JOHN THE BAPTIST-GROTIUS-MILTON

CHAP. 19.] 415 swords can be maintained. This, at least, we know, that when the apostles were completely commissioned, they neither used nor possessed them. An extraordinary imagination he must have, who conceives of an apostle, preaching peace and reconciliation, crying "forgive injuries," "love your enemies,”- "render not evil for evil;" and at the conclusion of the discourse, if he chanced to meet violence or insult, promptly drawing his sword and maiming or murdering the offender. We insist upon this consideration. If swords were to be worn, swords were to be used; and there is no rational way in which they could have been used, but some such as that which we have been supposing. If, therefore, the words "He that hath no sword let him sell his garment, and buy one," do not mean to authorize such a use of the sword, they do not mean to authorize its use at all: and those who adduce the passage must allow its application in such a sense, or they must exclude it from any application to their purpose.

It has been said, again, that when soldiers came to John the Baptist to inquire of him what they should do, he did not direct them to leave the service, but to be content with their wages. This, also, is at best but a negative evidence. It does not prove that the military profession was wrong, and it certainly does not prove that it was right. But, in truth, if it asserted the latter, Christians have, as I conceive, nothing to do with it for I think that we need not inquire what John allowed, or what he forbade. He confessedly belonged to that system which required "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth :" and the observations which we shall by-and-by make on the authority of the law of Moses apply, therefore, to that of John the Baptist. Although it could be proved (which it cannot be) that he allowed wars, he acted not inconsistently with his own dispensation; and with that dispensation we have no business. Yet, if any one still insists upon the authority of John, I would refer him for an answer to Jesus Christ himself. What authority He attached to John on questions relating to His own dispensation may be learned from this,-"The least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

It is perhaps no trifling indication of the difficulty which writers have found in discovering in the Christian Scriptures arguments in support of war, that they have had recourse to such equivocal and far-fetched arguments. Grotius adduces a passage which he says is "a leading point of evidence to show that the right of war is not taken away by the law of the gospel." And what is this leading evidence? That Paul, in writing to Timothy, exhorts that prayer should be made for "kings!"-Another evidence which this great man adduces is, that Paul suffered himself to be protected on his journey by a guard of soldiers, without hinting any disapprobation of repelling force by force. But how does Grotius know that Paul did not hint this? And who can imagine that to suffer himself to be guarded by a military escort, in the appointment of which he had no control, was to approve war?

But perhaps the real absence of sound Christian arguments in favour of war is in no circumstance so remarkably intimated as in the citations of Milton in his Christian Doctrine. "With regard to the duties of war," he quotes or refers to thirty-nine passages of Scripture,-thirty-eight of which are from the Hebrew Scriptures: and what is the individual

* See Rights of War and Peace.

416

PROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

[ESSAY III.

one from the Christian?" What king going to war with another king," &c. !*

Such are the arguments which are adduced from the Christian Scriptures by the advocates of war. In these five passages, the principal of the New Testament evidences in its favour unquestionably consist: they are the passages which men of acute minds, studiously seeking for evidence, have selected. And what are they? Their evidence is in the majority of instances negative at best. A "NOT" intervenes. The centurion was not found fault with: Cornelius was not told to leave the profession: John did not tell the soldiers to abandon the army: Paul did not refuse a military guard. I cannot forbear to solicit the reader to compare these objections with the pacific evidence of the gospel which has been laid before him; I would rather say, to compare it with the gospel itself; for the sum, the tendency, of the whole revelation is in our favour.

In an inquiry whether Christianity allows of war, there is a subject that always appears to me to be of peculiar importance, the prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the arrival of a period of universal peace. The belief is perhaps general among Christians, that a time will come when vice shall be eradicated from the world, when the violent passions of mankind shall be repressed, and when the pure benignity of Christianity shall be universally diffused. That such a period will come we indeed know assuredly, for God has promised it.

