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

And, fourthly, after hostilities are commenced, is it not a maxim also
to perpetuate the enmity, which has been thus begun, and to give it a
deeper root, and even to make it eternal by connecting it with religion?
Thus flag-staffs are exhibited upon steeples, bells are rung to announce
victories, and sermons are preached as occasions arise, as if the places
allotted for Christian worship, were the most proper from whence to
issue the news of human suffering, or to excite the passions of men for
the destruction of one another. Nor is this all. The very colours of the
armies are consecrated. I do not mean to say, that like the banners in
the Praetorian tents, they are actually worshipped, but that an attempt
is made to render them holy in the eyes of those who are present. An
attempt is made, wonderful to relate, to incorporate war into the
religion of Jesus Christ, and to perpetuate enmity on the foundation of
the Gospel!

Now this is the policy of the world, and can it be seriously imagined,
that such a system as this can ever lead to peace? For while
discussions relative to matters of national dispute are carried on in a
high tone, because a more humble tone would betray weakness or fear;
while again, during this discussion, preparations for war are going on,
because the appearance of being prepared would convey the idea of
determined resolution, and of more than ordinary strength; while again,
during the same discussion, the national spirit is awakened and
inflamed; and while again, when hostilities have commenced, measures are
resorted to, to perpetuate a national enmity, so that the parties
consider themselves as natural enemies even in the succeeding peace,
what hope is there of the extermination of war on earth?

But let us now look at the opposite policy, which is that of the Gospel.
Now this policy would consist in the practice of meekness, moderation,
love, patience, and forbearance, with a strict regard to justice, so
that no advantages might be taken on either side. But if these
principles, all of which are preventive of irritation, were to be
displayed in our negotiations abroad, in the case of any matter in
dispute, would they not annihilate the necessity of wars? For what is
the natural tendency of such principles? What is their tendency, for
instance, in private life? And who are the negotiators on these
occasions but men? Which kind of conduct is most likely to disarm an
opponent, that of him who holds up his arm to strike, if his opponent
should not comply with his terms, or of him who argues justly, who
manifests a temper of love and forbearance, and who professes that he
will rather suffer than resist, and that he will do every thing sooner
than that the affair shall not be amicably settled? The Apostle Paul,
who knew well the human heart, says, "If thine enemy hunger, feed him,
for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." That is,
thou shall cause him, by thy amiable conduct, to experience burning
feelings within himself, which, while they torment him with the
wickedness of his own conduct, shall make him esteem thee, and bring him
over to thy side. Thus thou shalt overcome his evil by thy good. Or, in
other words, as fire melts the hardest metals, so thy kindness shall
melt his anger. Thus Parnell--

"So artists melt the sullen ore of lead,
By heaping coals of fire upon its head.
Touch'd by the warmth, the metal teams to glow,
And pure from dress, the silver tang below."

This policy again would consist of the practical duty of attempting to
tranquillize the minds of the people, while the discussion was going on,
of exhorting them to await the event with composure, of declaring
against the folly and wickedness of wars, as if peace only could be the
result, of abstaining from all hostile preparations, and indeed from all
appearance of violence. Now what influence would such conduct have
again, but particularly when known to the opposite party? If the
opposite party were to see those alluded to keeping down the passions of
their people, would they inflame the passions of their own? If they were
to be convinced, that these were making no preparations for war, would
they put themselves to the expence of arming? Can we see any other
termination of such a contest than the continuance of peace?

That the policy of the Gospel, if acted upon by statesmen, would render
wars unnecessary, we may infer from supposed cases. And, first, I would
ask this simple question, whether, if all the world were Quakers, there
would be any more wars? I am sure the reply would be, no. But why not?
Because nations of Quakers, it would be replied, would discuss matters
in dispute between them with moderation, with temper, and with
forbearance. They would never make any threats. They would never arm,
and consequently they would never fight. It would be owing then to these
principles, or, in other words, to the adoption of the policy of the
Gospel in preference of the policy of the world, that, if the globe were
to be peopled by Quakers, there would be no wars. Now I would ask, what
are Quakers but men, and might not all, if they would suffer themselves
to be cast in the same mould as the Quakers, come out of it of the same
form and character?

