War Inconsistent with the Religion of Jesus Christ

by David Low Dodge

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

As was proposed, a number of objections to the general sentiments that have been advocated shall be stated and answered.

Objection first. Shall we stand still and suffer an assassin to enter our houses without resistance and let him murder ourselves and families?

Answer. I begin with this because it is generally the first objection that is made to the doctrine of peace by all persons, high and low, learned and unlearned; notwithstanding it is an objection derived from a fear of consequences and not from a conviction of duty, and might with the same propriety have been made to the martyrs who, for conscience’ sake, refused to repel their murderers with carnal weapons, as to Christians who, for conscience’ sake, refuse at this day to resist evil. No Christian will pretend that defense with carnal weapons is not criminal, if the gospel really forbids it, let the consequences of nonresistance be what they may. For the requisitions of the gospel are the rule of duty. But I presume the objection above stated arises altogether from an apprehension of consequences rather than from regard to duty.

Every candid person must admit that this objection is of no force, until the question whether the gospel does or does not prohibit resistance with deathly weapons is first settled. It might, therefore, justly be dismissed without further remark; but as mankind are often more influenced by supposed consequences than by considerations of duty, and as the objection is very popular, it may deserve a more particular reply.

In the first place, I would observe that the supposition of the objector relates to a very extreme case, a case which has very rarely, if ever, occurred to Christians holding to nonresistance with deathly weapons, and it bears little or no resemblance to the general principles or practices of war which are openly advocated and promoted by professing Christians. Should an event like that supposed in the objection take place, it would be a moment of surprise and agitation in which few could act collectedly from principle. What was done would probably be done in perturbation of mind. But war between nations is a business of calculation and debate, affording so much time for reflection that men need not act from sudden and violent impulse, but may act from fixed principle. In this respect, therefore, war is a very different thing from what is involved in the objection which does not in the least affect the principles or practice of systematic warfare. It is not uncommon to hear persons who are hopefully pious, when pressed by the example and the precepts of Christ against war, acknowledge that most of the wars which have existed since the gospel dispensation cannot be justified on Christian principles; yet these very persons are never heard to disapprove of the common principles of war, or to counteract them by their lives and conversation before a wicked world; but, on the contrary, they will often eulogize heroes, join in the celebration of victories, and take as deep an interest in the result of battles as the warriors of this world; and if their conduct is called in question, they will attempt to justify it by pleading the necessity of self-defense, and immediately introduce the above objection which is by no means parallel with the general principles and practices of all wars.

The truth is, war is a very popular thing among mankind, because it is so congenial to their natural dispositions; and, however gravely some men may, at times, profess to deplore its calamity and wickedness, it is too evident that they take a secret pleasure in the approbation of the multitude and in the fascinating glory of arms; and we have reason to believe that this objection is often made merely to ward off the arrows of conviction which would otherwise pierce their consciences.

The objection, however, wholly overlooks the providence and promise of God. Assassins do not stroll out of the circle of God’s providence. Not only is their breath in his hand, but the weapons they hold are under his control. Besides, God’s children are dear to him, and he shields them by his protecting care, not suffering any event to befall them except such as shall be for his glory and their good. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He has promised to be a very present help to them in every time of need, and to deliver them that trust in him out of all their trouble. He will make even their enemies to be at peace with them. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous and his ears are open to their prayers, but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil; and who is he that will harm you if ye be followers of that which is good? But if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye, and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. If God be thus for his children, who can be against them? Is not the arm of the Lord powerful to save, and a better defense to all who trust in him than swords and guns? Whoever found him unfaithful to his promises or feeble to save? Are not the hosts of heaven at his command? Are not his angels swift to do his will? “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.” If the Lord is on their side, Christians have no cause to fear what man can do unto them. Says the blessed Saviour, “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.”

If consequences are rightly examined, they may prove to be of more importance than at first supposed. If the gospel does forbid resistance with deathly weapons, then he who saves his temporal life by killing his enemy may lose his eternal life; while he who loses his life for Christ’s sake is sure of everlasting life. Thus the Christian, if he is killed, goes to heaven; but the assassin, if he is killed, goes to hell, and the soul of the slayer is in danger of following. Whoever kills another to prevent being killed himself, does it on presumption; for, whatever may be the appearances, God only can know whether one man will assassinate another, before the event has taken place. Men, however, seem to think little of killing or being killed by fighting, whether in single combat or on the field of general battle, though they shudder at the idea of being put to death by an assassin, unless they can inflict or attempt to inflict on him the same evil.

