War Inconsistent with the Religion of Jesus Christ

by David Low Dodge

But though the whole tenor of the gospel absolutely enjoins returning good for evil and blessing for cursing; yet the open and avowed principles of war are to return evil for evil, violence for violence.

Now if the principles of war are so directly opposed to the principles of the gospel, if the practice of war is so perfectly contrary to Christian practice, then it must be very criminal for Christians not to bear open testimony against war, and much more criminal to do anything to promote it.

IX. WAR IS CRIMINAL, BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY RENDERING EVIL FOR EVIL

It is a fact which can neither be disguised nor controverted that the whole trade of war is returning evil for evil. This is a fundamental principle in the system of self-defense. Therefore every exertion in the power of contending nations is made to inflict mutual injury, not merely upon persons in public employment and upon public property, but indiscriminately upon all persons and property. Hence it is an established rule of what is styled “civilized warfare” that if one party takes a person suspected of being a spy, they put him to death; which act is retaliated by the other the first opportunity. If one party storms a fortified place and puts the garrison or the inhabitants to the sword, the other, in their defense, must retaliate the same thing, and, if possible, to a greater degree. If one side executes a number of captives for some alleged extraordinary act, the other, on the principles of self-defense, may execute double the number; the first may then, on the same principles, double this number; and so they may proceed to return evil for evil, till one or the other yields.

The principles of self-defense require not merely an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but for one eye two eyes, for one tooth two teeth. They require the retaliation of an injury to a double degree,—otherwise, there would be no balance in favor of the defensive side; but as both parties must always be on the defense, both must, of course, retaliate to a double degree. Thus war is aggravated and inflamed, and its criminality raised to the highest pitch.

The doctrine of retaliation is not only openly avowed and practiced by professing Christian nations, but is sometimes defended before national councils by professing Christians of high standing in churches. “O! tell it not in Gath! publish it not in the streets of Askelon! lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph!”

That the retaliation of injury, of whatever kind it may be and to whomsoever it may be offered, is most absolutely and unequivocally forbidden by the whole spirit of the gospel dispensation, as well as by its positive precepts, surely can never be fairly controverted.

Says the great Author and finisher of our faith, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Whether the literal import of these words be contended for or not, they cannot fairly be construed as teaching anything short of a positive and unconditional prohibition of the retaliation of injury. Had our Lord added to these words the maxim of the world, “If any man assaults you with deathly weapons, you may repel him with deathly weapons,” it would have directly contradicted the spirit of this command and made his sayings like a house divided against itself.

The apostles largely insist upon this doctrine of their divine Master, thus: “Recompense to no man evil for evil”; “Be ye all of one mind, not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing”; “See that none render evil for evil to any man.” These comprehensive passages make no conditions or limitations, and are, therefore, applicable to all men and binding upon all in all situations and circumstances under the light of the gospel; but had they added, “If any man injures you, you may return him an injury and repel violence with violence,” it would have been most palpably absurd, and the precepts of the gospel would have been truly what infidels have asserted they are,—a series of gross contradictions.

But I repeat that the open and avowed principles of war, even among Christian nations, are those of returning evil for evil. Surely, nations neither aim nor pretend to aim at the best good of their enemies; but, on the contrary, their real and professed object in the sight of God and man is to do them, while at war, all the injury in their power. What means that language which conveys instructions to those who command ships of war, to sink, burn, and destroy, if it does not mean evil to enemies? Why do nations encourage the cupidity of men by licensing and letting loose swarms of picaroons on their enemies, if it is not to inflict evil on them? But all this is sanctioned under the notion of self-defense, and, as though it were a light thing for men thus publicly to trample on the laws of the gospel, they lift up their daring hands to heaven and supplicate God’s help to assist them in violating his own commands! No apology can be made for such proceedings until it is shown that war is not returning evil for evil.