Part 7 (1/2)
But if the statement of the objector is meant only to imply a rule of right and wrong emanating from the nature and perfections of G.o.d, and coincident with his laws, then, admitting the propriety of the terms moral law, nature of things, etc., the objection, if it proves anything, may prove quite too much for its advocates; for under certain circ.u.mstances it has been consistent with this rule of moral right and wrong utterly to exterminate nations, to destroy men, women, and children, and show them no mercy.
Besides, the whole force of the objection rests on the supposition that no laws which have existed, and which were not contrary to the moral law, can be abrogated under the Christian dispensation or be inconsistent with the precepts of the gospel. It hence follows that whatever has been morally right and lawful for men to do must forever remain right and lawful to be done. This is a necessary result from the premises; but no Christian can consistently subscribe to this. The premises must, therefore, be unsound and the objection of no force.
If literal sacrifices, slavery, and many other practices which are totally abolished under the Christian dispensation were not contrary to the moral law under the Old Testament economy, why may not the same be true of war? Why may not the gospel forbid war as consistently as it can forbid slavery?
_Objection fourth._ The nature of religion and morality under the ancient dispensation was the same as under the new. Love to G.o.d and man was the substance of the law and the prophets; and though truth under the former was inculcated more by types and ceremonies, yet the essence of religion was the same under that as under the present dispensation; and as war was not inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion then, it cannot be inconsistent with the nature and precepts of religion now, under like circ.u.mstances.
_Answer._ It is readily admitted that the essence of religion is the same under the present as under the former dispensation, both requiring at all times and in all actions holy exercises of heart in cordial obedience to divine command; yet the laws for external conduct under the two dispensations differ widely, and the practice of war involves much of the external conduct of men. It was never right for men to indulge unholy feelings in the act of war, but the external act was required as a means of executing the divine vengeance; the gospel does not command, but seems plainly to forbid, the external act of war.
But to suppose that saints under the gospel can ever be placed in circ.u.mstances like those of the ancient church is to suppose that they may be put under the same typical economy which has vanished away, given place to the substance, and ceased to be binding even on the natural Israelites. To be in like circ.u.mstances they must also be made the executors of G.o.d's wrath, to inflict vengeance, by his particular command, on idolatrous and rebellious nations. The Israelites had the same high authority to exterminate the Canaanites and subdue the idolatrous nations about Palestine that the holy angels had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
It is perfectly plain that if G.o.d should positively command Christians to take the weapons of war and not only repel invasion but actually exterminate nations, it would be their duty to obey, and a refusal would be open rebellion against G.o.d. The Old Testament saints received such commands, but Christians have no such authority, which makes a material difference in circ.u.mstances.
Some general observations relative to the different dispensations of the church of G.o.d may ill.u.s.trate this topic more fully.
The Old Testament economy has sometimes, perhaps without reason, been divided into the Adamic, Patriarchal, and Mosaic dispensations of the church; but as the latter was more full and complete, and as the distinction between the Mosaic and Christian dispensations is common, I shall confine my remarks chiefly to that distinction, though I consider the great distinction to be between the Old and New Testament economies.
The Old Testament economy, in general, was typical of the New. Under the former dispensation literal and temporal things typified spiritual and everlasting things under the latter. The nation of Israel, chosen and separated from all other nations, typified the true Israel of G.o.d, who are chosen out of every nation and sanctified and set apart as a holy nation and peculiar people, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to G.o.d. The land of Canaan was a type of the heavenly Canaan. Jerusalem was a type of the New Jerusalem from above. Mount Zion and the royal throne of Israel, which were in Jerusalem, typified the heavenly Zion and the throne of the true David who now reigns in glory. The sacrifices were types of spiritual offerings. The Israelites had enemies within and foes without, literal weapons of war and literal warfare, typical of spiritual foes, spiritual armor, and spiritual warfare.[1] Their kings were seated on the throne of the Lord (see 1 Chron. xxix. 23). At the command of G.o.d they judged and made war and conquered their enemies and thus typified the Son of G.o.d who is now on the throne of his Father David, and who in righteousness judges and makes war and rides forth conquering and to conquer. The ancient promises and threatenings were mostly temporal, but typical of spiritual and everlasting promises and threatenings. Doubtless the gospel was preached by types and figures under the Old Testament economy, and the saints of old looked upon those temporal things merely as shadows representing a more enduring substance. When they looked upon Canaan, the land of promise, they viewed it as a type of the heavenly Canaan, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth seeking a better country. When they looked on the bleeding lamb they beheld, by the eye of faith, the Lamb of G.o.d who taketh away the sins of the world.
Thus we may see that almost the whole of the Old Testament economy was typical and temporary, and not intended to be perfect and everlasting.
But under the gospel dispensation we have a new covenant and better promises which are intended to be perfect and everlasting. It is therefore more proper for those who live under this new and perfect dispensation to look at the substance than at the shadow for a rule of duty. Errors are often and easily propagated by reasoning from a.n.a.logy and introducing it as proof of sentiments instead of ill.u.s.tration. This is frequently done in relation to the Old Testament economy and common political government. It is not uncommon to hear ministers, in their political sermons, reason and infer just as if there were a perfect parallel between the Jewish theocracy and political governments, when at the head of one was the Lord of hosts and at the head of the others are but men; when one was the church of the living G.o.d, and the others are but human inst.i.tutions. They not unfrequently speak of G.o.d's driving out the heathen before his American Israel and planting them in a goodly land, as though there were a perfect parallel between the Americans driving the Indians from their native soil and taking possession of it themselves, without divine commission, and the Israelites going at the express command of G.o.d and taking possession of Canaan. Thus they endeavor to keep up a parallel between G.o.d's ancient church and civil governments. The economy of G.o.d's ancient covenant people was by no means a political inst.i.tution in the popular sense, but it was a dispensation of the church of G.o.d, and in its rites, ceremonies, and government was typical of the kingdom of Messiah under his mediatorial reign, and differed widely in its nature, origin, and design from mere political governments; therefore all reasoning drawn from a supposed a.n.a.logy between them is specious and false. The Israelites had no authority to enact laws or to alter G.o.d's laws one iota; their duty was implicitly to obey them.