But the objection is usually made on the supposition that the doctrine in question requires Christians to stand still and rather court the dagger than otherwise. This is an unfair statement, for it would be presumption to stand still when there was a chance of escape. Besides, the Christian must act on the defensive, not with carnal, but with spiritual weapons, which are more powerful when exercised in faith than swords or spears.

Probably no instance can be found of robbers murdering such as conscientiously held to nonresistance. It is resistance that provokes violence; forbearance and good will repress it. But if instances of this kind may be found, it is no evidence against the doctrine in question any more than against the principles of the Martyrs. God may, for wise reasons, call away some of his children by the hands of murderers; if so, instead of losing, they save their lives.

Objection second. Self-defense, and, if necessary, with deathly weapons, is the first law of nature. All the animal creation are armed with means of defense, and the principles of the gospel are not contrary to the principles of nature; therefore self-defense is not inconsistent with Christianity.

Answer. It is admitted that the laws of the gospel are not contrary to the primitive laws of nature; but it is by no means granted that they are consistent with the laws of corrupt nature. In consequence of the revolt of man the earth was cursed for his sake. It appears probable that before the fall of man animals were harmless and docile; and it is not improbable that when the curse shall be removed, when the earth shall be filled with righteousness and peace, the lion and the lamb may literally lie down together. At present, indeed, the dove, the lamb, and some other animals have no means of defense, unless flight be considered such. And while warriors are figuratively represented by ferocious beasts, real Christians are represented by lambs and doves. So far as nature is made to speak fairly on the subject, it speaks in favor of the doctrine which has been advocated.

But corrupt nature strongly dictates many things quite contrary to the precepts of the gospel; and no doctrine will be given up more reluctantly by corrupt nature than that of the lawfulness of war, because no doctrine is more congenial with the depraved feelings and propensities of unsanctified men, for their “feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Objection third. The precepts of the gospel are consistent with the moral law, or the eternal nature of things, which is forever the standard of right and wrong to all moral beings in the universe; and war has been prosecuted consistently with this rule of right and wrong; therefore war cannot be contrary to the precepts of the gospel.

Answer. This is an objection founded on an undefinable something aside from divine precept; yet as some terms in it have been much used in polemic divinity by men of eminent talents and piety, whose praise is in the churches, I think it neither proper nor modest to dissent from so high authority without offering some reasons. I shall, therefore, make a few general observations on what is called the moral law, the eternal rule of right and wrong, or the nature of things; all of which phrases, I believe, have been occasionally used by eminent writers as conveying the same ideas.

I cannot agree with such as suppose that a moral law or nature of things exists independently of the will of God and is the common law of God and man. It appears to me as inconsistent to suppose a law to exist without a lawgiver as to suppose a world to exist without a creator. If God is the only eternal and independent Being in the universe, and if all things are the work of his power and goodness, then the supposition that an eternal law exists independently of him appears to me to be absurd, as on this supposition there exists a law without a lawgiver and an effect without a cause. If God is not the author of all things, then there must be more than one eternal cause of things.

To suppose that the reason and fitness of things independently of the will of God, either in his works, his providence, or word, can be a rule of man’s duty appears to me as inconsistent as to suppose that men might institute divine worship from such fitness of things independently of the existence of God; for the will of God to man seems as necessary to lay a foundation of moral obligation and to direct man’s obedience as the existence of God is necessary to lay a foundation of religious worship. Should it be asked whether the laws of God are not founded on the eternal nature and fitness of things, I would answer that such a supposition appears to me no more reasonable than to suppose that his power is founded on the eternal capacity of things; for the capacity of things has just as much reality and eternity in it to found the omnipotence of God upon, as the reason and nature of things have to found his infinite wisdom or justice upon.

I therefore dissent from all standard of moral obligation which are supposed to exist aside from, and independently of, the divine will; and fully agree with the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, in the answer to this question: “What is the duty which God requires of man? Answer: The duty which God requires of man is obedience to his revealed will.” Should it, however, be said that things do exist aside from the divine will, that it does not depend on the divine will, but on the nature of things, that two and two make four, or that a thing cannot be in motion and at rest at the same time, it is by no means admitted that this order or constitution of things exists independently of God; but it is believed to be as much the effect of his power and goodness as anything else. And if God is not the author of all the laws both in the natural and moral world, it may reasonably be inquired, who is?

