CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16165, 20 March 1918, Page 5

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir,—As "P.H.P." lias been allowed about three-quarters of a column in which to air his views regarding tho above, 1 trust that you will extend to me tho courtesy ol' permitting me to briefly reply. Th'j difference between the conscientious objector, tbe cannibal, and the burglar, is that while the C.O. is guided by his conscience, the cannibal and the burglar -are not. C.O.'s hold that if Christians follow New Testament teaching it is impossible for them to engage in sanguinary warfare. That this contention is correct, is proved by the fact that for at least two centuries after Christ, Christians took no part in bloody warfare. They were, I think, more likely to know the miud of Christ on this matter than the people of today. It was after Constantino brought the Church under the patronage of tho State that she became very corrupt, and sanctioned Christians engaging in mortal combat. The Christian's armour is not carnal, according to the New Tostanient. It is described in the last chapter of Ephesians. In Old Testament wars the law was, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." That was strict justice. But the law was abrogated by Christ, who taugh, "Love your enemies," which, of course, included those of other nations. I cannot find any "patriotism" in His teaching. We are told to love all nien as ourselves. There is nothing about the "duty'' of caring for the people in any particular empire more than tho people outside it. \ As regards the quotation. "I came not to bring peace on earth, but a sword," your correspondent misses the mark altogether. It is a figure of speech, moaning the _ flesh warring against the spirit, as in the household and the Church. As for obeying "the lawful commands of those set over us and honouring the King," when the commands of Ca>sar clash with those of God,' then Christians must obey God. Where it says in Proverbs, "By Me kings rule and princes execute judgment," tho "Mc" referred to is "wisdom." Referring to the statement that God "uses war for punishing and correcting kings and princcs and nations," the common • peoples comprising the nations have had nothing to do with the cause of the war. Do they, therefore, deserve to bo "punished" and "corrected," or, worse still, slaughtered? Can God be using the war to punish the Germans, seoing that both sides are being most severely punished? —Yours, cte., TOLERATION.

TO TTfB EDITOR OF "TJIZ FRESS " Sir, —One would rather read tho last sentonce of "Disgusted Soldier's" letter like this: "Thank goodness, some people lmre got a conscience which makes them go and fight for the oppressed." I would have tried to go myself, like a shot, long ago, if 1 had been a man; and very many of your readers will feel as grateful as I do to "Disgusted Soldier" for the warmth of his feelings, ancl for what we consider the Tightness of his judgment, as regards fighting in this war. But, at the same time, his letter confirms me absolutely in thinking that the military man is not the man to deal with the C.O. problem. Your correspondent does not even see that it is a problem. Ho would go on treating it in the samo old hopeless way, by force, and without understanding; would still further inflame Labour, trouble public opinion, and embarrass all thinking people. It is clear that- you cannot rule a democratic people by military methods alone: you must have a little statesmanship, "tfi sgustod Soldier" lias convinced me more deeply than over, that the C.O/s must be dealt with by civil authority, not by military; elso we shall never find the solution.—Yours, etc., B. E. BAUGHAN. Clifton, March 18th.

TO THE EDITOR OK "TJIE TRESS." Sir, —Permit me to suggest, through tho medium of your columns, a few crucial test questions to be put to conscientious objectors by the Military Boards at Military Courts: — 1. AVhat religion do you profess? 2. Since the declaration of war, August, 1914, how many times have you attended Divine worship? 3. Can you obtain the signature of the clergyman officiating at such church that you so attended? 4. At, or about, what date were you aware of the advent of your conscientious objection to defend the country that'supplies you with food, clothes, and living generally? 5. Have you consulted any minister of religion as to the stability of your rocenllv awakened conscientious objections, if so/whom? 6. Are you not more prompted to save your skin rather than "tear your fertile conscience?" —Yours, etc.." L.W.A.M. TO THK EDITOR OF "THE TRESS." Sir, —My attention has been called to a letter in your issue, of March 15th, signed by "P.H.P.whatever that may stand for. "P.H.P." in this letter particularises my utterances in Presbytery on March l- ; th last. I do not know, sir, how you reported my utterances in your issue of "The Press" referred to by "P.H.P." If "P.H.P." had been present at Presbytery, he would have known that I was quoting in the matter cf tho "astounding assertions" made bv me 011 tho occasion. He will find" tho words, "God alone is Lord of the conscience," which ho takes supreme ex-

ception to, in chapter xx. sect. 11., of the ''Confession of Faith, ' the of the Presbyterian Church. Ihat, section goes oil further to state: Ooa hath left it (i.e., conscience) free from tho doctrines (i.e., the Church's teachings) and commandments of men (i.e., State laws and regulations), which arc in anything contrary to His oi beside it. in matters of faith and woi- j ship. So that . . . to obey such commandments out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience, and the requiring . . . of an a !? bol "t° and blind obedience is to destiov libortv of conscience and reason also. In my rough reference to it on tho spur of the moment, m Presbytery I did not go one iot beyond what the Presbyterian Church lays down in that section, as you will see and m jiet standards generally. • I cjii°tccl also chapter XXXI., section IV., Congestion of Faith," which runs:— All Synods or Councils may err, or many have erred : therefore, they aro not to be made the rulo of faitli or practice, but to be used as a help (guide was the word I used in Presbytery) m both" (i.e., in faith and practice). Our Confession of Faith bases, her position in such passages as Acts iv., 19, 1 etoi and John answered (the members or Sanhodrin), "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. Again, Acts v., 9:—Peter and the other Apostles answered: \\o ought* to obey God rather than men, etc. If "P/H.IV' had known the Scriptures better* he would not have been so "astounded" at my uttoranccs. But what can he cxpected but such reasonin-' as his from the lamentable ignorance of God's Word among peoplp m general. . . For more than three centuries and a half the Presbyterian Church has: made just such "astounding assertions" as "P.H.P." credits me with making in Presbyterv; thov have been to Scotland the safeguard of her religious and political freedom. It was in defence of such "astounding assertions'' that Patrick Hamilton first., and Geovgc Wishart- next, perished at the stake, and delivered Scotland at that time from tho domination or tho ltoraish Church. It was in defence of such •"astounding assertions" later that Hugh McKail, John Brown, Carrier of Priesthill, Margaret McLachlan, and Margaret Wilson, at the Solway, and others laid down their livos against tho domination of the State. Who knows but we may have to further maintain these "astounding assertions" before wo got rid of tho militarism that is asserting itself in our land, and which was referred to, not by me, by my coPresbyter, Dr. Erwin, on the same occasion. "P.H.P." refers to Prosbyterian missionaries being killed and eaten by cannibals, at the instigation of conscience, and claims that they [ were punished nevertheless by the I State, therofore, "the Presbyterian ministers believe that they aro not answerable to God alone, but also to the State for their actions." In refutation of that contention, on the 20th May, 1861, the Rev. G. N. Gordon and his wife, Presbyterian missionaries, were killed and eaten by cannibals. The- Presbyterian Church did not, nor anyone else, call in the aid of tho State to have those poor people put to death or punished in any way. Again, 46 years ago this month, the Rev. J. D. Gordon, a Presbyterian was murdered by cannibals, but the Presbyterian Church did not call in the aid of the State to have his murderers punished. "P.H.P." seems about as ignorant of Presbyterian doctrine and practice as he is of his Bible. —Yours, etc., CHARLES MURRAY. fWe cannot continuo this correspondence.—Ed. "Tho Press."]