The Lawfulness of Defensive War.
James Dodson
SERMON III.
With good advice make war. Prov. xx. 18.
WHEN the son of Jesse was pursued by Saul, the king of Israel, among the sheep-cotes of Engedi, he had an opportunity of inflicting personal vengeance upon his persecutor, in a cave to which he had retired. The temptation was strong; but David resisted it, waiting the time, appointed by the Lord, for his own exaltation to the throne. He fortified himself, by an ancient maxim, in the resolution of permitting the escape of his enemy; and to that proverbial saying he afterwards referred king Saul, who was surprised at this remarkable instance of patience and magnanimity upon the part of a much injured man. “The Lord avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee. As saith the proverb of the ancients, wickedness proceedeth from the wicked: but mine hand shall not be upon thee.” [1 Sam. xxiv. 12, 13.] It appears from this expression, that, in this early age, David revered the practical wisdom and morality of antiquity, as communicated to posterity in proverbs. It becomes us, who believe in the scriptures, to hold in superior veneration the ancient aphorisms of the son of David. These are not merely descriptive of the general temper and morals of the age; but are maxims of sacred law for the direction of our conduct in every situation of life. They have a higher authority than antiquity, to recommend them. The proverbs of Solomon are the dictates of the Holy Ghost.
The writer had, under the influence of this spirit, the power of giving peculiar point to the proverbial style; and from his works, as from an abundant storehouse, succeeding ages have drawn their best maxims. Desirous of employing his great wisdom for the benefit of mankind, this enlightened monarch devoted his leisure hours to writing for their instruction. His productions were numerous and comprehensive. Besides his three thousand proverbs, and his one thousand and five songs, or poems; he spake of trees, from the cedar to the hyssop, of beasts, of fowls, of creeping things, and of fishes. His works on natural history are lost to us forever. Let us not repine; but with gratitude and submission, improve his doctrinal and moral writings, for our own edification.
In the verse, which I have chosen for my text, the wise man recommends caution and circumspection. Good counsellors, while they do not destroy the decisiveness of character, necessary to success on great emergencies, furnish the information required, in order to act with understanding and with confidence. In those disputes between nations, which must ultimately be settled by a trial of arms, such advisers are peculiarly estimable. Every purpose is established by counsel: and with good advice make war.
The peaceful son of David, declares in this aphorism, the duty of waging war, and of waging it only with prudence. He did this under divine inspiration. He spoke the language of good sense, of sound policy, and of true piety. He gave an advice, perfectly corresponding with that given afterwards by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of peace, of whom Solomon was the type. Luke xiv. 31. What king going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth, whether he be able—to meet him? This mode of reasoning, is a New Testament confirmation of the Old Testament doctrine, WITH GOOD ADVICE MAKE WAR.
The plan of my discourse on this text, I now lay before you.
War is, in certain cases, lawful—Lawful war is defensive with a rational prospect of success—Such a war ought to be supported.
These, my Christian brethren, are very plain assertions. They are the principles of my text. The truth of each proposition is so obvious, that there is, indeed, little need of either argument or proof: but, there is no truth, however self-evident, that some one does not dispute. Great talents have been employed, in the learned world, to prove that I may reasonably doubt of my own existence. In the Christian world, some ingenuity has been employed, to disprove the positions now laid down, and of course to prevent the civilized world from acting upon them.
Did the arguments, which are used to show that war is prohibited in every case, by the Christian religion, tend in fact to diminish the evil, I certainly should never raise my voice against them. Knowing, however, that they are not only untrue, but unoperative; not only unoperative as to the object professed; but mischievous in their consequences, by fostering the evil which they propose to prevent; I feel it my duty to meet them, and refute them. Disputations more frequently engender strife, than minister to the use of edifying. Calling in question the lawfulness of war, in any case, puzzles, and divides the well-meaning part of the community; but has no other influence upon the designing, than to afford them an opportunity of converting to their own schemes, the existing contentions and prejudices.
By producing distractions in the more simple, and free, and moral states, the unprincipled and ambitious politicians of the nations are encouraged to prowl for their prey, and deal in unceasing wars. It is not by disputing the right of enacting penal statutes, and inflicting punishment, that domestic peace and order are secured; but by instructing the community in their legitimacy and utility; and so, commanding the whole force of the nation, in support of the arm of authority, in executing speedily, upon the disturbers of their repose, the merited sentence of the law. It is in the same way, and for the same reasons, that international equity and peace will be secured to the world. When nations shall come to understand the rights of war and peace; when they shall be prepared to judge of the justness of combats; when they shall be disposed, without distraction, to yield their support to equitable claims; when they shall be prepared to undertake, and to maintain lawful war against the aggressor, then, and not till then, shall states be allowed to enjoy undisturbed quietness, and to rest in the bosom of peace. Therefore do I now undertake an illustration of the truths which I have proposed from the text, in the order already mentioned.
I. War is, in certain cases, lawful.
The strife of arms, in which man is set against man, and people against people, is, in all cases, an evil to be deplored. In most instances, it is a crime in both the parties; and in every instance, there is on the part of one of them, injustice towards the other. It is permitted of God, for the correction and punishment of transgressions, and it is to be referred, for its source among men, to the corrupt passions. Of the works of the flesh are these, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife. From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? [Gal. v. 19, 20. and James iv. 1.]
Far be it from me, while explaining the precept of my God, “With good advice make war,” to encourage that which is sinful: to cherish the malevolent passions: or to recommend the military life as desirable. It is to suppress the malevolence of man, to redress injuries, to promote righteousness, that the sovereign of the world ever authorized an appeal to the sword: and it is with the same design I vindicate the morality of what he hath authorized. Strange phraseology, indeed, to be required among Christians, vindicate the morality of what God hath authorized! and yet it is required in this discussion.
WAR IS THE EMPLOYMENT OF FORCE UNDER THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OF ONE CIVIL COMMUNITY AGAINST ANY OTHER.[1] That it is lawful to use such force, I shall show from reason and from scripture.
1. The lawfulness of war is a deduction of sound reasoning, from the circumstances of civil life.
To live in a state of society is both the duty and the privilege of man. It is the Creator of the world, who said, It is not good that man should he alone. A great part of the active principles of human nature would remain unimproved and unemployed, and much of his happiness would necessarily be cut off, were man doomed to a perpetual seclusion from society, and constrained to spend his life in solitude. It is not, however, to be expected, that a state of society can exist on earth, during the continuance of our imperfection, in which no error in morals will obtain. Humanum est errare. [To err is human.] Diversities of views, and of inclinations, and of interests, cannot fail to produce discord; and the corrupt propensities of individuals require, for the preservation of social order, that the power of suppressing evils should be placed in the hands of competent authority. An advisory authority, unless endowed with the right of employing force, would be found a nullity. Thus, as society is necessary to man, and government is necessary to society, the application of force is essential to both: and the application of force to the correction of erroneous conduct, necessarily implies, that civil society has the power of property, liberty, life, and death, over every member. Such is the constitution of society. SUCH IS THE WILL OF GOD, expressed in the constitution of human nature. Let theory say what it will, it is a fact, that civil society has the right of taking away by force the life of any of its members.