If God is the moral governor of the world, then all his laws over men, as moral beings, must be moral laws; and to make a distinction between the laws designed to regulate the moral conduct of men, and to call some of them moral and others by different names, seems to me not necessary, while I find no such distinction in the Scriptures. Because some of God’s laws were intended to be temporary, under certain circumstances, they were no less of a moral nature on that account; neither was it any less criminal to violate them.

As created things are in some respects constantly changing, and as the relations of things are often varied, so a law may be relatively right at one time and relatively wrong at another. But as man is frail and short-sighted, and is incapable of seeing the end from the beginning, he is totally unable of himself to judge what is and what is not right, all things considered; hence the necessity of a revelation from God to direct his steps.

That there is a fitness of things and a standard of moral right and wrong cannot be denied; but, instead of being founded in a supposed nature of things independent of God, it originates in the very nature and perfections of God himself, and can never be known by man any farther than the nature and perfections of God are known. A standard of right and wrong independent of God, whether by the name of moral law or nature of things, is what never has been and never can be intelligibly defined. It is like a form without dimensions, like a foundation resting on nothing. It is, therefore, in my opinion, as extravagant to talk of an eternal nature of things, without reference to the laws of God, as it would be to talk of an eternal wisdom or an eternal omnipotence, independent of the existence of God.

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 God, 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 circumstances 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 God 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 circumstances.

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 circumstances 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 circumstances they must also be made the executors of God’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 God 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 God. The Old Testament saints received such commands, but Christians have no such authority, which makes a material difference in circumstances.

Some general observations relative to the different dispensations of the church of God may illustrate 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 God, 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 God. 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 God they judged and made war and conquered their enemies and thus typified the Son of God 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 God 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 analogy and introducing it as proof of sentiments instead of illustration. 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 God, and the others are but human institutions. They not unfrequently speak of God’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 God and taking possession of Canaan. Thus they endeavor to keep up a parallel between God’s ancient church and civil governments. The economy of God’s ancient covenant people was by no means a political institution in the popular sense, but it was a dispensation of the church of God, 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 analogy between them is specious and false. The Israelites had no authority to enact laws or to alter God’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 God, 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 God 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 God 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 God, 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 God 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 God, we shall find it to be very different from that of the precepts, generally, delivered to Moses. God 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 God 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 God declared what he would do himself. It appears, therefore, to have been God’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 passages 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 God. 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, God 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 God, for wise reasons, did not always have the penalty executed. David was guilty of murder and adultery, both capital crimes; yet he was permitted to live.

All kinds of vindictive punishment under the Christian dispensation appear to be absolutely forbidden. By vindictive I mean that which is intended to vindicate the law, as executing strict justice, and prevent offenses only, as taking away life, but which is not designed to promote the individual good of the person punished. That punishment which is designed and which has a tendency to promote the good of the punished, as well as to deter offenders, I consider to be strictly disciplinary or corrective, and consistent with the spirit and precepts of the gospel. Says an apostle, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” “For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” It has been said that this only forbids a revengeful temper, but this evasion will not do; for Christians are here forbidden to do the very thing which God declares he will do himself, and he does nothing but what is holy.

“Render to no man evil for evil,” is a positive precept without any limitation, and which admits of no evasion; and it must plainly rescind the law of shedding man’s blood because he had shed the blood of man.

But the exclamation is often made, What, not punish a murderer with death! Little do those who make this exclamation think that they themselves also are sinners and that every sin deserves not only temporal death but God’s wrath and curse forever, and that they are in like condemnation unless redeemed by the blood of the Lamb. For such, it might be well to inquire if they know “what manner of spirit they are of.”

The most prominent characteristic of Messiah’s reign over men in this world is mercy, since he has secured the rights and honor of the divine government by the sacrifice of himself so that the guilty may live. He has given his life as a ransom and taken the world into his hands as the ruler, judge, and rewarder, and offers the chief of sinners mercy; and the merits of his blood are sufficient to cleanse from all sin as well against man as against God. And who can help being astonished at the amazing difference between his laws and his dealings with men, and those sanguinary laws of men according to which under the light of the gospel they punish with death.

