Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

"ART. II. The members of this society agree in opinion, that no man, nor body of men, however constituted, and by whatever name called, have a right to take the life of any man as a penalty for transgression; that no one who professes to have the spirit of Christ, can consistently sue a man at law for redress of injuries, or thrust any evil-doer into prison, or fill any office in which he would come under obligation to execute penal enactments-or take any part in the military service-or acknowledge allegiance to any human government-or justify any man in fighting in defence of property, liberty, life, or religion; that he cannot engage in, norcountenance any plot or effort to revolutionize, or change, by physical violence, any government, however corrupt or oppressive; that he will obey the powers that be,' except in those cases in which they bid him violate his conscience-and then, rather than resist, he will meekly submit to the penalty of disobedience; and that, while he will cheerfully endure all things for Christ's sake, without cherishing even a desire to inflict injury upon his persecutors, yet he will be bold and uncompromising for God, in bearing his testimony against sin, in high places and in low places, until righteousness and peace shall reign in all the earth, and there shall be none to molest or make afraid."

Soon after the doings of this convention were made public, the 'constituted organs of the American Peace Society' published a Disclaimer;' in which they declared, that the convention had been called by individuals acting on their own personal responsibility; that the society did not hold themselves accountable for any of the doings of, or sentiments expressed by, the convention; that the sole object of the society, as unalterably laid down in its constitution, was the 'Peace of Nations; and that the New England Non-Resistance Society could not be considered as one of the auxiliaries of the American Peace Society.

We have given this brief sketch of the progress of the Peace cause in our country partly because, as we have already observed, we look upon the history of moral principle, however well or however ill understood, as the most important part of human history; and partly because it is a striking exhibition of the characteristic spirit and tendency of our time. Every institution, every law, every custom, every assertion, is subjected to the ordeal of an all searching and uncompromising skepticism which rejects every authority but that of facts, and discredit every testimony but that of reason. Neither the opinion of the world, neither origin, nor age, nor even present and past utility, can insure permanence to any form of faith or practice. The great question is whether a thing be true and right in itself-every thing else is of secondary importance. It cannot be denied that this spirit of free inquiry has not only its true, but its false prophets also, whose course is marked by a superficial, capricious, and derogatory desire of change. But even the sympathy and encouragement which this thoughtless and reckless love of innovation occasionally meets with, may be traced to the solid advantages which the cause of truth and humanity has derived from this uncompromising search after right. Our own political existence as a free people is grounded upon an attempt of unprecedented boldness in rejecting every historical, and fictitious

basis of government, and reducing it to first principles-even to the eternal principles of perfect justice. However inconsistent we may be in many points of practice when judged by the perfect law of liberty and equality as laid down in our Declaration of Independence, who would not prefer to be condemned by this, rather than be justified by a lower standard? We do not share any of the conservative fears of many of our contemporaries, either for our religious or political principles. We see in the skepticism of the age a striving after a deeper foundation for the highest faith. Instead of crying it down as ultraism, radicalism, infidelity, or fanaticism, we honor even its aberrations. We are ready to treat with respect, and meet with no other weapons than straightforward argument, any attack upon existing opinions and institutions, however just and beneficial we may think them, if our antagonists do but appeal to our reason, and not to our faith in the infallibility of the new doctrine, or our patience to bear supercilious dogmatism.

Entertaining these views we are not willing to join in the hue. and cry which has been raised in almost every newspaper we have met with, against the principles contained in the Declaration of Sentiments, and the constitution of this New England Non-Resistance Society. Principles which are essentially the same as those entertained by the Society of Friends, have a right at least to be heard, and not to be condemned without benefit of reason. It is true, they attack that which every human government considers as the indispensable condition of its existence. But it should never be forgotten that the allegiance of republicans to their government rests not so much on the fact of its existence, and its power to enforce obedience, but mainly on the conviction of its being founded in justice. There is great danger in our country lest the moral foundation of our institutions be overlooked, partly on account of the unexampled prosperity to which they have given rise, and which now tempts us to forget the cause in the effects; and partly on account of our political inconsistencies which, so far as they are suffered to exist, degrade our government to the level of those which have no other support than brute force. It is on this account that we welcome this Peace controversy, and every other discussion which must induce our citizens to reflect upon the essential moral elements of our government.

The authors of the New England Non-Resistance Society have rendered an important service to the cause of Peace inasmuch as they have attempted to reduce it to first principles. The object of these associated efforts is the establishment of Peace. What then is Peace? According to the practical definition contained in the constitution of the American Peace Society, peace is the absence of war; and therefore the establishment of peace identical with the abolition of war. And what is War? It is a state of discord

between nations in which each thinks itself authorized to use against the other any violent measures that may promote the object it contends for. Now, if all war be sinful, being contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, what is it that constitutes its sinfulness? Evidently the resort to violent measures, the taking of human life, the destruction of property, and the infliction of other innumerable evils. If then war be sinful in all cases, and the use of violence constitutes the essence and essential immorality of war, the same principle must condemn the same means in every other case; it makes its sinful in the individual to take the life of an enemy, or use physical force, even in self-defence; and equally sinful in the government to inflict not only capital punishments but punishments of any kind, or to resort to coercive measures of any description. Hence the duty of every Christian not only to abstain entirely from the use of force against human beings, (absolute non-resistance,) but of refusing allegiance to any human government, inasmuch as being constituted to enforce its commands it is founded in sin.

