THE CHURCH AND WAR

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2878, 16 September 1916, Page 7

THE CHURCH AND WAR

Sir,—On reading your report of Bishop Sprott's address on the international entanglement, I took it as a hopeful sign that church dignitaries aro awakening to a sense of their importance amongst tis. Whatever may be said of the Church's failure so far, it is impassible to imagine _ a state in which no common ideal exists, no common end is striven for. If tho Christian Church has not succeeded in establishing equitable national and international relationships, it has at lease carried forward the hope of a better day yet to dawn. Somo years ago 1 listened to a discourse by an eminent divine, in the course of which lio said he once held the idea that it is the Glnirch'sduty to "save tho world," but ho had given up that idea for the more tangible ono that it is tho Church's duty to "preach the Gospel"; the Church cannot save tho world, he said. With this idea 1 agree. It seems to lile that it is tho Church's dutv to make men —men for all walks of life, industries, commerce, the professions, politics, etc., and if.it turns out theso with liigli ideals, and iiossessing the cardinal virtues, the world will not go far wrung. In his address the Bishop pat forward the idea of a highly moralised national and international public opinion. Beside this I. would lay Plato's prediction, as ho looked into the vista of prospective forms of government. Ho said in effect: As knowledge l increased, autocracy would become unstable, and responsibility be distributed amongst the classes in the form of aristocracy; then the masses would claim representation in the form of a republic, and finally all the people would seek to express themselves on public questions in tho form of democracy, and out of tho chaos of democracy tho test men would rise to rule. At present the idea- is current here that what rules is what is vaguely called public opinion, but Iwould point out that the people express no opinion until they have somo definite proposal put before them; someone must first have an idea, from which I a. proposal is formulated, and should tho people vote for or against, tho result depends greatly on the power of persuasion, and other influences, of the advocates on either side of tho question. John Stuart Mill points out that aotive ideas rule, 'whether thoy bo wiso or unwise, and Herbert Spencer says there is lio oppression so calamitous as tho' oppression of a people by thomselves. It may not havo occurred to many peoplo that a proposal intended for enactment has a certain quality in itself, it may bo good or bad,'suitable or unsuitable, for its purpose, but the fact of its passing into law in no way changcs its nature. If it is equitable and necessary it- may do much good and no harm, if inequitable it should not become law at all, no matter how many voices are" behind it. But tho real virtue of any statute is in tho process of its administration. A Judge or Magistrate, in weighing evidence, can only deal with that which is adduced, according to law, and should a law, enacted for his direction, prevent him from dealing with a case on its merits j the law, in such a case, becomes prejudicial. Tlio making of laws for tho regulation of human conduct lias become such a haphazard, indefinite, irresponsible proceeding, that it is little wonder that confusion reigns supremo; simple matters are complicated to no end. Tho end and aim of all law is surely the establishment of jus- ' tice in the land; let our religion bo what it may there is no higher principle than justice, and as'it cannot be clearly defined in the abstract, it must necessarily be the spontaneous action of just persons. \Tlie reason why men appointed to judicial positions aro often not nble to give satisfaction to litigants, or correct immoral or criminal tendencies, is that they aro not required to deal with men as man should' deal with his follows, for their benefit, but are hedged round with such a multiplicity of directions and restrictions that the man himself is completely lost in carrying out the duties of his official position. I have an idea that before any progress can be made towards better national and international relationships, our methods of dealing with each others imperfections will need to undergo a change. The responsibility, of ordering tho welfare and happiness of-others is an eminence too easily attained, and too easily lost, an eminence to which tho wisest and best men only sliouWbe elected. Our politics are a by-word and a reproach to us. Wo delight in the disrespect we show to those wo appoint to high and honournblo positions, and we reap the fruits of our folly by their truckling to our every whim and extravagance. It is not—and never was—everchanging forms of government and intricate codes of law tfiat is needed, but virtuous, just, able men to take, tho management of our affairs.—l am, etc., WM. BARE.