9. Precepts and declarations of the apostles
It is with the apostles as with Christ himself. The incessant object of their discourses and writings is the inculcation of peace, of mildness, and of placability.
It might be supposed that they continually held in sight the reward which would attach to “peace-makers.”
We ask the advocate of war whether he discovers in the writings of the apostles, or of the evangelists, anything that indicates they approved of war:
- Do the tenor and spirit of their writings bear any congruity with it?
- Are not their spirit and tenor entirely discordant with it?
We are entitled to renew the observation that the pacific nature of the apostolic writings proves presumptively that the writers disallowed war. That could not be allowed by them, as sanctioned by Christianity, which outraged all the principles that they inculcated.
“Whence come wars and fighting among you?” is the interrogation of one of the apostles, to some whom he was reproving for their un-Christian conduct.
And he answers himself by asking them, “come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?”
This accords precisely with the argument that we urge:
Christ forbade the passions that lead to war; and now, when these passions had broken out into actual fighting, his apostle, in condemning war, refers it back to their passions.
We have been saying that the passions are condemned, and, therefore, so is war;
and now, again, the apostle James thinks, like his Master, that the most effectual way of eradicating war is to eradicate the passions which produce it.
In the following quotation we are told, not only what the arms of the apostles were not, but also what they were:
“The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strong holds, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”
I quote this, not only because it assures us that the apostles had nothing to do with military weapons, but also because it tells us the object of their warfare: the bringing every thought to the obedience of Christ.
I would beg the reader to notice this object, because it accords with the object of Christ himself in his precepts from the Mount: the reduction of the thoughts to obedience.
The apostle doubtless knew that, if he could achieve this, there would be little reason to fear that his converts would slaughter one another.
He followed the example of his Master:
He attacked wickedness in its root and inculcated those general principles of purity and forbearance, which, in their prevalence, would abolish war, as they would abolish all other crimes.
The teachers of Christianity addressed themselves, not to communities, but men:
They enforced the regulation of the passions and the rectification of the heart, and it was probably clear to the perceptions of the apostles,
although it is not clear to some species of philosophy, that whatever duties were binding upon one man, were binding upon 10, upon a 100, and upon the state.
War is not often directly noticed in the writings of the apostles:
When it is noticed, it is condemned just in that way in which we should suppose anything would be condemned that was notoriously opposed to the whole system – just as murder is condemned at the present day.
Who can find, in modern books, that murder is formally censured?
We may find censures of its motives, of its circumstances, and of its degrees of atrocity; but the act itself no one thinks of censuring, because everyone knows that it is wicked.
Setting statutes aside, I doubt whether, if a Tahitian should choose to argue that Christians allow murder because he cannot find it formally prohibited in their writings, we should not be at a loss to find direct evidence against him.
And it arises, perhaps, from the same causes, that a formal prohibition of war is not to be found in the writings of the apostles.
I do not believe they imagined that Christianity would ever be charged with allowing it. They write as if the idea of such a charge never occurred to them.
They did, nevertheless, virtually forbid it;
unless anyone shall say that they disallowed the passions which occasion war, but did not disallow war itself;
that Christianity prohibits the cause, but permits the effect; which is much the same as to say that a law which forbade the administering of arsenic, did not forbid poisoning.
And this sort of reasoning, strange and illogical as it is, we shall by and by find has been gravely adopted against us.
But although the general tenor of Christianity and many of its direct precepts appear to me to condemn and disallow war,
it is certain that different conclusions have been formed; and many, who are undoubtedly desirous of performing the duties of Christianity, have failed to perceive that war is unlawful to them.