A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume III (of 3) by Thomas Clarkson

T >> Thomas Clarkson >> A Portraiture of Quakerism, Volume III (of 3)

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

The Quakers are farther confirmed in their ideas upon this subject, by
believing, that Christianity would not have been as perfect as they
apprehend it to have been intended to be, without this restriction upon
oaths. Is it possible, they say, that Jesus Christ would have left it to
Christians to imagine, that their words were to be doubted on any
occasion? Would he have left it to them to think so dishonourably of one
another, or of their new vocation, that their words were to be tried by
the touchstone of oaths, when his religion was to have a greater effect
than any former system of morality ever known, in the production of
truth? Is it possible, when oaths sprung out of fraud and falsehood, as
he himself witnesses, (for whatever is more than yea and nay, cometh of
evil) that he would have left this remnant of antiquity standing, as if
his religion was not intended to extirpate the very ground-work of it?

Finally, the Quakers are confirmed in their ideas upon this subject from
a belief that oaths were to cease, either at the coming of Jesus Christ,
or as men became Christians. For, in the first place, the oath "by the
name of God," is considered by some, as I have before noticed, to have
been permitted to the Jews during their weak state, that they might not
swear by the idols of their cotemporary neighbours, and thus lose sight
of the only and true God. But what Christian stands in need of any
preservative against idolatry, or of any commemorative of the existence
and superintendence of an almighty, wise, beneficent, and moral Governor
of the world? Some again have imagined, that, as the different
purifications among the Jews, denoting the holiness of God, signified
that it became men to endeavour to be holy, so the oath "by the name of
God," denoting the verity of God, signified, that it became men to
devote themselves to the truth. But no true Christian stands in need of
such symbols, to make him consider his word as equivalent to his oath.
Others again have imagined, that the oath "by the name of God," typified
the truth, or the eternal word. But as the type ceases when the
antitype appears, so the coming of Jesus Christ, who in the gospel
language is called both the truth and the eternal word, may be
considered as putting an end to this, as to other types and shadows, of
the Jewish church.

CHAP. III.

SECT. I.

_War--Tenet on war--Quakers hold it unlawful for Christians to
fight--Scriptural passages, which they produce in support of this
tenet--Arguments which others produce from scriptural authority against
it--Reply of the Quakers to these arguments._

The next of the great tenets which the Quakers hold, is on the subject
of war. They believe it unlawful for Christians to engage in the
profession of arms, or indeed to bear arms under any circumstances of
hostility whatever. Hence there is no such character as that of a Quaker
soldier. A Quaker is always able to avoid the regular army, because the
circumstance of entering into it is a matter of choice. But where he has
no such choice, as is the case in the militia, he either submits, if he
has property, to distraints upon it, or, if he has not, to prison.[4]

[Footnote 4: The Quakers have been charged with inconsistency in
refusing military service, and yet in paying those taxes, which are
expressly for the support of wars. To this charge they reply, that they
believe it to be their duty to render to Caesar the things which are
Caesar's, and to leave the application of them to Caesar himself, as he
judges best for the support of government. This duty they collect from
the example of Jesus Christ, who paid the tribute money himself, and
ordered his disciples to do it, and this to a government, not only
professedly military, but distinguished for its idolatry and despotism.
Personal service, however, they conceive to militate against a positive
command by our Saviour, as will be explained in this chapter.]

The Quakers ground the illicitness of war on several passages, which are
to be found in the New Testament. I shall not quote all the texts they
bring forward, but shall make a selection of them on this occasion.

Jesus Christ, in the famous sermon, which he preached upon the Mount,
took occasion to mention specifically some of the precepts of the Jewish
law, and to inform his hearers, that he expected of those, who were to
be his true disciples, that they would carry these to a much higher
extent in their practice under the new dispensation, which he was then
affording them. Christianity required a greater perfection of the human
character than under the law. Men were not only not to kill, but not
even to cherish the passion of revenge.[5] And "whereas it was said of
old, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, I say unto you, says
Christ, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy
right cheek, turn to him the other also." And farther on in the same
chapter, he says, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy: But I say unto you, love your
enemies,[6] bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. For if ye
love them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the
Publicans the same? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which
is in heaven is perfect." Now the Quakers are of opinion, that no man
can receive this doctrine his heart, and assist either offensively or
defensively in the operations of war.

