of things; for the capacity of\nthings has just as much reality and eternity in it to found the\nomnipotence of God upon, as the reason and nature of things have to\nfound his infinite wisdom or justice upon.\n\nI therefore dissent from all standard of moral obligation which are\nsupposed to exist aside from, and independently of, the divine will; and\nfully agree with the Assembly's Shorter Catechism, in the answer to\nthis question: \"What is the duty which God requires of man? Answer: The\nduty which God requires of man is obedience to his revealed will.\"\nShould it, however, be said that things do exist aside from the divine\nwill, that it does not depend on the divine will, but on the nature of\nthings, that two and two make four, or that a thing cannot be in motion\nand at rest at the same time, it is by no means admitted that this order\nor constitution of things exists independently of God; but it is\nbelieved to be as much the effect of his power and goodness as anything\nelse. And if God is not the author of all the laws both in the natural\nand moral world, it may reasonably be inquired, who is?\n\nIf God is the moral governor of the world, then all his laws over men,\nas moral beings, must be moral laws; and to make a distinction between\nthe laws designed to regulate the moral conduct of men, and to call some\nof them moral and others by different names, seems to me not necessary,\nwhile I find no such distinction in the Scriptures. Because some of\nGod's laws were intended to be temporary, under certain circumstances,\nthey were no less of a moral nature on that account; neither was it any\nless criminal to violate them.\n\nAs created things are in some respects constantly changing, and as the\nrelations of things are often varied, so a law may be relatively right\nat one time and relatively wrong at another. But as man is frail and\nshort-sighted, and is incapable of seeing the end from the beginning, he\nis totally unable of himself to judge what is and what is not right, all\nthings considered; hence the necessity of a revelation from God to\ndirect his steps.\n\nThat there is a fitness of things and a standard of moral right and\nwrong cannot be denied; but, instead of being founded in a supposed\nnature of things independent of God, it originates in the very nature\nand perfections of God himself, and can never be known by man any\nfarther than the nature and perfections of God are known. A standard of\nright and wrong independent of God, whether by the name of moral law or\nnature of things, is what never has been and never can be intelligibly\ndefined. It is like a form without dimensions, like a foundation resting\non nothing. It is, therefore, in my opinion, as extravagant to talk of\nan eternal nature of things, without reference to the laws of God, as it\nwould be to talk of an eternal wisdom or an eternal omnipotence,\nindependent of the existence of God.\n\nBut if the statement of the objector is meant only to imply a rule of\nright and wrong emanating from the nature and perfections of God, and\ncoincident with his laws, then, admitting the propriety of the terms\nmoral law, nature of things, etc., the objection, if it proves anything,\nmay prove quite too much for its advocates; for under certain\ncircumstances it has been consistent with this rule of moral right and\nwrong utterly to exterminate nations, to destroy men, women, and\nchildren, and show them no mercy.\n\nBesides, the whole force of the objection rests on the supposition that\nno laws which have existed, and which were not contrary to the moral\nlaw, can be abrogated under the Christian dispensation or be\ninconsistent with the precepts of the gospel. It hence follows that\nwhatever has been morally right and lawful for men to do must forever\nremain right and lawful to be done. This is a necessary result from the\npremises; but no Christian can consistently subscribe to this. The\npremises must, therefore, be unsound and the objection of no force.\n\nIf literal sacrifices, slavery, and many other practices which are\ntotally abolished under the Christian dispensation were not contrary to\nthe moral law under the Old Testament economy, why may not the same be\ntrue of war? Why may not the gospel forbid war as consistently as it can\nforbid slavery?\n\n_Objection fourth._ The nature of religion and morality under the\nancient dispensation was the same as under the new. Love to God and man\nwas the substance of the law and the prophets; and though truth under\nthe former was inculcated more by types and ceremonies, yet the essence\nof religion was the same under that as under the present dispensation;\nand as war was not inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion\nthen, it cannot be inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion\nnow, under like circumstances.\n\n_Answer._ It is readily admitted that the essence of religion is the\nsame under the present as under the former dispensation, both requiring\nat all times and in all actions holy exercises of heart in cordial\nobedience to divine command; yet the laws for external conduct under the\ntwo dispensations differ widely, and the practice of war involves much\nof the external conduct of men. It was never right for men to indulge\nunholy feelings in the act of war, but the external act was required as\na means of executing the divine vengeance; the gospel does not command,\nbut seems plainly to forbid, the external act of war.\n\nBut to suppose that saints under the gospel can ever be placed in\ncircumstances like those of the ancient church is to suppose that they\nmay be put under the same typical economy which has vanished away, given\nplace to the substance, and ceased to be binding even on the natural\nIsraelites. To be in like circumstances they must also be made the\nexecutors of God's wrath, to inflict vengeance, by his particular\ncommand, on idolatrous and rebellious nations. The Israelites had the\nsame high authority to exterminate the Canaanites and subdue the\nidolatrous nations about Palestine that the holy angels had to destroy\nSodom and Gomorrah.\n\nIt is perfectly plain that if God should positively command Christians\nto take the weapons of war and not only repel invasion but actually\nexterminate nations, it would be their duty to obey, and a refusal would\nbe open rebellion against God. The Old Testament saints received such\ncommands, but Christians have no such authority, which makes a material\ndifference in circumstances.\n\nSome general observations relative to the different dispensations of the\nchurch of God may illustrate this topic more fully.\n\nThe Old Testament economy has sometimes, perhaps without reason, been\ndivided into the Adamic, Patriarchal, and Mosaic dispensations of the\nchurch; but as the latter was more full and complete, and as the\ndistinction between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations is common, I\nshall confine my remarks chiefly to that distinction, though I consider\nthe great distinction to be between the Old and New Testament economies.\n\nThe Old Testament economy, in general, was typical of the New. Under the\nformer dispensation literal and temporal things typified spiritual and\neverlasting things under the latter. The nation of Israel, chosen and\nseparated from all other nations, typified the true Israel of God, who\nare chosen out of every nation and sanctified and set apart as a holy\nnation and peculiar people, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God. The\nland of Canaan was a type of the heavenly Canaan. Jerusalem was a type\nof the New Jerusalem from above. Mount Zion and the royal throne of\nIsrael, which were in Jerusalem, typified the heavenly Zion and the\nthrone of the true David who now reigns in glory. The sacrifices were\ntypes of spiritual offerings. The Israelites had enemies within and foes\nwithout, literal weapons of war and literal warfare, typical of\nspiritual foes, spiritual armor, and spiritual warfare.[1] Their kings\nwere seated on the throne of the Lord (see 1 Chron. xxix. 23). At the\ncommand of God they judged and made war and conquered their enemies and\nthus typified the Son of God who is now on the throne of his Father\nDavid, and who in righteousness judges and makes war and rides forth\nconquering and to conquer. The ancient promises and threatenings were\nmostly temporal, but typical of spiritual and everlasting promises and\nthreatenings. Doubtless the gospel was preached by types and figures\nunder the Old Testament economy, and the saints of old looked upon those\ntemporal things merely as shadows representing a more enduring\nsubstance. When they looked upon Canaan, the land of promise, they\nviewed it as a type of the heavenly Canaan, and confessed that they were\nstrangers and pilgrims on earth seeking a better country. When they\nlooked on the bleeding lamb they beheld, by the eye of faith, the Lamb\nof God who taketh away the sins of the world.\n\nThus we may see that almost the whole of the Old Testament economy was\ntypical and temporary, and not intended to be perfect and everlasting.\nBut under the gospel dispensation we have a new covenant and better\npromises which are intended to be perfect and everlasting. It is\ntherefore more proper for those who live under this new and perfect\ndispensation to look at the substance than at the shadow for a rule of\nduty. Errors are often and easily propagated by reasoning from analogy\nand introducing it as proof of sentiments instead of illustration. This\nis frequently done in relation to the Old Testament economy and common\npolitical government. It is not uncommon to hear ministers, in their\npolitical sermons, reason and infer just as if there were a perfect\nparallel between the Jewish theocracy and political governments, when at\nthe head of one was the Lord of hosts and at the head of the others are\nbut men; when one was the church of the living God, and the others are\nbut human institutions. They not unfrequently speak of God's driving out\nthe heathen before his American Israel and planting them in a goodly\nland, as though there were a perfect parallel between the Americans\ndriving the Indians from their native soil and taking possession of it\nthemselves, without divine commission, and the Israelites going at the\nexpress command of God and taking possession of Canaan. Thus they\nendeavor to keep up a parallel between God's ancient church and civil\ngovernments. The economy of God's ancient covenant people was by no\nmeans a political institution in the popular sense, but it was a\ndispensation of the church of God, and in its rites, ceremonies, and\ngovernment was typical of the kingdom of Messiah under his mediatorial\nreign, and differed widely in its nature, origin, and design from mere\npolitical governments; therefore all reasoning drawn from a supposed\nanalogy between them is specious and false. The Israelites had no\nauthority to enact laws or to alter God's laws one iota; their duty was\nimplicitly to obey them.\n\nBut if Christians take their authority for going to war from the\npractice of the Old Testament saints, their example will prove too much;\nit will not only allow war, but _offensive war_ in its most dreadful\nforms.\n\n_Objection fifth._ Abraham went to war, not like the Israelites at the\ncommand of God, yet he met with the divine approbation when he returned\nfrom the slaughter of the kings; he, therefore, must have acted on a\nuniversal law still in force; and as Christians are called the children\nof Abraham they ought, of course, to imitate his example in such things\nas God approved.\n\n_Answer._ Abraham, like the Israelites, was under a typical dispensation\nand practiced rites and ceremonies which were a shadow of good things to\ncome. That he acted without divine command, in the war referred to, is\nmore than we are warranted to say. He was a prophet and the friend of\nGod and probably was acquainted with the divine will on this subject.\n\nChristians are not called the children of Abraham because they imitate\nhis example in war, but because they exercise like precious faith with\nhim. If Christians are warranted to imitate the example of Abraham in\nall things which were tolerated by God, then they may sacrifice cattle,\npractice polygamy, and buy and hold slaves. But if they object to his\nexample as a rule of duty in these instances, why not object to his\nexample as a rule of duty in the case of war?\n\nBut to say that he acted from some universal law still in force is\ntaking for granted the question in dispute, and cannot be admitted\nwithout evidence.\n\nThe war waged by Abraham against the kings was, I apprehend, offensive\nrather than defensive; for Lot, his brother's son, whom he rescued, did\nnot then belong to his family or kingdom, but was separated from him and\nwas also a patriarch, a father of nations, and a prince or head over his\nown house or kingdom.\n\nIt appears very evident that offensive as well as defensive war was\ntolerated under the patriarchal economy, as may be seen from the words\nof the inspired Jacob when blessing his sons (Gen. xlviii. 22). That,\nas well as the Mosaic dispensation, was typical, and doubtless war was\nallowed under both for the same reasons.\n\nBut there can be no doubt that whoever attempts to justify war by the\nexample of Abraham may equally justify the slavery of our fellow-men;\nand whoever depends on his example for authority for engaging in war, to\nbe consistent, must advocate and defend the doctrine of slavery.\n\n_Objection sixth._ It appears to be a universal law of God that \"whoso\nsheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.\" If one man, or\none nation, attacks another and sheds his blood, his own must be shed in\nreturn. Hence this precept not only authorizes taking away the life of a\nmurderer, but authorizes nations to repel by war nations that wage war\nagainst them.\n\n_Answer._ Whether this was a precept given to man as a rule of duty or\nnot is very questionable, though it has generally been so construed, at\nleast since the dark ages of the church; and it is still more\nquestionable whether it is a universal and perpetual law.\n\nIf we attend to the phraseology of this decree of God, we shall find it\nto be very different from that of the precepts, generally, delivered to\nMoses. God did not say to Noah, as he often did to Moses, thou shalt do\nthis, or that, but he said, \"_I will require the life of man_,\" etc. If\nGod had designed to delegate executive authority to Noah and his\ndescendants to execute retributive judgment on the manslayer, the\nconnection of the whole language must have been altered, for God\ndeclared what he would do himself. It appears, therefore, to have been\nGod's _decree_, and the promulgation of _his_ law by which he would\ninflict righteous judgment on the guilty; the penalty was intended as a\nwarning to deter mankind from violence, the sin for which the old world\nwas swept away. And I see no reason why this threatening should not be\nconsidered parallel with the decrees of Christ,--that \"all they that\ntake the sword shall perish with the sword; he that leadeth into\ncaptivity shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword must\nbe killed with the sword; here is the faith and the patience of the\nsaints.\" Why the former should be considered as a rule of obedience for\nman, and these latter passages not so, I am unable to say. \"He that\nkilleth with the sword must be killed with the sword\" is as positive as\n\"whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.\"\n\nIt may be observed that the faith and patience of the saints is here\nspoken of in such a way as to imply that they exercised and manifested\ntheir faith and patience when they were put to death by violence or\ncarried into captivity. And, indeed, how could their faith and patience\nappear if they, like the wicked world, returned evil for evil, carried\ninto captivity, and killed with the sword?\n\nThe original threatening has been fulfilled by the providence, and\nsometimes by the express command, of God. As Noah was the head of the\nnew world and the father of nations, it seems to have had reference to\nnations rather than to individuals; and all nations that have shed blood\nin war must, in their turn, have their own blood shed; so that all they\nthat take the sword may perish with the sword agreeably to the\nthreatening made known to Noah, and to those announced by Christ.\n\nBut, admitting that the law quoted in the objection was intended as a\nrule of duty for man, it does not appear that it was designed to be\nuniversal and perpetual. Before the flood no authority appears in any\nsense to have been delegated to man to shed the blood of man. So far\nfrom executing the penalty of death or causing it to be executed upon\nCain, who was of the wicked one and slew his brother, notwithstanding\nhis guilty forebodings, God threatened a sevenfold vengeance on him who\nshould presume to do it.\n\nUnder the Mosaic dispensation many crimes were punishable with death\naccording to positive precept; but God, for wise reasons, did not always\nhave the penalty executed. David was guilty of murder and adultery, both\ncapital crimes; yet he was permitted to live.