The professed principle and design of these laws is strict justice; but were men dealt with according to strict justice by him who rules above, who would be able to stand? These laws of men accept no atonement for capital offenses; no mercy is offered, for none is provided for those who incur their penalty; but the gospel offers mercy to the chief of sinners while it condemns those who reject the offers. Capital offenders will never be condemned by civil governments for the rejection of offered mercy, for no mercy is provided for them. How unlike the divine government! But Christians are commanded to be merciful, as their Father in heaven is merciful, who showers down blessings on the evil and unthankful. Our Master has told us that with what judgment we judge we shall be judged; and with what measure we mete it shall be measured to us again; that if we forgive we shall be forgiven; and if we forgive not we shall not be forgiven; and that if we show no mercy we shall have judgment without mercy.

Christians ought to ponder the subject well before they advocate the consistency and safety of dispensing justice without mercy. Let them learn what that meaneth, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice.”

Objection seventh. “Every purpose is established by counsel, and with good advice make war”; “For by wise counsel thou shalt make war,” etc. Here war is recognized as a duty under certain circumstances, and the manner in which it is to be undertaken is pointed out, viz., by wise counsel.

Answer. The inspired Proverbs are maxims of wisdom illustrated, for the most part, by some familiar subject that existed at the time they were delivered. The object here is not to inculcate the lawfulness of war but the necessity of sound wisdom in relation to the actions of men; and the subject of war appears to be introduced merely to illustrate this idea. The counsel and wisdom of men in relation to their temporal and worldly concerns are often worthy of imitation in reference to spiritual things; for the children of this world are, in some sense, wiser in their generation than the children of light, and the conduct of worldly men is often very appropriately introduced to illustrate Christian duty. Our Lord says, “What king, going to war with another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?” Doubtless our Lord’s design was to warn people to count the cost before they professed to be followers of him, that they might not be deceived and discouraged, and that they might act from principle and not from hypocrisy. But he inculcated these things by referring to the example of kings in their consultations about war. And it is believed that the passages before cited are of similar import. These references to war, being introduced merely for the illustration of other subjects, will no more prove the lawfulness of war than the reference of the apostle to the Olympic games, for illustration, will prove the lawfulness of those heathen feats. But if this explanation should not be satisfactory, it may be observed that the Proverbs were written under the Old Testament economy which tolerated offensive as well as defensive war; whence it does not appear that any war can be undertaken under the present dispensation, “by wise counsel,” except that which is spiritual; so that if the ancient was typical of the new dispensation, then the passages quoted will now apply only to spiritual warfare.

Objection eighth. When the soldiers demanded of John the Baptist what they should do, one of the directions which he gave them was to be content with their wages. If their occupation had been unlawful, then he would not have directed them to be contented with the wages of wickedness.

Answer. John the Baptist was under the Mosaic economy, the new dispensation not having commenced. He was but the forerunner of the Lord, a herald to sound his approach. But he gave the soldiers another direction, viz., to “do violence to no man,” obedience to which is totally incompatible with war, as that is nothing else but violence. Only hinder soldiers from doing violence to any man and you stop at once the whole progress of war; therefore, if the directions of John are insisted on as gospel authority, they will prove, probably, much more against the lawfulness of war than in favor of it.

Objection ninth. The Centurion and Cornelius were Christians and soldiers and highly approved of God for their faith and piety; nor were they directed by Christ or his apostles to renounce their profession; therefore the profession of arms is not inconsistent with Christian duty.

Answer. They were first soldiers and then Christians; and we have no evidence that they continued in the profession of arms; nor are we warranted to say that they were not directed to renounce that profession, as the Scriptures are silent on the subject. Peter, it appears, tarried a number of days with Cornelius, and he doubtless explained to him the spirit and precepts of the gospel; and it is very probable that neither Cornelius nor the Centurion continued soldiers in any other sense than they were soldiers of Christ, as the idolatrous rites enjoined on the Roman soldiers were totally inconsistent with the Christian character, aside from the unlawfulness of war itself. Besides, the Roman soldiers were as often engaged in offensive as in defensive war; therefore, if the argument has any force on the question, it will tolerate not only defensive but offensive war, and also the idolatrous rites of the Roman armies.

Objection tenth. Our Lord paid tribute money, which went to support military power, but he would not contribute to the support of a wicked thing, therefore war is not inconsistent with Christianity.