[Footnote 5: Matt. v. 38.]

[Footnote 6: The Heathen nations, on account of their idolatry, were
called enemies by the Jews.]

Other passages, quoted by the Quakers, in favour of their tenet on war,
are taken from the apostles Paul and James conjointly.

The former, in his[7] second epistle to the Corinthians, says, "For
though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: For the
weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the
pulling down of strong holds, to the casting down imaginations, and
every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and
bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." From
hence the Quakers argue, that the warfare of Christianity, or that which
Christianity recognises, is not carnal, but spiritual, and that it
consists in the destruction of the evil imaginations, or of the evil
lusts and passions of men. That is, no man can be a true soldier of
Christ, unless his lusts are subdued, or unless the carnal be done away
by the spiritual mind. Now this position having been laid down by St.
Paul, or the position having been established in Christian morals, that
a state of subjugated passions is one of the great characteristic marks
of a true Christian, the Quakers draw a conclusion from it by the help
of the words of St. James. This apostle, in his letter to the dispersed
tribes, which were often at war with each other, as well as with the
Romans, says,[8] "From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come
they not hence even of your lusts that war in your members?" But if wars
come from the lusts of men, then the Quakers say, that those who have
subdued their lusts, can no longer engage in them, or, in other words,
that true Christians, being persons of this description, or being such,
according to St. Paul, as are redeemed out of what St. James calls the
very grounds and occasions of wars, can no longer fight. And as this
proposition is true in itself, so the Quakers conceive the converse of
it to be true also: For if there are persons, on the other hand, who
deliberately engage in the wars and fightings of the world, it is a
proof, that their lusts are not yet subjugated, or that, though they may
be nominal, they are not yet arrived at the stature of true or of
full-grown Christians.

[Footnote 7: 2 Cor. x. 3, 4, 5.]

[Footnote 8: James iv. I.]

A third quotation, made by the Quakers, is taken from St. Paul
exclusively.[9] "Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is
none of his." That is, if men have not the same disposition which Jesus
Christ manifested in the different situations of his life, the same
spirit of humility and of forbearance, and of love, and of forgiveness
of injuries, or if they do not follow him as a pattern, or if they do
not act as he would have done on any similar occasion, they are not
Christians. Now they conceive, knowing what the spirit of Jesus was by
those things which have been recorded of him, that he could never have
been induced or compelled, by any earthly consideration or power, to
have engaged in the wars of the world. They are aware that his mission,
which it became him to fulfil, and which engrossed all his time, would
not have allowed him the opportunity of a military life. But they
believe, independently of this, that the spirit which he manifested upon
earth, would have been of itself a sufficient bar to such an employment.
This they judge from his opinions and his precepts. For how could he
have taken up arms to fight, who enjoined in the new dispensation, that
men were not to resist evil; that they were to love their enemies; that
they were to bless those who cursed them, and to do good to those who
hated them? This they judge also from his practice. For how could he
have lifted up his arm against another, who, "when he was reviled,
reviled not again;" and who, in his very agony upon the Cross, prayed
for his persecutors, saying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not
what they do." But if Jesus Christ could not have been induced or
compelled to have engaged in a profession, which would have subjected
him to take away the life of another, so neither can any Christian; "for
if a man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

[Footnote 9: Rom. viii. 9.]

Three arguments are usually brought against the Quakers on this subject.