\n\nAll kinds of vindictive punishment under the Christian dispensation\nappear to be absolutely forbidden. By vindictive I mean that which is\nintended to vindicate the law, as executing strict justice, and prevent\noffenses only, as taking away life, but which is not designed to promote\nthe individual good of the person punished. That punishment which is\ndesigned and which has a tendency to promote the good of the punished,\nas well as to deter offenders, I consider to be strictly disciplinary or\ncorrective, and consistent with the spirit and precepts of the gospel.\nSays an apostle, \"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place\nunto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith\nthe Lord.\" \"For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.\"\nIt has been said that this only forbids a revengeful temper, but this\nevasion will not do; for Christians are here forbidden to do the very\nthing which God declares he will do himself, and he does nothing but\nwhat is holy.\n\n\"Render to no man evil for evil,\" is a positive precept without any\nlimitation, and which admits of no evasion; and it must plainly rescind\nthe law of shedding man's blood because he had shed the blood of man.\n\nBut the exclamation is often made, What, not punish a murderer with\ndeath! Little do those who make this exclamation think that they\nthemselves also are sinners and that every sin deserves not only\ntemporal death but God's wrath and curse forever, and that they are in\nlike condemnation unless redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. For such, it\nmight be well to inquire if they know \"what manner of spirit they are\nof.\"\n\nThe most prominent characteristic of Messiah's reign over men in this\nworld is mercy, since he has secured the rights and honor of the divine\ngovernment by the sacrifice of himself so that the guilty may live. He\nhas given his life as a ransom and taken the world into his hands as the\nruler, judge, and rewarder, and offers the chief of sinners mercy; and\nthe merits of his blood are sufficient to cleanse from all sin as well\nagainst man as against God. And who can help being astonished at the\namazing difference between his laws and his dealings with men, and those\nsanguinary laws of men according to which under the light of the gospel\nthey punish with death.\n\nThe professed principle and design of these laws is strict justice; but\nwere men dealt with according to strict justice by him who rules above,\nwho would be able to stand? These laws of men accept no atonement for\ncapital offenses; no mercy is offered, for none is provided for those\nwho incur their penalty; but the gospel offers mercy to the chief of\nsinners while it condemns those who reject the offers. Capital offenders\nwill never be condemned by civil governments for the rejection of\noffered mercy, for no mercy is provided for them. How unlike the divine\ngovernment! But Christians are commanded to be merciful, as their Father\nin heaven is merciful, who showers down blessings on the evil and\nunthankful. Our Master has told us that with what judgment we judge we\nshall be judged; and with what measure we mete it shall be measured to\nus again; that if we forgive we shall be forgiven; and if we forgive not\nwe shall not be forgiven; and that if we show no mercy we shall have\njudgment without mercy.\n\nChristians ought to ponder the subject well before they advocate the\nconsistency and safety of dispensing justice without mercy. Let them\nlearn what that meaneth, \"I will have mercy and not sacrifice.\"\n\n_Objection seventh._ \"Every purpose is established by counsel, and with\ngood advice make war\"; \"For by wise counsel thou shalt make war,\" etc.\nHere war is recognized as a duty under certain circumstances, and the\nmanner in which it is to be undertaken is pointed out, viz., by wise\ncounsel.\n\n_Answer._ The inspired Proverbs are maxims of wisdom illustrated, for\nthe most part, by some familiar subject that existed at the time they\nwere delivered. The object here is not to inculcate the lawfulness of\nwar but the necessity of sound wisdom in relation to the actions of men;\nand the subject of war appears to be introduced merely to illustrate\nthis idea. The counsel and wisdom of men in relation to their temporal\nand worldly concerns are often worthy of imitation in reference to\nspiritual things; for the children of this world are, in some sense,\nwiser in their generation than the children of light, and the conduct of\nworldly men is often very appropriately introduced to illustrate\nChristian duty. Our Lord says, \"What king, going to war with another\nking, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten\nthousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?\"\nDoubtless our Lord's design was to warn people to count the cost before\nthey professed to be followers of him, that they might not be deceived\nand discouraged, and that they might act from principle and not from\nhypocrisy. But he inculcated these things by referring to the example of\nkings in their consultations about war. And it is believed that the\npassages before cited are of similar import. These references to war,\nbeing introduced merely for the illustration of other subjects, will no\nmore prove the lawfulness of war than the reference of the apostle to\nthe Olympic games, for illustration, will prove the lawfulness of those\nheathen feats. But if this explanation should not be satisfactory, it\nmay be observed that the Proverbs were written under the Old Testament\neconomy which tolerated offensive as well as defensive war; whence it\ndoes not appear that any war can be undertaken under the present\ndispensation, \"by wise counsel,\" except that which is spiritual; so that\nif the ancient was typical of the new dispensation, then the passages\nquoted will now apply only to spiritual warfare.\n\n_Objection eighth._ When the soldiers demanded of John the Baptist what\nthey should do, one of the directions which he gave them was to be\ncontent with their wages. If their occupation had been unlawful, then he\nwould not have directed them to be contented with the wages of\nwickedness.\n\n_Answer._ John the Baptist was under the Mosaic economy, the new\ndispensation not having commenced. He was but the forerunner of the\nLord, a herald to sound his approach. But he gave the soldiers another\ndirection, viz., to \"do violence to no man,\" obedience to which is\ntotally incompatible with war, as that is nothing else but violence.\nOnly hinder soldiers from doing violence to any man and you stop at once\nthe whole progress of war; therefore, if the directions of John are\ninsisted on as gospel authority, they will prove, probably, much more\nagainst the lawfulness of war than in favor of it.\n\n_Objection ninth._ The Centurion and Cornelius were Christians and\nsoldiers and highly approved of God for their faith and piety; nor were\nthey directed by Christ or his apostles to renounce their profession;\ntherefore the profession of arms is not inconsistent with Christian\nduty.\n\n_Answer._ They were first soldiers and then Christians; and we have no\nevidence that they continued in the profession of arms; nor are we\nwarranted to say that they were not directed to renounce that\nprofession, as the Scriptures are silent on the subject. Peter, it\nappears, tarried a number of days with Cornelius, and he doubtless\nexplained to him the spirit and precepts of the gospel; and it is very\nprobable that neither Cornelius nor the Centurion continued soldiers in\nany other sense than they were soldiers of Christ, as the idolatrous\nrites enjoined on the Roman soldiers were totally inconsistent with the\nChristian character, aside from the unlawfulness of war itself. Besides,\nthe Roman soldiers were as often engaged in offensive as in defensive\nwar; therefore, if the argument has any force on the question, it will\ntolerate not only defensive but offensive war, and also the idolatrous\nrites of the Roman armies.\n\n_Objection tenth._ Our Lord paid tribute money, which went to support\nmilitary power, but he would not contribute to the support of a wicked\nthing, therefore war is not inconsistent with Christianity.\n\n_Answer._ A distinguished trait of the Christian religion is peace. The\ncommand is, \"Follow peace with all men.\" \"Blessed are the peacemakers:\nfor they shall be called the children of God.\"\n\nOur Lord set the example of giving no just cause of offense to any.\nTribute was demanded of him unjustly according to the existing laws, but\nlest fault should be found, he wrought a miracle and paid it. Money is a\ntemporal thing, and belongs to the governments of this world, as the\nvarious coins bear the ensign of the nation by whom they were made; but\nthe Christian's treasure is not in this world, and when the rulers of this\nworld call for that which bears their own image and superscription,\nChristians have no right to withhold from them their dues, for they must\n\"render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.\" For this cause they ought\nto pay tribute and resign up temporal things without a murmur to temporal\ngovernments, and leave it with Caesar to manage the things of Caesar. Thus\nfar are Christians warranted to act, from the example of Christ and the\nprecepts of the gospel; but how does the lawfulness of war follow from\nChristians rendering to Caesar his due? Is it because some of the money\ngoes to support war? Probably, of the money which our Lord paid as much\nwent to the support of idolatry and the games of the day as to the support\nof war. Now if the argument is sound, we may not only prove by it the\nlawfulness of war but the lawfulness of idolatry and many other abominable\nthings practiced by the heathen governments.\n\n_Objection eleventh._ Our Lord, just before his crucifixion, commanded\nhis disciples to take swords, and, if any were destitute, to sell their\ngarments and procure them, as they would no longer have his personal\npresence to protect them; and as they were to encounter great trials and\ndifficulties, they must, besides relying on providence, take all prudent\nmeans for their defense and preservation.\n\n_Answer._ That our Lord did not direct them to take swords for\nself-defense is evident because he told them that two were enough, and\nbecause the disciples never made any use of them after their Master\ndirected Peter to put up his and pronounced a penalty on all who should\nhave recourse to swords afterwards. But the design seems to have been to\nshow by example in the most trying situation where self-defense was\njustifiable, if in any case, that the use of the sword was utterly\nprohibited under the gospel economy, and to show the criminality and\ndanger of ever using deathly weapons against mankind afterwards. If\nChrist's kingdom had been of this world, then, he tells us, his servants\nwould have fought; but his kingdom being not of this world, the weapons\nof their warfare were not carnal but spiritual. He therefore rebuked\nthem for their mistaken zeal, healed the wound they made, and forbade\nthe use of the sword.\n\n_Objection twelfth._ Christians are commanded to be in subjection to\ncivil rulers who are God's ministers to execute wrath on the wicked and\nare ministers of good to the church; therefore Christians are bound to\ntake the sword at their command; for civil government is ordained of God\nand civil rulers are not to bear the sword in vain, and Christians may\nlawfully do what God ordains to be done.\n\n_Answer._ That civil government, so called in distinction from religious\ngovernment, is ordained by God is fully admitted, and also that God\nordains whatsoever comes to pass. But there is a great difference\nbetween his decretive and his preceptive will. The former is not a rule\nof duty for man without the latter; the latter is always a rule of duty.\nThis fact might be proved by a multitude of instances from Scripture.\nPersons therefore may be very wicked in doing what God ordains to be\ndone, if they act without his command.\n\nThat civil governments and civil rulers exist only by God's decretive\nwill, which is fulfilled by his providence and not by his preceptive\nwill, is evident because God has never authorized the appointment of\nthem or given any precepts or any commands as a code of laws to any\ndenomination or class of people as such, distinct from his own covenant\npeople or church; and this fact I beg leave to submit as a conclusive\nevidence that civil governments and civil rulers exist only by God's\ndecretive will and not by his preceptive will. Under the ancient\ndispensation no laws or directions were given to any class of men, as\nsuch, other than God's own covenant people or church, unless some\nspecial commands on singular occasions, or the general command to repent\nand turn to God, be excepted.\n\nThe king on the throne of Israel was as truly an officer in the church\nof God as the high priest who entered into the holy of holies. Both were\nset apart and anointed with the holy oil, at the command of God, and\nboth were types of the Son of God. The king as much typified his kingly\noffice as the priest did his priestly office. Both were necessary parts\nof that complete shadow of good things then to come.\n\nUnder the gospel dispensation no authority from God is to be found for\nappointing and setting apart civil rulers, nor are there any directions\ngiven to civil rulers, _as such_, how to conduct in their office, unless\nthose who rule in the church are called civil rulers. All the precepts\nand directions in the gospel, excepting such as were special (as those\nwhich related only to the apostles) or such as are universal (relating\nalike to all men), are given to the disciples as members of Christ's\nkingdom, who are not of this world, even as he was not of this world.\n\nThe Son of God came into the world to set up the kingdom of heaven,\nwhich is a perfect and everlasting kingdom and distinct from all other\nkingdoms which are to be destroyed to give place to his divine and\nheavenly reign. He came in the likeness of men, sin excepted, and laid\ndown his life a ransom for the world, and then rose a triumphant\nconqueror, and in the complex character of God and man, as Mediator, he\ntook the universe, his purchased possession, into his hands as a\nlawgiver, judge, and rewarder. He took the scepter when it departed from\nJudah, and is exalted far above all principality and power and might and\ndominion, and has a name above every name, all executive power in heaven\nand earth being given to him as Mediator. Thus, as Mediator, the kingdom\nof heaven is his kingdom. He reigns not only as King of kings and Lord\nof lords but seated on the throne of his father David, he is forever\nKing in Zion and is head over all things to his church. His kingdom is\nnot of this world, neither are his subjects of this world, though some\nof them are in it.\n\nHe sent out his disciples to appear in a distinct character from the\nworld and to be a light to it by imitating his example and by exhibiting\nhis spirit and temper. They ought not to say, as the Jews did, that they\nhave no king but Caesar, for they have an everlasting King and kingdom\nand laws perfect and eternal. They should, therefore, set their\naffections on things above and not on things beneath.\n\nWhile the kingdoms of this world exist, Christians must remain in\ncaptivity to them and must obey all their laws which are not contrary to\nthe laws of the gospel; otherwise they cannot remain peaceful, harmless,\nand blameless in the midst of a wicked world before whom they must shine\nas lights.\n\nThough the church is now in captivity, yet her redemption draweth nigh,\nfor God will soon \"overthrow the throne of kingdoms,\" and the thrones\nwill be cast down and the princes of this world will come to naught. The\nstone which was cut out of the mountain without hands will dash them to\npieces, as the potter's vessel is shivered, and will become a great\nmountain and fill the whole earth; then the kingdom and the dominion and\nthe greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to\nthe people of the saints of the most high God whose kingdom is an\neverlasting kingdom and of whose dominion there shall be no end.\n\nThough God, by his decree, has ordained civil governments and\nestablished kingdoms, and will by his providence make them subservient\nto the good of his church and people, and notwithstanding it is the duty\nof Christians to be in subjection to them and pay tribute, yet it does\nnot follow that their genius and laws may not often be contrary to the\ngenius and laws of the gospel, and when they are so Christians must not\nobey them nor count their lives dear to themselves. It should be\ndistinctly remembered that when Christians were exhorted and commanded\nto be obedient to civil rulers, they were under heathen, idolatrous,\ncivil governments, and those civil governments were by no means\ncongenial with the spirit and precepts of the gospel; still Christians\nwere commanded to be in subjection to them; not, however, without\nlimitation, for they utterly refused obedience in many instances and\nnobly suffered or died as martyrs.