The Dominion SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1915. A SHATTERED THEORY

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2635, 4 December 1915, Page 4

The Dominion SATURDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1915. A SHATTERED THEORY

In a letter which wo publish in another 'column, the Rev. R. H. Hobday takes exception to the sentiment implied in the words "a Britisher first," which stood at tho head of a leading article on the Tydvil election that recently appeared _ in The Dominion. By some mysterious process of reasoning he seems to reach the conclusion that the use of this title commits ,us to the doctrine, "My country, right or wrong," and to the belief that God and Empire are interchangeable terms. There is absolutely nothing in the article, in question to provide even a shadow of justification _ for such inconsequential deductions. Me. Stanton,. trie new member for Merthyr Tydvil, is reported to have remarked that, though he was a Socialist, ho was "a Britisher first." Ho " plainly meant that he endorsed the principle of 'country before party, and we commended his patriotic attitude and his declaration in favour of a vigorous war policy. Mil. Stanton's views do not appear to find favour with Me. Hobday, who tells us that the Founder of Christianity taught that evil can never be conquered by force. The contention that it is _un-Christian to combat evil by force is denied 'by the great majority of ■ Christian moralists. It is based upon a slavishly literal interprets tion of one or two isolated texts, and if pushed to its logical conclusion would undermine the foundations of civilised society. Tolstoi's logic is irresistible- when ho declares that literal obedience to tho precept, "Resist not evil," involves not only the prohibition of war, but also the abolition of the whole machinery of justice, which ultimately rests on foroe. After pointing out that the State uses foroe every day, the Bishop of Bombay (Dr. Palmer) reoently put some straight questions to preachers of non-resistance: Is tho State (lie asked) the invention of tho devil? The judge, the .executioner, the gaoler, the policeman—they use force. Should no Christian be a judge, an executioner, a gaoler, a policeman? Is it un-Clvristiau? Are they wrong? Is the State wrong to employ them as it does? Db. Palmer rightly asserts that cn the answer to this group of questions the whole matter turns. Was it tho intention of the Founder of Christianity to do away with tho whole order of human society, to abolish law and the power of the State ? St. Paul evidently did not think so. Both by word and deed he recognised the authority of the civil power. He himself appealed to Caesar—the highest tribunal in the Roman Empire. He describes the judge as the minister of God for good; also as an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. St. Paul was no maudlin sentimentalist. He did not believe in molly-coddling ciiminals, but held that the- law should bo a terror to them. He reminds us : that the judge does not bear the sword _in vain—and the sword is not an instrument of moral persuasion, but of force. Dr. G. A. Smith, Principal of the University of Aberdeen, who is one of the leading Biblical scholars of the day, tolls us that the doctrines of uonresistanco and peace-at-any-prico find no sanction in the teaching of Christ, who "not only assumed and even expressly phophesied that wars would comc," but also "foresaw' that they must ariso out of tho very faithfulness of His, followers to the tiuth. So bad taught thorn."

Seme pacifists vainly endeavour to cscape from the logical consequences of the non-resistance theory by drawing a distinction between the force represented by the soldier and that represented by the policeman. Force, they say, may bo justifiable,_ provided that it does not result in tho shedding of blood. The puerility of this argument is laid bare by (Janon Streeter, who remarks that when a body of desperadoes is prepared to resist the enforcement of tho law with arms, it is only with arms that the law can be enforced, and to maintain that tho State is only justified in using force if it stops short at the -shedding of blood is to compel it to abrogate its functions whenever a more than usually feiocious band of criminals appears —that is to say just on those occasions when it is most needed. Every normal-minded man will agree with Oanon Streeter when he says that anyone who has power to prevent a wanton injury to one,weaker than himself and does not exercise that power becomes morally a particeps criminix, and no oasuistry can absolve him from complicity in tho injury itself. The Rev. J. M. Lloyd Thomas; of Birmingham, has subjected the doctrine of non-resist-ance to a merciless criticism. By means of a powerful illustration he strips it of its last shred of plausibility.

There are worso things than death: there is a deeper hell than war (he vrrites). A woman who, on the principle of noil-resistance, surrendered her chastity to the attack of the first ruffian that assaulted her, we should hold not to be virtuous, .but immoral. If she did not struggle and resist even, were it possible, to the <leath, wo should know that she had betrayed the cause of womanly honour, and encouraged. every sensualist in the world. Civiiisfvtion is open to such attacks, and must not hesitate to resist tiisin Its purity, justice, honour, innocence are ever being assailed by wickedness and treachery. It it declines .to protest and defend itself, it is handing itself over, naked and weaponless, to the usage of armed awl powerful brutality. Any open-minded man or woman niust recognise that the idea that it is wrong to resist evil by forcc finds r,o _ stable support in Christian ethics. It is, moreover, contrary to reason and common-sense. It has received some staggering blows in the discussion that has taken place regarding the moral aspects of the war. The position of the advocates of non-resistance has been riddled through ancl through. It h'is becomc so utterly indefensible that it ought now to be finally abandoned.