The first is, that John the Baptist,[10] when the soldiers demanded of
him what they should do, did not desire them to leave the service in
which they were engaged, but, on the other hand, to be content with
their wages. To this the Quakers reply, that John told them also, "to do
violence to no man." But even if he had not said this, they apprehend
that nothing could be deduced from his expressions, which could become
binding upon Christians. For John was the last prophet of the old
dispensation, but was never admitted into the new. He belonged to the
system which required an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but
not to that which required no resistance to evil, and which insisted
upon the love of enemies as well as of friends. Hence Jesus Christ said
of him, that "he who was least in the kingdom of heaven, was greater
than he."

[Footnote 10: Luke iii. 14.]

The second argument brought against the Quakers on this occasion, is of
a similar nature with the former. It is said that, if war had been
unlawful, our Saviour, when the centurion[11] came to him at Capernaum,
would have found fault with his profession; but he did not do this, but
on the other hand he highly commended him for his religion. In answer to
this the Quakers observe, first, that no solid argument can be drawn
from silence on any occasion. Secondly, that Jesus Christ seems, for
wise purposes, to have abstained from meddling with many of the civil
institutions of his time, though in themselves wicked, thinking
probably, that it was sufficient to have left behind him such general
precepts, as, when applied properly, would be subversive of them all.
And, thirdly, that he never commended the centurion on account of his
military situation, but on account of his profession of his faith.

[Footnote 11: Matt. viii. 5.]

They say farther, that they can bring an argument of a much more
positive nature than that just mentioned, from an incident which took
place, and where Jesus was again concerned. When Peter cut off the ear
of one of the servants of the high priest, who was concerned in the
apprehension of his Lord, he was not applauded, but reprimanded for the
part which he thus took in his defence in the following words:[12] "Put
up again thy sword in its place, for all they that take the sword, shall
perish by the sword." Now the Quakers conceive, that much more is to be
inferred against the use of the sword from this instance, than from the
former in favour of it.

[Footnote 12: Matt. xxvi, 52.]

The last argument, which is usually adduced against the Quakers on this
subject, is, that they have mistaken the meaning of the words of the
famous sermon upon the Mount. These words teach us the noble lesson,
that it is more consistent with the character of a Christian to forgive,
than to resist an injury. They are, it is said, wholly of private
import, and relate solely to private occurrences in life. But the
Quakers have extended the meaning of them beyond private to public
injuries or wars.

The Quakers, in answer to this observe, that they dare not give to the
words in question a less extensive meaning. They relate to every one who
reads them. They relate to the poor. They relate to the rich. They
relate to, every potentate who may be the ruler of a land. They relate
to every individual of his council. There is no exception, or
dispensation to any one, in favour of any case.

That they relate to public as well as private wars, or that they extend
themselves naturally to those which are public, the Quakers conceive it
reasonable to suppose from the following consideration. No man, they
apprehend, can possess practically the divine principle of loving an
individual enemy at home, or of doing good to the man who hates him, but
he must of necessity love his enemy in any and every other place. He
must have gone so for forward on the road to Christian perfection, as to
be unable to bear arms against any other person whatsoever, and
particularly when, according to the doctrines of the New Testament, no
geographical boundaries fix the limits of love and enmity between man
and man, but the whole human race are considered as the children of the
same parent, and therefore as brothers to one another. But who can truly
love an enemy and kill him? And where is the difference, under the
Gospel dispensation, between Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian, bond
and free?

