In favor of war several pleas will probably be made.
First, some will plead that the Israelites were permitted, and even commanded to make war on the
inhabitants of Canaan. To this it may be answered that the Giver and Arbiter of life had a right, if he
pleased, to make use of the savage customs of the age for punishing guilty nations. If any government
of the present day should receive a commission to make war as the Israelites did, let the order be
obeyed. But until they have such a commission, let it not be imagined that they can innocently make
war.
As a further answer to this plea, we have to observe that God has given encouragement that, under
the reign of the Messiah, there shall be such a time of peace “that nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Micah 4:3. If this prediction shall ever be fulfilled, the
present delusion in favor of war must be done away with. How, then, are we to expect the way will be
prepared for the accomplishment of the prediction? This is probably not to be done by miraculous
agency, but by the blessing of God on the benevolent exertions of individuals to open the eyes of their
fellow-mortals in respect to the evils and delusions of war, and the blessings of peace. Those who shall
be the instruments of producing so important a change in the views of men will be in an eminent sense
“peace-makers,” and will be entitled to the appellation and privileges of “the sons of God.” How much
more glorious the achievement will be, to conquer the prejudices and delusions of men on this subject by
kindness and reason, than to conquer the world by the edge of the sword.
A second plea in favor of the custom of war may be this: that war is an advantage to a nation, as it
usually disposes of many vicious and dangerous characters. But doesn’t war make two such characters
for every one it removes? Isn’t it in fact the greatest school of depravity, and the greatest source of
mischievous and dangerous characters that ever existed among men? Doesn’t a state of war lower the
standard of morality in a nation, so that a vast portion of common vice is scarcely observed as evil?
Besides, isn’t it awful to think of sending vicious men beyond the means of reformation and the hope
of repentance? When they are sent into the army, what is this but consigning them to a state where they
will rapidly fill up the measure of their iniquity, and become “fitted to destruction?”
2
Thirdly, it will be pleaded that no substitute for war can be devised that will insure to a nation a
redress of wrongs. In reply we may ask, is it common for a nation to obtain a redress of wrongs by war?
As to redress, don’t the wars of nations resemble boxing at a tavern, when both of the combatants
receive a terrible bruising, then drink together and make peace; each, however, bearing for a long time
the marks of his folly and madness? A redress of wrongs by war is so uncommon that, unless revenge is
redress, and multiplied injuries are satisfaction, we should suppose that none but madmen would run the
hazard.
But if the eyes of people could be opened in regard to the evils and delusions of war, wouldn’t it be
easy to form a confederacy of nations and organize a high court of equity to decide national
controversies? 2 Why might not such a court be composed of some of the most eminent characters from
each nation, and compliance with the decision of the court be made a point of national honor, to prevent
the effusion of blood and to preserve the blessings of peace? Can any considerate person say that the
probability of obtaining right in such a court would be less than by an appeal to arms? When an
individual appeals to a court of justice for the redress of wrongs, it is not always the case that he obtains
his right. Still, such an appeal is safer, more honorable, and more certain, as well as more benevolent,
than for the individual to attempt to obtain redress by his pistol or his sword. And aren’t the reasons for
avoiding an appeal to the sword, for the redress of wrongs, always great in proportion to the calamities
that such an appeal must naturally involve? If this is a fact, then there is infinitely greater reason, why
two nations should avoid an appeal to arms, than usually exists against a bloody combat between two
contending individuals.
In the fourth place, it may be urged that a spirit of forbearance on the part of a national government
would be an invitation to repeated insult and aggression. But is this plea founded on facts and
experience? Does it accord with what is well known of human nature? Who are the persons in society
that most frequently receive insult and abuse? Are they the meek, the benevolent, and the forbearing?
Do these more commonly have reason to complain than persons of quick resentment, who are ready to
fight on the least provocation?
