War is Criminal | 3

3. War Necessarily Infringes On the Consciences of Men,
and Therefore Is Criminal

Liberty of conscience is a sacred right delegated to man by his Creator, who has given no authority to man to infringe in the least on the conscience of his fellow man.

Though a man, by following the dictates of his conscience, may be injured by men, yet they have no authority to deprive him of the rights of conscience. To control the conscience is alone the prerogative of God.

That man has no right to violate the conscience of his fellow man is a truth that few, under the light of the gospel, since the days of ignorance and superstition, have ventured to call in question.

But military governments, from their very nature, necessarily infringe on the consciences of men.

Though the word of God requires implicit obedience to rulers in all things not contrary to the Scriptures, it utterly forbids compliance with such commands as are inconsistent with the gospel.

We must obey God rather than man, and fear God as well as honour the king.

But governments, whether monarchical or republican, make laws as they please, and compel obedience at the point of the sword. They declare wars, and call upon all their subjects to support them.

Offensive war, by all professing Christians, is considered a violation of the laws of Heaven; but offensive war is openly prosecuted by professing Christians under the specious name of self-defence.

France invaded Spain, Germany, and Russia; England invaded Holland and Denmark; and the United States invaded Canada, all under the pretence of defensive war.

The fact is, however, that no man can, on gospel principles, draw a line of distinction between offensive and defensive war so as to make the former a crime and the latter a duty, simply because the gospel has made no such distinction.

But while many Christians profess to make the distinction, and to consider offensive war criminal,

they ought to have the liberty to judge, when war is waged, whether it is offensive or defensive, and to give or withhold their aid accordingly; otherwise they are not permitted the free exercise of their consciences.

But suppose this principle was adopted by governments:

Could they prosecute war while they left every individual in the free exercise of his conscience to judge whether such war was offensive or defensive and to regulate his conduct accordingly?

Would it be possible for governments to carry on war if they depended for support on the uncertain opinion of every individual?

No, such a procedure would extinguish the vital strength of war and lay the sword in the dust.

The fact is well known, and monarchs declare war and force their subjects to support it. In republican governments, the majority declares war and demands and enforces obedience from the minority.

Though the constitutions of governments may, in the most solemn manner, guarantee to citizens the free exercise of their consciences,

yet governments find it a practical necessity to make an exception in relation to war, and a man may plead conscientious motives in vain to free himself from contributing to the support of war.

I think it proper here to notice what has appeared to me a gross absurdity among some Christians in this land:

They have openly declared that, in their opinion, the late war was offensive; that it was contrary to the laws of God, and that they were opposed to it;

but though they wished not to support it because it was criminal, yet they said, if they were called on in a constitutional way, they would support it.

Thus did they publicly declare that they would, under certain circumstances, obey man rather than God.

But soldiers actually resign their consciences to their commanders, without reserving any right to obey only in such cases as they may judge not contrary to the laws of God.

Were they at liberty to judge whether commands were morally right or not, before they yielded obedience, it would be totally impracticable for nations to prosecute war.

Ask a general if his soldiers have the privilege of determining whether his commands are right or not, and he will tell you it is their duty only to obey.

Suppose that a general and his army are shut up in a city in their own country, and that provisions are failing;

that an army is advancing for their relief, but cannot reach the place until all means of sustenance will be consumed;

that the inhabitants cannot be let out without admitting the besiegers;

and that in this extremity, to preserve his army for the defence of his country, the commander orders his men to slay the inhabitants, doing this evil that good may come.

But some conscientious soldiers refuse to obey a command to put the innocent to the sword for any supposed good.

What must be the consequence?
Their lives must answer for their disobedience.
Nor is this contrary to the usages of war.

And Christians satisfy their consciences upon the false principle that soldiers are not accountable for their conduct, be it ever so criminal, if they obey their commanders;

all the blame must fall on the officers, which involves the absurdity of obeying man rather than God.

Thus soldiers must be metamorphosed into something besides moral and accountable beings in order to prosecute war; and, in fact, they are treated generally not as moral agents but as a sort of machinery to execute the worst of purposes.

The only plausible method of which I can conceive to avoid the above consequences requires that soldiers should not, for all practical purposes, resign their consciences, but, when commands which are morally wrong are given, that they should refuse obedience and die as martyrs.

But to enter an army with such views would be to belie the very oath of obedience that they take. Besides, who could execute the martyrs and be innocent? In this way all might become martyrs, and the army be annihilated.

But if war does not admit the free exercise of conscience on Christian principles, then it is criminal for Christians to become soldiers, and the principles of war must be inconsistent with the principles of Christianity.