That these words were meant to extend to public as well as to private
ware, the Quakers believe again from the views which they entertain
relative to the completion of prophecy. They believe that a time will
come, in one or other of the succeeding ages, "when men shall bent their
swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and when
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, and they shall not learn
war any more." Now other Christians, who differ from them in the
interpretation of the words in question, believe equally with them, that
the times thus predicted will come to pass. The question then is,
whether the more enlarged interpretation of these words, as insisted
upon by the Quakers, or of the less enlarged as insisted upon by others,
be the most consistent with the belief of the future accomplishment of
the prophecy just mentioned. And in this case the Quakers are of
opinion, that if wars were ever to cease, one ought to expect that some
foundation would have been previously laid in Christianity for this
great and important end. The subjugation of the passions, which it is
the direct tendency of Christianity to effect, would produce this end.
And so far such a foundation has already been laid in this system. But
as the admission of moral precepts into the education of man, so as to
form habits of moral opinion, is another, way of influencing conduct in
life, the Quakers think it likely that some such maxim as "that
Christians should not fight," would have been introduced also, because
the adoption of such a maxim would have had a similar tendency with the
subjugation of the passions in producing the same end. For it seems
absurd, they conceive, to suppose that wars should cease, and that no
precept should have been held out that they were wrong. But the more
enlarged interpretation of the words in question furnishes such a
precept, and therefore another foundation seems to have been laid in
Christianity for the same end. They admit, therefore, the larger
interpretation as included in the less, because it comports more with
the design of Providence, who, by the mouth of his prophets wills
universal peace, that the prohibition of public as well as of private
wars should be understood as a Christian doctrine, than that the words
in question should be confined to private injuries alone.

The last reason, which the Quakers give for adopting the larger
interpretation of the words in the sermon upon the Mount, as well as the
less, is the following. They are of opinion, that, as Christians, they
ought not to lessen the number of the moral obligations of the Gospel.
They ought not to abridge its dignity, nor to put limits to its
benevolence. If it was the desire of Jesus Christ, that men should love
their enemies, it is their duty to believe, that his wish could not have
been otherwise than universal. If it was an object with him to cure
moral evil, it is their duty to suppose, that it was his desire to
destroy it, not partially, but to the utmost possible extent. If it was
his design to give happiness to man, it is their duty to determine, that
he intended to give it not in a limited proportion, but in the largest
measure. But when they consider the nature of wars, that they militate
against the law of preservation, that they include the commission of a
multitude of crimes, that they produce a complication of misery and
suffering to man, they conceive they would not be doing their duty as
Christians, or giving to Christianity its due honour, if they were not
to admit the larger meaning of the words in question as well as the
less. Reason too, pleads for the one as well as for the other.
Consistency of moral doctrine again demands both. But if we admit the
restricted interpretation, and exclude the larger, we offend reason. All
consistency is at an end. Individual responsibility for moral turpitude
will be taken from man. Crimes, clearly marked and defined in the page
of Christianity, will cease to be crimes at the will of princes. One
contradiction will rush in after another; and men will have two
different standards of morality, as they adhere to the commands of the
Gospel, or to the customs of governments or of the world.

SECT. II.

_Meaning of the scriptural passages advanced by the Quakers, supported
by the opinions and practice of the early Christians--Early Christian
writers held it unlawful for Christians to fight, as appears from
Justin--Tatian--Clemens--and others--Christians would not enter into the
armies for more than two centuries, as appears from Ireneus--Tertullian
--Celsus--Origen and others--and generally left the military service,
if they happened to be converted in it.

It may be presumed to be difficult for Christians, who have been in the
habit of seeing wars entered into and carried on by their own and other
Christian governments, and without any other censure than that they
might be politically wrong, to see the scriptural passages of
"non-resistance to evil and love of enemies," but through a vitiated
medium. The prejudices of some, the interests of others, and custom with
all, will induce a belief among them, that these have no relation to
public wars. At least they will be glad to screen themselves under such
a notion. But the question is, what a Heathen would have said to these
passages, who, on his conversion to Christianity, believed that the New
Testament was of divine origin, that it was the book of life, and that
the precepts, which it contained, were not to be dispensed with, to suit
particular cases, without the imputation of evil. Now such a trial, the
Quakers say, has been made. It was made by the first Christians, and
they affirm, that these interpreted the passages, which have been
mentioned, differently from those of most of the Christians of the
present age; for that both their opinions and their practice spoke
loudly against the lawfulness of war.