Answer. A distinguished trait of the Christian religion is peace. The command is, “Follow peace with all men.” “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

Our Lord set the example of giving no just cause of offense to any. Tribute was demanded of him unjustly according to the existing laws, but lest fault should be found, he wrought a miracle and paid it. Money is a temporal thing, and belongs to the governments of this world, as the various coins bear the ensign of the nation by whom they were made; but the Christian’s treasure is not in this world, and when the rulers of this world call for that which bears their own image and superscription, Christians have no right to withhold from them their dues, for they must “render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” For this cause they ought to pay tribute and resign up temporal things without a murmur to temporal governments, and leave it with Cæsar to manage the things of Cæsar. Thus far are Christians warranted to act, from the example of Christ and the precepts of the gospel; but how does the lawfulness of war follow from Christians rendering to Cæsar his due? Is it because some of the money goes to support war? Probably, of the money which our Lord paid as much went to the support of idolatry and the games of the day as to the support of war. Now if the argument is sound, we may not only prove by it the lawfulness of war but the lawfulness of idolatry and many other abominable things practiced by the heathen governments.

Objection eleventh. Our Lord, just before his crucifixion, commanded his disciples to take swords, and, if any were destitute, to sell their garments and procure them, as they would no longer have his personal presence to protect them; and as they were to encounter great trials and difficulties, they must, besides relying on providence, take all prudent means for their defense and preservation.

Answer. That our Lord did not direct them to take swords for self-defense is evident because he told them that two were enough, and because the disciples never made any use of them after their Master directed Peter to put up his and pronounced a penalty on all who should have recourse to swords afterwards. But the design seems to have been to show by example in the most trying situation where self-defense was justifiable, if in any case, that the use of the sword was utterly prohibited under the gospel economy, and to show the criminality and danger of ever using deathly weapons against mankind afterwards. If Christ’s kingdom had been of this world, then, he tells us, his servants would have fought; but his kingdom being not of this world, the weapons of their warfare were not carnal but spiritual. He therefore rebuked them for their mistaken zeal, healed the wound they made, and forbade the use of the sword.

Objection twelfth. Christians are commanded to be in subjection to civil rulers who are God’s ministers to execute wrath on the wicked and are ministers of good to the church; therefore Christians are bound to take the sword at their command; for civil government is ordained of God and civil rulers are not to bear the sword in vain, and Christians may lawfully do what God ordains to be done.

Answer. That civil government, so called in distinction from religious government, is ordained by God is fully admitted, and also that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. But there is a great difference between his decretive and his preceptive will. The former is not a rule of duty for man without the latter; the latter is always a rule of duty. This fact might be proved by a multitude of instances from Scripture. Persons therefore may be very wicked in doing what God ordains to be done, if they act without his command.

That civil governments and civil rulers exist only by God’s decretive will, which is fulfilled by his providence and not by his preceptive will, is evident because God has never authorized the appointment of them or given any precepts or any commands as a code of laws to any denomination or class of people as such, distinct from his own covenant people or church; and this fact I beg leave to submit as a conclusive evidence that civil governments and civil rulers exist only by God’s decretive will and not by his preceptive will. Under the ancient dispensation no laws or directions were given to any class of men, as such, other than God’s own covenant people or church, unless some special commands on singular occasions, or the general command to repent and turn to God, be excepted.

The king on the throne of Israel was as truly an officer in the church of God as the high priest who entered into the holy of holies. Both were set apart and anointed with the holy oil, at the command of God, and both were types of the Son of God. The king as much typified his kingly office as the priest did his priestly office. Both were necessary parts of that complete shadow of good things then to come.

Under the gospel dispensation no authority from God is to be found for appointing and setting apart civil rulers, nor are there any directions given to civil rulers, as such, how to conduct in their office, unless those who rule in the church are called civil rulers. All the precepts and directions in the gospel, excepting such as were special (as those which related only to the apostles) or such as are universal (relating alike to all men), are given to the disciples as members of Christ’s kingdom, who are not of this world, even as he was not of this world.

The Son of God came into the world to set up the kingdom of heaven, which is a perfect and everlasting kingdom and distinct from all other kingdoms which are to be destroyed to give place to his divine and heavenly reign. He came in the likeness of men, sin excepted, and laid down his life a ransom for the world, and then rose a triumphant conqueror, and in the complex character of God and man, as Mediator, he took the universe, his purchased possession, into his hands as a lawgiver, judge, and rewarder. He took the scepter when it departed from Judah, and is exalted far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and has a name above every name, all executive power in heaven and earth being given to him as Mediator. Thus, as Mediator, the kingdom of heaven is his kingdom. He reigns not only as King of kings and Lord of lords but seated on the throne of his father David, he is forever King in Zion and is head over all things to his church. His kingdom is not of this world, neither are his subjects of this world, though some of them are in it.