In vain am I told, by visionary theorists, that man has not the right of taking away his own life. I know it. The Lord giveth life. He only has the right of taking it away, or of ordering another to take it away. In vain am I told, that society has only the rights which individuals have surrendered to it: and that of course it has not the right of taking away my life, seeing I could not surrender what was not at my option. I did not make myself a social being. God made me so. Society is his creature. From him it derives the right of self-preservation. Civilians and Divines behoove to attend to this fact. It is Atheism, however it may be disguised, that supports the contrary principle. He is a short-sighted States man, who, enamoured of the theories of [Cesare] Beccaria, and Voltaire, argues against the right of capital punishments, in any case. It is not humanity, but folly, that dictates this doctrine. He is a shortsighted Divine, who is seduced by the reasonings of George Fox and William Penn [i.e., the Quakers]. It is not religion; but fanaticism, that is promoted by such arguments.
I know, that small societies, in the bosom of regularly organized nations—I know, that ecclesiastical bodies may exist, without the application, upon their own part, of violence to any member; but the power of force must exist somewhere, otherwise, one unruly member might destroy any such society.
Laws are necessary to guard the rights of property; but if society have no right to transfer so much of the debtor’s property, against his will, into the hands of the creditor, as may satisfy equity, laws are a non-entity: again, if the debtor resists the officers of the law, and society has no right to apply force in any case, the debtor escapes with, impunity, and laughs at the law. Legislation is still a nullity. If force may be applied in any measure, short of inflicting wounds and death; if the debtor knows beforehand, that no power dare touch his life, he may arm himself; he may escape the law with all its other force; and he may lay under contribution, to his cupidity, every member of the community. There must in such case be an end to society. This is obvious to every man. Each state is of course compelled to arm, with the sword, the civil magistrate. Each individual will say, though I have no right to destroy my life I have power to amputate a member for the preservation of the body; and each state will say. I have power to cut off any member for the safety of the whole.
This argument puts beyond a doubt the lawfulness of war. Civil punishment is the exercise of force upon an enemy, to the community of which he is a member. The lowest degree of punishment, involves the right of taking the life of the criminal, if resistance on his part render the application of such force necessary. Most assuredly then, if the aggressor be of a different community, and be authorized by such community to act as an enemy, the sovereign power of the injured commonwealth may lawfully resist even unto blood; and may apply the degree and kind of force necessary to correct the evil. If the right of waging war be withheld from the body politic, there is an end to the independence of nations, and all society is dissolved.
Reasoning upon these principles, I am constrained to pronounce the contrary opinions, by whatever names, and from whatever motives, they are urged, both unreasonable and dangerous. It is the will of God, expressed in the constitution of society, that nations have a right to wage war: and if it should ever be made manifest, that the Deity, by positive injunction, prohibited the exercise of this right, I would indeed submit to his decision, and submit implicitly; but I would also infer, that, in making such prohibition, he, who knows the consequences of his own laws, had also ordered the dissolution of society itself. So far is the revelation of his grace from giving countenance to such absurdities, that I am enabled thereby to support the principle urged in my text, With good advice make war.
2. The lawfulness of war is evident from the scriptures.
In presenting the argument, drawn from the expression of the will of God, in the sacred oracles, in favour of the right of making war, I do not forget or conceal, that it is principally contained in the Old Testament. I also know, that in the opinions of many professors of religion, this is a sufficient reason for rejecting the proof. As all, that referred to a Saviour expected, but not as yet manifested in the flesh, in the Old Testament dispensation, has been superseded by the Redeemer, in his mission, sufferings, and exaltation; as all, who believe in his name, are not of sufficient discernment, to distinguish between morality and mere ritual economy; and as prejudice and convenience are fruitful in misapprehension and misapplication, it is not wonderful, that some of our brethren should be tempted to undervalue the principles of moral order which are revealed by the prophets. It is, nevertheless, a matter of lamentation, that such misunderstanding should be so general and injurious. Very few Christian societies exist, who have not erred on this subject. The church membership of our offspring—the use of our psalmody—the theology of civil polity—the existence even of moral obligation—the utility of the Old Testament, have all, by different sects of professed Christians, been called in question on this account. “There is not,” says one, [Bishop Warburton.] “a revelation of a future state made to those who lived before the advent of Messiah.” “Where,” says another, [Rev. Mr. Freeman, of Newburgh.] “will you find in the Old Testament, the doctrine of faith, or of imputed righteousness.” While the minds of Christians are thus amazed, and bewildered, it ought not to surprise us that some good men have denied the applicability of the argument, in support of the right of waging war, which all admit, is abundantly to be found in the bible. And yet, we are not permitted to give up those great principles of morality, which it hath pleased God to reveal, and to sanction with his own authority. It is due to my hearers, to say, that, in referring for proof to inspired men before the incarnation of our Lord, I do it upon this broad principle, that MORALITY AND PIETY ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME IN EVERY AGE OF THE WOULD.
Man is essentially the same through all generations. God is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. The image of God, on the soul of man, is at all times and places of the same character. Precepts, the reason of which is laid in changeable circumstances, cease or change with the occasion; but principles, founded upon permanent relations, are unalterable. Although men should now pretend to more holiness than was possessed by Abraham, by David, by Samuel, by Elijah, and Nehemiah, this, however great the assumption upon their part, would not justify their denial of the right of war, unless they could at the same time show, that human nature is not now what it was, or that God, the Lawgiver, has undergone mutation both of nature and of will. If holiness, now, is the same as ever, then is war as lawful as formerly: for that it cannot have been forbidden by him who once authorized it, is evident from the fact, that there is no reason for a change of law, as well as from the necessity of its legitimacy, if society be not entirely dissolved. [See the preceding argument, page 109.]
We now proceed to lay before you, from both the Old and the New Testaments, (for in this case I make no difference between them,) a summary view of the argument in defense of the right of waging war. We have in the bible, in vindication of this maxim. Approved facts—Doctrines—Precepts and reproofs—Promises and prayers.
First. Approved facts. The history of Abram, of Moses, of Joshua, of the Judges, of the Kings, and the Governors, affords such an abundance of instances, in which war has been waged by Divine approbation, and often at his express command, that there is no need of specification. I do not, therefore, take up your time with references and explications.