Upon this new subject I shall enter next. And I confess I shall enter
upon it willingly. First, because I know of none that is more important.
Secondly, because, though controversy may have thrown some light upon
it, much remains to be added. And, thirdly, because the assertions of
the Quakers on this point are disputed by many at the present day. With
respect to the opinions of the early Quakers, which I shall notice
first, it must be premised, that such of them as have written books,
have not all of them entered on this subject. Some of them have not had
even occasion to mention it. But where they have, and where they have
expressed an opinion, I believe that this will be found unfavourable to
the continuance of war.

Justin the Martyr, one of the earliest writers in the second century,
considers war as unlawful. He makes also the devil "the author of all
war." No severer sentence could have been passed upon it than this, when
we consider it as coming from the lips of an early Christian. The
sentiment too was contrary to the prevailing sentiments of the times,
when, of all professions, that of war was most honourable, and was the
only one that was considered to lead to glory. It resulted, therefore,
in all probablity, from the new views, which Justin had acquired by a
perusal of such of the scriptures, as had then fallen into his hands.

Tatian, who was the disciple of Justin, in his oration to the Greeks,
speaks precisely in the same terms on the same subject.

From the different expressions of Clemens of Alexandria, a contemporary
of the latter, we collect his opinion to be decisive against the
lawfulness of war.

Tertullian, who may be mentioned next in order of time, strongly
condemned the practice of bearing arms, as it related to Christians. I
shall give one or two extracts from him on this subject. In his
dissertation on the worship of idols, he says, "Though the soldiers came
to John, and received a certain form to be observed, and though the
centurion believed, yet Jesus Christ, by disarming Peter, disarmed every
soldier afterwards: for custom never sanctions an illicit act." And in
his "Soldier's Garland," he says, "Can a soldier's life be lawful, when
Christ has pronounced, that he who lives by the sword shall perish by
the sword? Can one, who professes the peaceable doctrines of the Gospel,
be a soldier, when it is his duty not so much as to go to law? and shall
he, who is not to revenge his own wrongs, be instrumental in bringing
others into chains, imprisonment, torment, death?"

Cyprian, in his Epistle to Donatus, takes a view of such customs in his
own times, as he conceived to be repugnant to the spirit or the letter
of the Gospel. In looking at war, which was one of them, he speaks thus:
"Suppose thyself, says he, with me on the top of some very exalted
eminence, and from thence looking down upon the appearances of things
beneath thee. Let our prospect take in the whole horizon, and let us
view, with the indifference of persons not concerned in them, the
various motions and agitations of human life. Thou wilt then, I dare
say, have a real compassion for the circumstances of mankind, and for
the posture in which this view will represent them. And when thou
reflectest upon thy condition, thy thoughts will rise in transports of
gratitude and praise to God for having made thy escape from the
pollutions of the world. The things thou wilt principally observe, will
be the highways beset with robbers, the seas with pirates, encampments,
marches, and all the terrible forms of war and, bloodshed. When a single
murder is committed, it shall be deemed perhaps a crime; but that crime
shall commence a virtue, when committed under the shelter of public
authority, so that punishment is not rated by the measure of guilt, but
the more enormous the size of the wickedness is, so much the greater is
the chance for impunity." These are the sentiments of Cyprian, and that
they were the result of his views of Christianity, as taken from the
divine writings, there can be little doubt. If he had stood upon the
same eminence, and beheld the same sights previously to his conversion,
he might, like others, have neither thought piracy dishonourable, nor
war inglorious.

Lactantius, who lived some time after Cyprian, in his treatise
"Concerning the True Worship of God," says, "It can never be lawful for
a righteous man to go to war, whose warfare is in righteousness itself,"
And in another part of the same treatise he observes, that "no exception
can be made with respect to this command of God. It can never be lawful
to kill a man, whose person the Divine Being designed to be sacred as to
violence."

It will be unnecessary to make extracts from other of the early
Christian writers, who mention this subject. I shall therefore only
observe, that the names of Origen, Archelaus, Ambrose, Chrysostom,
Jerom, and Cyril, may be added, to those already mentioned, as the names
of persons who gave it as their opinion, that it was unlawful for
Christians to go to war.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19