The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1915. JUSTICE BEFORE PEACE

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2408, 13 March 1915, Page 6

The Dominion. SATURDAY, MARCH 13, 1915. JUSTICE BEFORE PEACE

A fortnight ago we published an article in our leading columns entitled "Should the Clergy Fight?" In a letter commenting on this article "Socratus" states that it suggests the larger question: "Should Christians fight 1' and he goes on to argue that war is in itself antiChristian. This view has been firmly held by a small and select minority in all ages, but it has failed to commend ifsclf to the overwhelming majority of Christian people.' As long as there are worse things than 1 war it is impossible reasonably to contend that war can never be justified on Christian principles. Treachery is worse than war, and 60 is the betrayal of a friend, and tyranny, and the oppression of the weak by tho strong. Ought a great Christian nation to play the ignoblo role of a passive onlooker while some brutal Power treats solemn treaties as mere scraps of paper, and, without any provocation whatever, ruthlessly tramples on the rights and liberties of a • smaller noighbour! As a rule neither nations nor individuals are called upon to choose between what is absolutely right and what is utterly wrong. Tno circumstances are usually' much more complicated. The choice generally lies between courses in which right and wrong. are mixed in varying proportions, and all that can be done is to select the lesser of two evils. If a nation has to choose between treachery, oppression, or betrayal, and war, it is bound, on Christian principles, to choose war; otherwise we are driven to tho impossible conclusion that there are occasions when tho greater of two evils should be preferred. Tho doctrine of non-resistance in its extreme form would lead to social and international' anarchy. Christian civilisation would fall, simply because it would have no weapon to defend itself .against the irresponsible might of barbarism. We live in a law-governed universe, and in the last resort law can only be maintained _by _ force. We have tho Apostolic dictum that "law is a terror to evil-doers." Why 1 Because there is adequate force behind it to punish evil-doing. War is the application of force in tho sphere of international relationships. Christianity undoubtedly holds up peace as an ideal; but not peace at any price. . Righteousness and justice come first, and then peace. The great Christian moralists have rightly contended that it is only by tho narrowest literalism that certain isolated sentences in the New Testament regarding the blessings of peace can be regarded as an inexorable prohibition of oven defensive war.

In discussing the question of Christianity and war a writer in an English newspaper puts the case quite clearly and convincingly. "Christianity," he says, "is not opposed to the exertion of force, but only to tho abuse' of forcc. Within tho" State force is organised to defend the weak and to uphold tho right, It Is Hiir, mi-.CMsMimj tfliuvr. policemen and -to employ, . them,.

And if we owe a duty to our Belgian neighbours, and if we respect our promises to them, the_ State ought to extend the same principles' to the Continent of Europe." Can it be seriously argued that Belgium's determination to resist German aggression with all her might was morally wrong ? Had this little nation merely considered its own comfort and convcnienco she might easily have avoided war. As a mat tor of fact certain onlookers actually suggested that it was a mistake to expose tho country to such an immense loss of life and wealth when a verbal manifesto against aggression or a single cannon-shot on the frontier might havo sorved the purpose of protest. But Cardinal j\lercibr is surely right in thrusting aside such "paltry counsels" with scorn. Belgium, he says, was bound in honour to defend her independence, and she kept her word. Germany violated her oath; England kept hers. Can it be doubted the Belgians made the right choice in preferring war to dishonour 1 On narrow utilitarian principles she no doubt acted foolishly, but, as tho Cardinal says, "mere utilitarianism is no_ sufficient rulo of Christian citizenship." There are things more precious "than mere existence—things that are worth fighting for and dying for if needs be. JL Paul Sabatieh, a distinguished French writer, in the course of an impressive letter to an Italian friend, points out that "the Belgians went to certain destruction, with a- firmness unexampled in history, whereas they might easily have secured handsome payment for granting a righf>of-way through their country, and might also have made millions out of the German troops." On "peace at any price principles" they should certainly have chosen the latter course; but since "the laws of conscience are sovereign laws," as Cardinal Meroier tells us, Christian ethics demanded that they should sacrifice, everything in the cause of freedom and good faith. It is a great mistake to think that Christianity is a soft, effeminate, and easy-going religion. There is a close resemblanoD between the warlike virtues of courage, endurance, self-discipline, and self-sacrifice, and tho Christian ideal of life as a continual warfare against evil in every shape or form. There is nothing in the teaching of Nature to support 'the too-prevalent idea that tho universe is ruled and_ controlled in a spirit of flabby sentimentalism which is more anxious to shield tho wrong-doer than to do justice to the oppressed. M. Sabatiek is speaking plain truth when he states that "the Franco of to-day is fighting religiously." He holds that there is no true or lasting peace that is not based on justice. The defeat of tho Allies would mean the triumph in Europe of brute force, and before permitting that, says M. Sabatier, "it is our duty to fight even without thinking of what may befall. And if our soldiers go down to the last man, everybody who has not- yet taken up arms will fight to the last cartridge, to the last stone of our mountains that we can hurl against a 'Kultur' which is naught save worship of the sword and of the Golden Calf." This typical Frenchman tells his Italian friend that to utttfr the word "peace" at the present time would bo akin to treason. "To make peace when an ideal is . at stake is an abdication." Theso arc noble words, and every right-mind-ed man and woman feel instinctively that they arc true. M Sabatier's utterance rings truer than President Wilson's proud declaration that "only America is at peace among the great Powers of the world." Tbe real question is: Ought she to bo at peace in view of the fact that she has placed her signature to a Convention which forbids tho violation of neutral territory? Ought she to bo at peace when an unscrupulous Power is defying all the laws of God and man 1 A leading American journalist states that the indictment against his country is that it abdicated—ignominiously ran away when great questions of morals and humanity were concerned, and promptly recovered its sense of duty when the state of war threatened to arrest the soaring profits of the "Copper Kings." This indictment may be too but when the President takes credit for the fact that "America is saving her power for her_own people," one cannot help feeling that Britain took a higher stand when she deliberately decided to. risk her place in the world in order, as' Mr Asquith has declared, to maintain her honour and good faith, to shield the independence_ of free States, and to protect against brute force the principles of civilisation and the liberties of Europe.