\n\nThus civil government may be an ordinance of God, may be subservient to\nthe good of the church, may be an instrument in God's hands of executing\nhis wrath, and Christians may be bound to obey magistrates in all things\nnot contrary to the gospel; and yet it will not follow that Christians\nmay consistently with the gospel take up the sword or do anything to\ncountenance war.\n\nIf it be the duty of Christians to take the sword and enter the field of\nbattle at the command of their civil rulers, then there could be no\nimpropriety in having armies wholly made up of real Christians,\nespecially since it is the duty of every man to become a Christian; and\nas professing Christian nations are almost constantly fighting each\nother, it would be perfectly proper for hosts of pious saints to be\ndaily engaged in shedding each other's blood. But how would it appear,\nhow does it appear, for those who have drunk into the same peaceful and\nheavenly spirit, who are united together by the tender ties of the\nRedeemer's blood, who are all members of the same family, and who hope\nthrough divine grace to dwell together in everlasting love and\nblessedness, to be fighting one another here with relentless fury?\n\nLet us contemplate the subject, in this point of view, a little further.\nSuppose an English and an American frigate in the time of war, both\nmanned entirely with real Christians, should meet in a neutral port.\nOught they not then to conduct towards each other as brethren of one\ncommon Lord? As they are all members of the same family and have all\nbeen redeemed by the same blood, and sanctified by the same divine\nspirit, they surely must have the most tender affection for each other,\nand it would be highly proper for them to meet together for Christian\nfellowship, worship, and communion. Suppose, then, that they\noccasionally go on board each other's ships for religious worship; that\ntheir chaplains lead in their devotions, using such petitions as\nthese--praying that they may be all of one heart and one mind in the\nknowledge of Christ, knit together in the bonds of Christian love; that\nthey may have much of the wisdom from above which is first pure, then\npeaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated; that they may do good to all as\nthey have opportunity, especially to the household of faith; that they\nmay be meek and gentle as lambs and harmless as doves; that they may be\nkind and forgiving and that, like their Divine Master, they may return\ngood for evil and have their affections on things above and not on\nthings beneath; after which they unitedly partake of the symbols of\nChrist's broken body and shed blood, and then part with the tenderest\ntokens of Christian fellowship and love. They leave the port and meet\nagain at sea. It now becomes their duty, on the principles of war,\ninstead of meeting as Christian brethren, to meet as raging tigers and\ndischarge the flaming engines of death on each other; and in order to\nperform \"their duty to their God and country,\" they must exert all their\npower and skill to destroy one another. The dreadful struggle and\ncarnage must be continued by both parties as long as both can fight.\nWhen half of their crews are wallowing in their blood and expiring in\nagonies, a violent effort must be made by one or both to board the other\nand end the contest sword in hand. Those hands which recently saluted\neach other with Christian love now plunge the envenomed steel into their\nbrethren's bosoms. At length one is vanquished and yields to the other.\nThose who remain alive after the conflict again unite in prayer and give\nthanks to God that he has given them courage and strength to fight so\nnobly, and that he has shielded their lives in the hour of battle. Thus\nthey again resume their Christian fellowship and communion. This mutual\nfellowship, communion, and love are perfectly consistent with Christian\ncharacter and are required by it. The conduct which has been supposed as\nenemies when fighting is also entirely consistent with the principles of\nwar and with the character of warriors, and is such as would be highly\napplauded and admired by the world. But is it not obviously and\nperfectly absurd and perfectly incompatible with the principles of the\ngospel for Christians to act in this twofold character? If, however, it\nis the duty of Christians to obey the command of their rulers and engage\nin war, then it would be perfectly proper for what has been supposed to\ntake place. Christians may one day surround the table of the Lord\ntogether, and the next kill and destroy each other.\n\nThe god of this world, not being yet chained down to hell, deceives the\nnations and gathers them together to battle; but the children of peace,\nthe citizens of Zion, ought not to mingle with them or listen to the\ndeceiver. They should take to themselves not carnal weapons but the\nwhole armor of God, that they may be able to stand in an evil day and to\nquench all the fiery darts of Satan.\n\n_Objection thirteenth._ To deny the right of the magistrate to call on\nhis subjects to take the sword is to deny that he is an avenger to\nexecute wrath, though the gospel expressly declares that he is.\n\n_Answer._ This conclusion does not follow unless it is a fact that God\ncannot and does not actually make him the instrument of doing it, by his\nprovidence, without his command; for, as we have already observed, men\nmay fulfill the decrees of God under his providence, without his\ncommand, and be very criminal in the deed. God raised up the king of\nAssyria and made him the rod of his anger, to chastise his people and to\nexecute wrath upon the ungodly nations around. \"Howbeit he meant not so,\nbut it was in his heart to _cut off_ nations not a few.\" And God\ndeclared, with reference to him, \"that when he had performed his whole\nwork he would punish the fruit of his stout heart and the glory of his\nhigh looks.\" It will not be contended that warlike nations are commanded\nby God to destroy and trample down the nations of the earth as the dust\nof their feet; yet, when they do so, they doubtless fulfill his high\ndecree and are avengers to execute his wrath on a wicked world.\n\nThe beast represented in the Revelation with seven heads and ten horns\nhas generally been considered as an emblem of nations. These ten horns,\nor powers, are to hate the great harlot of Babylon; to eat her flesh\nand burn her with fire; and though they destroy the greatest enemy of\nthe church, and in this way are ministers of good to her, yet they\nreceive their power and their seat and their authority from the old\nserpent, the dragon. And a magistrate or king may be a minister of good\nto the church and an avenger to execute wrath, and still be very wicked\nin the deed and use very unlawful means to accomplish the end. While he\nfulfills the decree of Heaven, he acts not in obedience to the command\nof God, but to the dictates of his own lusts and passions.\n\n_Objection fourteenth._ The passages of Scripture which have been quoted\nagainst retaliation and which inculcate love to enemies and the\nreturning of good for evil have reference to individuals in their\nconduct towards each other, but have no relation to civil government and\nare not intended as a rule of duty for one nation towards another; they\ntherefore have no bearing on the subject of war.\n\n_Answer._ Those precepts of the gospel appear to be binding universally\nwithout any limitation, and men have no right to limit that which God\nhas not limited. If the commands of the gospel are binding upon every\none in his individual capacity, then they must be binding upon every one\nin any collective body, so that whatever is morally wrong for every\nindividual must be equally wrong for a collective body; and a nation is\nonly a large number of individuals united so as to act collectively as\none person. Therefore, if it is criminal for an individual to lie,\nsteal, quarrel, and fight, it is also criminal for nations to lie,\nsteal, quarrel, and fight. If it is the duty of an individual to be kind\nand tender-hearted and to have a forgiving and merciful disposition, it\nis likewise the duty of nations to be kind, forgiving, and merciful. If\nit is the duty of an individual to return good for evil, then it is the\nduty of nations to return good for evil.\n\nIt is self-evident that individuals cannot delegate power to communities\nwhich they do not possess themselves. Therefore, if every individual is\nbound to obey the precepts of the gospel and cannot as an individual be\nreleased from the obligation, then individuals have no power to release\nany collective body from that obligation. To say that God has given to\nnations a right to return evil for evil is begging the question, for it\ndoes not appear and cannot be shown that God has restricted the precepts\nof the gospel to individuals, or that he has given any precepts to\nnations as such, or to any other community than his own covenant people\nor church. This objection makes government an abstraction according with\nthe common saying, \"Government is without a soul.\"\n\nNo practice has a more corrupt tendency than that of attempting to limit\nthe Scriptures so as to make them trim with the corrupt practices of\nmankind. Whoever, for the sake of supporting war, attempts to limit\nthese precepts of the gospel to individuals and denies that they are\nbinding upon nations destroys one of the main pillars by which the\nlawfulness of war is upheld. The right of nations to defend themselves\nwith the sword is argued on the supposed right of individual\nself-preservation; as it is said to be right for individuals to defend\nthemselves with deathly weapons, so it is lawful for nations to have\nrecourse to the sword for defense of their rights. But if these passages\nare applicable to individuals and prohibit them from acts of\nretaliation, and if the rights of nations are founded on the rights of\nindividuals, then nations have no right to retaliate injury.\n\n_Objection fifteenth._ Christians, with comparatively few exceptions,\nhave not doubted the lawfulness of war, and many have actually fought\nand bled on the field of battle and considered themselves in the way of\ntheir duty. And shall all our pious forefathers be condemned for\nengaging in war?\n\n_Answer._ It is admitted that many pious people have engaged in war, but\nthey might have been in an error on this subject as well as on many\nother subjects. Many of our pious forefathers engaged in the slavery of\ntheir fellow-men, and thought themselves in the way of their duty; but\ndoes it follow that they were not in an error? The circumstance that\nmultitudes defend a sentiment is no certain evidence of its truth. Some\nof the reformers were objected to because the multitude were against\nthem. Popularity, however, ever has influenced and ever will influence\nmankind more than plain gospel duty, until the earth shall be filled\nwith the abundance of peace. But notwithstanding this, it is not right\nto follow the multitude to do evil. All ought to remember that they have\nno right to follow the example of any one any further than that example\ncoincides with the example of Christ or the precepts of the gospel; all\nother standards are fallible and dangerous.\n\nIf real Christians have, from mistaken zeal, prayed against each other\nand fought each other and shed each other's blood, this does not justify\nwar.\n\n_Objection sixteenth._ If Christians generally should adopt these\nsentiments, it would be impossible for them to subsist in this world in\nits present state, and if they did continue it must be in abject\nslavery. They would become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the\ntyrannical and oppressive, and would only encourage them in their deeds\nof wickedness. The injustice of men must be restrained or the earth will\nagain be filled with violence. The necessity of the case is such that\nmankind would be warranted to take up arms to maintain their rights and\nrepel oppressors, if the Scriptures were silent on the subject.[2]\n\n_Answer._ We have the history of the heathen world to teach us what\nmankind are without the light of revelation. They are full of all\nunrighteousness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of enmity, murder,\ndebate, deceit, malignity; they are proud, boasters, without natural\naffection, implacable, unmerciful. Now the very design of the gospel is\nto subdue and overcome these abominable passions and dispositions; not\nhowever by returning violence for violence but by producing virtues\ndirectly contrary. The great duty of Christians is to be a light to this\nwicked world by exhibiting in their conduct and conversation the spirit\nand temper of the gospel. If such were the practice of Christians, we\nhave reason to believe that wicked men would be overawed and deterred\nfrom their violence in a great measure. Besides, if all real Christians\nshould utterly refuse to bear arms for the destruction of their\nfellow-men, it would greatly diminish the strength and boldness of\nwarlike nations, so that it would be impracticable for them to prosecute\nwar with the vigor and fury that they now do.\n\nBut if the gospel prohibits war, then to urge the necessity of the case\nagainst the commands of God is open rebellion against his government as\nwell as total distrust of his word and providence.\n\nIf Christians live in habitual obedience to God's commands, they have\nthe promise that all things shall work together for their good, and they\nhave no reason to fear them that kill the body and after that \"have no\nmore that they can do.\"\n\nIt is strange that Christians should have so great a reluctance to\nsuffer inconvenience in worldly things for the sake of the gospel. The\nscoffs and persecutions of the world and the fear of the loss of worldly\nthings are powerful barriers against _Christian_ warfare. The gospel\nteaches us that all who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer\npersecution, and that through much tribulation the saints must enter\ninto the kingdom of heaven; and is it not plainly owing wholly to their\nconformity to the world that they now suffer so little persecution and\npractice so little self-denial? If there is reserved for them an eternal\nweight of glory, what if they, like their Divine Master, should not have\nwhere to lay their heads? If they are to inherit a crown of immortal\nglory, what if they are called to suffer the loss of earthly things? If\nthey are hereafter to reign as kings and priests unto God, what if they\nare not ranked among the great and honorable of the earth? If they\nsuffer with Christ, then will they also reign with him; but if they deny\nhim, he also will deny them; and if they are ashamed of him, he will\nalso be ashamed of them before his Father and the holy angels. Let\nChristians then obey his commands and trust to his protection while they\nresolutely abstain from the wicked practices of the world.\n\n_Objection seventeenth._ It is the duty of mankind to use means for the\npreservation of life and liberty; they must till the ground, if they\nexpect a crop. It would be presumptuous for them to pray for and to\nexpect their daily bread without using such means as God has put in\ntheir power to obtain it; and it would be equally presumptuous to expect\nthe preservation of their lives and liberties without using such means\nto preserve and defend them as God has put into their hand; they must\nact as well as pray.\n\n_Answer._ That using means is the duty of Christians, there can be no\ndoubt; but they must be such as God has appointed, and not such as human\nwisdom may dictate. There is no dispute as to the propriety of using\nmeans, but only as to the kind of means which Christians ought to use.\nThe weapons of their warfare are not carnal, but spiritual, and they are\nmighty through God to the pulling down the strongholds of sin and Satan.\nIt is often said, If you wish to put a stop to war, spread the gospel\nthrough the world. We would inquire, If the gospel tolerates war, how\nwill its universal diffusion put a stop to war?\n\nAs has already been observed, it would be open rebellion to do what God\nhas forbidden, and high-handed presumption to ask his aid in the things\nwhich he has prohibited.\n\n_Objection eighteenth._ Some ecclesiastical historians inform us that\nChristians in the early ages of the church, though they contended so\nfirmly for the faith as to suffer martyrdom rather than submit to\nidolatry, yet did not refuse to bear arms in defense of their country,\neven when called upon by heathen magistrates, and their example ought to\nhave weight with us.\n\n_Answer._ The testimony of the early Fathers is entitled to regard, but\nmust not be considered as infallible authority, for they were men of\nlike passions with others and cannot be followed safely any farther than\nthey followed Christ. But the weight of their testimony on the subject,\nI apprehend, will be found to stand directly against the lawfulness of\nwar on Christian principles.\n\nErasmus, who was an eminent scholar, and who was probably as well\nacquainted with the sentiments of the primitive Fathers as any modern\nwriter, in his _Antipolemus, or Plea against War_, replies to the\nadvocates of war as follows: \"They further object those opinions or\ndecrees of the Fathers in which war seems to be approved. Of this sort\nthere are some, but they are only late writers, who appeared when the\ntrue spirit of Christianity began to languish, and they are very few;\nwhile, on the other hand, there are innumerable ones among the writers\nof acknowledged sanctity which absolutely forbid war; and why should the\nfew rather than the many intrude themselves into our mind?