Second. Scripture doctrine inculcates the maxim. I take my proof from the New Testament as well as from the Old. Rom. xiii. 3, 4. “For RULERS ARE not A TERROR to good works, but to THE EVIL. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the POWER? For he is the MINISTER OF GOD to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for HE BEARETH NOT THE SWORD IN VAIN: for he is the minister of God, A REVENGER TO EXECUTE WRATH upon him that doeth evil.
I never, in the course of my reading, met with so perfect a description of the nature, the duty, the province, and the design of civil government, in so short a compass, as we find in the first six verses of this chapter. Without reference to any particular country, but with a perfect applicability to all, the apostle lays down the doctrine of civil sovereignty, according to the Christian law; and he affords another evidence of a truth, which ought never to be forgotten, by those who consider man in his social character, that the revealed will of God embraces the true philosophy of government. Individual man derives from God the right of self-government. Hence the sacred origin of personal liberty. Man, in his collective capacity, derives from God the right of government; hence the magistrate is his ordinance—He is the minister of God. The design of this institution is the good of society—He is the minister of God for good. His province is the protection of virtue, and the suppression of evil. Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. In suppressing evil, the national sovereignty is divinely armed with vengeance—The minister of God a revenger to execute wrath.
These are not the words of a vain philosopher, carelessly slumbering over ideal plans of reform. They are words of truth. The idea of civil punishment which they convey, differs entirely from the fanatical imaginations of deluded minds, and from the pretended discoveries of infidel humanity. The sword of the sovereign, is not merely disciplinary as an instrument of reform; it is also for vengeance. Punishment is not prospective, but retrospective. It contemplates not so much the capability of improvement, as the guilt of its subject. It is the connection established by the moral Governor of the universe between pain and crime. This is punishment: and he is but a novice in the science of jurisprudence, who has the idea yet to learn.
Now if the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain, he must use it. It is put in his hand not for show, but for execution. He is not decked in military habiliments for mere parade. He puts on his armour, to strike with terror the enemies of his country. God gives him the right of waging war. He is the minister of God, attending continually on this very thing. As a man, let him be meek, peaceful, and forgiving. Let every man, in his individual character, be humane, conciliating, patient of injury, slow to anger. It is the law of Christ. It is strongly expressed, Matth. v. 39—41. I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
These precepts are not to be understood literally. They only inculcate patience and forbearance upon individuals; but if they must be literally construed, there is an end to industry and social order. You must leave your business, and go with the ruffian, without resistance, not only out of your way, whither he would urge, but even twice as far. You must not take out a defense at law against injustice: you must not only allow a man to take from your door, before your eyes, a part of your property; but also give him even more than he desired. You must put an end to the rights of property, and pronounce the law itself unchristian. You must not only bear with personal assault; but also encourage it by turning the other cheek to him that smites. You must in nowise, by no means whatever, by gentle or violent means, by persuasion, or by the law, resist ) any evil that befalls you.
Who then is so blind as not to see the absurdity of such a construction? Who so childish as to use this argument against the rights of war? We must adopt a consistent plan of interpretation; and recollect that the Author of the gospel, while he, in this passage, urges upon individuals a forgiving disposition, lays down in another passage, the duty of the national representative, acting as his minister, to exercise vengeance on the aggressor. He is a revenger to execute wrath.[2] This is the doctrine of Jesus Christ our Lord. It is the Holy Ghost, THE COMFORTER of our souls, that makes the declaration. He, who sanctifies and instructs true Christians, hereby declares that war is in certain cases lawful.
I might multiply quotations: but I only add in this connection, the words of Solomon. By wise counsel thou shall make thy war; [Prov. xxiv. 6.] the words of the prophet, relative to the sons of Reuben and their allies, They cried to God in the battle, and he was entreated of them—there fell down many slain, because the war was of God; [1 Chron. v. 20, 21.] and the words of Hezekiah, I have counsel and strength for war. [Isa. xxxvi. 5.]
Third. Scripture precepts and reproof. God hath commanded war in some instances to be waged; and, hath reproved, in other cases, those who refused to carry it on. It is utterly impossible, however, that a holy God should command that which is in its nature unholy. That which is in itself indifferent, he may in his sovereignty command or prohibit: and the changeable circumstances and conditions, in which, we are placed, may render alterations of divine law, predicated upon mutable relations, wise and becoming. But he never recommends malevolence, impenitence, or unbelief. True, he once commanded Abraham to offer his own son Isaac upon the altar; but this was as a trial of faith; and he did not permit him to execute the deed. Jehovah has, moreover, a right to recall at pleasure the gift of life, and to appoint the executioner. And he doth so, when he calls a nation to war, and to kill the enemy. The mere taking away of human life, is in itself lawful; for the equity or criminality of the act, depends upon circumstances. Homicide is innocent. The execution of the guilty is a duty. Murder is a crime. Those who kill in a just war, are acting under divine authority. It is what he commands. Psalm cxlix. 6. Let the high praises of God be in their mouthy and a two-edged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to hind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron.
The Lord reproves both cowardice and opposition to equitable warfare. That spirit of slavish cupidity, which degrades men or nations, and disposes them to prefer ignoble peace to manly warfare, as it is base and pusillanimous, is also contemned by the word of God, which always recommends everything that is truly great, magnanimous, and good. Gen. xiv. 49. Issachar is a strong Ass, couching down between two burdens: and he saw that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant; and bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant unto tribute. They have grossly misrepresented Christianity, who have described it as a system subservient to the ambition of the few, and the reduction to servitude, of the many. It administers reproof in a vehement tone, to all, who, when duty called, refuse to co-operate in the maintenance of right, by war. Judges v. 19—23, Zebulun and Naphtali, were a people that jeoparded their lives unto the death, in the high places of the field. The kings came and fought. Curse ye Meroz, (said the angel of the Lord,) curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.
I add, in the fourth place, the scriptures assure us, that prayers are offered up for success in war, and that the Lord who answers prayers, vouchsafes to promise both a blessing and success.
I speak not, however, of the prayers, which Erastian power prescribes for the ministers kept in the pay of princes. I speak not of petitions mischievously granted or withheld, in order to gratify the mere party politician. I speak of the prayers of the intelligent believer; of the single-hearted Christian; of him, who, uninfluenced by sordid considerations, pours out the desires of his soul to God, for a righteous cause, and for success to the means employed to secure its triumph. To such the Lord hath promised the victory, in a legitimate contest with the sword. Lev. xxvi. 7. Ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. 2 Kings iii. 18, 19. He will deliver the Moabites also into your hand: and ye shall smite every fenced city. Psalm xciv. 1, 2. O Lord, to whom vengeance belongeth—show thyself Lift up thyself thou Judge of the earth, render a reward to the proud. Verses 20, 23. Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? The Lord our God shall cut them off. Psalm xliv. 4, 5. O Lord, command deliverance—through thee we shall push down our enemies.