But I will go still farther. I will suppose that any one of the four
continents, having been previously divided into three parts, was
governed only by three Quakers, and that these had the same authority
over their subjects, as their respective sovereigns have at present. And
I win maintain, that there would never be, upon this continent, during
their respective administrations, another war. For, first, many of the
causes of war would be cut off. Thus, for instance, there would be no
disputes about insults offered to flags. There would be none again about
the balance of power. In short, it would be laid down as a position,
that no one was to do evil, that good might come. But as,
notwithstanding, there might still be disputes from other causes, these
would be amicably settled. For first, the same Christian disposition
would be manifest in the discussion as in the former case. And,
secondly, if the matter should be of an intricate nature, so that one
Quaker government could not settle it with another, these would refer
it, according to their constitution, to a third. This would be the "ne
plus ultra" of the business. Both the discussion and the dispute would
end here. What a folly then to talk of the necessity of wars, when, if
but three Quakers were to rule a continent, they would cease there?
There can be no plea for such language, but the impossibility of taming
the human passions. But the subjugation of these is the immediate object
of our religion. To confess, therefore, that wars must be, is either to
utter a libel against Christianity, or to confess that we have not yet
arrived at the stature of real Christians.

SECT. VII.

_Subject farther examined--Case allowed, that if a cabinet of good men
had to negotiate with a cabinet of good men, there might be no wars--but
what would be the issue if good had to deal with bad--Case of American
settlers, who adopted the policy of the world, and were always at
war--and of other American settlers, who adopted the policy of the
Gospel, and were always at peace--No case stronger, than where
civilized men had to deal with savage American tribes._

I believe it will be allowed, that the Quaker instances, mentioned in
the last section, are in point. But I am aware also, it will be said
that, though different cabinets, all having the same Christian
disposition, would settle their disputes in a friendly manner, how would
a cabinet, consisting of spiritually minded men, settle with a cabinet
of other men, who had not brought their passions under due regulation,
and who, besides, had no notion of the unlawfulness of war.

I apprehend that it will not be denied, that men, as ferocious as any
recorded in history, were those, who were found in America, when that
continent was discovered. We hear nothing of Africans, or of Asiatics,
which would induce us to suppose, that they were as wild and as
barbarous as these. And nothing is more true of these, than they, were
frequently concerned in wars. I shall therefore take these for an
example, and I shall shew by the opposite conduct of two different
communities towards them, that it rests with men to live peaceably or
not, as they cultivate the disposition to do it, or as they follow the
policy of the Gospel in preference of the policy of the world.

When the English, Dutch, and others, began to people America, they
purchased land of the natives. But when they went to that continent,
notwithstanding there were amiable persons among them, and friends to
civil and religious liberty, they went with the notions of worldly
policy, and they did not take with them the Christian wisdom of the
unlawfulness of war. They acted on the system of preparation, because
there might be danger. They never settled without palisadoes and a fort.
They kept their nightly watches, though unmolested. They were, in short,
in the midst of war, though no injury had been offered them by the
natives, and though professedly in the midst of peace.

In the peopling of Connecticut, for I must begin with some one state, it
was ordered at an English court,[16] "holden at Dorchester, on the
seventh day of June, 1736, that every town should keep a watch, and be
well supplied with ammunition. The constables were directed to warn the
watches in their turns, and to make it their care, that they should be
kept according to the direction of the court. They were required also to
take care that the inhabitants were well furnished with arms and
ammunition, and kept in a constant state of defence." As these infant
settlements, the author observes, "were filled and surrounded with
numerous savages, the people conceived themselves in danger, when they
lay down, and when they rose up, when they went out, and when they came
in. Their circumstances were such, that it was judged necessary for
every man to be a soldier."