\"\n\nBarclay, who examined the writings of the Fathers on this subject, says,\n\"It is as easy to obscure the sun at midday as to deny that the\nprimitive Christians renounced all revenge and war.\"\n\nClarkson, who also examined the Fathers, declares that \"every Christian\nwriter of the second century who notices the subject makes it unlawful\nfor Christians to bear arms.\"\n\nClarkson has made copious extracts from the writings of the Fathers\nagainst war, a few of which, as quoted by him and others, shall be\ninserted here.\n\nJustin Martyr and Tatian both considered the devil the author of war.\n\nJustin Martyr, while speaking of the prophecies relating to the days of\npeace, says, \"That this prophecy is fulfilled you have good reason to\nbelieve, for we who in times past killed one another do not now fight\nwith our enemies.\" Clarkson adds, \"It is observable that the word\n'fight' does not mean to strike, beat, or give a blow, but to fight in\nwar; and the word 'enemy' does not mean a common adversary who has\ninjured us, but an enemy of state.\"\n\nIrenaeus says that Christians in his day \"had changed their swords and\ntheir lances into instruments of peace, and that they knew not how to\nfight.\"\n\nMaximilian and a number of others in the second century actually\nsuffered martyrdom for refusing, on gospel principles, to bear arms.\n\nCelsus made it one of his charges against the Christians that they\nrefused to bear arms for the Emperor. Origen, in the following century,\nadmitted the fact and justified the Christians on the ground of the\nunlawfulness of war itself.\n\nTertullian, in his discourse to Scapula, tells us \"that no Christians\nwere to be found in the Roman armies.\"\n\nIn his declaration on the worship of idols he says, \"Though the soldiers\ncame to John and received a certain form to be observed, and though the\nCenturion believed, yet Jesus Christ, by disarming Peter disarmed every\nsoldier afterwards; for custom can never sanction an illicit act.\"\n\nAgain, in his _Soldier's Garland_, he says: \"Can a soldier's life be\nlawful, when Christ has pronounced that he who lives by the sword shall\nperish by the sword? Can one who professes the peaceable doctrine of the\ngospel be a soldier when it is his duty not so much as to go to law? And\nshall he who is not to avenge his own wrongs be instrumental in bringing\nothers into chains, imprisonment, torment, and death?\"\n\nHe tells us, also, that the Christians in his day were sufficiently\nnumerous to have defended themselves if their religion had permitted\nthem to have recourse to the sword.\n\nThere are some marvelous accounts of Christian soldiers related by\nEusebius; but Valesius, in his annotations on these accounts, has\nabundantly proved them to be fabulous, though he was not opposed to war\nand could have had no other object but to support the truth. Eusebius,\nin his orations on Constantine, uses such extravagant adulation, which\nfalls but little short of idolatry, that his account of Christian\nwarriors ought to be received with great caution, especially when we\nrecollect that church and state were, in his day, united.\n\nOn the whole, it is very evident that the early Christians did refuse to\nbear arms, and although one of their objections was the idolatrous rites\nconnected with military service, yet they did object on account of the\nunlawfulness of war itself.\n\nWe have no good evidence of Christians being found in the armies until\nwe have evidence of great corruption in the church. But admitting that\nwe had good evidence that there were professing Christians in the army\nat an early period of the church, I apprehend it would be of little\nimportance, for the idolatrous rites and ceremonies of the heathen\narmies were of such a nature as to be totally inconsistent with\nChristian character, and the example of idolatrous Christians surely\nought to have no weight.\n\nSome objections of less importance might be stated which have from time\nto time been made against the sentiments here advocated; but to state\nand reply to everything that might be said is not necessary. Specious\nobjections have been and still are made to almost every doctrine of\nChristianity. Mankind can generally find some plausible arguments to\nsupport whatever they wish to believe. The pleas in favor of war are\nvery congenial with the natural feelings of the human heart, and unless\nmen will examine with a serious, candid, and prayerful disposition to\nascertain the truth as it is in Jesus, they will be very likely to\nimbibe and defend error.[3]\n\nThe writer, though far from supposing that everything he has said on a\nsubject that has been so little discussed is free from error, is\nconscious of having endeavored to examine it with seriousness and\ncandor, and feels satisfied that the general sentiments he has advanced\nare according to godliness. He sincerely hopes that every one who may\nperuse these pages will do it in the meek and unbiased spirit of the\ngospel, and then judge whether war can be reconciled with the lamblike\nexample of Christ; whether it is really forgiving the trespasses of\nenemies, loving and doing them good, and returning good for evil; for if\nit is not, it is unquestionably inconsistent with the spirit and the\nprecepts of Christianity.\n\nAll who earnestly desire and look for the millennial glory of the church\nshould consider that it can never arrive until the spirit and practice\nof war are abolished. All who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity\ncannot but ardently desire that wars may cease to the ends of the earth\nand that mankind should embrace each other as brethren. If so, is it not\ntheir duty to do all in their power to promote so benevolent an object?\nOught not every individual Christian to conduct in such a manner that if\nevery other person imitated his example it would be best for the whole?\nIf so, would they not immediately renounce everything that leads to wars\nand fightings and embrace everything which would promote that glorious\nreign of righteousness and peace for which they earnestly hope, long,\nand pray? \"The work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of\nrighteousness, quietness and assurance forever.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Says the Rev. Dr. Scott, in his Essay, p. 422: \"We ought not\ntherefore to fear our enemies because he will be with us, and if God be\nfor us, who can be against us? Or who can doubt but he that is in us is\ngreater than he that is in the world? This was typically intimated in\nthe promises made to Israel respecting their wars with the Canaanites\nand other nations, which were shadows and figures of the good fight of\nfaith.\" Bishop Horne, in his preface to the Psalms, views the subject in\nthe same light.\n\n[2] All these objections introduced are carefully selected from some of\nthe ablest advocates for the lawfulness of war.\n\n[3] The last point American Christians will give up is the justification\nof their fathers in the War of the Revolution.\n\n\n\n\nHYMN\n\nSUGGESTED BY THE PRECEDING TRAIN OF THOUGHT, AND APPENDED TO THE\nORIGINAL EDITION OF THE ESSAY ON WAR\n\n    Great Sun of glory, rise and shine,\n      Dispel the gloom of night;\n    Let the foul spirits stretch their wings,\n      And fly before thy light.\n\n    Rebuke the nations, stop their rage,\n      Destroy the warrior's skill,\n    Hush all the tumults of the earth;\n      O speak! say, \"Peace, be still.\"\n\n    Break, break the cruel warrior's sword,\n      Asunder cut his bow,\n    Command him by thy sovereign word\n      To let the captives go.\n\n    No more let heroes' glory sound,\n      No more their triumphs tell,\n    Bring all the pride of nations down--\n      Let war return to hell.\n\n    Then let thy blessed kingdom come,\n      With all its heavenly train,\n    And pour thy peaceful spirit down,\n      Like gentle showers of rain.\n\n    Then shall the prowling beasts of prey,\n      Like lambs be meek and mild;\n    Vipers and asps shall harmless twine\n      Around the weaned child.\n\n    The happy sons of Zion sit\n      Secure beneath their vines;\n    Or, shadowed by their fig-tree's tops,\n      Shall drink their cheering wines.\n\n    The nations to thy scepter bow,\n      And own \"thy gentle sway\";\n    Then all the wandering tribes of men\n      To thee their tribute pay.\n\n    Angelic hosts shall view the scene,\n      Delighted, spread their wings;\n    Down to the earth again they fly,\n      And strike their lofty strings.\n\n    The listening nations catch the sound,\n      And join the heavenly choir,\n    To swell aloud the song of praise,\n      And vie with sacred fire.\n\n    \"Glory to God on high!\" they sound,\n      In strains of angels' mirth;\n    \"Good will and peace\" to men, they sing,\n      Since heaven is brought to earth.\n\n\n\n\nTHE MEDIATOR'S KINGDOM NOT OF THIS WORLD: BUT SPIRITUAL\n\nBY AN INQUIRER\n\n    The writer of the following pages has, for a considerable time,\n    doubted the propriety of some of the common practices of\n    Christians. To satisfy himself he has, if he is not deceived,\n    candidly and diligently examined the Scriptures with a view to\n    ascertain and practice the truth. After considerable inquiry his\n    doubts increased. He then applied to some highly respectable and\n    pious friends, who frankly acknowledged that they had never\n    fully examined the subject, as they had never had any doubt\n    concerning it. They judged the matter weighty and advised him to\n    arrange his thoughts and commit them to paper. This he has\n    endeavored to do as well as a very infirm state of body and a\n    press of commercial business would admit. After submitting what\n    he had written to some of his friends, they unanimously advised\n    him to lay it before the public, hoping that it might have a\n    tendency to call the subject into notice and lead to a more\n    complete and full examination. With this view he has ventured to\n    commit the following sheets to the press. He has only to beg\n    that the Christian who may take the trouble to read them will\n    not be so solicitous to reply to the arguments as to examine and\n    illustrate the truth.\n\nThe kingdom of our glorious Mediator is but little noticed in the world,\nyet it is precious in the eyes of the Lord. The Lord hath chosen Zion.\nShe is the redeemed of the Lord. He hath said, he who touches her\ntouches the apple of his eye. She is purchased by the blood of the Lamb,\nsanctified by the Spirit of grace, and defended by the arm of\nOmnipotence. Notwithstanding she may still be covered with sackcloth,\nthe days of her mourning have an end. The Lord will raise her from the\ndust and make her an eternal excellency and the joy of many generations.\nThe mystical body of Christ is composed of that innumerable company\nwhich no man can number,--out of every nation and kindred and people and\ntongue,--which will finally stand before the throne of God and the Lamb,\nclothed with white robes and palms in their hands. It is but one body,\nalthough composed of many members. The temple, which was a symbol of the\nchurch, was composed of many stones, although but one building. The\nspiritual temple is built of lively stones upon the foundation of the\napostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner\nstone. This spiritual temple will continue to rise under different\ndispensations until the elect are gathered together from the four winds\nof heaven and the top stone is carried up with shouts of Grace, Grace,\nunto it!\n\nThe Mediator's kingdom is not of this world. \"Jesus answered, My kingdom\nis not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my\nservants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews\" (John xviii.\n36). In remarking upon these words we are naturally led to consider,\n\n    I. What the Mediator's kingdom is.\n   II. Its nature.\n  III. Its laws.\n\nFrom which we propose to make several inferences and illustrations for\nimprovement.\n\nAgreeably to the arrangement of our subject, we shall first endeavor to\nascertain what the kingdom of the Mediator is; or that kingdom which he\nso emphatically calls \"My Kingdom,\" in distinction from all other\nkingdoms. \"Jesus answered, My kingdom----\" Our glorious Mediator takes\nto himself the majesty of a sovereign and claims a kingdom. In his\nmediatorial character he possesses, in an extensive sense, universal\nempire. He is exalted far above all principality and power and might and\ndominion, and has a name which is above every name. He is King of kings\nand Lord of lords. He is not only king on his holy hill of Zion but\nrules amongst the nations. He is, however, in an appropriate sense, king\nof saints under the gospel dispensation, as he governs the worlds with a\nview to his own glory and their exaltation.\n\nThat the church, under the gospel dispensation, is in a special manner\nthe kingdom of heaven or the kingdom which Christ so often called his\nkingdom appears evident (it is thought) from many passages of Scripture.\nThe prophet Daniel, while interpreting the symbols of the four great\nempires which were to arise in the earth, adds that \"in the days of\nthese kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never\nbe destroyed.\" This kingdom could not be the Church Universal, for that\nwas established in the family of Adam and had continued without being\nbroken in a line of holy men down to the prophet's day. It must\ntherefore have a special reference to something future. When John the\nBaptist came preaching, he said, \"Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven\nis at hand,\" fully implying that it had not then commenced. He preached\nrepentance preparatory to ushering in that kingdom which the God of\nheaven was about to set up. In the days of the fourth great kingdom\nmentioned in the prophecy of Daniel the Lord Jesus Christ came into our\nworld to establish his kingdom. As he entered upon his ministry he\ndeclared that the time was fulfilled and that the kingdom of God was at\nhand. When he first commissioned his disciples and sent them forth to\npreach, he directed them to say to their hearers, \"The kingdom of God is\ncome nigh unto you.\" In speaking of John the Baptist, he says, He was\nthe greatest of prophets; but adds, \"He that is least in the kingdom of\nGod is greater than he\"; which must be conclusive evidence that John the\nBaptist was not in the kingdom of God. At the Last Supper, after our\nLord had blessed and partaken of the bread, he said to his disciples, \"I\nwill not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of\nGod.\" In like manner, after taking the cup, he said, \"I will not drink\nof the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come.\" All of\nwhich seems fully to imply that the kingdom which the God of heaven was\nabout to set up did not commence before the gospel dispensation. Christ\ncame under the Mosaic dispensation, that is, under the law, to redeem\nthose who were under the law, by the sacrifice of himself; \"and being\nfound in the fashion of a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient\nunto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God hath highly\nexalted him, and hath given him a name which is above every name.\" After\nhe arose from the dead he appeared to his disciples \"by many infallible\nproofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things\npertaining to the kingdom of God.\" \"And Jesus came and spake unto them,\nsaying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye\ntherefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe\nall things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you\nalways, even unto the end of the world. Amen.\" Here we see the Mediator\npossessing a kingdom and giving laws to his subjects and commanding\nobedience. Although his kingdom was then small, like a little leaven,\nyet it had the power to leaven the whole lump. The stone which was cut\nout of the mountain without hands will become a great mountain and fill\nthe whole earth. Every knee must finally bow to his scepter and every\ntongue confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father.\n\nFrom this concise view of the subject we conclude that the kingdom of\nGod, or Christ's kingdom, is in a special manner the gospel dispensation\nwhich was not completely established until after the resurrection of our\nLord.\n\nII. The next point of inquiry is its nature. \"Jesus answered, My kingdom\nis not of this world.\" By this we understand the Mediator's kingdom, not\nbeing of this world, supposes that its nature, its laws, and its\ngovernment are all distinct from the nature, laws, and governments of\nthis world. That the Mediator's kingdom is not of this world, but\nspiritual, heavenly, and divine, will fully appear, it is apprehended,\nfrom the following reasons.