I have trespassed, sufficiently, upon your patience, in arguing a case clear enough, without the aid of special pleading. The objections, which are usually made to the legitimacy of war, in any cause, I have already anticipated, so far as they appeared to me to require examination. No man is more anxious than I am, to hear that all war hath ceased throughout the ends of the earth. I ardently pray for the time when men shall learn its arts no more; but I cannot admit that the religion of the Son of God, proposes to tie up the hands of those who feel its power, and to reduce them into passive subjection to him, who delights in robbery and bloodshed. I plead in behalf only, of
II. Defensive Warfare.
In the application of force to the correction of injury, reason ought to guide; and if the force to be applied, is obviously inadequate to the object, it is in vain to make the application. It is madness to attempt to remove mountains by human agency; and it is criminal to risk treasure and life, by engaging in a bloody warfare without prospect of any success. In such a case, although cause of war exists, it is better to suffer than to contend. Upon this principle, those directions which are given in scripture, and which some have mistaken for a prohibition of resistance in any case, are to be understood. Upon this principle the martyrs acted, taking joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and passively submitting, under a righteous providence, to an injustice which they had no power to control. They suffered without resistance, because resistance would have only augmented the measure of their pains. This was light. It is what was required of them by their God.
There is, indeed, an exception, in extraordinary cases, to the application of this rule. When the Lord expressly enjoins resistance, should it be only by a few or even by a single hand against a whole nation, man must of right obey; because, however improbable success may be; obedience to heaven is the first duty. He, too, who gives the commandment, is himself able to make obedience successful. This was repeatedly exemplified in the history of Joshua, the Judges, and the Kings of Israel. The walls of Jericho fell at the blast of the trumpet. [Josh. vi. 20.] Before Gideon and a company of three hundred men, the hosts of Midian were put to flight, [Judges vii. 22.] and Elijah the prophet successfully resisted the armed companies of the king of Samaria. [2 Kings i. 12.]
These, however, were extraordinary events, and do not constitute, in the common proceedings of life, a rule of conduct in undertaking war. It is in those cases, in which the issue of the contest may appear doubtful, that prudence selects the opportunity, and courage is displayed in turning it to the best advantage. It is manifest, notwithstanding, that whatever cause of war exists, it ought not to be waged without a rational prospect of success. This is the command of ray text; and it is the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. What king going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth, whether he be able with ten thousand, to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. [Luke xiv. 31, 32.]
Having already established the maxim, that war is in some cases lawful, and having now shown that however great and just may be the cause for waging it, no nation should enter upon the strife without a prospect of success, I proceed to explain what is meant by
DEFENSIVE WAR.
It is necessary to be very particular in affixing correct ideas to this expression. Believing, as I do, most sincerely, that no other kind of warfare is justifiable, without an express revelation from heaven: believing, that the prayers of the saints ought not to be withheld from those who are engaged in such a contest, and ought not to be offered in support of any other: knowing too, that agreeable to this rule, God approves of exertions and accepts of prayers, I feel it my duty, while addressing myself in Jehovah’s name, to the Lord’s people, to define the term to which so much importance is attached. This is the more necessary, because, while the words are on the lips of every one, the expression itself is somewhat equivocal; and pains have been taken, in the common vehicles of current intelligence—in the private intercourse of social life—in the halls of legislation—and even in the pulpits of the churches, to play upon the terms, to increase their obscurity, and to give to them a meaning as erroneous as it is injurious, to the interests of this empire.
The expression, defensive war, is somewhat equivocal. I explain myself by a reference to the courts of law. When I apply to defense the term righteousness, and to offence, the term iniquity, I am to be understood as speaking upon moral principles. Offensive war is unjust, upon exactly the same grounds, that offensive or vexatious suits at law are immoral. Suppose one of you, my hearers, is attacked in your reputation, your property, or your person; and perhaps your life itself is in danger. You avail yourself of the law, and prosecute the aggressor, in order to prevent the threatened injury, or recover for the trespass. In doing this, you act in self-defense. You do right. But when the suit is commenced, the offender becomes instantly, in law phraseology, the defendant, and you are the plaintiff at the bar. It by no means follows, that he who assumes the name of defendant is not guilty. In the case stated, he is in fact the aggressor. What would you then say of a judge, of a counsel, of a jury, who would play upon the terms, defensive and offensive, and upon that use of a law expression, proclaim you in the wrong?
The truth is, that in applying upon moral principles, the epithet defensive, you must have recourse to the nature of the cause in controversy; and consider the original aggressor as the offender. You are, in foro conscientiæ [before the tribunal of conscience], still the defendant, although he is, in foro legis [before the tribunal of law], called by that name.
Suppose a nation, resting in the bosom of peace, is suddenly attacked by another; and one of its cities is taken, fortified, and garrisoned by the enemy. The offended nation raises an army, and in order to recover its own property, besieges the fortifications of the enemy. In this case, the enemy defends the fort against the assailant. Perhaps he makes a very heroic defense. But is it this siege that gives to the war its character of defensive and offensive, or is it the original injury—the cause of the contest? Again, suppose this city had been thus taken by the enemy, without any previous declaration of war; and that the peaceful nation could not raise an army for the purpose of retaking its own territory, without a formal declaration of hostilities. Such an instrument appears before the world; and the enemy thereafter meets it with a counter declaration, saying you have first declared war, I am therefore the defendant; would you believe him, and denominate the contest, upon his part defensive and just? Supposing again, that this peaceful nation, unwilling to make its own city the scene of confusion, of carnage, and desolation, should, instead of attempting directly to recover it from the enemy, march an army into the enemy’s own territory, with design both to make reprisals, which he might occupy as an equivalent, and to draw off the forces of that enemy from the position which he occupied, thereby transferring the war, with all its concomitant calamities, into the country of the original aggressor; I ask, would this transfer alter the moral character of the contest, and afford to the enemy a plea, that he is the righteous defendant? These questions must, by every man of sense, be answered in the negative. It follows, of course, that a play upon the words offensive and defensive, although it may serve to confound and distract the ignorant, is unworthy of any man of reputation, and entirely unbecoming the statesman or the Christian. It also follows, that the question, whether war be on the part of any people, defensive, or offensive, depends entirely upon the causes of its commencement or continuance.
The character of the war does not, in any case, depend upon the date of a declaration, or upon the place in which it is carried on.
1. It does not depend upon the date of the declaration of war, whether it be offensive or defensive.
If lawful cause of war exist, it is right to wage it; and if it be right to wage it, surely it cannot be wrong to proclaim the intention, and explain to the civilized world the reasons for having recourse to arms. Declarations do not, according to the law of nations, make the war, but explain its causes.[3] It one nation should injure another, or march an army in order to subjugate an independent people, must that nation, so injured, invaded, and threatened, be considered as the offender, because the first in declaring war? No. It of course follows, that the date of the declaration of war, does nothing towards determining its moral character as offensive or defensive.
