ways; to perform all our intelligent and moral acts in the spirit of supplication. And we do not hesitate in the remark, that to an enlightened and conscientious Christian prayer may be made one of the most certain tests of the rectitude of the course, which he proposes to take. If such a person cannot pray over what he propeses to do, if he cannot ask God's blessing upon it, he may safely come to the conclusion, that there is something wrong in it. And it may be asked, therefore, with great emphasis and great meaning, what sort of a prayer could a soldier offer, when going into battle? We must remember in answering this question, that his prayer must be offered, not in the spirit of the light of nature, perhaps we may say not in the spirit even of the Old Testament, but in the spirit of the Gospel. And what spirit does the Gospel require us to exercise towards others, even those whom we correctly regard as our enemies? We have already seen. "Love your enemies. Do good to them which hate you. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them, which despitefully use you. And ye shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father is merciful. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath, for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink. Be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good."

God commands the soldier, as well as others, to do good to those who hate him, to love his enemies, to be merciful, not to avenge; but, in compliance with that great requisition, which is also binding upon him as well as upon others, to pray, and to ask God's blessing on all we do, he asks, (or rather he hypocritically professes to ask,) the divine blessing in smiting, piercing, maiming,

striking to the earth, and sending into eternity those, whom he is expressly required to love, to feed, and to pray for. Can such a prayer be accepted? Can it be offered with the least sincerity by one, who has any correct understanding of the New Testament? Will it not freeze and wither upon his lips?

It is not long since, that we were looking over the life of the celebrated Suwarrow; and our attention was attracted by certain directions to soldiers, commonly known as Suwarrow's Catechism. It would be well for the advocates of war to compare this celebrated production, which has been a great favorite of the Russian armies, with the Savior's Sermon on the Mount. What the sermon on the Mount is, every one knows; it breathes nothing but meekness, peace, and love. But what says the Catechism of Suwarrow? "Push hard with the bayonet. The ball will lose its way; the bayonet never. The ball is a fool; the bayonet a hero. Stabb once! And off with the Turk from the bayonet! stabb the second! stabb the third! A hero will stabb half a dozen! If three attack you, stabb the first, fire on the second, and bayonet the third!"This is the spirit of war. These are the directions of a great warrior. And now we ask again, can the spirit of humble, penitent, and benevolent supplication exist in connection with such a temper of mind as is indicated here?

In view of the considerations and the passages of Scripture, which have been brought forward in this Chapter, we put the serious inquiry, whether, as professed followers of Christ, whether as believers in that new and glorious Gospel which he came to announce, we are not to regard all wars as entirely prohibited, and as utterly wrong and sinful? We are aware it is easy to cavil; it is easy to make objections, where the path is as clear as meridian day; but we address ourselves now to

those, who truly take the Gospel for their guide, and who, with a humble and prayerful spirit, are willing to go, wherever it may lead. We have no doubt what answer they will give. Let them, then, speedily awake on this momentous subject. We fear that Christians have been sadly blinded, not only on the subject of war in general, but in respect to all acts of retaliation and violence. We entreat them to pause as one man, to take the Bible into their hands, (particularly the exalted and completed Revelation of the New Testament,) and examining it with the utmost care, to consider, with deep solicitude, where they have been going, and what they have been doing.



In the last chapter it was made to appear by a reference to the New Testament, that wars of every description are unlawful. We are aware, however, that some few things may be said, not altogether destitute of plausibility, by way of objection to what has been adduced. In the first place, it is objected, that the precepts of the New Testament are of individual, and not of national application; that they relate to men, in their private and not in their social and corporate capacity.-We need not be at a loss for an answer, (and what we conceive to be an ample and satisfactory answer,) to this objection.

The answer is to be found in the arrangements and methods of reasoning, adopted in those Treatises, which especially relate to the duties and intercourse of nations.

In all complete Treatises on the Law of Nations, we find the distinction, (undoubtedly insisted upon much more at length in some than in others,) into the Natural and Conventional Law. The natural law of nations is that portion of the Law of Nations, which is founded in nature; by which is universally understood to be meant, that it is founded in the constitution or nature of man. In other words, the whole reasoning, running through this portion of the Law of Nations, is based upon this single principle, that, as nations are composed of individuals, whatever is right or wrong in individuals, is also right or wrong in nations, acting under similar circumstances. The natural reason and conscience of man, judging as to what is right or wrong in his own individual conduct, is the standard, which the writer on this portion of the Law of Nations constantly refers to, in attempting to prescribe the path of international action. But since the introduction of the Gospel, men are placed under a new dispensation, superadded to, and far above that of mere unaided nature. If there are some things, which are permitted by the light of nature, but are forbidden by the Gospel, no one can doubt, that their conduct in their individual capacity is now to be regulated, not by the permission of nature, but by the prohibition of Revelation. They are now placed on a higher position; not only more elevated than that formerly occupied by them, but enveloped in light; they are under a new law infinitely transcending any, of which the unaided human intellect is the source.

Now what we claim is, the right to reason and to apply principles of action, in the same way in which writers on the Law of Nations have always reasoned and

applied principles of action. They have reasoned from individuals to nations, and have applied to nations principles of action, which they claimed to be just and obligatory in the case of individuals. But if the law of individuals is altered, if God has seen fit to impart a light additional to the light of nature, thereby developing and requiring a course of conduct beyond and above what unaided nature would have indicated, then we do only what has hitherto been done, and reason as men have hitherto reasoned, when we extend these higher principles of action, which are now acknowledged to be binding upon individuals, to those communities and nations, which these individuals have formed by associating with each other. In other words, if the principles of the Gospel are binding upon men in their individual, they are also binding upon them in their social capacity.

SECONDLY.-The following passage of scripture, uttered by the Savior himself, is to be regarded in the opinion of the opposers of the non-resistance doctrine, as authorizing war.-Luke 22: 36. "Then said he unto them, But, now, he, that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he, that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." In regard to this passage we admit, that, if its import were not qualified by what took place and was said at the time of its being uttered, it would be favorable to the practice of war. It appears from what is said in the connection, that the Savior meant this saying, and that he was understood by his disciples to mean it, as a direction for immediate action; as a requisition to array themselves against the onset of some danger near at hand. Accordingly they answered him, and said, "Behold, here are two swords." And what was the answer of the Savior?" And he said unto them, it is enough." Now it is to be noticed, that there were eleven persons present besides 'Jesus; and they

« ElőzőTovább »