There are two sects of professed Christians in this country, which, as sects, are peculiar in their
opinions respecting the lawfulness of war, and the right of repelling injury by violence. These are the
Quakers and the Shakers. They are remarkably pacific. Now, we ask, does it appear, from experience,
that their forbearing spirit brings on them a greater portion of injury and insult than is experienced by
people of other sects? Isn’t the reverse of this true in fact? There may, indeed, be some instances of
such gross depravity as a person’s taking advantage of their pacific character, to do them injury, with the
hope of impunity. But in general, it is believed, their pacific principles and spirit command the esteem
even of the vicious, and operate as a shield from insult and abuse.
The question may be brought home to every society. How seldom do children of a mild, forbearing
temper experience insult or injury, compared with the waspish, who will sting if touched? The same
inquiry may be made in respect to persons of these opposite descriptions of every age and in every
situation of life, and the result will be favorable to the point in question.
Should any deny the applicability of these examples to national rulers, we have the pleasure of being
able to produce one example, which is undeniably applicable.
When William Penn took the Government of Pennsylvania, he distinctly avowed to the Indians his
forbearing and pacific principles, and his benevolent wishes for uninterrupted peace with them. On
these principles the government was administered while it remained in the hands of the Quakers. What,
then, was the effect? Did this pacific character in government invite aggression and insult? Let the
2
Transcriber’s note – Apparently not. The United Nations and the World Court are often powerless to prevent such things.
3
answer be given in the language of the Edinburgh Review concerning the life of William Penn.
Speaking of the treaty made by Penn with the Indians, the reviewer said:
“Such indeed was the spirit in which the negotiation was entered into, and the corresponding
settlement conducted, that for the space of more than seventy years – and so long indeed as the Quakers
retained the chief power in the government – the peace and amity which had been thus solemnly
promised and concluded was never violated; and a large though solitary example was afforded of the
facility with which they, who are really sincere and friendly in their views, may live in harmony with
those who are supposed to be peculiarly fierce and faithless.”
Shall this solitary but successful example never be imitated? “Shall the sword devour forever?”
Some of the evils of war have already been mentioned, but the field is almost boundless. The
demoralizing and depraving effects of war cannot be too seriously considered. We have heard much of
the corrupting tendency of some of the rites and customs of the heathen, but what custom of the heathen
nations had a greater effect in depraving the human character than the custom of war? What is that
feeling usually called a war-spirit, but a deleterious compound of enthusiastic ardor, ambition,
malignity, and revenge – a compound which really endangers the soul of the possessor as much as the
life of his enemy? Who, but a deranged or deluded person, would think it safe to rush into the presence
of his Judge with his heart boiling with enmity, and his brother’s blood dripping from his hands! Yet in
time of war, how much care is taken to excite and maintain this bloodthirsty disposition as essential to
success!
The profession of a soldier exposes him to sudden and untimely death, and at the same time hardens
his heart and renders him regardless of his final account. When a person goes into the army, it is
expected of him that he will rise above the fear of death. In doing this he too commonly rises above the
fear of God, and all serious concern for his soul. It is not denied that some men sustain virtuous
characters amidst the contaminating vapors of a camp, and some may be reformed by a sense of the
dangers to which they are exposed, but these are uncommon occurrences.
The depravity occasioned by war is not confined to the army. Every species of vice gains ground in
a nation during war. And when a war is brought to a close, seldom, perhaps, does a community return to
its former standard of morals. In times of peace, vice and irreligion generally retain the ground they
acquired during a war. As every war augments the amount of national depravity, so it proportionally
increases the dangers and miseries of society.
Among the evils of war, a wanton undervaluing of human life ought to be mentioned. This effect
may appear in various forms. When a war is declared for the redress of some wrong, in regard to
property, if nothing but property is taken into consideration, the result is not commonly better than
spending five hundred dollars in a lawsuit to recover a debt of ten. But when we come to estimate
human lives against dollars and cents, how are we confounded! “A man will give all that he has for his
life.”