2. It does not depend upon the place of combat, whether the war be, in fact, defensive.
The idea which I am now to oppose, is of home origin. The writers on moral science, and the law of nations, never thought it a subject worthy of discussion, whether it was lawful to carry the war into an enemy’s territory. Neutral territory has indeed been held sacred by the sentence of public law; but it is too childish to set up a claim in favour of the aggressor in war, for the exemption of his own provinces from its calamities. The nation is one, however numerous its members, and the offender may be stricken in the most vulnerable part, whether upon his coasts, in his colonies, or in his capital. If the cause of war is sustained, Great Britain never can be accused of injustice for the invasion of Spain and France, nor her allies on the continent, for marching to Paris. The plea is as absurd as it is novel, that unoffending provinces ought not to be invaded; the sailor, the soldier, the merchant, and the tenant, are personally considered equally inoffensive; and for the same reason, none should be troubled in the contest: the war may be waged, but upon no person whatever, except the sovereign. Who is so ignorant as not to know that the sovereign is guarded, and unassailable but through his forces, and his country? Who so blind as not to see that war is waged against the nation as a body politic, and of course, so far as the end of war can be promoted thereby, against every member of that body. It is not the member attacked, but the nature of the contest; it is not the place of the battle, but the cause in controversy, that determines the moral character of an existing war.
My definition of defensive war is, The application of force by one commonwealth to another, for the purpose of preventing or redressing actual injuries inflicted or about to he inflicted.
As to the equity of the war, little depends upon the magnitude of the injury. This consideration will of course determine its expediency. If the evil inflicted be small, there is less excuse, upon the part of the aggressor, for persisting in it at the risk of an appeal to arms. He is not entitled to impunity, on account of its being unimportant, provided it be a violation of right. It is for the offended party to judge of the proper measure of his own patience under suffering, and of the time and place, in which it is expedient for him to seek redress. Although the injury be only about to be inflicted, he may justly apply force to prevent it: a declaration of war previous to actual hostility, entitles the other to commence hostilities; and actions, which amount to a declaration, give the same right.
In such an important inquiry as this, I wish you, my brethren, to judge conscientiously for yourselves. I shall lay before you, therefore, in confirmation of my definition, the sentiments of approved writers on public law, and moral philosophy; and I shall then direct you to the bible, in order to put the question at rest.
1. The Authority of Writers on Public Law.
These writers have with one voice declared themselves in favour of the principles of defensive war which I have laid down. They uniformly represent the lawful object of war as threefold; PRECAUTION against injury—RESISTANCE to its progress—and redress for what has already been inflicted. When a nation is threatened with evil, war is lawfully waged in order to prevent it—this is precaution. When the national rights are in fact invaded, they may be defended by the sword—this is resistance: and after a people have suffered injustice, they may declare war to recover an equivalent to their loss—this is redress: and all these are considered as defensive war. The rights, for the vindication of which it is proper to contend with the sword, are capable of being reduced under three heads—LIBERTY—PROPERTY—AND NATIONAL HONOUR. War in vindication of any of these rights, is legitimate according to the maxims of public law. I give you my authorities.
“There are causes for which we undertake war by the conduct of nature, as in the cause of defense—Because the law of nature is violated, war is undertaken. There is a THREEFOLD DEFENSE, necessary, profitable, and honest; yet we shall deem them all necessary. This defense is necessary, against whom an armed enemy comes—I call that a profitable defense, when we move war, fearing lest we ourselves should be warred upon—Honest defense is undertaken for other men’s sakes; to free him to whom in jury is done, out of the hand of the injurious.” AL. GENTILIS, De jure belli et pacis.
“War is offensive on the part of the sovereign who commits the first act of violence. It is defensive upon the part of him who receives the first act of violence. Nothing short of the violation of a perfect right, either committed, committing, or with which a nation is threatened in future, can justify the undertaking of a war: on the other hand, every such violation, when proved, and. when amicable means have been tried in vain, or when it is evident that it would be useless to try such means, justifies the injured party in resorting to arms.” MARTENS, Book VIII, C. 2. Sec. 2, 3.
“The objects of just war, are precaution, defense, or reparation. In a larger sense, EVERY JUST WAR IS A DEFENSIVE WAR, inasmuch as every just war supposes an injury perpetrated, attempted, or feared.” PALEY’S Moral Phil. C. 12.
“The causes of commencing war, are THE VIOLATION OF ANY PERFECT RIGHT—as taking away the property of the other state, or the lives of its subjects, or restraining them in their industry, or hindering them in the use of things common. The preservation of our property implies, that if others take such measures as are not to be accounted for, but upon the supposition of an intention of wronging me, it is often easier and safer to prevent and disarm the robber, than to suffer him to commit the violence.” WITHERSPOON’S Mor. Phil. Lec. 13.
I might easily multiply testimonies, should it be deemed necessary; but I forbear. There is not one writer upon public law, who would venture his reputation before the world, by denying the principles of legitimate war, which I have stated. And it worst of all becomes the apologists of that nation, with which this republic is now at war, (a nation which is itself scarcely ever at peace with its neighbours,) to refuse their assent to the doctrine here laid down. If it be criminal to defend by the sword, the rights which have been mentioned, no excuse whatever remains for the mistress of the ocean, as her votaries denominate the empire of Great Britain.
Addressing myself to Christians, however, in the name of the Author of religion, I draw, from the rule and the instructions of my embassy, the most conclusive arguments.
2. The Testimony of the Bible.
We refer you only to three historical facts. They have the sanction of his authority who is alone Lord of the conscience. They serve to show that war is lawful when waged in defense of liberty, whether civil or religious—in defense of property—or in defense of national honour and independence.[4]
I. The Patriarch Abraham waged war for the recovery of connections taken captive, and of property illegally seized. This is the first instance of warfare recorded in the scriptures. The narrative is given by the prophet Moses, Gen. xiv. That it is an instance of lawful war, is evident, not only from the equity of the cause, but also from the character of the friend of God, Abraham, the father of the faithful; from the success given to his enterprise as a blessing from the Lord; and from the benediction passed upon him by Melchizedek, who received, as the priest of the Most High God, tithes of all that he had when he returned home in triumph. Verses 18, 20. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine, and he was the priest of the Most High God. And he blessed him, and said, blessed be Abram—and blessed be the Most High God which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.