[Footnote 16: Trumbull's History of Connecticut, p. 56.]

I find from this author, looking farther into his history, that
previously to the order of the court at Dorchester, which did nothing
more than enjoin a more strict execution of the original plan, which was
that of military preparation and defence, some of the settlers had been
killed by the natives. The provocation which the natives received, is
not mentioned. But it was probably provocation enough to savage Indians,
to see people settle in their country with all the signs and symptoms of
war. Was such a system likely to have any other effect than that of
exciting their jealousy? They could see that these settlers had at least
no objection to the use of arms. They could see that these arms could
never be intended but against other persons, and there were no other
persons there but themselves. Judging therefore by outward
circumstances, they could draw no inference of a peaceable disposition
in their new neighbours. War soon followed. The Pequots were attacked.
Prisoners were made on both sides. The Indians treated those settlers
barbarously, who fell into their hands, for they did not see, on the
capture of their own countrymen, any better usage on the part of the
settlers themselves; for these settlers, again, had not the wisdom to
use the policy of the Gospel, but preferred the policy of the world.[17]
"Though the first planters of New-England and Connecticut, says the same
author, were men of eminent piety and strict morals, yet, like other
good men, they were subject to misconception, and the influence of
passion. Their beheading sachems whom they took in war, killing the male
captives, and enslaving the women and children, was treating them with a
severity, which, on the benevolent principles of Christianity, it will
be difficult to justify."

[Footnote 17: P. 112.]

After this treatment, war followed war. And as other settlements were
made by others in other states on the same principles, war fell to their
portion likewise. And the whole history of the settlement of America,
where these principles were followed, or where the policy of the world
was adopted, is full of the wars between the settlers and the Indians,
which have continued more or less, and this nearly up to the present
day.

But widely different was the situation of the settlers under William
Penn. When he and his fellow Quakers went to this continent, they went
with the principles of Christian wisdom, or they adopted the policy of
the Gospel instead of the policy of the world. They had to deal with the
same savage Indians as the other settlers. They had the same fury to
guard against, and were in a situation much more exposed to attack, and
of course much more creative of alarm; for they had neither sword nor
musket, nor pallisadoe, nor fort. They judged it neither necessary to
watch, nor to be provided with ammunition, nor to become soldiers. They
spoke the language of peace to the natives, and they proved the
sincerity of their language by their continuance in a defenceless
condition. They held out also, that all wars were unlawful, and that,
whatever injuries were offered them, they would sooner bear them, than
gratify the principle of revenge. It is quite needless to go farther
into the system of this venerable founder of Pennsylvania. But it may be
observed, that no Quaker settlers, when known to be such,[18] were
killed, and, whatever attacks were made upon the possessors of land in
their neighbourhood, none were ever made upon those who settled on the
lands purchased by William Penn.

[Footnote 18: "The Indians shot him who had the gun, says Storey in his
Journal, and when they knew the young man they killed was a Quaker, they
seemed sorry for it, but blamed him for carrying a gun. For they knew
the Quakers would not fight, or do them any harm, and therefore, by
carrying a gun, they took him for an enemy." This instance, which was in
after times, confirms still more strongly all that has been said on this
subject. Quakers at this time occasionally armed themselves against the
wild beasts of the country.]

It may not be improper to observe farther, that the harmonious
intercourse between the Quakers and the Indians continues uninterrupted
to the present day. In matters of great and public concern, of which I
could mention instances, it has been usual with the Indians to send
deputies to the Quakers for advice, and the former have even been
prevailed upon by the latter to relinquish wars, which they had it in
contemplation to undertake. It is usual also for some of these to send
their children to the Quakers for education. And so great is the
influence of the Quakers over some of these tribes, that many
individuals belonging to them, and now living together, have been
reclaimed from a savage life. These have laid aside the toilsome
occupations of the chase. They raise horses, cattle, and sheep. They
cultivate wheat and flax. They weave and spin. They have houses, barns,
and saw-mills among them. They have schools also, and civilization is
taking place of the grossest barbarism.