If rulers learn to undervalue the lives of their own subjects by the custom of war, how much more do
they undervalue the lives of their enemies! As they learn to hear of the loss of five hundred or a
thousand of their own men, with perhaps less feeling than they would hear of the death of a favorite
horse or dog, so they learn to hear of the death of thousands after thousands on the side of the enemy
with joy and exultation. If their own men have succeeded in taking an unimportant fortress, or a frigate,
with the loss of fifty lives on their own side, and fifty-one on the other, this is a matter of joy and
triumph. This time they have won the game. But, alas, at what expense to others! This expense,
however, does not interrupt the joy of war-makers. They leave it to the wounded and the friends of the
dead to feel and to mourn.
4
This dreadful depravity of feeling is not confined to rulers in times of war. The army becomes
abandoned to such depravity. They learn to undervalue not only the lives of their enemies, but even
their own, and will often wantonly rush into the arms of death for the sake of military glory. And more
or less of the same want of feeling, and the same undervaluing of human life, extends through the nation
in proportion to the frequency of battles, and the duration of war.
If anything is done by the army of one nation that is deemed by the other as contrary to the modern
conventions of war, how soon do we hear the exclamation of Goths and Vandals! 3 Yet how are
Christians at war better than those barbarous tribes? And how is the war-spirit in them superior to the
spirit of Goths and Vandals? When the war-spirit is excited, it is not always to be circumscribed in its
operations by the refinements of civilization. It is at best a bloody and desolating spirit.
Of what value is our boast of civilization or Christianization, while we tolerate, as popular and
justifiable, the most horrid custom which ever resulted from human wickedness? Should a period arrive
when the nations “shall learn war no more,” what will posterity think of our claims, as Christians and
civilized men? The custom of sacrificing men by war may appear to them as the blackest of all heathen
superstitious. Its present popularity may appear as wonderful to ages to come as the past popularity of
any ancient custom now does to us. “What!” they may exclaim. “Could those be Christians, who could
sacrifice men by thousands to a point of honor, falsely so called; or to obtain a redress of a trifling
wrong in regard to property? If such were the customs of Christians, in what way were they better than
the heathens of their own time?”
Perhaps some apologist may rise up in that day, and plead the conclusion from the history of our
times that it was supposed necessary to the safety of a nation for its government to be quick to assume a
warlike tone and attitude upon every infringement of their rights, that magnanimous forbearance was
considered as pusillanimity, and that Christian meekness was thought intolerable in the character of a
ruler.
To this others may reply: “Could these professed Christians have imagined that their safety
depended on displaying a spirit that was the reverse of their Master’s? Could they have supposed that
such a temper was best calculated to insure the protection of Him who held their destiny in his hands?
Did they not know that wars are demoralizing, and that the greatest danger of a nation results from its
corruption and depravity? Did they not also know that a haughty spirit of resentment in one government
was very sure to provoke a similar spirit in another? Did they not know that one war usually paves the
way for a repetition of similar calamities by depraving each of the contending parties, and by
entrenching enmities and jealousies, which would be ready to break forth on the most frivolous
occasions?”
That we may obtain a still clearer view of the delusions of war, let us look back to the origin of
society. Suppose a family, like that of Noah, to commence the settlement of a country. They multiply
into a number of distinct families. Then, in the course of years, they become so numerous as to form
distinct governments. In any stage of their progress, unfortunate disputes might arise by the
imprudence, the avarice, or the ambition of individuals.
Now, at what period would it be proper to introduce the custom of deciding controversies by the
edge of the sword, or an appeal to arms? Might this be done when the families had increased to ten?
Who would not be shocked at the madness of introducing such a custom under such circumstances?
Might it with more propriety be done when the families had multiplied to fifty, a hundred, a thousand, or
ten thousand? As the number becomes greater, so do the danger, the carnage, and the calamity.
Besides, what reason can be given as to why this mode of deciding controversies would not be as proper
3
Transcriber’s note – Today we would call them barbarians and terrorists.
5
when there were but ten families, as when there were ten thousand? And why might not two individuals
thus decide disputes, as well as two nations?