He sent out his disciples to appear in a distinct character from the world and to be a light to it by imitating his example and by exhibiting his spirit and temper. They ought not to say, as the Jews did, that they have no king but Cæsar, for they have an everlasting King and kingdom and laws perfect and eternal. They should, therefore, set their affections on things above and not on things beneath.

While the kingdoms of this world exist, Christians must remain in captivity to them and must obey all their laws which are not contrary to the laws of the gospel; otherwise they cannot remain peaceful, harmless, and blameless in the midst of a wicked world before whom they must shine as lights.

Though the church is now in captivity, yet her redemption draweth nigh, for God will soon “overthrow the throne of kingdoms,” and the thrones will be cast down and the princes of this world will come to naught. The stone which was cut out of the mountain without hands will dash them to pieces, as the potter’s vessel is shivered, and will become a great mountain and fill the whole earth; then the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the most high God whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and of whose dominion there shall be no end.

Though God, by his decree, has ordained civil governments and established kingdoms, and will by his providence make them subservient to the good of his church and people, and notwithstanding it is the duty of Christians to be in subjection to them and pay tribute, yet it does not follow that their genius and laws may not often be contrary to the genius and laws of the gospel, and when they are so Christians must not obey them nor count their lives dear to themselves. It should be distinctly remembered that when Christians were exhorted and commanded to be obedient to civil rulers, they were under heathen, idolatrous, civil governments, and those civil governments were by no means congenial with the spirit and precepts of the gospel; still Christians were commanded to be in subjection to them; not, however, without limitation, for they utterly refused obedience in many instances and nobly suffered or died as martyrs.

Thus civil government may be an ordinance of God, may be subservient to the good of the church, may be an instrument in God’s hands of executing his wrath, and Christians may be bound to obey magistrates in all things not contrary to the gospel; and yet it will not follow that Christians may consistently with the gospel take up the sword or do anything to countenance war.

If it be the duty of Christians to take the sword and enter the field of battle at the command of their civil rulers, then there could be no impropriety in having armies wholly made up of real Christians, especially since it is the duty of every man to become a Christian; and as professing Christian nations are almost constantly fighting each other, it would be perfectly proper for hosts of pious saints to be daily engaged in shedding each other’s blood. But how would it appear, how does it appear, for those who have drunk into the same peaceful and heavenly spirit, who are united together by the tender ties of the Redeemer’s blood, who are all members of the same family, and who hope through divine grace to dwell together in everlasting love and blessedness, to be fighting one another here with relentless fury?

Let us contemplate the subject, in this point of view, a little further. Suppose an English and an American frigate in the time of war, both manned entirely with real Christians, should meet in a neutral port. Ought they not then to conduct towards each other as brethren of one common Lord? As they are all members of the same family and have all been redeemed by the same blood, and sanctified by the same divine spirit, they surely must have the most tender affection for each other, and it would be highly proper for them to meet together for Christian fellowship, worship, and communion. Suppose, then, that they occasionally go on board each other’s ships for religious worship; that their chaplains lead in their devotions, using such petitions as these—praying that they may be all of one heart and one mind in the knowledge of Christ, knit together in the bonds of Christian love; that they may have much of the wisdom from above which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated; that they may do good to all as they have opportunity, especially to the household of faith; that they may be meek and gentle as lambs and harmless as doves; that they may be kind and forgiving and that, like their Divine Master, they may return good for evil and have their affections on things above and not on things beneath; after which they unitedly partake of the symbols of Christ’s broken body and shed blood, and then part with the tenderest tokens of Christian fellowship and love. They leave the port and meet again at sea. It now becomes their duty, on the principles of war, instead of meeting as Christian brethren, to meet as raging tigers and discharge the flaming engines of death on each other; and in order to perform “their duty to their God and country,” they must exert all their power and skill to destroy one another. The dreadful struggle and carnage must be continued by both parties as long as both can fight. When half of their crews are wallowing in their blood and expiring in agonies, a violent effort must be made by one or both to board the other and end the contest sword in hand. Those hands which recently saluted each other with Christian love now plunge the envenomed steel into their brethren’s bosoms. At length one is vanquished and yields to the other. Those who remain alive after the conflict again unite in prayer and give thanks to God that he has given them courage and strength to fight so nobly, and that he has shielded their lives in the hour of battle. Thus they again resume their Christian fellowship and communion. This mutual fellowship, communion, and love are perfectly consistent with Christian character and are required by it. The conduct which has been supposed as enemies when fighting is also entirely consistent with the principles of war and with the character of warriors, and is such as would be highly applauded and admired by the world. But is it not obviously and perfectly absurd and perfectly incompatible with the principles of the gospel for Christians to act in this twofold character? If, however, it is the duty of Christians to obey the command of their rulers and engage in war, then it would be perfectly proper for what has been supposed to take place. Christians may one day surround the table of the Lord together, and the next kill and destroy each other.