Of the many prophecies of the Old Testament respecting this period, we refer only to a few from the writings of Isaiah. In his predictions respecting the "last times," by which it is not disputed that he referred to the prevalence of the Christian religion, the prophet says,-" They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Again, referring to the same period, he says,"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea."‡ And again, respecting the same era,-" Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders."§

Two things are to be observed in relation to these prophecies: first, that it is the will of God that war should eventually be abolished. This consideration is of importance, for if war be not accordant with His will, war cannot be accordant with Christianity, which is the revelation of His will. Our business, however, is principally with the second consideration, that Christianity will be the means of introducing this period of peace. From those who say that our religion sanctions war an answer must be expected to questions such as these:-By what instrumentality, and by the diffusion of what principles, will the prophecies of Isaiah be fulfilled? Are we to expect some new system of religion, by which the imperfections of Christianity shall be removed and its deficiencies supplied? Are we to believe that God sent his only Son into the world to institute a religion such as this,-a religion that, in a few centuries, would require to be altered and amended? If Christianity allows of war, they must tell us what it is that is to extirpate war. If she allows "violence, and wasting, and destruction," they must tell us what are the principles that are to produce gentleness, and benevolence, and forbearance.+ Id. xi. 9. § Id. lx. 18.

*Luke xiv. 31.

+ Isaiah ii. 4.

CHAP. 19.]

EXAMPLE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS.

417

know not what answer such inquiries will receive from the advocate of war, but I know that Isaiah says the change will be effected by Christianity and if any one still chooses to expect another and a purer system, an apostle may perhaps repress his hopes:-"Though we or an angel from heaven," says Paul, "preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."*

Whatever the principles of Christianity will require hereafter they require now. Christianity, with its present principles and obligations, is to produce universal peace. It becomes, therefore, an absurdity, a simple contradiction, to maintain that the principles of Christianity allow of war, when they, and they only, are to eradicate it. If we have no other guarantee of peace than the existence of our religion, and no other hope of peace than in its diffusion, how can that religion sanction war?

The case is clear. A more perfect obedience to that same gospel, which we are told sanctions slaughter, will be the means, and the only means, of exterminating slaughter from the world. It is not from an alteration of Christianity, but from an assimilation of Christians to its nature, that we are to hope. It is because we violate the principles of our religion, because we are not what they require us to be, that wars are continued. If we will not be peaceable, let us then, at least, be honest, and acknowledge that we continue to slaughter one another, not because Christianity permits it, but because we reject her laws.

The opinions of the earliest professors of Christianity upon the lawfulness of war are of importance, because they who lived nearest to the time of its Founder were the most likely to be informed of his intentions and his will, and to practise them without those adulterations which we know have been introduced by the lapse of ages.

During a considerable period after the death of Christ, it is certain, then, that his followers believed he had forbidden war; and that, in consequence of this belief, many of them refused to engage in it whatever were the consequence, whether reproach, or imprisonment, or death These facts are indisputable: "It is as easie," says a learned writer of the seventeenth century, "to obscure the sun at mid-day, as to deny that the primitive Christians renounced all revenge and war." Christ and his apostles delivered general precepts for the regulation of our conduct. It was necessary for their successors to apply them to their practice in life. And to what did they apply the pacific precepts which had been delivered? They applied them to war: they were assured that the precepts absolutely forbade it. This belief they derived from those very precepts on which we have insisted: they referred expressly to the same passages in the New Testament, and from the authority and obligation of those passages, they refused to bear arms. A few examples from their history will show with what undoubting confidence they believed in the unlawfulness of war, and how much they were willing to suffer in the cause of peace.

Maximilian, as it is related in the Acts of Ruinart, was brought before the tribunal to be enrolled as a soldier. On the proconsul's asking his name, Maximilian replied, "I am a Christian, and cannot fight." It was however ordered that he should be enrolled, but he refused to serve, still alleging that he was a Christian. He was immediately told that there was no alternative between bearing arms and being put to death. But his fidelity was not to be shaken :-"I cannot fight," said he, "if I die.”

Galatians i. 8.

418

EARLY CHRISTIANS.

[ESSAY III He continued steadfast to his principles, and was consigned to the exe

cutioner.

The primitive Christians not only refused to be enlisted in the army, but when they embraced Christianity while already enlisted, they abandoned the profession at whatever cost. Marcellus was a centurion in the legion called Trajana. While holding this commission he became a Christian; and believing, in common with his fellow Christians, that war was no longer permitted to him, he threw down his belt at the head of the legion, declaring that he had become a Christian, and that he would serve no longer. He was committed to prison; but he was still faithful to Christianity. "It is not lawful," said he, "for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration;" and he was in consequence put to death. Almost immediately afterward, Cassian, who was notary to the same legion, gave up his office. He steadfastly maintained the sentiments of Marcellus, and like him was consigned to the executioner. Martin, of whom so much is said by Sulpicius Severus, was bred to the profession of arms, which, on his acceptance of Christianity, he abandoned. To Julian the Apostate, the only reason that we find he gave for his conduct was this:"I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight."