Perhaps all will admit that the custom could not be honorably introduced until they separated and
formed two or more distinct governments. But would this change of circumstances dissolve their ties as
brethren, and their obligations as accountable beings? Would the organization of distinct governments
confer a right on rulers to appeal to arms for the settlement of controversies? Isn’t it manifest, that no
period can be assigned at which the introduction of such a custom would not be absolute murder? And
shall a custom, which must have been murderous at its commencement, now be upheld as necessary and
honorable?
“But,” says the objector, in determining the question of whether war is now the effect of delusion,
“we must consider what mankind is, and not what it would have been, had wars never been introduced.”
To this we reply: we should consider both; and by what ought to have been the state of society, we
may discover the present delusion, and the need of light and reformation. If it would have been to the
honor of the human race, had the custom of war never commenced, it must be desirable to dispel the
present darkness, and exterminate the desolating scourge. The same objection might have been made to
the proposition in the British Parliament for the abolition of the slave trade. The same may now be
made against any attempt to abolish the custom of human sacrifices among the Hindus. The same may
be urged against every attempt to root out pernicious and immoral customs of long standing.
Let it be seriously considered, then, how abominably murderous the custom must have been in its
origin; how precarious the mode of obtaining redress; how often the aggressor is successful; how small a
part even of the successful nation is ever benefited by the war; how a nation is almost uniformly
impoverished by the contest; how many individuals are absolutely ruined regarding property, or morals,
or both; and what a multitude of fellow creatures are hurried into eternity in an untimely manner and an
unprepared state. And who can hesitate for a moment to denounce war as the effect of popular
delusion?
Let every Christian seriously consider the malignant nature of that spirit which war-makers evidently
wish to excite, and compare it with the temper of Jesus. Where is the Christian who would not shudder
at the thought of dying in the exercise of the common war-spirit, and also at the thought of being the
instrument of exciting such a spirit in his fellow men? Any custom that cannot be supported except by
exciting in men the very temper of the devil ought surely to be banished from the Christian world.
The impression that aggressive war is murderous is general among Christians, if not universal. The
justness of the impression seems to be admitted by almost every government in going to war. For this
reason each of two governments endeavors to fix on the other the charge of aggression, and to assume to
itself the ground of defending some right, or avenging some wrong. Thus each excuses itself, and
charges the other with all the blood and misery that result from the contest.
These facts, however, are so far from affording a plea in favor of the custom of war, that they afford
a weighty reason for its abolition. If, in the view of conscience, the aggressor is a murderer and
answerable for the blood shed in war; if one or the other must be viewed by God as the aggressor; and if
such is the delusion attending war, that each party is liable to consider the other as the aggressor; surely
there must be serious danger of a nation’s being involved in the guilt of murder while they imagine they
have a cause which may be justified.
So prone are men to be blinded by their passions, their prejudices, and their interests, that, in most
private quarrels, each of two individuals persuades himself that he is in the right and his neighbor is in
the wrong. Hence the propriety of arbitrations, references, and appeals to courts of justice, so that
persons more disinterested may judge and prevent injustice and desolation, which would result from
deciding private disputes by single combats or acts of violence.
6
But rulers of nations are as liable to be misled by their passions and interests as other men; and when
misled, they are very sure to mislead those of their subjects who have confidence in their wisdom and
integrity. Hence it is highly important that the custom of war should be abolished, and some other mode
adopted to settle disputes between nations. In private disputes there may be cause of complaint on each
side, while neither has reason to shed the blood of the other, much less to shed the blood of innocent
family connections, neighbors and friends. So, of two nations, each may have cause of complaint, while
neither can be justified in making war; and much less in shedding the blood of innocent people, who
have had no hand in giving the offence.
It is an awful feature in the character of war, and a strong reason why it should not be countenanced,
that it involves the innocent with the guilty in the calamities it inflicts; and often falls with the greatest
vengeance on those who have had no concern in the management of national affairs. It surely is not a
crime to be born in a country, which is afterwards invaded; yet in how many instances do war-makers
punish, or destroy, for no other crime than being a native or resident of an invaded territory! A mode of
revenge or redress, which makes no distinction between the innocent and the guilty, ought to be
discountenanced by every friend of justice and humanity.
