p. 166 | The War by Henry E. Carver

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 21, 1862

The War.

By Henry E. Carver

Bro. White: You invite "well-written" articles in reference to the all-absorbing subject now under consideration among us; viz., our duty in reference to the war. I make no pretensions to being a good writer, but still feel it a privilege as well as duty to contribute my "mite," hoping and believing that if we all seek unto the Lord we shall yet come to the unity of the faith on this point. It is not my purpose, as I am well aware of my incapacity, to present a clear, connected, scriptural exposition of our duty in the present crisis, but to give my views and convictions on the points that have been presented in the Review; and in doing so I hope none will consider me personal if I should cross their track, as no personal attack is intended; but our thoughts, when given to the public, become public property; hence any brother has the same privilege to review and oppose what he deems erroneous in me, that I claim for myself.

I suppose I have as clear a perception of the iniquity of the present rebellion as any one who has watched and studied it from its inception to its present gigantic proportions as I have, and I have wished that the matter stood in such position that I could throw my whole energies, physical as well as mental, into the scale on the side of the Constitutional Union. I have written considerable to friends in Ohio and Maryland who were somewhat tinctured with secession, and my efforts have ever been to show the iniquity of the present rebellion. My feelings have been similar to those expressed by Bro. Joseph Clarke in his article on "The War! The War!" but I have for years had a deeply-settled conviction (whether wrong or not) that under no circumstances was it justifiable in a follower of the Lamb to use carnal weapons to take the lives of his fellow-men. I say this was the conviction of my mind, and so strong was it I thought it must be just as strong in the minds of the brethren at large, and when Brn. Snook and Waggoner were at my house just after Bro. White's article on The Nation appeared, I understood them to be of the same mind.

That article astonished and grieved me very much. My faith, which was becoming stronger and stronger in the protecting care of God as the danger became more imminent, was terribly shaken, and I was induced to do what I had before refused to do, viz., sign a petition to the Legislature for exemption from military duty, and even to apply for personal exemption on the ground of physical inability. Neither of these steps could I have conscientiously taken, but under the influence of that article, and I feel to some extent shorn of my strength. I have applied to the arm of flesh—my God forgive me. Such has been my experience, and I wish now to examine whether it was the legitimate result of that article (of course I do not charge it as the intention).

The first section of that article meets my hearty approbation, also the last part of the second. The second section opens with the declaration that our position as believers in the perpetuity and sacredness of the law of God contained in the ten commandments is not in harmony with all the requirements of war. This is precisely the ground I occupied until Bro. White's article shook my faith in my own convictions of duty. The article further enumerates two of those holy commandments that we should violate if engaged in war. If this is so, then I ask, Is it not wrong to engage in war? and if wrong, can we be acceptable in the sight of God if we engage in war? This article seems to think we cannot. But says Bro. White, "In case of drafting, the government assumes the responsibility of violating the law of God." This seems to me to be untenable and dangerous ground; for if the government can assume the responsibility now for the violation of two of those holy precepts, and we go clear, why may not the same government assume the responsibility for the violation of the Sabbath law and we go clear when the edict goes forth that all shall observe the first day of the week? It may be said that the drafting law is not aimed at us, and that the edict from the two-horned beast will be aimed directly at us. It is not clear to my mind that in either case the law will be aimed at us if we do not stand out boldly and firmly in the counsel of God. If we really believe that we shall violate God's law, as the article under consideration teaches, by going to war and let our rulers understand what our faith is, then if they choose to take the responsibility before God, they can direct the law against us. And in the other case, when the law goes forth that all shall observe the Pope's Sabbath on pain of confiscation and death, it seems to me that Sabbath-keepers will have to place themselves in a position for that law to take effect on them, and in looking forward to that time I imagine I see some trying to evade the force of the law by keeping both the Sabbath and first day, because the law was not aimed directly at the Sabbath, but only requires that all shall keep Sunday.

The article says further, that "when it shall come to this, that civil enactments shall be passed and enforced to drive us from obedience to the law of God, then it will be time to stand our chances of martyrdom." Let us consider this a little. It is acknowledged that two of the commandments are violated in going to war, and drafting is evidently a civil enactment. Now suppose in the case of a draft the lot should fall on one of God's little ones; a meek, humble follower of Jesus; one who believes Jesus meant what he said when he said, "Resist not evil." He tells the government officer that he cannot conscientiously fire at, or bayonet a fellow-being, and that he cannot conscientiously violate the Sabbath, as he must do if he goes to war. The government refuses to recognize his principles, but essays to drive him to do what would be a violation of the law of God. In such a case, according to the article itself, unless the government can release the child of God from his duty to obey God, the time has evidently come for him to stand his chances of martyrdom.

If it can be shown that the government can assume the responsibility, and release the individual, I should be glad to see the proof.

