CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 256, 17 July 1918, Page 6

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Sir,—Mr. A. L. King says Unit "religion, being a matter oi' conscionco, lies oulsido the legitimate jurisdiction of civil government." ]f so, does it not follow conversely, that "the legitimate jurisdiction oi' civil government" lies outside "a matter of conscience," and that therefore it nocd'not consider it? Jlr. A. L. King: admits that "the prime duly of the State is to protect thu rights of each member of the community and prevent their invasion by other individuals." Just so, and isn't that cxactly what the Statu is trying to do by meant* of conscription? And how could it succeed if it; cannot enforce the law? Do women require no protection against the Germans? Thc-n he publicly brands my conscionco as "spurious," alter staling in a previous, letter that a man's conscience ought lo> be a private matter. It he may consider my conscience "spurious," why should not the State form a similar opinion of the alleged consciences of many conscientious objectors? He says "thera is a limit to the authority of civil gov-; ernment when it comes to conscience."' Why? Must we accept his say so? Is not' it at least as reasonable (as I am trying to illustrate with bigamy) that there should be a limit to "conscience" wlien it comes in conflict with civil government ? If conscientious bigamy bei penal, why not conscientious shirking!' -Why shouid conscience excuse one illegality and not excuse another? As regards tlie seventh commandment, wer« not tha Jews legally and morally polygamists for hundreds of years after Moses came down from the Mount? and who litis condemned them for it? Oi course, the, interpretation of this command rests with the, civil power. As lor "S.B.S."—what religion is it thai 1 know .nothing about? If the Mohammedan, I appeal to him to take into consideration the extreme suddenness of my very recent conversion, —I am, etc., GUT POUTER'. July 11. Sir,—l have been much interested in. tho correspondence originating in tho> Bishop of 'Wellington's address to the Synod concerning conscientious objectors. It 6eems to mo that the thing lacking is the proper standard by which one may measure right nnd wrong. It is easy to see that what may trouble one conscience may not another, so •what is to be the standard? We profess to be a Christian community, a Christian nation, IE this is the. truth, then the only standard we can recognise will be the Word of God-the Bible. Looking to find what the Bible standard is, we find it summed up in a few words in 1 Pet. 2-21: ' For even hereunto (for this purpose) were ye called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow in His 6teps; who when He vs reviled, reviled not again, when Ha suffered he threatened not but committed Himself to Him. that judgeth righteouslv." This is the liible standard, then, to "follow in Ilis steps." It is recognised (Matt. 10, 16) that all cannot, appreciate this standard, nevertheless it is ■the only true Christian standard. But what is' the highest standard held up by a faithless Church? The conscience of the State, the community. Lower than this one cannot go yithout becoming criminal. It is this Church-State mixture that God abominates and terms Babylon (confusion), as Ha shows through John tho Kevelator, chapter 17, v. 5, auu. elsewhere. Probably this Church-State mixture has not discerned that God 3 purine is the establishment of His Own righteous government in the earth, "and that the present dashing the nations ™ pieces as a potter's vessel (Psalm, 2, 8-J> is a uart of the, Divine programaie. Those"who exercise faith in the Word of God are not likely to resist the establishment of His Kingdom, but rather lall in with His plans. The Kingdom is soon to bo established, and it is for thoMJ who see to obediently "lift up a standard, forthepeople.»-lam,etc, sTuDßNii , July 13.