Besides, as the rulers of a nation are as liable as other people to be governed by passion and
prejudice, there is as little prospect of justice in permitting war for the decision of national disputes, as
there would be in permitting an incensed individual to be complainant, witness, judge, jury, and
executioner in his own cause. In what point of view, then, is war not to be regarded with horror?
That wars have been so overruled by God so as to be the occasion of some benefits to mankind, will
not be denied; for the same may be said of every fashion or custom that ever was popular among men.
War may have been the occasion of advancing useful arts and sciences, and even of the spread of the
gospel. But we are not to do evil that good may come, nor to countenance evil because God may
overrule it for good.
One advantage of war, which has often been mentioned, is this. It gives opportunity for the display
of extraordinary talents – of daring enterprise and intrepidity. But let robbery and piracy become as
popular as war has been, and these customs will give as great an opportunity for the display of the same
talents and qualities of mind. Shall we therefore encourage robbery and piracy? Indeed it may be asked,
do we not encourage these crimes? For what is modern warfare but a popular, refined, and legalized
mode of robbery, piracy, and murder, preceded by a proclamation giving notice of the purpose of the
war-maker? But whether such a proclamation changes the character of the following enormities is a
question to be decided at a higher court than that of any earthly sovereign, and by a law superior to the
law of nations.
The answer of a pirate to Alexander the Great was as just as it was severe: “ By what right,” asked
the King, “do you infest the seas?” The pirate replied, “By the same that you infest the universe. But
because I do it in a small ship, I am called a robber; and because you do the same acts with a great fleet,
you are called a conqueror!”
Equally just was the language of the Scythian ambassadors to the same deluded monarch: “You
boast that the only design of your marches is to extirpate robbers. You yourself are the greatest robber
in the world.”
May we therefore plead for the custom of war, because it produces such mighty robbers as
Alexander? Or if once in an age it should produce such a character as Washington, will this make
amends for the slaughter of twenty million human beings, and all the other concomitant evils of war?
If the characters of such men as Alexander had been held in deserved abhorrence by mankind, this
single circumstance would probably have saved many millions from untimely death. But the celebrity
7
that delusion has given to that desolating robber, and the renown attached to his splendid crimes, have
excited the ambition of others in every succeeding age, and filled the world with misery and blood.
Isn’t it time, then, for Christians to learn not to attach glory to guilt, or to praise actions that God will
condemn? That Alexander possessed talents worthy of admiration will be admitted. But when such
talents are prostituted to the vile purposes of military fame by spreading destruction and misery through
the world, a character is formed which should be branded with everlasting infamy. And nothing,
perhaps, short of the commission of such atrocious deeds can more endanger the welfare of a
community more than the applause given to successful military desperadoes. Murder and robbery are
not the less criminal for being perpetrated by a king, or a mighty warrior.
Dr. Prideaux states that in fifty battles fought by Caesar, he slew one million, one hundred and
ninety-two thousand of his enemies. If to this number we add the loss of troops on his own side, and the
slaughter of women and children on both sides, we shall probably have a total of two million human
beings, sacrificed to the ambition of one man!
If we assign an equal number to Alexander, and the same to Napoleon, which we probably may do
with justice, then to three military butchers we may ascribe the untimely death of six million of the
human family 4 – a number equal to the whole population of the United States in the year 1800. Isn’t it
reasonable to believe that a greater number of human beings have been slain by the murderous custom
of war than the whole amount of the present population of the world? To what heathen deity was there
ever offered such a multitude of human sacrifices as have been offered to human ambition?
Shall the Christian world remain silent in regard to the enormity of this custom, and even applaud
the deeds of men who were a curse to the age in which they lived – men, whose talents were employed,
not in advancing the happiness of the human race, but in spreading desolation and misery through the
world? On the same principle that such men were applauded, we may applaud the chief of a band of
robbers and pirates in proportion to his ingenuity, intrepidity, and skill in doing mischief. If the chief
displays these energies of mind in a high degree in a successful course of plundering and murder, then
he is a “mighty hunter,” a man of great renown.