The origin of this war, for undertaking which God blessed Abram, was as follows. Five confederated princes, in the neighbourhood of Sodom, where Lot the nephew of Abram lived, had been reduced under tribute to Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and served him twelve years. In the thirteenth year they rebelled. And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, with three other princes as his allies, to crush the said rebellion. The four allied monarchs succeeded in conquering their five confederated enemies. Their cities were plundered; the citizens were taken captive; and Lot was among the number of the prisoners. When Abram heard this, he armed his three hundred and eighteen servants, and assisted by three neighbouring princes, Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, who acted as his auxiliaries, he pursued the victorious foe, returning with his booty to his own land. The distance they had to go from the plains of Jordan to Elam and Shinar, to Chaldea and Persia, was great. Abram overtook them, and defeated them at Dan, but he found it necessary to carry on the pursuit, far beyond the bounds of Palestine to the neighbourhood of Damascus.
Here then, is a war carried on, beyond the limits of their own territory, by Abram and his allies; and that for the recovery of their friends who were taken prisoners, and in order to rescue from the enemy the spoils of Sodom and the other cities of the plain. It was a defensive war, waged for redress of injury received—waged in behalf of liberty, and for personal property captured by another power. Abraham’s conscience was too enlightened, and the spirit of his troops too courageous, to invent pretended scruples about geographical boundaries; their sense of personal liberty was too keen and honourable, to think of expense and danger, when their friends and their countrymen were taken away by force from their employments and their homes. It remained for a people of a different spirit from that which influenced the father of the faithful, to call in question, the legitimacy of making war, beyond the limits of their own country, for the purpose of recovering property unjustly captured, and for releasing their fellow-citizens held in bondage.
2. Gideon, by the command of his God, waged war against Midian, in order to recover the liberties of Israel, as well as the enjoyment of the fruits of their industry. The history is found in Judges, Chap. vi. And viii. It appears that the Midianites and the Amalekites took possession of the fields of Palestine, and banished from the farms which they had formerly cultivated, the tenants of the soil. Those who were permitted to remain in their possessions, had to hide their sheaves when reaped, and to thresh their corn in secret, lest they should become a prey. Such an uncertain tenure of property was a great vexation. Frequent spoliations constituted an injury which required an appeal to arms for resistance and redress. The Lord God directed that hostilities be forthwith commenced. Gideon obeyed; and he delivered his country. The war was undertaken, principally, in defense of property, for obtaining and enjoying which liberty is essentially necessary. The Israelites, roused to action by the divine blessing, and led on to battle by the son of Joash, pursued the enemy beyond the Jordan, to the cities at the head of Arnon. Regarding the cause in which they were engaged, they thought not of limiting their defense by an imaginary line, until the end for which they took up arms was accomplished. They had to find and fight an enemy; and they had no objection to meet him on his own territory. Gideon went up on the east of Nobah, learning that Zeba and Zalmunna were in Karkor. He put them to flight; pushed the victory; overtook the two kings; made them prisoners, and returned in triumph to his own country.
3. The last instance to which I shall refer you, is selected from the history of the son of Jesse.
The narrative is found in 1 Chron. xix. and in 2 Sam. x. The case is as follows: Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had shown friendship to David before he mounted the throne of Israel; and at his death, David sent ambassadors to pay his respects to Hanun his son and successor. The young king, influenced by the evil advice of his courtiers, insulted these ambassadors, by shaving off their beards, and disfiguring their garments. David heard of this, and indignant at the insult, prohibited the return of his servants to the capital, until the reproach should be wiped away. Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown. The children of Ammon understood the character of the king of Israel too well, to imagine, that he would put up with the indignity thus showed to his crown, in the persons of his public servants: and they accordingly made immediate preparation to meet the necessary consequences. They saw that they made themselves odious to David; and they called upon their numerous allies to come to their assistance. An army is collected to defend the land of Moab; and they encamp before the gates of their own principal frontier city, Medeba. In the meantime David was neither idle nor terrified. He ordered Joab, at the head of his army, to march to the contest. The order was obeyed. The enemy was attacked in his own country; and, before the gates of Medeba, the Syrians and Ammonites, although acting upon the defensive, were routed by the invading armies of Israel. The Syrians rallied, being reinforced from beyond the Euphrates. After retiring to Helam, Hadarezer, their king, waited there, until David with the Israelitish militia came and gave him battle. This second victory put an end to the Syrian war. Joab continued his success against the Ammonites, until having taken their capital, Rabbah, by storm, they also yielded to the conqueror.
This narrative explains the doctrine of legitimate warfare, and confirms, completely, what I have already said, in defining defensive war. Actual war was first commenced by David, and it was commenced too beyond the line of His own territory. It was prosecuted, moreover, against both the Ammonites and the Syrians, in their own country, until Rabbah was totally demolished, and the Syrians forced to submit to an Israelitish garrison established in Damascus.
It is not the time of declaring war, or of making the attack, nor is it the place in which the war is carried on, that determines its character. In every instance, except in giving the first offence, the Ammonites in this war acted upon the defensive. They never left their own country. They defended their own cities and their own firesides: but Israel came upon them, fought them, and subdued them. Still, however, this was, upon the part of Ammon, an offensive war, and on the part of David, a defensive war. The honour of his crown was affected by the indignity done to his ambassadors; and rather than be constrained to make suitable atonement, the Ammonites called their allies to their aid, and prepared for resistance. The king of Israel was a man of sense, a man of spirit, and a man of piety. He was too much of a soldier, a moralist, and a statesman, to say or to think, after he had first received the injury, that a war in defense of the honour and independency of his country, ought not to commence upon his part until the enemy attacked him in his own dominions. He saved his own kingdom, and made the provinces of the offender the theatre of the contest. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, he prayed for his armies, while besieging the cities of the Ammonites, as sincerely, as acceptably to God, as if petitions were offered for Israel besieged by an enemy at the gates of Jerusalem. It is the cause of war that determines its morality; and David did not enter upon the bloody strife without a cause. He lived in a martial age. However much disposed to peace himself, the welfare of his people required the preservation of their independence. Of this there was little probability unless they were prepared for vindicating it by the sword. Had he suffered the insult to escape with impunity, he would have invited another and another, until the spirit of the people should be broken down, and his own pusillanimity become a byword. He chose the better part. He waged war to punish the insolence of Hanun, and to vindicate the honour and preserve the independence of his country. He was approved of God. He succeeded.
This, then, was lawful cause of war. Do you doubt it? For what then did David order Joab to the battle? Because the enemy were preparing to give battle to him. Very well. This, I confess, is a good reason. You admit this. You acknowledge, then, that if my enemy is preparing to give me battle, I may, without waiting for invasion, become myself the invader, and carry the war, for precaution, into his territory. You admit this. I ask no more. This is enough. Invasion for precaution is defensive war. You fortify my argument. But you do not do justice to the king of Israel. The Ammonites knew his character better than you do. Why did they call upon the Syrians to help them? Why did they encamp before Medeba? They knew they were guilty. They knew they deserved punishment. They knew David had magnanimity. They knew him better than you appear to do. They expected vengeance from the minister of God. They prepared for resistance. They saw that they had made themselves odious—that they stank before David. And we all know, that they received adequate punishment for their offences.