\n\n1st. From the character of the King. He was not born like the kings of\nthe earth. He was the Son of the living God and Heir of all things. He\nwas conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin. His\nbirth was not celebrated with the earthly pomp of princes, but by a few\nhumble shepherds and a choir of angels. His palace was a stable and his\ncradle a manger. When a child he was not amused with toys, but was about\nhis Father's business. When he was dedicated to his ministry, it was not\nby the appointment of kings, or the consecration of bishops, but by the\nbaptism of his humble forerunner, and the descent of the Holy Ghost in a\nbodily shape like a dove, and a voice from the excellent glory, saying,\n\"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.\" His companions were\nthe despised fishermen of Galilee and the angels of heaven. He was \"a\nman of sorrow and acquainted with grief\"; yet he was the eternal Son of\nthe eternal Father. Nature owned his voice and devils trembled at his\npower; but he was despised and rejected of men. When he fed the hungry\nmultitude, they were gratified with the loaves and fishes and sought to\nmake him a king; but he departed out of the place; for his kingdom was\nnot of this world. When Satan, the god of this world, offered him all\nthe kingdoms of this world and the glory of them if he would only fall\ndown and worship him, he rebuked him with holy contempt and said, Get\nthee hence, Satan; for his kingdom was not of this world. The Mediator\ndid not intermeddle with the affairs of the governments of this world;\nfor his kingdom was not of this world. When he was solicited to command\na brother to divide his earthly substance, instead of complying with the\nrequest he only gave a pointed admonition and said, \"Man, who made me a\njudge, or a divider, over you?\" When his enemies endeavored to catch him\nin his words by extorting from him something unfavorable to the laws of\nCaesar, Jesus answered them and said, \"Render to Caesar the things which\nare Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's.\" When they demanded\nof him tribute, and that unjustly, according to their own laws, he paid\nit without a murmur, to set an example of peace and quietness for his\ndisciples. In all things he avoided interfering or meddling with the\ngovernments of this world.\n\n2dly. From the representations of the Bible, \"The kingdom of God is\nrighteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.\" The Mediator's kingdom\nis founded in right. His scepter is a right scepter. He rules in\nrighteousness. \"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God.\"\nRighteousness is opposed to all injustice, oppression, and cruelty; it\nregards the rights of God and man; it requires love to the Lord our God\nwith all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our strength, and to\nour neighbors as ourselves. His kingdom is a kingdom of peace; he is the\nPrince of Peace. At his birth the angels sang, \"Peace on earth, and good\nwill to men.\" Peace is opposed directly to all contention, war, and\ntumult, whether it regards individuals, societies, or nations. It\nforbids all wrath, clamor, and evil speaking. It forbids the resistance\nof evil or retaliation, and requires good for evil, blessing for\ncursing, and prayer for persecution. Our glorious Mediator not only\nexhibited a pattern of peace in his life but preached peace in the great\ncongregation. His last and richest legacy to his disciples was the gift\nof peace: \"My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as\nthe world giveth, give I unto you.\" Christ came in the power of the\nSpirit, and was full of the Holy Ghost. It is the communion of the Holy\nGhost which fills the kingdom of heaven with that joy which is\nunspeakable and full of glory. \"Except a man be born of the Spirit, he\ncannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.\" Finally, we have his own\nexpress declaration, \"My kingdom is not of this world.\"\n\nFrom what has been said it may be concluded that the Mediator's kingdom\nis, in a special sense, the gospel dispensation, or the kingdom of\nheaven, and that it is not of this world, but spiritual, heavenly, and\ndivine. And this brings us to notice,\n\nIII. The laws by which it is governed. It is governed by the same laws\nwhich regulate the heavenly hosts. \"Be ye therefore perfect, even as\nyour Father in heaven is perfect,\" is the command of our Divine Master.\nIt is the kingdom of heaven. \"Jesus said, My kingdom is not of this\nworld: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,\nthat I should not be delivered to the Jews.\" The laws of the Mediator's\nkingdom require supreme love to God. Jesus said, \"Thou shalt love the\nLord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy\nmind; this is the first and great commandment.\" This implies right\napprehension of his being and perfections, and supreme love to his word\nand delight in his law, such as the sweet singer of Israel expressed: O\nhow I love thy law! it is my meditation day and night. It implies\nunlimited confidence in God and unshaken belief in the testimony he has\ngiven of his Son and a spirit of filial obedience to all his precepts.\n\nThe laws of the Mediator's kingdom require love to man: \"Thou shall love\nthy neighbour as thyself.\" This prohibits rendering to any man evil for\nevil; but, contrariwise, it demands blessing. It utterly forbids wrath,\nhatred, malice, envy, pride, revenge, and fighting; but requires, on the\ncontrary, meekness, forgiveness, long-suffering, tenderness, compassion,\nand mercy. The subjects of the Mediator's kingdom are commanded to do\ngood to all as they have opportunity; but especially to those of the\nhousehold of faith. This command extends not only to the gentle and kind\nbut to the disobedient and froward; to friends and to enemies. \"If thine\nenemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink,\" is the command of\nour Lord. This injunction, it is apprehended, is directly opposed to\nresisting the oppression of enemies by force. Jesus said, \"If my kingdom\nwere of this world, then would my servants fight\"; but, instead of\navenging wrongs, the explicit direction is \"to overcome evil with good.\"\nThe Mediator is the only avenger of the wrongs done to his subjects:\n\"For it is written, Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the\nLord.\" In a special manner the subjects of the Mediator must love the\nbrethren. They must visit the widow, the fatherless, and the afflicted,\nand live unspotted from the world. The Lord accepts every act of\nkindness done to the brethren as done to himself, and regards every act\nof injustice, cruelty, and revenge towards them as expressed towards\nhimself. He considers them his own property, the purchase of his blood.\nHe will, therefore, not only be their portion but their defense; a wall\nof fire round about them and a glory in the midst. The Mediator sits as\nKing upon his holy hill of Zion, and is swaying his scepter in\nrighteousness throughout his vast dominions.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHaving very briefly considered what the Mediator's kingdom in a special\nmanner is, its nature and its laws, we now pass, as was proposed, to\nmake several inferences and illustrations.\n\n1st. If the Mediator's kingdom is in a special manner the gospel\ndispensation, and its nature and laws are not of this world, but\nspiritual, heavenly, and divine, then we may infer that the kingdoms of\nthis world are not united to the kingdom of our Lord, but are opposed to\nit. If they are not for him, they are against him; and if they gather\nnot with him, they scatter abroad. They must, therefore, be at war with\nthe Lamb; but the Lamb shall overcome them, for he hath on his vesture\nand on his thigh a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. The\ngreat conflict in our world is between the kingdom of the Mediator and\nthe kingdom of Satan; but the victory is not uncertain. Although the\n\"heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing, the kings of the\nearth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the\nLord, and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands\nasunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the\nheavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he\nspeak to them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.\" \"Out\nof his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the\nnations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the\nwinepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.\"\n\nThe Psalmist, by the Holy Ghost, says of Christ, \"Thou shalt break them\nwith a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them to pieces like a potter's\nvessel.\" Again, \"He shall cut off the spirit of princes; he is terrible\nto the kings of the earth.\" Isaiah, by the revealing spirit, had the\nscenes of futurity opened to his view. He saw the glorious Redeemer\nmarching through the earth in the greatness of his power; for he saw, by\nprophetic vision, the great day of his wrath appear, and none but his\nredeemed were able to stand. In view of the dreadful scene his soul was\nfilled with astonishment, and he exclaims: \"Who is this that cometh from\nEdom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his\napparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in\nrighteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel,\nand thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden\nthe winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I\nwill tread them in my anger, and trample them in my fury; and their\nblood shall be sprinkled upon my garments. For the day of vengeance is\nin my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. I looked, and there\nwas none to help; and I wondered there was none to uphold: therefore\nmine arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. And I\nwill tread down the people in my anger, and make them drunk in my fury,\nand I will bring down their strength to the earth.\" From this it appears\nthat the nations of the earth will be gathered like the grapes of a\nvineyard, and cast into the great wine press of the wrath of God\nAlmighty; and the great Redeemer will thresh them in his anger and\ntrample them in his fury. Their destruction must be inevitable if their\nlaws and governments are directly opposed to the Mediator's kingdom.\nWhen he shall come out of his place to shake terribly the nations of the\nearth, then the _earth_[4] will no longer cover the blood of the slain;\nfor he will make inquisition for blood, and write up the nations. Then\nhe will stain the pride of all glory and bring into contempt all the\nhonorable of the earth. The nations will be like stubble before the\ndevouring fire, and will be chased away like chaff before the whirlwind,\nand no place will be found for them.\n\nThe interpretation of the symbols of the four great empires by the\nprophet Daniel fully confirms this idea. In first describing the vision\nto Nebuchadnezzar he says: \"Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out\nwithout hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and\nclay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass,\nthe silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like\nthe chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away,\nthat no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image\nbecame a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.\" The prophet thus\ninterprets the vision: \"And in the days of these kings shall the God of\nheaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom\nshall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and\nconsume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as\nthou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands,\nand that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver,\nand the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come\nto pass hereafter.\"\n\nThus we see that the kingdoms of the world by not submitting to the\nkingdom of our Lord, but by making war with the Lamb, are devoted to\nawful destruction, for the Lamb will overcome them. His kingdom will\nstand, for it is an everlasting kingdom; and of his dominion there shall\nbe no end. The gospel dispensation (or the kingdom of heaven) must\nremain forever, as it is governed by the same spirit which prevails in\nthe eternal fountain of blessedness himself. It is therefore\nemphatically called the kingdom of God not only in distinction from the\nkingdoms of this world but in distinction from all the other\ndispensations of the church. It is not of this world; it is the kingdom\nof heaven,--the reign of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy\nGhost.\n\n2. If the Mediator's kingdom is not of this world, but spiritual,\nheavenly, and divine, and the kingdoms of this world are opposed to it,\nthen we may infer that the kingdoms of this world must belong to the\nkingdom of Satan. There are but two kingdoms in our world. At the head\nof one is the Mediator, and at the head of the other is Satan. Satan is\nthe god of this world and reigns without a rival in the hearts of the\nchildren of disobedience. He is the prince of the power of the air. All\nthe kingdoms of this world and the glory of them are given to him[5]\nuntil the time that God shall write up the nations and make inquisition\nfor blood. Then the great battle of God Almighty will be fought, and the\nbeast and the false prophet will be cast into a lake of fire; and Satan\nwill be bound a thousand years; and the saints will take the kingdom and\npossess it; and wars shall cease from under heaven. After the thousand\nyears Satan will again be let loose, \"and shall go out to deceive the\nnations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to\ngather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the\nsea.\" \"And the devil who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire\nand brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be\ntormented day and night for ever and ever.\" Thus it appears that Satan\nis the mainspring of all warlike powers, and when he is bound wars will\ncease; but as soon as he is again let loose they will rage. The writer\nis sensible that this will be a very unpopular doctrine with the men of\nthis world, and with those worldly Christians who are struggling and\nteasing and panting for the profits and the honors of this world. If it\nis a fact that the nature and laws of the Mediator's kingdom are\ndiametrically opposite to the kingdoms of this world, then the inference\nis irresistible that the kingdoms of this world belong not to the\nkingdom of our Lord but to the kingdom of Satan; and however unsavory\nthe truth may be, it ought not to be disguised. Satan is the strong man,\nbut the Mediator is the stronger, and he will bind him and spoil his\ngoods. The Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of\nthe devil. When he shall destroy the rage of the nations and the tumult\nof the people, then Satan's goods will be spoiled. When Satan is cast\ninto the bottomless pit, tumult and war will retire with him back to\nhell; and instead of the blast of the trumpet and the groans of the\ndying will be heard the shouts of the saints and the songs of the\nredeemed. Then will be \"heard as it were the voice of a great multitude,\nand as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings,\nsaying, Alleluia, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.\"\n\n3. If the Mediator's kingdom is not of this world, and the kingdoms of\nthis world are under Satan's dominion, then we may infer the great\nimpropriety of the subjects of the Mediator's kingdom using the weapons\nof this world and engaging in tumults, wars, and fightings. \"Jesus\nanswered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this\nworld, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to\nthe Jews.\" The Jews expected in their Messiah a temporal prince; but\nbecause his kingdom was not of this world they crucified the Lord of\nlife and glory. Had he only appeared in the pomp of this world and in\nthe splendor of a temporal conqueror to vanquish the Romans who were in\npossession of their earthly Canaan and oppressing their nation, they\nwould immediately have rallied round his standard and followed him to\nearthly conquest and glory. He was apparently too inattentive to their\nrights and liberties (which the patriots of this world now emphatically\ncall their dearest interests). They said, \"If we let him alone, all men\nwill believe on him; and the Romans shall take away both our place and\nour nation.\" It may be asked, Why were the Jews apprehensive, if all men\nshould believe on him, the Romans would take away both their place and\ntheir nation? The answer does not appear difficult. They doubtless\nperceived that both his life and precepts directly opposed rendering\nvengeance to their enemies; and, on the contrary, demanded nothing less\nthan love to their enemies, good for evil, and blessing for cursing.\nThis they could not endure, as it directly opposed their carnal desires\nand filled them with malice against the Prince of Peace. They might,\nwith much greater propriety than any nation under the gospel light, have\nsaid, \"Shall we imbibe this pusillanimous spirit of doing good to those\nwho oppress us and tamely bend our necks to the yoke of tyranny and\nsuffer our dearest interests to be wrested from us without once making a\nstruggle to defend them? Rather, let us arise and fight manfully, and\ndefend our liberties or die gloriously in their vindication.