The god of this world, not being yet chained down to hell, deceives the nations and gathers them together to battle; but the children of peace, the citizens of Zion, ought not to mingle with them or listen to the deceiver. They should take to themselves not carnal weapons but the whole armor of God, that they may be able to stand in an evil day and to quench all the fiery darts of Satan.

Objection thirteenth. To deny the right of the magistrate to call on his subjects to take the sword is to deny that he is an avenger to execute wrath, though the gospel expressly declares that he is.

Answer. This conclusion does not follow unless it is a fact that God cannot and does not actually make him the instrument of doing it, by his providence, without his command; for, as we have already observed, men may fulfill the decrees of God under his providence, without his command, and be very criminal in the deed. God raised up the king of Assyria and made him the rod of his anger, to chastise his people and to execute wrath upon the ungodly nations around. “Howbeit he meant not so, but it was in his heart to cut off nations not a few.” And God declared, with reference to him, “that when he had performed his whole work he would punish the fruit of his stout heart and the glory of his high looks.” It will not be contended that warlike nations are commanded by God to destroy and trample down the nations of the earth as the dust of their feet; yet, when they do so, they doubtless fulfill his high decree and are avengers to execute his wrath on a wicked world.

The beast represented in the Revelation with seven heads and ten horns has generally been considered as an emblem of nations. These ten horns, or powers, are to hate the great harlot of Babylon; to eat her flesh and burn her with fire; and though they destroy the greatest enemy of the church, and in this way are ministers of good to her, yet they receive their power and their seat and their authority from the old serpent, the dragon. And a magistrate or king may be a minister of good to the church and an avenger to execute wrath, and still be very wicked in the deed and use very unlawful means to accomplish the end. While he fulfills the decree of Heaven, he acts not in obedience to the command of God, but to the dictates of his own lusts and passions.

Objection fourteenth. The passages of Scripture which have been quoted against retaliation and which inculcate love to enemies and the returning of good for evil have reference to individuals in their conduct towards each other, but have no relation to civil government and are not intended as a rule of duty for one nation towards another; they therefore have no bearing on the subject of war.

Answer. Those precepts of the gospel appear to be binding universally without any limitation, and men have no right to limit that which God has not limited. If the commands of the gospel are binding upon every one in his individual capacity, then they must be binding upon every one in any collective body, so that whatever is morally wrong for every individual must be equally wrong for a collective body; and a nation is only a large number of individuals united so as to act collectively as one person. Therefore, if it is criminal for an individual to lie, steal, quarrel, and fight, it is also criminal for nations to lie, steal, quarrel, and fight. If it is the duty of an individual to be kind and tender-hearted and to have a forgiving and merciful disposition, it is likewise the duty of nations to be kind, forgiving, and merciful. If it is the duty of an individual to return good for evil, then it is the duty of nations to return good for evil.

It is self-evident that individuals cannot delegate power to communities which they do not possess themselves. Therefore, if every individual is bound to obey the precepts of the gospel and cannot as an individual be released from the obligation, then individuals have no power to release any collective body from that obligation. To say that God has given to nations a right to return evil for evil is begging the question, for it does not appear and cannot be shown that God has restricted the precepts of the gospel to individuals, or that he has given any precepts to nations as such, or to any other community than his own covenant people or church. This objection makes government an abstraction according with the common saying, “Government is without a soul.”

