CHRISTIAN POLITICS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5070, 23 June 1877, Page 2 (Supplement)

CHRISTIAN POLITICS.

(From the World.) From the earliest days of statecraft diplomacy has rather aimed at purely selfish results, and had resort to the tortuous paths of dissimulation, than, witii the banner of religion and truth unfurled, stood out as tho hold champion of tho right. The reason is tolerably self-evident. Louis XI. embodied it in his famous maxim, “ Diasimuler o’est rdgner Maehiavolii developed it in iris political code. Tho pursuit of abstract right is hut a tamo thing; it requires no supernatural genius, uo astounding cleverness. Even a stupid man may he a good man, and a nation that was bent only on doing its own duty and assisting its neighbors to do theirs might he a prosperous, a flourishing, or a rich country, hut would neither ho an aggressive, a military, nor an awe-inspiring State. Beyond and behind the simple fact of right there are numberless questions that must necessarily arrest the attention of statesmen : elaborate matters of meum and twain, recondite articles of faith respecting tho right of possession and tho greed of conquest, tho woo of one conducing to tho ultimate happiness of many, the present misery leading up to the future prosperity,—all these and many other things which tax tho minds and tho intellects of those who stand at the helm of the .State, and which cannot ho vaguely pushed iuto tho category of right or wrong. The policy of selfish-

ness must always, to a certain extent, form the basis of statesmancraft; the Richelious and Kaunitzes and Pitts of history sought very naturally to aggrandise their own nation at the expense of her sister nations, and to found a solid empire on a substratum of force and fraud. Occasionally these efforts resulted in a splendid period of prosperity and success ; sometimes they wore followed by a complete collapse of tho most vital principles of law and order. But as long as tho reins of government were held with a firm and somewhat unscrupulous hand, material 'well-being and national glory were the inevitable result. These were the old views of politicians : they held that too many scruples interfered with a great man s career, and as long as the end was praiseworthy they were not too captious about the means employed. Now, however, a nuwcpoch appears to have arisen in the world s history. Our politics aim at being not only sound, not only rational, but Christian as well. A great wave of popular feeling is aroused at the more sound of the word Christian —a paroxysm of rago as groat as when the cry of “ Toro, toro 1” is raised at a Spanish bull-fight, or when the Roman citizens clamoured for panem ct circcnscs.

Presumably, then, tho intelligent foreigner might ask xvhether wo were such an exceedingly religious people, so very closely bound in tho ties of unity and religious fellowship. Not a bit of it. We all denominate ourselves Christians ; but then we arc split up into numberless sects and divisions, each boasting its separate church or chapel, each heartily anathematising its adversaries, and each believing in its own sole and separate salvation. How, then, can we unite in any one great cry ? Merely because we all agree in one tiling—bigotry. Hot-headed fanatics can always bo found to egg on foolish people to any lengths,, whether to uphold recalcitrant clergymen against the law, or to cause disgraceful scenes of riot in places sacred to holy and peaceful thoughts. When England flamed out in sudden fury about the Bulgarian outrages, her excitement served the cause of a certain political party, and her anger produced a very useful cry for political purposes. Few at that moment stayed to inquire how far facts had been distorted and truth exaggerated ; fewer still care to remember that the ouelty of tho Turks was wreaked on an uncivilised people who, though Christians, had often emulated, if not surpassed, such savage acta. Indeed, writers of the present day have given us nearly as terrible a picture as that of Gibbon, when he speaksof the Bulgarians under tho reign of Justinian: “Without distinction of ranker age or sex, the captives were impaled or flayed alive ; or suspended between four posts, and beaten with clubs till they expired; or enclosed in some spacious building, and left to in the flames with the spoil and cattle which might impede the march of these savage vic'tors.” But when the effervescence has subsided, and the leaders of opinion or the diplomats of England begin again to plead the cause of the Moslem, their old ally, let it not be supposed that it is because of his sobriety, his courage, and his temperance —all qualities which his”hardest detractors have been unable to deny him. No; it is because the possession of tho Golden Horn would increase Russia’s already overwhelming power, and would cause us to tremble for our rich possessions of India. Otherwise we should have no objection to leave Turkey to her fate, and to let tho rotten edifice crumble away of itself. Where is our Christianity now? where the high standard of ri"ht and wrong that wo flaunted so valiantly m°the faces of tho other Powers? Of what use is such moral support as ours, which changes with every hour, and while mumbling about Christianity ignores tho common dictates of morality and honor? Has it not been truly said, “ Our beliefs are independent of our will, but our actions are not?” We have now to consider the results of such Christian politics. Aggrandisement and conquest, the love of war and bloodshed, are comprehensible if not praiseworthy things. Everyone knows what to expect from the empire of blood and iron, and if Bismarck and tho Emperor occasionally think it advisable to ■five their actions a slight religions flavor, we know at least perfectly well that it will in no wise trammel the liberty of their conduct. The great Chancellor’s object is clear enough. Germany is to bo raised to the level of the greatest European State, her slightest word must bo law. For that purpose an immense army must he maintained, and when she is feared and respected on all sides she is sure to enjoy plenty and. prosperity. But England stands in a far different position. She can never ho greater than she has been, and her only ambition consists in the fact of her endeavor to retain tho place she has attained amongst tho nations of Europe. Therefore she seeks to avoid war, which cripples her resources and impedes her commerce. Occasionally her Christianity assists these desires. She prattles of tho blessings of peace, and sighs regretfully when she hears of wars and rumors of wars ; but the thought of losing her own possessions, and with them the major portion of her enormous wealth, completely overcomes and agitates her. The Christian politics are for a moment forgotten, and visions of glory, of war, of Nelson and Wellington, rise before herquiet commercial eyes. Englishmen arc brave as ever; but when they fight it is not the thought of tho canting and bigoted policy that has been dinned into their ears that urges them on in the hour of battle, or makes them callous and indifferent at the approach of sufferieg and privation; it is tho old, innate love of fighting, tho thought of wife and children, and the remembrance of home, or the devil-may-care doggeduess that caused Napoleon to say, “Those English never know when they are beaten.”

It is pretty evident, therefore, that should such a national calamity as war overtake them, the English will not fall short of the reputation for valor they have justly earned ; nor will they allow a single speck to sully the laurels gained in the glorious past. But the policy of selfishness veneered with Christian principle does not conduce to raise a nation in the eyes of other States. 'lt is unfortunately true of nations as well as of individuals, that though “ hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue,” vice rarely escapes being discovered, when the livery of virtue, instead of increasing her merit, causes her to appear more contemptible. Thus when all tho world knows that the English lovo for tho Turks and anxiety for their welfare is nothing hut the natural and selfish wish to keep our Indian possessions, why need there bo any necessity for throwing over the details a flimsy veil of generosity and brotherly affection ? Why should we he precipitated into the depths of despair when wo consider tho state of the Bulgarians, who are probably quite as well treated by the Turks as arc our own Indian population; and far better off than if they were the subjects of Russia?