But if Christians take their authority for going to war from the practice of the Old Testament saints, their example will prove too much; it will not only allow war, but _offensive war_ in its most dreadful forms.
_Objection fifth._ Abraham went to war, not like the Israelites at the command of G.o.d, yet he met with the divine approbation when he returned from the slaughter of the kings; he, therefore, must have acted on a universal law still in force; and as Christians are called the children of Abraham they ought, of course, to imitate his example in such things as G.o.d approved.
_Answer._ Abraham, like the Israelites, was under a typical dispensation and practiced rites and ceremonies which were a shadow of good things to come. That he acted without divine command, in the war referred to, is more than we are warranted to say. He was a prophet and the friend of G.o.d and probably was acquainted with the divine will on this subject.
Christians are not called the children of Abraham because they imitate his example in war, but because they exercise like precious faith with him. If Christians are warranted to imitate the example of Abraham in all things which were tolerated by G.o.d, then they may sacrifice cattle, practice polygamy, and buy and hold slaves. But if they object to his example as a rule of duty in these instances, why not object to his example as a rule of duty in the case of war?
But to say that he acted from some universal law still in force is taking for granted the question in dispute, and cannot be admitted without evidence.
The war waged by Abraham against the kings was, I apprehend, offensive rather than defensive; for Lot, his brother's son, whom he rescued, did not then belong to his family or kingdom, but was separated from him and was also a patriarch, a father of nations, and a prince or head over his own house or kingdom.
It appears very evident that offensive as well as defensive war was tolerated under the patriarchal economy, as may be seen from the words of the inspired Jacob when blessing his sons (Gen. xlviii. 22). That, as well as the Mosaic dispensation, was typical, and doubtless war was allowed under both for the same reasons.
But there can be no doubt that whoever attempts to justify war by the example of Abraham may equally justify the slavery of our fellow-men; and whoever depends on his example for authority for engaging in war, to be consistent, must advocate and defend the doctrine of slavery.
_Objection sixth._ It appears to be a universal law of G.o.d that ”whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” If one man, or one nation, attacks another and sheds his blood, his own must be shed in return. Hence this precept not only authorizes taking away the life of a murderer, but authorizes nations to repel by war nations that wage war against them.
_Answer._ Whether this was a precept given to man as a rule of duty or not is very questionable, though it has generally been so construed, at least since the dark ages of the church; and it is still more questionable whether it is a universal and perpetual law.
If we attend to the phraseology of this decree of G.o.d, we shall find it to be very different from that of the precepts, generally, delivered to Moses. G.o.d did not say to Noah, as he often did to Moses, thou shalt do this, or that, but he said, ”_I will require the life of man_,” etc. If G.o.d had designed to delegate executive authority to Noah and his descendants to execute retributive judgment on the manslayer, the connection of the whole language must have been altered, for G.o.d declared what he would do himself. It appears, therefore, to have been G.o.d's _decree_, and the promulgation of _his_ law by which he would inflict righteous judgment on the guilty; the penalty was intended as a warning to deter mankind from violence, the sin for which the old world was swept away. And I see no reason why this threatening should not be considered parallel with the decrees of Christ,--that ”all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword; he that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword; here is the faith and the patience of the saints.” Why the former should be considered as a rule of obedience for man, and these latter pa.s.sages not so, I am unable to say. ”He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword” is as positive as ”whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”
It may be observed that the faith and patience of the saints is here spoken of in such a way as to imply that they exercised and manifested their faith and patience when they were put to death by violence or carried into captivity. And, indeed, how could their faith and patience appear if they, like the wicked world, returned evil for evil, carried into captivity, and killed with the sword?
The original threatening has been fulfilled by the providence, and sometimes by the express command, of G.o.d. As Noah was the head of the new world and the father of nations, it seems to have had reference to nations rather than to individuals; and all nations that have shed blood in war must, in their turn, have their own blood shed; so that all they that take the sword may perish with the sword agreeably to the threatening made known to Noah, and to those announced by Christ.
But, admitting that the law quoted in the objection was intended as a rule of duty for man, it does not appear that it was designed to be universal and perpetual. Before the flood no authority appears in any sense to have been delegated to man to shed the blood of man. So far from executing the penalty of death or causing it to be executed upon Cain, who was of the wicked one and slew his brother, notwithstanding his guilty forebodings, G.o.d threatened a sevenfold vengeance on him who should presume to do it.
Under the Mosaic dispensation many crimes were punishable with death according to positive precept; but G.o.d, for wise reasons, did not always have the penalty executed. David was guilty of murder and adultery, both capital crimes; yet he was permitted to live.
All kinds of vindictive punishment under the Christian dispensation appear to be absolutely forbidden. By vindictive I mean that which is intended to vindicate the law, as executing strict justice, and prevent offenses only, as taking away life, but which is not designed to promote the individual good of the person punished. That punishment which is designed and which has a tendency to promote the good of the punished, as well as to deter offenders, I consider to be strictly disciplinary or corrective, and consistent with the spirit and precepts of the gospel.