Part 5 (2/2)
But do the principles of war lead individuals or nations to pa.s.s by offenses and to treat offenders as if they were innocent? Do they not, on the contrary, require justice and exact the very last mite? Has it the aspect of forgiveness for us, when an enemy trespa.s.ses on our rights, to arm with weapons of slaughter and meet him on the field of battle? Who, while piercing the heart of his enemy with a sword, can consistently utter this prayer: ”Father, forgive my trespa.s.ses, as I have forgiven the trespa.s.ses of this my enemy”? But this, in reference to this subject, is the only prayer the gospel warrants him to make. And professing Christian nations, while at war and bathing their swords in each other's blood to redress mutual trespa.s.ses, are daily in their public litanies offering this prayer; but is it not obvious that either their prayers are perfect mockery, or they desire not to be forgiven but to be punished to the extent of their deserts?
If individuals or nations desire that G.o.d would forgive their trespa.s.ses, then they must not only pray for it, but actually exercise forgiveness towards those who trespa.s.s against them; and then they may beat their useless swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and learn war no more.
But it must be very criminal to engage in war, or to tolerate it in any way, if it is inconsistent with the forgiveness of injuries as we hope to be forgiven, and in this respect violates the precepts of the gospel.
VIII. ENGAGING IN WAR IS NOT MANIFESTING LOVE TO ENEMIES OR RETURNING GOOD FOR EVIL
Returning good for evil and manifesting benevolence to enemies is, perhaps, the most elevated and n.o.ble part of Christian practice,--the inculcation of which in the gospel exalts Christianity far above any other form of religion and proves it to be not only divine but efficacious to subdue the turbulent and corrupt pa.s.sions of men; and for these reasons this part of duty ought to be zealously advocated and diligently performed by every one who bears the Christian name.
The ablest writers who have defended the divine origin of the Scriptures against infidels have urged this topic as const.i.tuting conclusive evidence in their favor; and unbelievers, instead of attempting to meet the argument fairly, have urged the inconsistency of Christians in acting contrary to so conspicuous a rule of duty; and such is and ever has been the most powerful weapon that infidels can wield against Christianity. But it is the will of G.o.d that by welldoing we should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. Let Christians act in strict conformity to this part of Christian practice, and they will wrest from the infidel's hand his strongest weapon.
That exercising benevolence towards enemies and returning good for evil is inculcated as one of the most important doctrines of the gospel is evident as well from the whole tenor of the New Testament as from the express commands of the Son of G.o.d: ”I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father in heaven”; ”If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head”; ”Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Such are some of the divine precepts on this subject. So different, however, are the laws of war among Christian nations, that rendering comfort or relief to enemies is considered high treason, and they punish with death the performance of the very duty which G.o.d commands as a condition of eternal life!
The common sense of every man revolts from the idea that resisting an enemy by war is returning good for evil. Who would receive the thrust of a sword as an act of kindness? Was it ever considered that killing a man was doing good to him? Has not death always been considered the greatest evil which could be returned for capital crimes? But the principles of war not only allow enemies to return evil for evil by killing one another, but secure the highest praise to him who kills the most. It is often said of those who distinguish themselves in butchering their fellow-men, that ”they cover themselves with glory!”
Nations, when they go to war, do not so much as pretend to be actuated by love to their enemies; they do not hesitate to declare in the face of Heaven that their object is to _avenge_ their wrongs. But, says an inspired apostle, ”Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Retributive judgment, the execution of strict justice, or vengeance, G.o.d declares often, belongs to him. He has reserved it in his own hand as his sovereign prerogative.
It is not very surprising that savage pagans should glory in revenge, but that those should do so who have the Bible in their hands, and profess to take it as the rule of their faith and practice, is truly astonis.h.i.+ng. Still more astonis.h.i.+ng is it that some ministers of the gospel not only connive at but approve of the spirit and practice of revenge by war.
But though the whole tenor of the gospel absolutely enjoins returning good for evil and blessing for cursing; yet the open and avowed principles of war are to return evil for evil, violence for violence.
Now if the principles of war are so directly opposed to the principles of the gospel, if the practice of war is so perfectly contrary to Christian practice, then it must be very criminal for Christians not to bear open testimony against war, and much more criminal to do anything to promote it.