I have done. I have laid down the doctrine of legitimate warfare, from the writers on public law,[5] and from the word of God. I have only to add,
III. When a nation is engaged in a lawful war, it is the duty of all to afford it their support.
This part of my discourse does not require much proof or illustration. Its truth will be generally admitted. The usual way of opposing belligerent measures, is by calling in question the necessity, or expediency, of having recourse to them; and this apology for opposition seems to acknowledge, that if war is necessary and equitable, it ought to be waged with the undivided force of the empire. Under absolute governments there is no examination of the character of any war necessary upon the part of the subject: he must obey; he is forced to give support to the contest in which his king is embarked. It is only in states, which are in some degree free, that there is need or use for argument; because in them only is the reason of the subject called to exercise. It is in a free country, too, that the citizens should best understand the moral character of war, and when lawful, bestow upon it their most decided support. Such a war is their own. However diversified the pursuits, the interests, and the opinions of the men who constitute a free and well-regulated commonwealth, there is no propriety in their being divided upon a question which respects resistance to foreign aggression. Subjects of local concern may be variously discussed, and perfect unanimity at the same time be displayed against the common foe. It may not suit the taste of everyone to repair to the camp, and take an active part even in the most just war: nor is there any necessity for this. In some cases it would be improper to relinquish other duties, and seize the sword of defense itself. Nay, it is possible, that in a just war, those who conduct it, may order what it would be criminal to perform, and may impose conditions of service with which it would not be lawful to comply. These and other accidental evils may be examined, reproved, resisted, and corrected, and yet the cause of war sustained, and the ends of the war prosecuted, by the whole community.
That it is criminal not to support a just war, I argue in the following manner. Such a course of conduct, Promotes the injustice of the enemy—Prolongs the war, with all its concomitant evils—and is Prohibited by the Lord.
1. It promotes the injustice of the enemy. Silence, signs, words, and actions—whatsoever, in its place, tends to prevent exertion in obtaining redress for injury, encourages the spirit which inflicted the injury, and so promotes the claims of injustice. When war is commenced, the contest is of course for victory. He, who desires that victory should avenge injury, and vindicate equity, will be at no loss to say to which side his affections incline. Every man in a free state is of some value. His opinions and his words have some influence. They ought always to be on the side of equity: and if our affections incline to those who wage a defensive war, we so far promote the good of human society. Never should the Christian, under any pretense whatever, speak or act so as to encourage offence against the rights of society; so as to encourage the injustice of the foe, or to prevent the due execution of punishment upon the aggressor by the forces employed by an injured nation. Whether he engage in hostilities or not, every part of his deportment, and especially his prayers, should unequivocally promote the success of the legitimate side of the question.
2. Those, who withhold their support from the war in which their country is engaged, do what tends to prolong the evil.
When appeal is once made to the law of force, the parties, if they do not cease to reason, employ discussion only as an auxiliary to the sword. It then becomes a contest for victory. The aggressor, influenced originally by principles of injustice, is not likely to be corrected by his own success. The history of nations affords no instance of claims, which occasioned war, being relinquished by the offending party, merely because the resistance of the other was feeble. When a people are divided, they offer themselves an easy prey to the aggressor; and even, if they should ultimately succeed in redressing the evil, their weakness and discord certainly prolongs the contest. A protracted warfare, although ultimately successful, is a present evil; and the friends of a speedy peace will always, in war, be desirous to employ the energy which alone can deserve and secure a peace. With the work of death none should trifle. It is ruinous—It is cruel to prolong, unnecessarily, even a war of defense. In so far as any member of the community, in public or in private, distracts the councils, or impedes the progress of those who conduct the war, he evidently prolongs the contest, and does what he can to prevent the return of peace. So far the guilt of a protracted warfare is chargeable upon him. It is, indeed, an evidence of the displeasure of the Deity, when a people, instead of unanimously co-operating for punishing the aggressor, are so divided and enfeebled as to prolong, for years, a contest which might be brought to a successful issue, almost immediately after its commencement. The man who withholds his support in such a case, is the enemy of peace: he loves his party more than he does his country, more than he does honour, and justice; more even than humanity, or his own interest connected with the return of peace, who strives, for the sake of party, to enfeeble the arm of authority, to withhold the necessary resources, and to discourage the soldier.
3. The Lord of the universe, who is also the God of battles, reproves those, who withhold from their country their support in a lawful war.
If the terms upon which your country offers friendship and peace to the enemy be reciprocal and just, you are wrong to discourage your country, and so encourage the foe. If in your conscience you believe the terms offered to be just, you are self-condemned if you do not support your country in the contest. The immoral and irreligious tendency of war; its pains, its losses, and its dangers, proclaim the duty of having done with it as soon as possible. It is criminal to protract it; and of course, it is displeasing to the Deity not to push it vigorously to an end.
He is a God of justice and of truth. He will have us to judge righteous judgment. He commands us to love the truth and the peace; and to promote the knowledge and the practice of equity. Therefore he reproves those who do not support an equitable war, as the cause of God, the Supreme Judge. Judges v. 23. Curse ye Meroz, (said the angel of the Lord) curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof: because they came not to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.
The part of Jewish history, in which this reproof is found, asserts the sovereignty of God, and places the female character in a striking light. The words quoted are used in the song of Deborah, the wife of Lapidoth, who by an extraordinary providence was raised up to the rank and the office of judge in the commonwealth of Israel. In the song itself, we have an instance of female genius, under the influence of divine inspiration, and glowing with poetic ardour, patriotism, and prowess. The prophetess appears, “giving breath to the trumpet of war,” rousing the spirit of her slumbering cotemporaries, and directing “the embattled host” to contend for the liberty of her much-injured country, to conquer, and to triumph. The eighty years of peace and prosperity, with which the tribes of Jacob had been favoured, after the death of Eglon king of Moab their persecutor, had enervated that people, and so occasioned their ignoble submission to the tyrannical encroachments of Jabin the Canaanitish king. Twenty years did this neighbouring despot insult the Israelitish commonwealth, and peculiarly vex and oppress the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali. Sisera, the captain of his host, was one of the most able and distinguished warriors of the age, and had at his command an armament well arranged, and consequently formidable to a people who loved the arts of peace. The people of Israel, besides, separated into twelve distinct and independent principalities, and having no standing army to fight their battles, were not easily brought to co-operate so as unanimously to pour forth their militia, the only forces of the nation, in order to chastise aggression.