\" We say\nthey might, with much greater propriety, have made these declarations\nthan any under the light of the gospel, because they considered\nthemselves under the Mosaic dispensation which had fully tolerated them\nnot only in defensive but offensive war. But when they perceived that\nthe doctrines of the Mediator were calculated to disannul their\ndispensation and extinguish their carnal hopes (notwithstanding his\ncredentials were divine), their malice was kindled against him, and\ntheir vengeance was not satiated until they wreaked their hands in the\nblood of the Son of God. And we may confidently expect that wherever the\nsame Spirit of Christ lifts up a standard against the same carnal policy\nand temporal interest there will follow the same spirit of envy,\npersecution, and revenge which was manifested against the Lord of life\nand glory. If any man (no matter who) will live godly in Christ Jesus,\nhe shall suffer persecution. The Spirit of Christ is the same now that\nit was then, and the world is the same, the carnal heart is the same,\nand the great adversary of souls is the same. Only let it be styled\n\"patriotic\" to persecute the followers of the Lamb of God, and we should\nsoon see the heroes of this world drunk with the blood of the martyrs of\nJesus; and probably many would be as conscientious as Paul was while\nbreathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the\nmeek and lowly Jesus. It is not impossible that when the witnesses[6]\nare slain, their crime may be a refusal to use carnal weapons in\ndefense of their country.\n\nAs it is a matter of great practical consequence to know whether the\nsubjects of the Prince of Peace are authorized in any case under the\ngospel dispensation to use carnal weapons or not, we propose in this\ninference to be a little more particular. Although it is supposed that\nthe Lord Jesus Christ acted in a threefold capacity,--as God, Man, and\nMediator,--yet we have never heard it questioned by Christians that all\nhis conduct as man was to remain a perfect example for his brethren, and\nall his precepts a perfect rule for their duty. As his kingdom was not\nof this world, he did not intermeddle with the governments of this\nworld; he only submitted to all their laws which were not contrary to\nthe laws of his heavenly Father. He was meek and lowly; so little did he\npossess of this world that he had not where to lay his head. He went\nabout continually doing good. He was full of compassion even to his\nenemies. He wept over Jerusalem. He was finally \"brought as a lamb to\nthe slaughter, and as sheep before their shearers are dumb, so he opened\nnot his mouth.\" When he was reviled he reviled not again, but committed\nhimself to him who judges righteously. He prayed for his murderers and\napologized for his persecutors, saying, \"Father, forgive them, for they\nknow not what they do.\" As the church under a former dispensation had\ndivine authority for engaging in war, it is important to ascertain\nwhether this authority was abrogated under the gospel dispensation or\nnot.[7] That many things have been tolerated under one dispensation of\nthe church and prohibited under another, most Christians allow. That the\npreceptive will of God is to be our only rule of duty, few Christians\ndeny. The knowledge communicated to us of the preceptive will of God to\nhis church, under the first dispensation, is very limited. We find,\nhowever, no authority for taking the life of man in any case, not even\nfor murder; but, on the contrary, a sevenfold vengeance was pronounced\nupon him who should slay the murderer. Under the patriarchal\ndispensation he that shed man's blood by man was his blood to be shed.\nIn this, defensive war was tolerated. Under the Mosaic dispensation, not\nonly defensive but offensive war was tolerated, and not only _war_ was\npermitted, but _retaliation_, as, \"an eye for an eye\"; \"a tooth for a\ntooth\"; \"life for life,\" etc.\n\nThe question to be decided is whether these regulations are still in\nforce, or whether they were disannulled by the gospel dispensation. The\nlife and precepts of our Lord and his disciples while under the unerring\nguidance of his spirit must be our only authority in this inquiry. That\nmany things were done away by the gospel dispensation, none will deny\nwho believe the gospel. The ceremonial part, which was only a shadow of\ngood things to come, vanished away when the substance appeared; and not\nonly the ceremonial part was abolished, but many other practices.\nPolygamy was permitted under the law, but forbidden under the gospel.\nDivorce was allowed under the Mosaic but prohibited under the gospel\ndispensation, except in the case of adultery. Under the Mosaic\ndispensation the penalty for whoredom was stoning to death. This penalty\nwas not enforced under the gospel dispensation, as may be seen in John\nviii. 11. That all kinds of war, revenge, and fighting were utterly\nprohibited under the gospel dispensation we think appears evident not\nonly from the life of our glorious Mediator but from his express\nprecepts. \"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my\nkingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should\nnot be delivered to the Jews.\" No comment can add force to this passage,\nfor it is apprehended that no language can be more explicit against\ndefensive war.\n\nIn Christ's Sermon on the Mount he quoted a passage from Exodus, \"Ye\nhave heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a\ntooth: but I say unto you, That _ye resist not evil_: but whatsoever\nshall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.\" The\nforce of this passage has generally been obviated by saying that we are\nnot to take all the words of our Lord literally. Although this is\nadmitted, yet we are absolutely bound to take the spirit of every word,\nif we can understand them, by comparing the Scriptures with the\nScriptures. That the spirit of this passage is directly opposed to the\none our Lord quoted from Exodus, we think cannot fairly be denied; and,\nof course, it disannulled it, for he who had power to make laws under\none dispensation had power to abrogate them under another.\n\nThe blessed Mediator did, in the most explicit manner, command his\nsubjects to love their enemies and render good for evil. This command we\nare of opinion is totally incompatible with resisting them with carnal\nweapons. He says, \"But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do\ngood to them which hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use\nyou.\" Let us for one moment compare this precept with defensive war and\nsee if it can consistently be put into practice. Suppose our country is\ninvaded and a professed disciple of the Prince of Peace buckles on the\nharness and takes the field to repel by the point of the sword his\nenemy. He advances amidst the lamentations of the wounded and the\nshrieks of the dying to meet his foe in arms. He sees his wrath kindled\nand his spear uplifted, and in this trying moment he hears his Lord say,\n\"Love your enemy and render to him good for evil\"; and his kindness to\nhim is like Joab's to Amasa; he thrusts him through the heart and\nhurries him to the awful tribunal of his Judge, probably unprepared.\nDear brethren, be not deceived; for God is not mocked. Who amongst our\nfellow-men would receive the thrust of a sword as an act of kindness?\nOnly let conscience do its office, and there will be no difficulty in\ndeciding whether defensive war is inconsistent with the gospel\ndispensation or not. Carnal and spiritual weapons will no more unite\nunder the gospel dispensation than iron and miry clay.\n\nOur very salvation depends on being possessed of a spirit of forgiveness\nto enemies. \"If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your\nFather forgive your trespasses.\" If men invade our rights and trespass\nupon our privileges, is it forgiveness to repel them at the point of the\nbayonet? The honest Christian will find no difficulty in conscientiously\ndeciding this question, notwithstanding he may be slow of heart in\nbelieving all that is written.\n\nAll the conduct of our Lord had meaning to it, and much of it was with\nan express view to teach his disciples by way of example. A little\nbefore he was betrayed, he ordered his disciples to take swords. The\nobject of this must have been either to use them for defense, or for\nsome other purpose. The event proves that they were not taken for\nself-defense. The question then is, For what were they taken? The event\nappears fully to answer the question, viz.: To prohibit, by way of\nexample, the use of them for self-defense in the most trying situation\npossible. If any situation would justify self-defense with carnal\nweapons, it must have been the situation in which our Lord and his\ndisciples were placed at the time he was betrayed. They were in a public\ngarden, and they were assaulted by a mob, contrary to the statutes of\nthe Romans and the laws of the Jews; and the object was to take his\nlife. This the disciples knew, and Peter judged it a proper time for\ndefense, and drew his sword and smote a servant of the High Priest and\ncut off his ear. As our Lord's kingdom was not of this world, he would\nnot suffer his subjects to use the weapons of this world in any\nsituation. He therefore healed the wound they made and rebuked Peter for\nhis mistaken zeal. \"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword\ninto his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the\nsword. Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he would\npresently send me more than twelve legions of angels?\" Here we see that\nour Lord not only forbade his disciples to use the sword in self-defense,\nbut added a dreadful penalty to transgressors,--\"all they that take the\nsword shall perish with the sword.\" The disciples did not then fully\nunderstand that his kingdom was not of this world. As soon as they were\nprohibited using the weapons of this world they all forsook him and\nfled.[8]\n\nThe apostle James, in his epistle to the twelve tribes of Israel which\nwere scattered abroad, asks them this question: \"From whence come wars\nand fighting among you? come they not even of your lusts that war in\nyour members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and\ncannot obtain: ye fight and war, and yet ye have not.\" \"Ye adulterers\nand adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity\nwith God? whosoever therefore will be a friend to the world is an enemy\nof God.\" From this we think it evidently appears that the warlike spirit\nof the world is directly opposed to God. The God of this world works\neffectually in the hearts of the children of disobedience and stirs up\ntheir lusts which war in their members and hurries them on to acts of\ncruelty, revenge, and fighting.\n\nThis subject is of so much practical consequence that it requires a few\nobservations in reply to some of the arguments of worldly and\nunenlightened Christians in favor of using carnal weapons. It is said\nthat government is an ordinance of God which exists throughout his vast\ndominion. In heaven above there are angels and archangels; and upon\nearth there are magistrates and powers; and in hell there is the prince\nof devils. That God in his holy providence has so disposed of events\nthat governments of some kind or other do exist in all parts of his\ndominion, none but skeptics will deny. But who would pretend that the\ngovernments in heaven and hell are not diametrically opposite? One is\nthe spirit of peace and love, and the other, rebellion and war. Perhaps\nthe manifestation of these different spirits here on earth may fairly be\nthe dividing line amongst its inhabitants, and show to which kingdom\nthey belong. They say all powers are ordained of God. Thus far they are\ncorrect, but it is apprehended that they do not make a proper\ndistinction between the ordination of God and his preceptive will for\nman. So far as the former agrees with the latter, it is a rule of duty\nand cannot be any further. One is the rule of God's own procedure (if\nthe expression is proper), and the other the rule of action for his\ncreatures; but the counsel of God and his laws for man are often\ndiametrically opposite. It is not improbable that this is part of the\nmystery of God which will, by and by, be finished.\n\nThe Lord Jesus Christ was delivered by the determinate counsel and\nforeknowledge of God; and yet, by wicked hands, he was crucified and\nslain. Here, as in the case of Pharaoh, and many other instances\nrecorded, the divine counsel and the duty of man were directly opposite.\nTo ascertain our duty we must look at the preceptive will of God and not\nto his eternal counsel. Although all powers are ordained of God, yet it\nmust not be inferred that all the laws of the heathen or civilized world\nare to be a rule of duty for the Mediator's subjects, or that their\nspirit is agreeable to the spirit of the gospel dispensation. It is\nsaid, We are commanded to obey magistrates and every ordinance of man\nfor the Lord's sake. All this is admitted. But these injunctions are\neither limited by other precepts or they are unlimited. If they are\nunlimited, then all who have died martyrs fell a sacrifice to\nsuperstition instead of duty. Notwithstanding these directions were\nintended as a rule for Christians in all ages, yet they were promulgated\nwhile the disciples were under idolatrous governments, and were never\nintended to encourage them to worship idols.\n\nThese commands must, therefore, be limited. The question is, How are\nthey limited? We apprehend, by the spirit and other precepts of the\ngospel. We have already shown, we trust, that these absolutely prohibit\nwar in every form. If so, then none of these injunctions can counteract\nthe position we are examining. They only enjoin strict obedience to all\nhuman laws under which we live that do not contradict the spirit or\nprecepts of the gospel; when they do, they are not binding and must be\nresisted; not, however, with carnal but spiritual weapons; we must take\njoyfully the spoiling of our goods and count not our lives dear unto\nourselves.\n\nIt has been often said that he who refuses to comply with the commands\nof the magistrate resists the powers that be, and, according to the\napostle's reasoning, resists the ordinance of God and will receive to\nhimself damnation. And, further, as all powers are the ordinance of God\nthey ought to be supported, and if they cannot without, they must be\neven at the point of, the sword. Here the subject of the Mediator must\nmake a distinction between resisting the \"powers that be\" by force of\narms and refusing to obey their unlawful commands. It is not supposed\nthat in one case he would obey and that in the other he would disobey\nthe commands of his Master. No martyr ever considered himself as\nviolating this precept in refusing to sacrifice to an idol at the\ncommand of an earthly power; neither will any subject of the Mediator\nview himself as violating it by refusing to use carnal weapons while he\nbelieves that his Lord has utterly forbidden his using them. It is\napprehended that if this proves anything upon the principles of war,\nthat it will prove too much for its advocates. The command is to obey\nthe powers that be and not the powers that ought to be. If it is taken\nin an unlimited sense, it must prohibit resisting even tyrannical\npowers, and would, of course, condemn every Christian who engaged in the\nAmerican Revolution. To say that all power is in the hands of the\npeople, and, of course, it is the people who are the powers that be, is\nthought to be but a quibble. We will suppose a very possible case,--that\na foreign power completely overturns the government of the people and\ndisannuls their laws and gives a new code; in that case, the command to\nobey the powers that be would not be annihilated. The precept originally\nwas given while the disciples were in the midst of tyrannical\ngovernments. It is thought that it is so far from tolerating defensive\nwar that it is opposed to it. The precepts of the gospel cannot be\ndependent upon the convulsions of the nations. If Christians are bound\nto aid with carnal weapons in suppressing a rebellion, then, if the\nopposing power gains the predominance, they must turn directly about and\nfight the very power they were before supporting. Such conduct would not\nbecome the citizens of Zion. If it is said the powers that be are\nChristian rulers, then we say, let them govern only by the laws of the\nMediator's kingdom, and we will bow with reverence before them, and not\nteach for commandments the doctrines of men, as we cannot receive human\nlaws for divine precepts.\n\nIt is stated that our Lord paid tribute, and that we are commanded to\npay tribute to whom tribute is due, and that tribute supports the\ngovernments of this world. This is granted; but the Mediator's subjects\nare required also to lead peaceable and quiet lives; this is more\npromoted by paying tribute than by the refusal. Our Lord directs Peter\nto pay the tribute lest they should give offense. But paying tribute for\nthe sake of preserving peace is a very different thing from actually\nengaging in war.