IX. WAR IS CRIMINAL, BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY RENDERING EVIL FOR EVIL
It is a fact which can neither be disguised nor controverted that the whole trade of war is returning evil for evil. This is a fundamental principle in the system of self-defense. Therefore every exertion in the power of contending nations is made to inflict mutual injury, not merely upon persons in public employment and upon public property, but indiscriminately upon all persons and property. Hence it is an established rule of what is styled ”civilized warfare” that if one party takes a person suspected of being a spy, they put him to death; which act is retaliated by the other the first opportunity. If one party storms a fortified place and puts the garrison or the inhabitants to the sword, the other, in their defense, must retaliate the same thing, and, if possible, to a greater degree. If one side executes a number of captives for some alleged extraordinary act, the other, on the principles of self-defense, may execute double the number; the first may then, on the same principles, double this number; and so they may proceed to return evil for evil, till one or the other yields.
The principles of self-defense require not merely an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but for one eye two eyes, for one tooth two teeth. They require the retaliation of an injury to a double degree,--otherwise, there would be no balance in favor of the defensive side; but as both parties must always be on the defense, both must, of course, retaliate to a double degree. Thus war is aggravated and inflamed, and its criminality raised to the highest pitch.
The doctrine of retaliation is not only openly avowed and practiced by professing Christian nations, but is sometimes defended before national councils by professing Christians of high standing in churches. ”O! tell it not in Gath! publish it not in the streets of Askelon! lest the daughters of the uncirc.u.mcised triumph!”
That the retaliation of injury, of whatever kind it may be and to whomsoever it may be offered, is most absolutely and unequivocally forbidden by the whole spirit of the gospel dispensation, as well as by its positive precepts, surely can never be fairly controverted.
Says the great Author and finisher of our faith, ”Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Whether the literal import of these words be contended for or not, they cannot fairly be construed as teaching anything short of a positive and unconditional prohibition of the retaliation of injury. Had our Lord added to these words the maxim of the world, ”If any man a.s.saults you with deathly weapons, you may repel him with deathly weapons,” it would have directly contradicted the spirit of this command and made his sayings like a house divided against itself.
The apostles largely insist upon this doctrine of their divine Master, thus: ”Recompense to no man evil for evil”; ”Be ye all of one mind, not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing”; ”See that none render evil for evil to any man.” These comprehensive pa.s.sages make no conditions or limitations, and are, therefore, applicable to all men and binding upon all in all situations and circ.u.mstances under the light of the gospel; but had they added, ”If any man injures you, you may return him an injury and repel violence with violence,” it would have been most palpably absurd, and the precepts of the gospel would have been truly what infidels have a.s.serted they are,--a series of gross contradictions.
But I repeat that the open and avowed principles of war, even among Christian nations, are those of returning evil for evil. Surely, nations neither aim nor pretend to aim at the best good of their enemies; but, on the contrary, their real and professed object in the sight of G.o.d and man is to do them, while at war, all the injury in their power. What means that language which conveys instructions to those who command s.h.i.+ps of war, to _sink_, _burn_, and _destroy_, if it does not mean evil to enemies? Why do nations encourage the cupidity of men by licensing and letting loose swarms of picaroons on their enemies, if it is not to inflict evil on them? But all this is sanctioned under the notion of self-defense, and, as though it were a light thing for men thus publicly to trample on the laws of the gospel, they lift up their daring hands to heaven and supplicate G.o.d's help to a.s.sist them in violating his own commands! No apology can be made for such proceedings until it is shown that war is not returning evil for evil.
But what is it to return evil for evil?
When one man is injured by another and returns injury, he returns evil for evil and violates those precepts of the gospel which have been quoted. When one a.s.sociation of men is injured by another a.s.sociation and the injured returns an injury, evil is returned for evil and those precepts are violated. When one nation infringes on the rights of another and they in return infringe on the aggressor's rights, they return evil for evil and violate those precepts. When one nation declares war against another and is repelled by war, evil is returned for evil and those precepts are violated. But these things are constantly practiced, without a blush or a question as to their propriety; and G.o.d is supplicated to aid in the business.
<script>