No practice has a more corrupt tendency than that of attempting to limit the Scriptures so as to make them trim with the corrupt practices of mankind. Whoever, for the sake of supporting war, attempts to limit these precepts of the gospel to individuals and denies that they are binding upon nations destroys one of the main pillars by which the lawfulness of war is upheld. The right of nations to defend themselves with the sword is argued on the supposed right of individual self-preservation; as it is said to be right for individuals to defend themselves with deathly weapons, so it is lawful for nations to have recourse to the sword for defense of their rights. But if these passages are applicable to individuals and prohibit them from acts of retaliation, and if the rights of nations are founded on the rights of individuals, then nations have no right to retaliate injury.

Objection fifteenth. Christians, with comparatively few exceptions, have not doubted the lawfulness of war, and many have actually fought and bled on the field of battle and considered themselves in the way of their duty. And shall all our pious forefathers be condemned for engaging in war?

Answer. It is admitted that many pious people have engaged in war, but they might have been in an error on this subject as well as on many other subjects. Many of our pious forefathers engaged in the slavery of their fellow-men, and thought themselves in the way of their duty; but does it follow that they were not in an error? The circumstance that multitudes defend a sentiment is no certain evidence of its truth. Some of the reformers were objected to because the multitude were against them. Popularity, however, ever has influenced and ever will influence mankind more than plain gospel duty, until the earth shall be filled with the abundance of peace. But notwithstanding this, it is not right to follow the multitude to do evil. All ought to remember that they have no right to follow the example of any one any further than that example coincides with the example of Christ or the precepts of the gospel; all other standards are fallible and dangerous.

If real Christians have, from mistaken zeal, prayed against each other and fought each other and shed each other’s blood, this does not justify war.

Objection sixteenth. If Christians generally should adopt these sentiments, it would be impossible for them to subsist in this world in its present state, and if they did continue it must be in abject slavery. They would become hewers of wood and drawers of water to the tyrannical and oppressive, and would only encourage them in their deeds of wickedness. The injustice of men must be restrained or the earth will again be filled with violence. The necessity of the case is such that mankind would be warranted to take up arms to maintain their rights and repel oppressors, if the Scriptures were silent on the subject.[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 passions 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 God is open rebellion against his government as well as total distrust of his word and providence.

If Christians live in habitual obedience to God’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 godly 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 God, 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 God 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 God 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 God 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 God 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 God 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 entitled to regard, but must not be considered as infallible authority, for they were men of like passions 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 sanctity 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.”

Irenæus 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 worship 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 pronounced 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.

We have no good evidence of Christians being found in the armies until we have evidence of great corruption in the church. But admitting that we had good evidence that there were professing Christians in the army at an early period of the church, I apprehend it would be of little importance, for the idolatrous rites and ceremonies of the heathen armies were of such a nature as to be totally inconsistent with Christian character, and the example of idolatrous Christians surely ought to have no weight.

Some objections of less importance might be stated which have from time to time been made against the sentiments here advocated; but to state and reply to everything that might be said is not necessary. Specious objections have been and still are made to almost every doctrine of Christianity. Mankind can generally find some plausible arguments to support whatever they wish to believe. The pleas in favor of war are very congenial with the natural feelings of the human heart, and unless men will examine with a serious, candid, and prayerful disposition to ascertain the truth as it is in Jesus, they will be very likely to imbibe and defend error.[3]

The writer, though far from supposing that everything he has said on a subject that has been so little discussed is free from error, is conscious of having endeavored to examine it with seriousness and candor, and feels satisfied that the general sentiments he has advanced are according to godliness. He sincerely hopes that every one who may peruse these pages will do it in the meek and unbiased spirit of the gospel, and then judge whether war can be reconciled with the lamblike example of Christ; whether it is really forgiving the trespasses of enemies, loving and doing them good, and returning good for evil; for if it is not, it is unquestionably inconsistent with the spirit and the precepts of Christianity.

All who earnestly desire and look for the millennial glory of the church should consider that it can never arrive until the spirit and practice of war are abolished. All who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity cannot but ardently desire that wars may cease to the ends of the earth and that mankind should embrace each other as brethren. If so, is it not their duty to do all in their power to promote so benevolent an object? Ought not every individual Christian to conduct in such a manner that if every other person imitated his example it would be best for the whole? If so, would they not immediately renounce everything that leads to wars and fightings and embrace everything which would promote that glorious reign of righteousness and peace for which they earnestly hope, long, and pray? “The work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance forever.”