\n\nWhenever the Christian is called upon to pay money by way of taxes or\ntribute, he does not part with any spiritual treasure, but only earthly\nproperty, for which he has the example and precepts of the Lord. The\ncurrency of the world generally bears the ensign of the nation which\nmade it. If it bears the image and superscription of Caesar, then \"render\nto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are\nGod's.\" Christians, however, whose hearts are upon this idol, will\nsooner give up their lives than their God. \"The love of money is the\nroot of all evil.\" The real Christian's treasure is in heaven and beyond\nthe reach of the powers of earth or hell. The things of this world are\nbut privileges loaned him, to be resigned at the call of his Lord. Shall\nhe then fear those who can only kill the body and afterwards have no\nmore that they can do? Rather, let him fear him who has power to destroy\nboth soul and body in hell forever. It is better for him to suffer wrong\nthan to do wrong.\n\nThe permission granted to the Jewish church to wage war has often been\npleaded as authority for Christians. If this proves anything, it proves\ntoo much, for not only defensive but offensive war was permitted under\nthe Mosaic dispensation. This the tyrants of the world have not\ngenerally contended was right since the gospel dispensation. We think,\nhowever, that we have fully shown that this was abrogated under the\ngospel dispensation, and that all kinds of war were prohibited; if so,\nit has no weight on the subject.[9]\n\nIt has been said that Christians with a small exception have never\nquestioned the propriety of defensive war. As it regards nominal\nChristians, this statement is perhaps correct, but as it respects the\nreal disciples of the Mediator, it is to be questioned. We hear of no\nChristians in the first ages of the church engaged in carnal warfare\nuntil we hear of great corruptions in the church. Most Protestants have\nbeen of opinion that those precious disciples who inhabited the dark\nvalleys of Piedmont during the great corruptions of the nominal church\nwere the Redeemer's true subjects. These disciples, of whom the world\nwas not worthy, utterly refused to engage even in defensive war,\nnotwithstanding they were hunted down by their bloody persecutors.[10]\n\nIt has been often said that the Reformers, who were good men, did not\nhesitate to engage in defensive war, and that the Reformation was\nfinally supported by the sword. That the Reformers were generally pious\nmen is readily admitted, and that the Reformation, under divine\nprovidence, was a glorious event to the church is also granted. But the\nhistory of the Reformers, when written by their friends, abundantly\nmanifests that they were men, subject to like passions with other men,\nand that all the means they employed could not be justified, either by\nthe spirit or the precepts of the gospel.\n\nHenry the Eighth was a vile man, but he was very active in protesting\nagainst the Pope because his holiness would not grant him a divorce. God\nmakes the wrath of man praise him. It will not probably be a great\nlength of time (in the opinion of the writer) before those churches\nwhich were defended with the sword will be destroyed by the sword.\n\nIt has been further urged that not only the Reformers but most pious\nProtestants have prayed for the prosperity of the arms of their country,\nand many have actually fought in the field of battle. All this is\nlikewise admitted. But many pious men have had a mistaken zeal. It is\nfully believed that Protestants, generally, have been in the habit of\nconsidering the Reformation so glorious an event that they have very\nlittle inquired whether the means by which it was finally defended were\nagreeable to the spirit of the gospel or not. They have been taught from\ntheir earliest years to consider that the weapons of warfare used by the\nReformers were lawful, so that they have not hesitated to follow their\nexample. That the example and prayers of pious people ought to have\nweight is readily granted, but to place a blind confidence in them, we\napprehend, is criminal, for their example is to be imitated no further\nthan it agrees with the spirit and precepts of the gospel. These must\nforever remain a perfect standard of duty; whereas the practice of real\nChristians, owing to their imperfect state, is constantly changing and\noften contradictory. During the American Revolution, doubtless, real\nChristians were praying and fighting for the success of the American\narms, and real Christians in the British service were praying and\nfighting for the success of his Majesty's arms. The truth is, they ought\nnot to pray for war in any shape, but to pray that wars may cease from\nunder heaven, and that God's kingdom may come and his will be done on\nearth as it is done in heaven; and not only to pray, but endeavor to\nadvance the kingdom of heaven and put a stop to wars and bloodshed. The\nopinions of pious people often vary with the increase of light which\nshines upon the church. One century ago most pious people believed in\nthe propriety of the slave trade, but very few can now be found to\nadvocate the abominable practice. The nature of the crime has not\nchanged, nor the evidence against it, but the truth is, that the opinion\nof pious people has materially changed upon this subject. We ought\nalways to remember that the example of pious people is to be of no\nweight any further than it agrees with the example of our Lord. It is\nalways unsafe to be looking too much to the fallible example of those\nwhom we have esteemed pious for a rule of duty, while we have the\nunerring word in our hands to light our way; when any one is depending\nupon the example of Christians not under the immediate influence of\ndivine inspiration for evidence to support his hypothesis, it is strong\npresumptive evidence that he has not the word of God in his favor. By\nthe word of God and by that _only_ ought every controversy to be tried.\n\nIt is further urged that we are commanded to pray for kings and all in\nauthority; it is true we must pray not only for kings but all men, even\nenemies. This, however, does by no means imply that we are commanded to\npray for a blessing upon their unhallowed undertakings; but it only\nimplies that we must pray that they may be translated out of nature's\ndarkness into the light of the gospel, and from the power of Satan unto\nthe living God.\n\nThe great difficulty with the subjects of the Mediator ever has been,\nand still is, a want of faith in the promises of God. They are prone to\nbe afraid of consequences. They look nearly as much at consequences as\nthe children of Israel did while journeying from Egypt to Canaan. The\ntruth is, they ought to have nothing to do with consequences, but only\nduties. \"Thus saith the Lord,\" should be their warrant and only guide.\nIf they implicitly follow the command, consequences are all safe in\nGod's hand. Had Abraham looked only at consequences, it is not probable\nhe would ever have been styled the Father of the Faithful. It is not\nuncommon for timid and worldly Christians to be alarmed at consequences\nand to argue in this manner: they say, \"Shall we stand still and suffer\nan assassin to enter our houses and take our lives and property without\never attempting to resist him?\" All this must go upon the supposition\nthat he who has said he will never leave nor forsake his people, and is\na very present help in every time of need, will take no care of them. No\nassassin could stand a moment before the prayer of faith which would\nenter the heavens and reach the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. If\nfaithless Christians cannot be persuaded to look at the precepts and the\npromises, but only at consequences, they ought, at least, to examine\nthem well. Suppose God, in his holy providence, should permit an\nassassin to take the life of one of his dear children; the consequence\nwould be, he would immediately be translated to glory; and possibly the\nassassin might become a penitent; but should he take the life of the\nassassin in defending himself, the consequence then would be, he would\nhurry him into the abyss of the damned where his probation would be\neternally ended. He who puts his trust in the Lord shall not fear what\nman can do to him; he will be like Mount Zion which cannot be moved.\n\nRemember, dear brethren, that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal\nbut spiritual, and mighty through God. \"Finally, my brethren, be strong\nin the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of\nGod, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we\nwrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against\npowers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against\nspiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole\narmour of God (here is the equipment of a soldier of Jesus Christ), that\nye may be able to withstand in an evil day, and having done all, to\nstand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and\nhaving on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the\npreparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of\nfaith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the\nwicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit,\nwhich is the word of God: praying always with all prayer and\nsupplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance\nand supplication for all saints.\" And the very God of peace shall be\nwith you, and he will shortly bruise Satan under your feet. For yet a\nlittle while and the Almighty angel will come down with a great chain in\nhis hand; and he will lay hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is\nthe devil and Satan, and will bind him a thousand years, and cast him\ninto the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that\nhe shall deceive the nations no more until the thousand years are\nfulfilled. Then wars will cease from under heaven and the implements of\ndeath will be converted into the harmless utensils of husbandry, and\nthere will be nothing to hurt nor destroy in all God's holy mountain.\nThe stone which was cut out of the mountain without hands will become a\ngreat mountain and fill the whole earth. Then will be heard \"a loud\nvoice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the\nkingdom of God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our\nbrethren is cast down, which accused them before God day and night. And\nthey overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their\ntestimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore\nrejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them.\"\n\nIt is, however, very important, dear brethren, that we keep it\nconstantly in mind that the nature and precepts of the gospel are the\nsame now as they will be then, in that glorious reign of righteousness\nand peace, and that it is our duty constantly to be influenced by the\nsame spirit now which will then be manifested by the followers of the\nLamb. The little leaven is of the same nature with whole lump when it is\nleavened. Let us therefore gird up the loins of our mind and watch unto\nprayer.\n\n4. If the Mediator's kingdom is not of this world, but spiritual,\nheavenly, and divine, and if the kingdoms of this world are under the\ndominion of Satan, and if the subjects of Christ's kingdom are not\npermitted to use carnal weapons, then we may infer who is the \"great\nwhore that sitteth upon many waters; with whom the kings of the earth\nhave committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been\nmade drunk with the wine of her fornication.\" A virgin or chaste woman\nis a familiar symbol in the Scriptures of the true church of God; and an\nunchaste woman is as familiar a symbol of an apostate or corrupt church.\nAs a lewd woman calls herself by the name of her husband, notwithstanding\nshe has constant intercourse with other men, so the corrupt church calls\nherself by the name of Christ, notwithstanding she has constant illicit\nintercourse with the kings of the earth.[11] To understand the true nature\nof spiritual whoredom will assist us in ascertaining the bounds of\nmystical Babylon.\n\nThe children of Israel were separated from all the nations of the earth\nand set apart to be holy unto the Lord. As they were in covenant with\nthe God of Israel, he addressed them in the endearing character of a\nhusband. Whenever they made any covenant or formed a confederacy with\nthe nations around them, or imitated their idolatrous abominations, they\nwere charged with spiritual whoredom. The church, under the gospel\ndispensation, is redeemed from amongst men out of every nation, and\nsanctified and set apart to be a peculiar people to show forth the\npraises of God. It is styled the Bride, the Lamb's wife. Its members are\nnot to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by the renewing\nof the Spirit. They do not belong to any earthly kingdom, for our Lord\nhas said, \"They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world\";\nbut they are citizens of the heavenly Zion and belong to the household\nof God; they are members of the same community, with the innumerable\ncompany of angels and the spirits of just men made perfect; and are to\nbe governed by the very same spirit and temper which reigns amongst\nthose blessed inhabitants above. God is an overflowing and unbounded\nocean of blessedness and love; love is therefore the fulfilling of the\nlaw.\n\nWhenever the subjects of the Redeemer unite themselves to the kingdoms\nof this world, and engage in their political contentions and fightings,\nthen it appears they commit spiritual whoredom, for they forsake the\nfountain of living waters and hew out to themselves cisterns,--broken\ncisterns, which can hold no water. When they thus mingle with the world\nand unite in its pursuits they may spiritually be styled adulterers.\n\nThe apostle James, while reproving the twelve tribes, which were\nscattered abroad, for their wars and fightings and friendship to the\nworld, styles them adulterers and adulteresses. In direct opposition to\nthis representation, the first fruits of the church are styled virgins,\nas not being defiled with women. \"These are they which were not defiled\nwith women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb\nwhithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from amongst men, being the\nfirstfruits unto God and the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no\nguile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.\" As virgins\nare pure and undefiled, so were the disciples of Christ in the first age\nof the church when they had no impure intercourse with the kingdoms of\nthis world and followed the Lamb in refusing to engage either in its\nprofits, honors, or fightings. They are, therefore, called virgins,\nwithout fault, in opposition to those who mingle with the world, who are\nspiritually styled harlots.\n\nIt evidently appears, if what has been said is true, that mystical\nBabylon, that mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, is just\nas extensive as the union of the church with the kingdoms of this world;\nand just in that proportion in which an individual Christian, or a\nsingle church, or a number of churches united in one body, engage in the\nhonors, profits, and fightings of the kingdoms of this world, just in\nthat proportion they may be said to be guilty of spiritual whoredom.\n\nThe writer is well aware that this inference, however just, will be\nlooked upon with contempt by worldly political Christians whose dearest\ninterest is involved in the kingdoms of this world, and especially by\nthose who are clothed in purple and scarlet and have a golden cup in\ntheir hands. He has no expectation of being candidly heard by such, but\nit is God's own dear children who have ignorantly mingled with the\nworld, having been blinded by their education, from whom he expects a\ncandid hearing. \"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.\"\n\nIt is not common for a lewd woman openly to avow to the world her\ncharacter; neither can it be expected that the mother of harlots will\nown her name. The writer is of opinion that very few have understood the\nfull dimensions of this mystical city; she appears to him in her\ngreatest extent to be bounded but little short of the whole visible\nchurch of God. She is styled \"the _great City_, which spiritually is\ncalled Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.\" \"And in her\nwas found the blood of prophets and saints and of all that were slain\nupon the earth.\" But a dreadful judgment awaits her: \"She shall utterly\nbe burnt with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judges her.\" Being\nmingled with the nations and supported by their power, when they become\nlike stubble before the devouring fire, she will be consumed with them.\nThe whore is represented as riding upon a scarlet-colored beast, and\nupheld by him.