We do not see how any man adopting the premises laid down by the American Peace Society, viz: that all war is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, can arrive at any other results than those maintained by the New England Non-Resistance Society. We have no fault to find, then, with the logic of the Non-Resistance Society.

We will now briefly examine its premises, to see whether there be indeed no case in which war, or in general the use of force against human beings, be consistent with the spirit of the Gospel, and the principles of morality.

Both parties in this controversy, the advocates and the opponents of the non-resistance principle, refer to numerous scriptural authorities to sustain their respective views; and it must be confessed that the former are indeed able to assemble a sufficiently imposing array of texts, to diminish the surprise at first naturally entertained, that notions so radically at variance with every theory of human society that has ever been attempted to be applied to practice, could find any considerable number of intelligent partisans. For example, they cite the frequent repetition in the New Testament, of the precept, "Do not kill;"-the sublime prophecy concerning the last days,' that "people shall beat their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation: neither shall they learn war any more; "-the various annunciations of peace connected with the advent of the Messiah, the "Prince of Peace; "-the example of non-resistance, even unto death, contained in the closing scenes of his own history upon earth; his rebuke of the disciple who drew his sword and wounded the servant of the High Priest;-his answer to Pilate, My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this

66

world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; "-the injunctions "Let none render evil for evil," but rather "overcome evil with good ;" and " Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,”—with others of similar import which it would be out of place here to enumerate.

There is, we confess, something grand in this idea of abstinence from the use of force as an element of human society; and of a patient and abiding faith in the good principles of human nature alone, as being capable of working out a better and happier result of social well-being, by the moral influences of Truth and Love, than can ever be produced by the action of the element of coercive force on its bad principles. The idea is, we repeat, a sublime one, however flippantly the superficial thinker may pronounce it ridiculous. And indeed the element of force has been so sadly perverted and abused to the worst of purposes, in all human societies that have ever existed, and so deep and pervading has been the moral as well as physical mischief growing out of its abuse, that it is not surprising that the minds of men, by long dwelling on this single idea, should carry it beyond the proper limits, within which every truth is regulated by its relations with all other truths, into the fanaticism of maintaining that all force is to be abjured, as essentially and eternally evil and the parent of evil. It is one of those prophetic presentiments of a higher and better state of being of which human nature, even in its present condition, is capable, from the elements of good which lie at the heart of its constitution. It is even somewhat akin to the democratic spirit of the age, being a difference of degree rather than of kind, in its confidence in human nature, and in the principle of perfect Liberty, as a better principle than that of strong Law. We have no doubt that a great many of the existing restraints upon the freedom of private action, in the forms of prohibitions and punishments, which are intended to force men to be good and happy, are in truth pernicious in their operation, doing more harm in one way than they do good in another. But still this doctrine of non-resistance, or the utter and total repudiation of force, is an ultraism in the opposite direction, entirely inconsistent with the actual imperfection of human nature, which would probably be still more mischievous in its practical operation, supposing the possibility of its ever being seriously applied to practice by any community of men.

Without going elaborately into an analysis of the scriptural arguments adduced in its favor, of which the leading passages are above referred to, it will be sufficient-for the purpose of satisfying those minds which would rest the solution of the question on that ground alone to remark, that an enlightened criticism, viewing the meaning of these and similar passages in the light of the general princi

ples both of Christianity and of human nature, and in comparison with other passages of a different import and bearing, can find in them no support for the extravagant ultraism into which this newlight school of non-resistance would push the Peace principle, the spirit of which is in truth transparent throughout every part of thre Christian Scripture. On the contrary the language, and on more than one occasion the personal example, of the Founder of our religion himself, directly or impliedly sanction the use of force for the maintenance of right, and even for the punishment of wrong. And if the ultimate tendency of the reform which he introduced is to such a state of things, of absolute and universal Peace, it is a result to be brought about only by the operation of the great moral principles of his reform, to remove the causes which, so long as they exist, in human injustice and sin, render the moderate use of coercive force not only justifiable, but indispensable to the cohesion of human society.

We may safely then assume it as proved, that this non-resistance theory is not borne out by the Christian Scriptures, neither by special precepts, nor by the authority of example; although undoubtedly they do condemn the use of physical force against rightful authority, or for the promotion of truth and counteraction of error of opinion, and generally enjoin a pacific, conciliatory and benevolent spirit.

We will now examine the philosophy and practical fitness of this doctrine as set forth by its most intelligent advocates. It is this. Man being endowed with a rational and moral nature, all men might and ought to be guided in their conduct by a sense of duty, and sentiment of kindness. All means, therefore, which, setting aside man's higher nature, are intended to force them to do right, are essentially wrong. Now, war and the use of force for settling difficulties among men, will never be abolished unless some men resolutely begin with taking the ground of never resorting to these means under any circumstances. If it be understood that no force will be used even in defence of right-if war, with all the preparations for war, as well as chains and prisons, be abolished-much greater exertions will be made to induce men by moral means, by education, public opinion, argument, and persuasion, to respect the rights of their fellow-men. Still suppose that, notwithstanding these moral efforts, there should be some men who are not restrained by the mere consideration of the injustice of an act. Even among these, few would Le found mean enough to inflict injustice upon one who is resolved to bear it without resistance. Thus, in the rebellion towards the close of the last century, the lives of the Quakers were spared; and in the settlement of Pennsylvania, the peace policy of its founder prevented ail hostility on the part of the natives. Hence the principle of non-resistance is generally the safest, as well as the best,

« ZurückWeiter »