Part 8 (2/2)
_Answer._ We have the history of the heathen world to teach us what mankind are without the light of revelation. They are full of all unrighteousness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of enmity, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; they are proud, boasters, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. Now the very design of the gospel is to subdue and overcome these abominable pa.s.sions and dispositions; not however by returning violence for violence but by producing virtues directly contrary. The great duty of Christians is to be a light to this wicked world by exhibiting in their conduct and conversation the spirit and temper of the gospel. If such were the practice of Christians, we have reason to believe that wicked men would be overawed and deterred from their violence in a great measure. Besides, if all real Christians should utterly refuse to bear arms for the destruction of their fellow-men, it would greatly diminish the strength and boldness of warlike nations, so that it would be impracticable for them to prosecute war with the vigor and fury that they now do.
But if the gospel prohibits war, then to urge the necessity of the case against the commands of G.o.d is open rebellion against his government as well as total distrust of his word and providence.
If Christians live in habitual obedience to G.o.d's commands, they have the promise that all things shall work together for their good, and they have no reason to fear them that kill the body and after that ”have no more that they can do.”
It is strange that Christians should have so great a reluctance to suffer inconvenience in worldly things for the sake of the gospel. The scoffs and persecutions of the world and the fear of the loss of worldly things are powerful barriers against _Christian_ warfare. The gospel teaches us that all who live G.o.dly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution, and that through much tribulation the saints must enter into the kingdom of heaven; and is it not plainly owing wholly to their conformity to the world that they now suffer so little persecution and practice so little self-denial? If there is reserved for them an eternal weight of glory, what if they, like their Divine Master, should not have where to lay their heads? If they are to inherit a crown of immortal glory, what if they are called to suffer the loss of earthly things? If they are hereafter to reign as kings and priests unto G.o.d, what if they are not ranked among the great and honorable of the earth? If they suffer with Christ, then will they also reign with him; but if they deny him, he also will deny them; and if they are ashamed of him, he will also be ashamed of them before his Father and the holy angels. Let Christians then obey his commands and trust to his protection while they resolutely abstain from the wicked practices of the world.
_Objection seventeenth._ It is the duty of mankind to use means for the preservation of life and liberty; they must till the ground, if they expect a crop. It would be presumptuous for them to pray for and to expect their daily bread without using such means as G.o.d has put in their power to obtain it; and it would be equally presumptuous to expect the preservation of their lives and liberties without using such means to preserve and defend them as G.o.d has put into their hand; they must act as well as pray.
_Answer._ That using means is the duty of Christians, there can be no doubt; but they must be such as G.o.d has appointed, and not such as human wisdom may dictate. There is no dispute as to the propriety of using means, but only as to the kind of means which Christians ought to use.
The weapons of their warfare are not carnal, but spiritual, and they are mighty through G.o.d to the pulling down the strongholds of sin and Satan.
It is often said, If you wish to put a stop to war, spread the gospel through the world. We would inquire, If the gospel tolerates war, how will its universal diffusion put a stop to war?
As has already been observed, it would be open rebellion to do what G.o.d has forbidden, and high-handed presumption to ask his aid in the things which he has prohibited.
_Objection eighteenth._ Some ecclesiastical historians inform us that Christians in the early ages of the church, though they contended so firmly for the faith as to suffer martyrdom rather than submit to idolatry, yet did not refuse to bear arms in defense of their country, even when called upon by heathen magistrates, and their example ought to have weight with us.
_Answer._ The testimony of the early Fathers is ent.i.tled to regard, but must not be considered as infallible authority, for they were men of like pa.s.sions with others and cannot be followed safely any farther than they followed Christ. But the weight of their testimony on the subject, I apprehend, will be found to stand directly against the lawfulness of war on Christian principles.
Erasmus, who was an eminent scholar, and who was probably as well acquainted with the sentiments of the primitive Fathers as any modern writer, in his _Antipolemus, or Plea against War_, replies to the advocates of war as follows: ”They further object those opinions or decrees of the Fathers in which war seems to be approved. Of this sort there are some, but they are only late writers, who appeared when the true spirit of Christianity began to languish, and they are very few; while, on the other hand, there are innumerable ones among the writers of acknowledged sanct.i.ty which absolutely forbid war; and why should the few rather than the many intrude themselves into our mind?”
Barclay, who examined the writings of the Fathers on this subject, says, ”It is as easy to obscure the sun at midday as to deny that the primitive Christians renounced all revenge and war.”
Clarkson, who also examined the Fathers, declares that ”every Christian writer of the second century who notices the subject makes it unlawful for Christians to bear arms.”
Clarkson has made copious extracts from the writings of the Fathers against war, a few of which, as quoted by him and others, shall be inserted here.
Justin Martyr and Tatian both considered the devil the author of war.
Justin Martyr, while speaking of the prophecies relating to the days of peace, says, ”That this prophecy is fulfilled you have good reason to believe, for we who in times past killed one another do not now fight with our enemies.” Clarkson adds, ”It is observable that the word 'fight' does not mean to strike, beat, or give a blow, but to fight in war; and the word 'enemy' does not mean a common adversary who has injured us, but an enemy of state.”
Irenaeus says that Christians in his day ”had changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and that they knew not how to fight.”
Maximilian and a number of others in the second century actually suffered martyrdom for refusing, on gospel principles, to bear arms.
Celsus made it one of his charges against the Christians that they refused to bear arms for the Emperor. Origen, in the following century, admitted the fact and justified the Christians on the ground of the unlawfulness of war itself.
Tertullian, in his discourse to Scapula, tells us ”that no Christians were to be found in the Roman armies.”
In his declaration on the wors.h.i.+p of idols he says, ”Though the soldiers came to John and received a certain form to be observed, and though the Centurion believed, yet Jesus Christ, by disarming Peter disarmed every soldier afterwards; for custom can never sanction an illicit act.”
Again, in his _Soldier's Garland_, he says: ”Can a soldier's life be lawful, when Christ has p.r.o.nounced that he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword? Can one who professes the peaceable doctrine of the gospel be a soldier when it is his duty not so much as to go to law? And shall he who is not to avenge his own wrongs be instrumental in bringing others into chains, imprisonment, torment, and death?”
He tells us, also, that the Christians in his day were sufficiently numerous to have defended themselves if their religion had permitted them to have recourse to the sword.
There are some marvelous accounts of Christian soldiers related by Eusebius; but Valesius, in his annotations on these accounts, has abundantly proved them to be fabulous, though he was not opposed to war and could have had no other object but to support the truth. Eusebius, in his orations on Constantine, uses such extravagant adulation, which falls but little short of idolatry, that his account of Christian warriors ought to be received with great caution, especially when we recollect that church and state were, in his day, united.
On the whole, it is very evident that the early Christians did refuse to bear arms, and although one of their objections was the idolatrous rites connected with military service, yet they did object on account of the unlawfulness of war itself.
<script>