[12]\n\nWhen he, with all his heads, are cast into the lake of fire, she will\nlikewise be given to the burning flame. But before this great and\ndreadful day of the Lord shall come, which will burn as an oven, when\nthe whore shall be consumed with the nations of the earth, God will call\nto his people to come out of her, saying unto them, \"Come out of her, my\npeople, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of\nher plagues.\" As God's ancient people were carried captives into literal\nBabylon, so God's dear people will be found captives in mystical\nBabylon, until they hear the command of their Lord to come out of her\nthat they be not partakers of her sins and that they receive not of her\nplagues. The captive daughters of Zion are very numerous. O that they\nmay soon arise and shake themselves from the dust! \"Shake thyself from\nthe dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands\nof thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.\"\n\n5. If the Mediator's kingdom is not of this world, and the kingdoms of\nthis world are under the dominion of Satan, and if Christ's subjects\ncannot unite themselves to the kingdoms of this world, without\ncommitting spiritual whoredom, then we may infer the great impropriety\nof the subjects of the Mediator's kingdom becoming political Christians\nand enrolling themselves with the men of this world. They cannot serve\ntwo masters: for they will either hate the one, and love the other; or\nelse they will hold to the one, and despise the other.\n\nHow humiliating is it to see subjects of the King of Zion engaged in the\ndrudgery of the prince of darkness, laboring and struggling to support\nhis tottering throne! Satan's kingdom is divided against itself and\nmust, therefore, come to an end. But how lamentable is it to see the\nsons of the living God, the subjects of the Prince of Peace, taking\nsides in the cause of the adversary of souls, and actually opposing and\nfighting each other under his banner! They do it ignorantly and will,\ntherefore, obtain forgiveness, for they know not what manner of spirit\nthey are of. They are commanded to have no fellowship with the\nunfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.\n\nBefore our Lord departed from this world to go to the Father, he gave\nlaws to his subjects for their rule of life until his second coming. All\nthese laws contemplated their residing as a holy nation in the midst of\na wicked and benighted world, to reflect the rays of the Sun of\nrighteousness on the thick darkness which covers the people. They were\nto be a city set upon a hill and a light to the world. The apostle\nexhorts them to \"do all things without murmurings and disputings: that\nye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in\nthe midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as\nlights in the world.\" They must be a peculiar people to show forth the\npraises of God. How inconsistent is it, then, for the citizens of the\nheavenly Zion to be mingling with the politicians of this world and\nuniting in their processions, feasts, and cabals, when they ought rather\nto be praying for them, that the very sins they commit in these scenes\nmay be forgiven them! Dear brethren, is it not high time to come out\nfrom the world and be separated? \"Be ye not unequally yoked together\nwith unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with\nunrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what\nconcord hath Christ with Belial?\" \"Wherefore come out from among them,\nand be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and\nI will receive you, and will be a Father to you, and ye shall be my sons\nand daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.\"\n\n6. In view of what has been said, we finally infer that every interest\nwhich is not built upon the sure foundation stone which God has laid in\nZion will be swept away when the storms of divine wrath shall beat upon\nour guilty world. \"For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an\noven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be\nstubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of\nhosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.\" \"For the day\nof the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty,\nand upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low.\" \"The\nlofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be\nbowed down; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.\" \"The Lord\nat thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He\nshall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with their dead\nbodies; he shall wound the head over many countries.\" \"For, behold, the\nLord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to\nrender his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by\nfire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain\nof the Lord shall be many.\" \"For the indignation of the Lord is upon all\nnations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed\nthem, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain shall be cast\nout, and their stink shall come up out of their carcasses, and the\nmountains shall be melted with blood.\" \"For this is the day of the Lord\nGod of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his\nadversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and be\nmade drunk with their blood.\" The nations must drink of the wine of the\nwrath of God, which shall be poured out without mixture, into the cup of\nhis indignation; and they will be trodden in the great wine press of the\nwrath of God Almighty. And the great whore which has drunk the blood of\nthe saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus will have blood to\ndrink; for she is worthy.\n\nThe sword of the Lord has two edges; it will cut off the offending limbs\nof the church and destroy her enemies. The fire of the Lord will purify\nhis saints but utterly burn up the wicked. He \"whose fan is in his hand\nwill thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner;\nbut he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.\" Although the\nearth is thus to be desolated, and the nations destroyed, yet the saints\nof the Most High shall \"possess the kingdom for ever and ever.\" \"And the\nkingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole\nheaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High,\nwhose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve\nand obey him.\"\n\nDear brethren, these events are rapidly rolling in the fiery wheels down\nthe descent of time; and although the nations must first drink the vials\nof divine wrath and the battle of God Almighty must first be fought, yet\nthe time is at hand when we shall no more hear the sound of war, and of\ngarments rolled in blood, for man will cease to be the enemy of man, and\nevery one will sit quietly under his own vine and under his own fig\ntree; and there will be nothing to hurt or destroy in all God's holy\nmountain, and the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the\nwaters cover the channels of the mighty deep.\n\nDear brethren, is it not \"high time to awake out of sleep: for now is\nour salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the\nday is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let\nus put on the armour of light.\" And let us pray with all prayer and\nsupplication in the Spirit for all men, not only for ourselves, our\nfamilies, and our friends, and the church of God, but for a dying world,\nthat God would in infinite compassion cut short these days of dreadful\ncalamity for his elect's sake; and in the midst of deserved wrath\nremember mercy.\n\n\"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the\nchurches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life,\nwhich is in the midst of the paradise of God.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[4] The earth, in symbolical language, is supposed by the writer to\ndenote civilized nations, in distinction from uncivilized, which are\nsymbolized by the agitated sea. Civilized nations will no longer cover\nthe blood of the slain, under the specious idea of defending their\nrights and liberties.\n\n[5] If the kingdoms of this world do not belong to Satan, then it was no\ntemptation to our Lord when he offered them to him. It is expressly said\nthat he was \"tempted of Satan.\"\n\n[6] The writer has for a length of time been of opinion that no event\nhas ever yet happened to the church which answers to slaying the\nwitnesses. It has been given as a reason by some that the witnesses have\nbeen slain, that so much light has been diffused since the art of\nprinting was discovered, and since the Reformation, that no reason can\never again be found sufficiently plausible to satisfy the consciences of\nmankind in again taking the lives of their fellow-men in matters of\nconscience. If our country was invaded and a law should be passed that\nevery man capable of bearing arms should equip himself for its defense,\non penalty of being considered as an enemy and to be publicly executed\naccordingly in case of refusal for conscience' sake, there would not\nprobably be wanting patriots sufficient to execute the laws; if they\ncould not be found in our land of liberty, they might be found amongst\nthe tyrants of the Old World.\n\n[7] If the permission given to the church under the Mosaic dispensation\nto engage in war has not been disannulled by the gospel dispensation\n(which is by no means granted), it is thought that it does not admit of\nthe consequences which are generally drawn. The Israelites were God's\ncovenant people and were utterly prohibited from making any covenant\nwith the nations around them, or engaging with them in their wars. It\nmust therefore be totally improper for God's covenant people now to\nunite with those who are strangers to the covenant of promise, and\nengage with them in their tumult and fightings. It is presumed that no\none who has ever read our Constitution will pretend that the American\nnation has, in the Scriptural sense, made a covenant with God. If the\nanalogy holds good in one point, it must in another; and in that case\nthere is no alternative left for God's covenant people but either to\nwithdraw from those who are not in covenant with God, or adopt a\nnational religion which must be defended by the weapons of the nation.\nIt is believed that those who will not admit that the permission granted\nto the Israelites to engage in war was abrogated by the gospel\ndispensation can never fully answer the arguments in favor of a national\nreligion.\n\n[8] Four things are noticeable from this history. _First_, That the\nsubjects of the Mediator's kingdom have no right to use carnal weapons\nfor defense, in the most trying situation possible. _Secondly_, The\npromulgation of a decree of heaven; that all they (whether states,\nchurches, or kingdoms) who take the sword shall perish with the sword.\nEvery political or ecclesiastical body which is defended with the sword\nwill by the sword be destroyed. In confirmation of this sentiment, we\nsee while the great destroying powers were represented to St. John in\nthe symbols of ferocious beasts, it was added, \"If any man have an ear\nto hear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into\ncaptivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the\nsword\"; but in opposition to this it is said, \"Here is the faith and the\npatience of the saints.\" We would inquire how the faith and the patience\nof the saints appear, if they, like the nations of the earth, lead into\ncaptivity and kill with the sword? _Thirdly_, The weapon which the\nsubjects of the Redeemer are to use for defense is here brought into\nview, viz., Prayer. Nothing which appears prevented our Lord from using\nthis weapon when he was betrayed, but the necessity of the Scriptures\nbeing fulfilled. Had he prayed to his Father, more than twelve legions\nof ministering spirits would have appeared swift as lightning to\ndischarge his will. At the time he shall come in all the glory of his\nFather the holy angels will be with him. He will break through the\nheavens in flaming fire and descend with the shout of the Archangel and\nthe trump of God, and cleave asunder the earth beneath; and send forth\nhis angels who will awake the sleeping millions from their tombs and\ngather together his elect and take them up into the air to be ever with\ntheir Lord. _Fourthly_, We may expect that angels will be sent to\ndeliver the saints in the times of trouble. Angels are ministering\nspirits and are sent forth to minister to those who shall be the heirs\nof salvation. What a consolation it is that the subjects of the Mediator\ncan apply for help in times of trouble to him who has the hosts of\nheaven at his command; and who has said he will never leave nor forsake\nthem! The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them who fear him, to\ndeliver them out of all their trouble. If God be for them, who can be\nagainst them?\n\n[9] Although it is not expected that any intelligent and candid\nChristian will attempt to say that the arguments which have been\nadvanced may fairly apply to offensive but not to defensive war, yet\nsome weak and unenlightened Christians may make the assertion. In answer\nto such we would observe that this would be begging the question and\ntaking for granted the very subject in dispute. We cannot be satisfied\nwith anything short of a candid answer, drawn directly from the spirit\nand precepts of the gospel. When it is fairly proved that under the\ngospel dispensation our Lord did draw a clear line of distinction\nbetween offensive and defensive war, and that he intended all such\nprecepts as have been adduced to apply to the former and not to the\nlatter, then we will acknowledge the weight of the argument. Until this\nis done we shall not consider our arguments as answered.\n\n[10] The writer perceives that he has made too unlimited a statement\nrespecting the disciples who inhabited the valleys of Piedmont.\nHistorians have generally considered those who dissented from the church\nof Rome during the dark ages as possessing similar sentiments. It is\ntrue they did agree in renouncing the authority of the Pope, but in\nother things they did not all agree. Some courted the protection of\nearthly powers and united with them in defending their rights by the\npoint of the sword, and were finally destroyed by the sword. Others,\ninstead of defending themselves with carnal weapons, fled from the face\nof the serpent and were, under divine providence, the seed of the church\nin the wilderness. It is the latter class to which the writer would be\nunderstood as referring.\n\n[11] As the writer has been for some time studying the symbolical\nlanguage of the Scriptures, and intends (if the Lord will, unless some\nperson more able should attempt an explanation) to give his views to the\npublic, he will not be so particular at present in explaining the symbol\nof the great whore which sitteth upon many waters, as he otherwise\nshould. He early perceived that the heavens and the earth, with all\ntheir furniture, were used as an alphabet, in the language of things, to\nrepresent moral subjects. His object has been to learn the true meaning\nof each symbol by comparing Scripture with Scripture. No language can be\nread until the alphabet is first learned. Symbolical language does not,\nlike other languages, change with time and place, but represents the\nsame idea to all nations and at all times. He is of opinion that one\nsymbol does not represent two events, unless it first have a reference\nto some less event which is typical of some more important event; in\nthat case, all together may be figurative of some great ultimate end.\nAlthough one symbol is supposed never to represent two different things,\nyet two or more symbols generally represent one thing. He has found by\ntracing back a symbol to its first use, that its true meaning is\ngenerally manifest. Since examining the Scriptures with this view he has\nbeen irresistibly drawn into the conclusions now exhibited.\n\n[12] The writer is fully of opinion that a ferocious beast is never used\nas a symbol of a corrupt church, but of a tyrannical warlike power. He\nhas been for some time of opinion that the second Apocalyptic beast is\nrising, and that he will possess all the power of the first beast before\nhim, and that under him the false prophet will appear; and the witnesses\nwill be slain; and upon his kingdom the six first vials of his divine\nwrath will be principally poured out; and the seventh will be poured\nupon Satan's kingdom universally, as he is the prince of the power of\nthe air.\n\n\n\n\n  Transcriber's Notes\n\n  The section in the table of contents entitled, \"Because, instead of\n    preventing, it provokes insult and mischief,\" does not exactly match\n    the title of the corresponding section found within the text. This\n    has been retained.\n  Pg 116. The word 'Antipolemos' was changed to 'Antipolemus.'\n  Pg 120. The word 'righteousnesss' was changed to 'righteousness.'\n  Pg 142. A question mark was changed to a period in the following\n    sentence, \"The question to be decided is whether these regulations\n    are still in force, or whether they were disannulled by the gospel\n    dispensation.\"\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"War Inconsistent with the Religion of Jesus Christ","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":52413}