But if we attach glory to such exploits, don’t we encourage others to adopt the same road to fame?
Besides, wouldn’t such applause betray a most depraved taste; a taste which makes no proper distinction
between virtue and vice, or doing good and doing mischief; a taste to be captivated with the glare of
bold exploits, but regardless of the end to which they were directed, the means by which they were
accomplished, the misery which they occasioned to others, and the light in which they must be viewed
by a benevolent God?
An important question now occurs. Isn’t it possible to produce such a change in the state of society,
and the views of Christian nations, that every ruler shall feel that his honor, safety, and happiness
depend on his displaying a pacific spirit, and forbearing to engage in offensive wars? Can’t peace
societies be extended to every nation of Christendom, to support governments and make the nations safe
from war?
In these societies we may hope to engage every true minister of the Prince of Peace, and every
Christian who possesses the temper of his Master. In this number will be included a large portion of
important civil characters.
In the societies formed for this purpose, let the contributions be liberal, in some measure
corresponding with the magnitude and importance of the object. Let these be judiciously appropriated to
the purpose of diffusing the light and spirit of peace in every direction, and for exciting a just abhorrence
of war in every breast.
4
Transcriber’s note – About 50 to 60 million people were killed as a result of World War II.
8
Let printing presses be established in sufficient numbers to fill every land with newspapers, tracts,
and periodical works, adapted to the pacific design of the societies. Let these all be calculated for the
support and encouragement of good rulers, and for the cultivation of a mild and pacific temper among
every class of citizens.
The object is so perfectly harmonious with the spirit, the design, and the glory of the gospel, that it
might be frequently the subject of discussion in the pulpit, the subject of Sabbath and everyday
conversation, and be introduced into our daily prayers to God, whether in public or private.
Another means of advancing the object deserves particular consideration: namely, early education.
This grand object should have a place in every plan of education, in families, common schools,
academies, and universities.
“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” The
power of education has been tried, to make children of a ferocious, bloodthirsty character. Let it now
have a fair chance, to see what it will do towards making mild, friendly, and peaceful citizens.
As there is an aversion to war in the breast of a large majority of people in every civilized
community. Since its evils have been recently felt in every Christian nation, is there not ground to hope
that it will be as easy to excite a disposition for peace, as a disposition for war? If peace societies should
be increased, and such means be put in operation, as has been suggested, then isn’t it very certain that
the most beneficial effects will result? Wouldn’t they gradually produce an important change in the
views and state of society, and give a new character to Christian nations? What institution or project
would more naturally unite all pious and virtuous men? And on what effort could we more reasonably
hope for the blessing of the God of Peace?
Should prudent, vigorous, and well-conducted efforts be made, then in a century from this time, the
nations of Christendom may consider human sacrifices, made by war, in the same light they now view
the ancient sacrifices to Moloch, or in the light of wanton and deliberate murder. And such a change in
the views of men must lead to the security and stability of human governments, and to the felicity of the
world. As soon as Christian nations are impressed with the importance of this change, they may find
access to the heathen. But while Christians indulge the custom of war, which is in truth the very worst
custom in the world, with what face can they reprove the heathen, or assume among them the office of
instructors? “Physician, heal thyself.”
The Bible Societies already formed in various parts of the world must naturally, and even
necessarily, aid the object now proposed. Indeed, the two objects are so congenial that whatever
promotes the one will aid the other. The same may he said of all Missionary Societies, and Societies for
Propagating the Gospel. Should these all cordially co-operate, they must form a most powerful
association.
But our hopes and expectations are not limited here. The societies of Friends and Shakers will come
in of course, and cordially contribute to the glorious object. May we not also expect a ready
acquiescence from the particular churches of every denomination in the land? And why may we not
look to the various literary and political societies, for aid in a plan that has the security, the peace, and
the happiness of the world for its object?
That there are obstacles and objections to be encountered, we cannot deny; but it is confidently
believed that none are insurmountable, because God will aid in such a cause, and the time is at hand
when this prediction shall be fulfilled.