These facts, when contrasted, speak for themselves. A cabinet of Quaker
ministers, acting upon the policy of the Gospel, has been seated in the
heart of a savage and warlike nation, and peace has been kept with them
for ever. A cabinet of other settlers, acting on the policy of the
world, has been seated in the heart of nations of a similar description,
and they have almost constantly, been embroiled in wars. If Christian
policy has had its influence on Barbarians, it would be libellous to
say, that it would not have its influence upon those who profess to be
Christians. Let us then again, from the instances which have been now
recited, deprecate the necessity of wars. Let us not think so meanly of
the Christian religion, as that it does not forbid, nor so meanly of its
power, as that it is not ante to prevent, their continuance. Let us not
think, to the disgrace of our religion, that the human heart, under its
influence, should be so retrogade, that the expected blessing of
universal peace should be thought no improvement in our moral condition,
or that our feelings under its influence should continue so impure,
that, when it arrives, we should regard it not so much a blessing, as a
cures. But let us, on the other hand, hope and believe, that, as an
opposite and purer policy is acted upon, it will do good to our own
natures, good to the peace and happiness of the world, and honour to the
religion of the Gospel.

SECT. VIII

_Subject finally considered--Authors of wars generally justify their own
as defensive--and state that, if any nation were to give up the practice
of war, or to act on the policy of the Gospel, it would be overrun by
others, which acted upon the policy of the world--Reason to believe,
that such a nation would be held in veneration by others, and applied to
by them for the settlement of their disputes--Sentiments of Bishop
Butler in a supposed case--Case of Antoninus Pius--Conclusion._

Having now said all that I intended to say on the supposed necessity of
wars, I shall for a short time direct the attention of the reader to two
points, the only two, that I purpose to notice on this subject.

It is usually said, first, that the different powers, who go to war,
give it out that their wars are defensive, or that they justify
themselves on this principle.

I shall observe in reply to this, that it is frequently difficult to
determine, where actual aggression begins. Even old aggressions, of long
standing, have their bearings in these disputes. Not shall we find often
any clue to a solution of the difficulty in the manifestoes of either
party, for each makes his own case good in these; and if we were to
decide on the merits of the question by the contents of these, we should
often come to the conclusion, that both the parties were wrong. Thus,
for instance, a notion may have been guilty of an offence to another. So
far the cause of the other is a just one. But if the other should arm
first, and this during an attempt at accommodation, it will be a
question, whether it does not forfeit its pretensions to a just case,
and whether both are not then to be considered as aggressors on the
occasion?

When a nation avows its object in a war, and changes its object in the
course of it, the presumption is, that such a nation has been the
aggressor. And where any nation goes to war upon no other avowed
principle, than that of the balance of power, such a nation, however
right according to the policy of the world, is an aggressor according to
the policy of the Gospel, because it proceeds upon the principle, that
it is lawful to do evil, that good may come.

If a nation hires or employs the troops of another to fight for it,
though it is not the aggressor in any war, yet it has the crime upon its
head of making those aggressors, whom it employs.

But, generally speaking, few modern wars can be called defensive. A war,
purely defensive, is that in which the inhabitants of a nation remain
wholly at home to repel the attacks of another, and content themselves
with sending protection to the settlements which belong to it. But few
instance are recorded of such wars.

But if there be often a difficulty in discerning between aggressive and
defensive wars, and if, moreover, there is reason to suppose, that most
of the modern wars are aggressive, or that both patties become
aggressors in the course of the dispute, it becomes the rulers of
nations to pause, and to examine their own consciences with fear and
trembling, before they allow the Sword to bedrawn, lest a dreadful
responsibility should fall upon their heads for all the destruction of
happiness, all the havoc of life, and all the slaughter of morals that
may ensue.

It is said, secondly, that if any nation were publicly to determine to
relinquish the practice if war, or to act on the policy of the Gospel,
it would be overrun by other nations which might act on the policy of
the world.