These were not the sentiments, and this was not the conduct, of insulated individuals who might be actuated by individual opinion, or by their private interpretations of the duties of Christianity. Their principles were the principles of the body. They were recognised and defended by the Christian writers their contemporaries. Justin Martyr and Tatian talk of soldiers and Christians as distinct characters; and Tatian says that the Christians declined even military commands. Clemens of Alexandria calls his Christian contemporaries the "followers of peace," and expressly tells us "that the followers of peace used none of the implements of war." Lactantius, another early Christian, says expressly, It can never be lawful for a righteous man to go to war.' 99 About the end of the second century, Celsus, one of the opponents of Christianity, charged the Christians with refusing to bear arms even in case of necessity. Origen, the defender of the Christians, does not think of denying the fact; he admits the refusal, and justifies it, because war was unlawful. Even after Christianity had spread over almost the whole of the known world, Tertullian, in speaking of a part of the Roman armies, including more than one-third of the standing legions of Rome, distinctly informs us that "not a Christian could be found among them."

66

All this is explicit. The evidence of the following facts is however yet more determinate and satisfactory. Some of the arguments which at the present day are brought against the advocates of peace, were then urged against these early Christians; and these arguments are examined and repelled. This indicates investigation and inquiry, and manifests that their belief of the unlawfulness of war was not a vague opinion, hastily admitted and loosely floating among them, but that it was the result of deliberate examination, and a consequent firm conviction that Christ had forbidden it. The very same arguments which are brought in defence of war at the present day were brought against the Christians sixteen hundred years ago; and sixteen hundred years ago, they were repelled by these faithful contenders for the purity of our religion. It is remarkable, too, that Tertullian appeals to the precepts from the Mount, in proof of those principles on which this chapter

CHAP. 19.j

CHRISTIANS BECOME SOLDIERS.

419

has been insisting :—that the dispositions which the precepts inculcate are not compatible with war, and that war, therefore, is irreconcilable with Christianity.

If it be possible, a still stronger evidence of the primitive belief is contained in the circumstance, that some of the Christian authors declared that the refusal of the Christians to bear arms was a fulfilment of ancient prophecy. The peculiar strength of this evidence consists in this,that the fact of a refusal to bear arms is assumed as notorious and unquestioned. Irenæus, who lived about the year 180, affirms that the prophecy of Isaiah, which declared that men should turn their swords anto ploughshares and their spears into pruning-hooks, had been fulfilled in his time; "for the Christians," says he, "have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight." ustin Martyr, his contemporary, writes,-" That the prophecy is fulfilled You have good reason to believe, for we, who in times past killed one nother, do not now fight with our enemies." Tertullian, who lived later, says, "You must confess that the prophecy has been accomplished, as far as the practice of every individual is concerned to whom it is applicable."

It has been sometimes said, that the motive which influenced the early Christians to refuse to engage in war consisted in the idolatry which was connected with the Roman armies.-One motive this idolatry unquestionably afforded; but it is obvious, from the quotations which we have given, that their belief of the unlawfulness of fighting, independent of any question of idolatry, was an insuperable objection to engaging in war. Their words are explicit: "I cannot fight if I die."-"I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight."-"Christ," says Tertullian, "by disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier;" and Peter was not about to fight in the armies of idolatry. So entire was their conviction of the incompatibility of war with our religion, that they would not even be present at the gladiatorial fights, "lest," says Theophilus," we should become partakers of the murders committed there." Can any one believe that they who would not even witness a battle between two men would themselves fight in a battle between armies? And the destruction of a gladiator, it should be remembered, was authorized by the state, as much as the destruction of enemies in war.

It is therefore indisputable, that the Christians who lived nearest to the time of our Saviour believed, with undoubting confidence, that he had unequivocally forbidden war; that they openly avowed this belief; and that, in support of it, they were willing to sacrifice, and did sacrifice, their fortunes and their lives.

Christians, however, afterward became soldiers: and when ?-When their general fidelity to Christianity became relaxed; when, in other respects, they violated its principles; when they had begun "to dissemble," and "to falsify their word," and "to cheat;" when "Christian casuists" had persuaded them that they might "sit at meat in the idol's temple;" when Christians accepted even the priesthoods of idolatry. In a word, they became soldiers when they had ceased to be Christians. The departure from the original faithfulness was however not suddenly general. Like every other corruption, war obtained by degrees. During the first two hundred years, not a Christian soldier is upon record. In the third century, when Christianity became partially corrupted, Christian soldiers were common. The number increased with