The object is not of a party nature, and party distinctions and party purposes have been excluded
from the discussion. The supposed delusion in respect to war is confined to no nation, nor to any
particular sect in any country. What has been said on the subject has not been designed for the purpose
of reproach against any class of men, but with a desire to befriend and benefit all who have not
9
examined the subject, and to arouse Christians to one united and vigorous effort to bless the world with
peace.
An eloquent speech delivered by Mr. Wilberforce in the British Parliament in favor of propagating
Christianity in India, with a view to abolish human sacrifices in that country, contains some observations
that we hope he will repeat in the same house on the present subject.
“It was,” said he, “formerly my task to plead the cause of a people whose woes affected every heart,
and who were finally rescued from the situation in which they groaned by the abolition of the slave
trade. That cause was doubtless the cause of suffering humanity; but I declare, that if we entirely
exclude the consideration of religion, humanity appears to me to be still more concerned in the cause I
am now pleading than in that for which I was formerly the advocate… I, for my part, consider it as
absolute blasphemy to believe that that great Being, to whom we owe our existence, has doomed so
large a portion of mankind to remain forever in that state in which we see the natives of India at this day.
I am confident his providence has furnished remedies fitted to the case, and I hold it to be our duty to
apply them. And I am satisfied that not only may this be safely attempted, but also that its
accomplishment will be, in the highest degree, beneficial.”
May God grant that this powerful advocate for “suffering humanity” may have his heart fervently
engaged for the abolition of the war trade. Here he may find a new and ample field for the display of his
piety, his philanthropy, and his eloquence. With the greatest propriety, he may state that the miseries
occasioned by the universal custom of war are far more dreadful than those occasioned by either of the
limited customs, for the abolition of which he has so honorably and successfully contended.
If it would be blasphemy to believe that God has doomed so great a portion of his creatures as the
natives of India to remain forever the subjects of their present delusions respecting human sacrifices, can
it be less than blasphemy to believe that he has doomed, not only all Christendom, but all the nations of
the earth, to be forever so deluded as to support the most desolating custom which ever resulted from
human depravity, or which ever afflicted the race of Adam? Here, with sincerity, I can adopt the words
of Mr. Wilberforce: ”I am confident that his providence has furnished remedies fitted to the case, and I
hold it to be our duty to apply them.”
Christians of every sect may find here an object worthy of their attention, and in which they may
cordially unite. For this object they may, with propriety, leave behind all party zeal and party
distinctions, and bury their animosities in one united effort to give peace to the world.
Let lawyers, politicians and divines, and men of every class who can write or speak, consecrate their
talents to the diffusion of light, and love, and peace. Should there be an effort such as the object
demands, God will grant his blessing, posterity will be grateful, heaven will be filled with joy and
praise, and “the sword shall not devour forever.”
Let not the universality of the custom be regarded as an objection to making the attempt. If the
custom is wicked and destructive, its reformation is the more urgent and important. If war is ever to be
set aside, an effort must some time be made; and why not now, as well as at any future day? What
objection can now be stated, which may not be brought forward at any other period? If men must have
objects for the display of heroism, let their intrepidity be shown in firmly meeting the formidable
prejudices of a world in favor of war. Here is an opportunity for the display of such heroism as will
occasion no remorse on a deathbed, and such as God will approve at the final reckoning. In this cause,
ardent zeal, genuine patriotism, undaunted fortitude, the spirit of enterprise, and every quality of mind
worthy of a hero may be gloriously displayed. Who ever displayed a more heroic spirit than Saint Paul?
For such heroism and love of country as he displayed, the object now proposed will open the most
ample field at home and abroad.
10
That there is nothing in the nature of mankind that renders war necessary and unavoidable – nothing
that inclines them to it that may not be overcome by the power of education – may appear from what is
discoverable in the sects already mentioned. The Quakers, Shakers, and Moravians are of the same
nature as other people, “men of like passions” with those who uphold the custom of war. All the
difference between them and others results from education and habit. The principles of their teachers
are diffused through their societies, impressed on the minds of old and young; and an aversion to war
and violence is excited which becomes habitual, and has a governing influence in their hearts, their
passions, and their lives.