Bro. White asks the question, whether in regard to the Sabbath, the position of the Hebrews in Egypt may not be a parallel to drafted Sabbath-keepers in the army. I think not, unless the supposed Sabbath-keeper in the army was converted after having joined it; in such case I do not know as it would be his duty to leave without he could get an honorable discharge. When the Hebrews went into Egypt they were regarded with great favor by the authorities, and it was only by a long system of gradually increasing oppression that they were brought into the state of ignorance and degradation that their deliverance found them. The case with us is very different. The light of present truth is shining clear in our pathway,—we are assured that "our position is not in harmony with the requirements of war," then how can we do that that we know would be a violation of God's holy law, unless indeed we are well assured the government can take the responsibility off our hands?

Bro. White denies that there is a parallel between the cases of Daniel and the three Hebrews and ours, in case of a draft. Let us see. In the case of the three Hebrews there is no evidence that I can find, that the setting up of that golden image and its worship was directed against them as worshipers of the true God. That was an idolatrous nation, and the king was only pursuing his idolatrous inclination when he made and set it up on the plains of Dura.

He did not forbid the worship of the various idols known to the various tribes of that nation. He did not forbid the worship of the God of heaven, but only required that all should bow down and worship the god of his erection.

This of itself was forbidden by one of the ten commandments, and hence they were compelled to choose in the presence of that assembled kingdom, either to disobey God or refuse obedience to the laws of the land. Mark the peculiar circumstances that surrounded them: high in the favor of the government, and but a step or two below the king in authority. Surely a consciousness of their privileges and blessings should have prompted them to yield all they could, and doubtless they did so; but why could they not go a little further, and just bow down and worship the great God instead of the idol? Why did they not throw the responsibility on the government and obey its laws? In the absence of all proof to the contrary, they might have argued that this act of idolatry is not directed specially against us, it is only carrying out the known principles of the government, and it would be madness for us to resist, and thus bring upon ourselves the responsibility of becoming suicides. Would such reasoning as this have been acceptable at the court of heaven? Would it have glorified God?

When their obedience to the laws of the land would have involved their disobeying God, they would not exhibit the mere semblance of obedience. They refused to obey in full view of the burning fiery furnace, and beyond that, eternal life. They honored the law of God, and God honored them in this life. Let us honor the law of the Lord, and he will honor us, if not by deliverance in this life, yet in the world to come.

In the case of Daniel, if we consider Darius as embodying the supreme power in himself, and hence as constituting the government, then it is evident from the record that the edict forbidding any petition to any God or man for thirty days, was not directed against Daniel specially, for we find that when the king learned that the law did touch Daniel, in regard to his faith, he was sore displeased with himself (doubtless for letting those wicked courtiers circumvent him) and labored till the sun went down to deliver him.

What course did Daniel pursue when he knew the decree was signed? Did he throw the responsibility on the government and neglect prayer? He did not—nay he did not exercise prudence enough to close his window or lower his voice in prayer. He might, no doubt, have secluded himself from the observation of personal enemies, and prayed to God in secret. But no, he was no "sneak," but when he knew that the writing was signed, he went to his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and

prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime, thus honoring God, and God highly honored him.

If I have sustained the position that the decrees that condemned Daniel and the three Hebrews were not aimed directly at them, but touched them only incidentally, as the law for drafting would touch Sabbath-keepers, then the cases are parallel, and we shall do well to follow their example of firmness in obeying and honoring God, being assured that God will sooner or later honor us, either in this world or the world to come.

In conclusion, for the present, allow me to offer an answer to the query in No. 15, page 118, "If what is called civilized warfare be a violation of the sixth commandment, then did not God in the former dispensation require his people to break the sixth commandment?" I put the same question in substance to Bro. Snook, and his answer perfectly harmonized with the view I had on this point, which is substantially this: The Hebrew nation was a theocracy of which God was the spiritual and political head. All power centered in and emanated from him; so that when God commanded that people, either by prophet or priest, to do anything, he assumed all the responsibility of their acts, whilst they only acted as the executors of his will, so that they not only did not violate the sixth commandment in the slaughter of the Canaanites, but were rebuked and punished for disobeying the commands of God in sparing a portion of that people.

I feel and appreciate our difficulties, and the delicate position we occupy at the present juncture of affairs. Our sympathies, so far as they are enlisted, are on the side of the government. We consider the southern rebellion one of the most causeless and wicked that ever was incited. We believe God would have to change his character and deny his own attribute of justice before he could smile upon the southern cause. We owe an allegiance to the government under which we live. We are bound to sustain the government until the government shall require us to disobey God, then we must not hesitate as to which we shall serve. With Bro. Cottrell I trust the Lord will save us from this great trial, but if the trial must come, I pray God for wisdom and strength to glorify him by keeping his commandments.

If I am wrong in my views, I pray God to enlighten me and make the path of duty plain, and if the brethren have any light that I have not, do let me have it, brethren. I do not want to stand in the way of any, nor bring a reproach on the holy cause of God.

I have felt it duty to be very careful how I have acted or spoken in reference to the action of government, and I think we should. I do not believe it our duty to go round and volunteer to every listener our determination to resist or obey a draft. Let us seek earnestly, carefully, and prayerfully the path of duty, and having found it, let us cheerfully and firmly step out, trusting in the arm of Jehovah for strength to go through to the kingdom.

Your brother.