Under these circumstances a female appeared destined of the Lord to deliver her country from destruction, from insult, and from injury. Awakened, by present oppression, Deborah relinquished her ease and retirement under the palms of Mount Ephraim, and summoned along with her to the field of blood Barak the son of Abinoam, at the head of ten thousand undisciplined volunteers, to contend for empire with veteran troops supported by nine hundred chariots of iron. Barak was victorious. Sisera fell. Israel was delivered. Peace was restored. Those who supported the war, and waged it to a successful issue, are praised of the Lord; and they who refused their co-operation, are placed by the prophetess under a divine malediction.
Ephraim, and Benjamin, and Issachar, these tribes that maintained the war, are commended. Reuben, split into factions by party spirit, occasioned lamentations in Israel—For the divisions of Reuben there were great searchings of heart. Two of the tribes were remarkable for their power and patriotism—Zebulun and Naphtali were a people who jeoparded their lives unto the death in the high places of the field. Upon Meroz, who entirely withheld her support, when the cause of her country prohibited neutrality—upon Meroz fell the curse of God.
THE CONCLUSION
From these premises is obvious to all my hearers. When your country is at war in defense of her rights, it is your duty to encourage, by all lawful means, her exertions in the strife. It is criminal to diminish her strength, or impede her progress. To this principle I would call your notice from the pulpit, while our friends and our brethren front the adjacent country are assembled around our city, to defend it from attack: while those among our fellow-worshippers in this house, who are fit to bear arms, are practicing in the field the arts of defensive warfare: while all ranks and classes of our fellow-citizens are employing their hands and their money in raising bulwarks on every assailable point, to protect our homes and our places of public worship, let us accompany them with our wishes and our prayers, lest we become an enslaved people.
Far be it from me to take advantage of the general alarm, to impel you to a forgetfulness of the duties which you owe to yourselves, to truth, and to your country, relative to those who have been entrusted, by the suffrages of a free people, to administer their government; to make, to apply, and to execute the laws. Examine, yes, examine, with rigorous impartiality, their character and their acts: speak out; blame them when they do wrong: But forget not your country. Unite in her defense—in defense of her injured rights. Support those who wield the sword, and who direct its application—support them with the means necessary to convince the enemy that, whatever may be the domestic strife for influence, for place, and for power, in regard to those who have taken your friends, and your fellow-citizens into captivity, who have interrupted and despoiled your trade upon the ocean, who have violated your neutrality, and who lay claim to your soil,—in regard to them, convince the enemy, convince your own rulers, and the whole world, that you have but ONE MIND. Defensive war is lawful—a brave people have the prospect of success—and a moral people will prosecute the contest to a successful termination.—AMEN.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] In all correct reasoning, it is necessary to keep in view the meaning of the words we employ. “War is that state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force.” Vattel.
[2] ̓́Εκδικος εἰς ὀργὴν. The word ἔκδικος is derived from ἐκδικέω, and that from ἐκ and δίκη. It signifies an avenger. He, who says to individuals in the preceding chap. Rom. xii. 19, 20. “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;” says, in this case, of the national sovereign, in his official capacity, “he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath.” If this distinction were kept in mind, there would be no room for perverting scripture, constraining it to speak against the right of applying force for the correction of injury.
[3] “Ut bellum legitimum sit indictionem belli non videri necessariam.” C.V. BYNKERSHOCK.
“The universal law of nations acknowledges no general obligation of making a declaration of war to the enemy, previous to a commencement of hostilities.” MARTENS, Book VIII. C 2. Sec. 4.
“As to the time of commencing war, it seems to be no way contrary to natural law, to say it is at any time the injured party pleases, after having received an injury. The meaning of a declaration of war seems to be, to call upon the injuring party to prevent it by reparation—likewise to manifest to all other states, the justice of the cause.” WITHERSPOON’S Moral Philosophy, Lec. XIII. Sec. 2.
[4] In the history of the sufferings of the Rev. Alexander Shields, written by himself, an account is given of his examination before the privy council, and the justiciary of Scotland, in the reign of James II. where he argued the justness of DEFENSIVE WAR. The same doctrine was afterwards vindicated in his dispute with the BISHOPS, to whom he was referred.
He maintained his principles with great force and copiousness of argument. 1. From the law of nature. 2. From the practice of nations. 3. From the scriptures. He under the third head, particularly insists upon the love of liberty, which Christianity inspires and cultivates, as exemplified, 1. In the wars of defense against tyranny, which the saints waged; and, 2. Which revelation sanctions.
I. He gives eight historical instances of the practice of the Lord’s people in defensive war: viz. The Maccabees—The Bohemians—The Waldenses—The German Protestants—The Hollanders—The French Huguenots—The Poles—And the Scottish Reformers. He proves beyond a doubt, that wherever true religion prevailed, there was a spirit of resistance to despotic power.
II. From scripture he presents five conclusive arguments. 1. Approved Examples, of which he adduces fifteen from Abraham to Esther and Mordecai. 2. Scripture reproofs for passive obedience and non-resistance, of which he adduces two, Jacob’s prophecy, and the song of Deborah. 3. Scripture promises to valour in lawful war, of which he enforces fourteen instances taken from the Old and New Testament. 4. Scripture precepts for resisting injury with the sword. Of these he produces seven examples. 5. Scripture prayers for war and for victory, of which he gives five conclusive instances.
Thus did he vindicate the lawfulness of resistance, to the arbitrary and Erastian power, exercised by the throne of Britain over its own subjects; thus did Mr. Shields defend the practice of those suffering Christians, who were attached to the reformation interest in Scotland, and who, on account of their love of liberty and righteousness, had the name of WHIGS first applied to them, by the advocates of arbitrary power in church and in state.
[5] M. de Vattel admits the legitimacy of offensive war. But in his definition of it, he means no more than we, and other writers, in conformity to Christian phraseology, include under the term defensive. He differs from us on this subject only in words. The sentiment is the same. “We may set down this triple end as the distinguishing characteristic of a lawful war. 1. To recover what belongs, or is due to us. 2. To provide for our future safety, by punishing the aggressor, or offender. 3. To defend ourselves from an injury, by repelling an unjust violence. The two first are the objects of an offensive, the third, that of a defensive war. CAMILLUS, when he was going to attack the GAULS, concisely represented to his soldiers all the causes which can justify a war: omnia quæ defendi, repetique, et ulcisci, fas est.” [everything, in a word, which it was their duty to defend, to recover or to avenge] B. III. C. 3.
Notwithstanding the general accuracy of this distinguished writer, it appears to me improper to call that an offensive war, which is, according to the definition, 2. To provide for our safety by punishing the offender. Certainly it ought not be called offensive to punish the offender. According to the writer himself, however, this is lawful war. The cause of the contest determines its morality: and this is the principle which I wish to establish.