If it has been proved to be possible, by the force of education, to produce such an aversion to war
that people will not even defend their own lives by acts of violence, then shall it be thought impossible,
by similar means, to destroy the popularity of offensive war and exclude the deadly custom from the
abodes of men?
The following things will, perhaps, be generally admitted: that the Christian religion has abolished
the practice of enslaving captives, and in several respects mitigated the evils of war by introducing
milder usages; that wars must cease to the ends of the earth if the temper of our Savior should
universally prevail among men; and that the scriptures give reason to hope that such a time of peace will
result from the influence of the Christian religion.
If these views and expectations are well founded, doesn’t it follow, of course, that the spirit and
custom of war are directly opposed to the principles and spirit of the gospel; that in proportion as the
gospel has its proper effect on the minds of men, an aversion to war must be excited; and that it is the
duty of every Christian to do all in his power to bring the custom into disrepute, and to effect its
abolition!
Can it be consistent with due regard to the gospel for Christians to hold their peace, while they see a
custom prevailing which annually sweeps off myriads of their brethren, hurrying them into eternity by
violence and murder? Can they forbear to exert themselves to put an end to this voluntary plague? Can
we feel a conviction that war is, in its nature, opposed to the principles and spirit of our religion, and that
it is the purpose of God to put an end to this scourge by the influence of the gospel – and still sleep on
without any effort to produce the effect which we believe is intended by our heavenly Father?
If the Christian religion is to put an end to war, it must be by the efforts of those who are under its
influence. So long, therefore, as Christians acquiesce in the custom, the desirable event will be delayed.
Christianity itself is not a powerful intelligent agent. It is not a God, an angel, or a man. It is only a
system of divine instructions relating to duty and happiness, to be used by men for their own benefit, the
benefit of each other, and the honor of its Author. Like all other instructions, they are of no use any
further than they are regarded and reduced to practice.
In what way, then, is it possible that Christianity should put an end to war, but by enlightening the
minds of men as to the evil of the custom, and exciting them to an opposite course of conduct? Is it
possible that the custom of war should be abolished by the influence of religion, while Christians
themselves are its advocates?
If God has appointed that men shall be saved by the preaching of the gospel, the gospel must be
preached, or the end will never be accomplished. So if he has appointed that by the same gospel this
world shall be delivered from war, this also must be achieved by similar means. The tendency of the
gospel to this effect must be illustrated and enforced, its opposition to war must be displayed in the lives
of Christians, and men must be influenced by gospel motives to cease from destroying one another.
There are other effects that we expect will be produced by Christianity: namely, the abolition of
heathen idolatry and the various modes of offering human sacrifices. But how are these events to be
brought about? Do we expect that our Bibles will spread their covers for wings, fly through the world,
11
and convert the nations without the agency of Christians? Should we expect the gospel would ever
convert the heathen from their idolatry, if those who profess to be its friends should themselves
generally encourage idolaters in their present courses by a compliance with their customs? It would be
just as reasonable to expect that the gospel will occasion wars to cease without the exertions of
Christians, and while they countenance the custom by their own examples.
It will, perhaps, be pleaded that mankind is not yet sufficiently enlightened to apply the principles of
the gospel for the abolition of war, and that we must wait for a more improved state of society.
Improved in what? In its ability to shed blood? Are such improvements to prepare the way for peace?
Why not wait a few centuries, until the natives of India become more improved in their idolatrous
customs, before we attempt to convert them to Christianity? Do we expect that by continuing in the
practice of idolatry, their minds will be prepared to receive the gospel? If not, let us be consistent; and
while we use means for the conversion of heathens, let means also be used for the conversion of
Christians. For war is, in fact, a heathen and savage custom of the most malignant, most desolating, and
most horrible character. It is the greatest curse, and results from the grossest delusions that ever
afflicted a guilty world.
12