This argument is neither more nor less than that of the Pagan Celsus,
who said in the second century, that, if the rest of the Roman empire
were Christians, it would be overrun by the Barbarians.

Independently of the protection, which such a nation might count upon
from the moral Governor of the world, let us enquire, upon rational
principles, what would be likely to be its fate.

Armies, we know, are kept up by one nation, principally because they are
kept up by another.

And in proportion as one rival nation adds to its standing armies, it is
thought by the other to be consistent with the policy of the world to do
the same. But if one nation were to decline keeping any armies at all,
where would be the violence, to reason to suppose, that the other would
follow the example? Who would not be glad to get rid of the expence of
keeping them, if they could do it with safety? Nor is it likely, that
any powerful nation, professing to relinquish war, would experience the
calamities of it. Its care to avoid provocation would be so great, and
its language would be so temperate, and reasonable, and just, and
conciliatory, in the case of any dispute which might arise, that it
could hardly fail of obtaining an accommodation. And the probability is,
that such a nation would grow so high in esteem with other nations, that
they would have recourse to it in their disputes with one another, and
would abide by its decision. "Add the general influence, says the great
Bishop Butler in his Analogy, which each a kingdom would have over the
face of the earth, by way of example particularly, and the reverence
which would be paid to it. It would plainly be superior to all others,
and the world must gradually come under its empire, not by means of
lawless violence, but partly by what must be allowed to be just
conquest, and partly by other kingdoms submitting themselves voluntarily
to it, throughout a course of ages, and claiming its protection one
after another in successive exigencies. The head of it would be an
universal monarch in another sense than any other mortal has yet been,
and the eastern style would be literally applicable to him, "that all
people, nations, and languages, should serve him." Now Bishop Butler
supposes this would be the effect, where the individuals of a nation
were perfectly virtuous. But I ask much less for my hypothesis. I only
ask that the ruling members of the cabinet of any great nation (and
perhaps these would only amount to three or four) should consist of real
Christians, or of such men as would implicitly follow the policy of the
Gospel, and I believe the result would be as I have described it.

Nor indeed are we without instances of the kind. The goodness of the
emperor Antoninus Pius was so great, that he was said to have outdone
all example. He had no war in the course of a long reign of twenty-four
years, so that he was compared to Numa. And nothing is more true, than
that princes referred their controversies to his decision.

Nor most I forget again to bring to the notice of the reader the
instance, though on a smaller scale, of the colonists and descendants of
William Penn. The Quakers have uniformly conducted themselves towards
the Indians in such a manner, as to have given them from their earliest
intercourse, an exulted idea of their character. And the consequence is,
as I stated in a former section, that the former, in affairs of
importance, are consulted by the latter at the present day. But why, if
the cabinet of any one powerful nation were to act upon the noble
principle of relinquishing war, should we think the other cabinets so
lost to good feelings, as not to respect its virtue? Let us instantly
abandon this thought; for the supposition of a contrary sentiment would
make them worse than the savages I have mentioned.

Let us then cherish the fond hope, that human animosities are not to be
eternal, and that man is not always to be made a tiger to man. Let us
hope that the government of some one nation (and when we consider the
vast power of the British empire, the nature of its constitution and
religion, and the general humanity of its inhabitants, none would be
better qualified than our own) will set the example of the total
dereliction of wars. And let us, in all our respective situations,
precede the anticipated blessing, by holding out the necessity of the
subjugation of the passions, and by inculcating the doctrine of
universal benevolence to man, so that when we look upon the beautiful
islands, which lie scattered as so many ornaments of the ocean, we may
wish their several inhabitants no greater injury than the violence of
their own waves; or that, when we view continents at a distance from us,
we may consider them as inhabited by our brothers; or that when we
contemplate the ocean itself, which may separate them from our sight, we
may consider it, not as separating our love, but as intended by
Providence to be the means of a quicker intercourse for the exchange of
reciprocal blessings.

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