The glory of life on earth : and other sermons and addresses

Preface

My Publisher asks me to write a Preface to the following sermons and addresses, and suggests that me in it I should deal with a topic of the day. To comply with this request at the present time means tion as to which side is the ageressor. Vv a Sad to write on the topic of the day. I shall therefore present here some considerations on the great moral problem of the hour, the Ethics of War.

- There can be no difference of opinion among followers of the Prince of Peace as to the hatefulness of war in the abstract and the sinfulness of unnecessary or unjustifiable wars; but inasmuch as actual war always implies two parties, they may not both be blameworthy, or, if to some extent both are, the ~ blame may be very unequally distributed. We may assume that all true Christian people sorrowfully deplore the war in which we are now engaged with the two South African Republics, while many look upon it as a crime of the deepest dye; but even so there is abundant room for difference of opinion as to how the criminality i is distributed—a question which will depend upon the view taken of the prior ques-

* v1 PREFACE

On that subject I have taken occasion elsewhere to express my opinion quite frankly, and yet I trust with full charity and consideration toward those who take a different view ; but it would not become me to make this preface a controversial pamphlet by advocating a private opinion. It would seem, however, not inappropriate that an endeavour should be made, with as much freedom from one-sidedness as may be possible, to present those abstract principles, on which we believe there may be general agreement, whatever differences exist as to their application.

I

The general principle governing the whole question is the paramountcy of the Kingdom of God. “The Lord hath prepared His throne in the Heavens, and His Kingdom ruleth over all.” On the question of the paramountcy of Britain in South Africa there would be debatable points. On this paramountcy there can be none. We all owe allegiance to Queen Victoria, and we rejoice exceedingly and are most devoutly thankful that it is a glad and proud allegiance, which does not come into collision with the rights of conscience, and need put no strain on the whole-heartedness of our loyalty. But even this high allegiance is not really paramount. The Queen herself would be the first to acknowledge and declare that all her subjects owe supreme allegiance to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; that far _

‘fe Rs

PREFACE vii above the patriotism of country and of race there rises the still nobler patriotism which finds expression in this breathing of supreme devotion: “ Our

Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy

Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.”

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and strength, and mind.” ‘This is the supreme law for our loyalty, and it means much in a crisis like the present. Serious difficulties may arise in its application in detail, and sad enough mistakes are liable to be made; but it is a great thing clearly to acknowledge it, as I believe it is acknowledged by a larger number of thoughtful men now than at any previous time in the history of the world.

II

The next thing is the paramountcy of Righteousness in the kingdom. He who sits upon the throne is known first as King of Righteousness and then as King of Peace. These are His two great watchwords; and this is their invariable order. So in the Old Testament it is prophesied of Him : “ In His days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.” In the Sermon on the Mount Righteousness is given the place of preeminence. ‘The Apostle of the Gentiles tells us that the Kingdom of God stands for “ righteousness, and

peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost”; and the Apostle

Vill PREFACE of the Jews declares that the wisdom which cometh from above is “‘ first pure, then peaceable.” Clearly then the paramountcy of righteousness is a law of the Kingdom, to which indeed the natural conscience of man bears witness, as illustration of which we may refer to the old Latin aphorism: Frat justitia, ruat ceclum.

We are straitly charged indeed to “follow the things which make for peace”; but never at the expense of righteousness. Hence the qualifications with which the claims of peace are asserted—“ If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” One could not imagine the Apostle saying, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, deal honestly with all men.” Nay, the claims of honesty, which is of course an element of righteousness, are supreme and imperative. A man should be willing to die rather than surrender them. It is clear then that there is no encouragement in Scripture to the doctrine of “peace at any price.” But may we not infer, from the prominent position which peace holds in the Kingdom of God, as second only to Righteousness, that it should be sought at any price except this? Here again difficult questions arise in the application of the principle. But as to the principle itself there is almost universal agreement. It should therefore be our desire and aim ever “‘to follow the things which make for peace,” with a due regard to the paramountcy of the claims of righteousness.

PREFACE ix

Il

It will take us a little closer to questions in debate © if we consider the relation which interest, advantage, or profit holds to righteousness on the one hand and peace on the other. If, as we have seen, peace comes immediately after righteousness and before even “joy in the Holy Ghost,” must it not clearly take precedence of mere interest or advantage? We avoid the phrase “self-interest,” because the term, as we shall see, is somewhat misleading in this connection. We often, however, speak of “our national interests,” so the term should be easily understood. Well, it is unquestionable that the claims of peace are prior to those of mere interest. But why do we say mere interest? Because interest may coincide with what duty demands, in which case the element of righteousness comes in, which takes precedence of peace. Take a very simple case for illustration: May you or may you not defend your property against a burglar, to the extent of barring him out, or even of putting him out if he has got in? Clearly you may. But is not that putting interest before peace, seeing it is your interest to defend your property? Yes; but it is not a case of interest merely; you have also righteousness on your side. It would not be a Christian but a cowardly spirit that would let the robber have the free range of your premises rather x PREFACE than attempt to fight him off. It is here that the old Quaker doctrine of non-resistance fails. It does not sufficiently take into account the paramountcy of righteousness. It singles out certain aphoristic sayings of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount, without paying sufficient attention to the fact that these are not given till the supreme demands of righteousness have been first asserted.

Another consideration affecting the question of duty in relation to the defence of interest, which ought never to be lost sight of, is that while a man may sometimes properly enough sacrifice his own interests for the sake of peace, it does not follow that he has a right to sacrifice the interests of those dependent upon him. Suppose, for example, it is a dispute about money. A man is threatened with the loss of £100 through the injustice of a neighbour. He may say, “Let it go; I can do without it, and I should much rather lose the money than quarrel over it.” That may be right enough—may be, I say; for you can easily imagine circumstances in which even that would not be right. Still it might be right, and even praiseworthy in certain circumstances. But supposing the man at liberty to let his own £100 go by default, would it be right to let it go, if it belonged to a widow or the orphans for whom it was his duty to act? Clearly not. ‘Though a man may in certain circumstances surrender rights of his own to save himself trouble, or to avoid risk, or to keep the peace, he may not

PREFACE xi “e so surrender rights of others which it is his duty to guard. It would be unfaithfulness and cowardice to do so.

Here again the application of this self-evident principle to a crisis like the present is not so easy and automatic as to secure perfect unanimity; but let us be thankful that these great principles are acknowledged ; let us be thankful that by those responsible for the conduct of this war mere self-interest is repudiated, as, for example, in the emphatic words of the Prime Minister, ‘“ We seek no goldfields; we seek no territory.” And is it not most satisfactory that while the desire for the aggrandisement of Great Britain, which is surely big enough to be content with what she has, is definitely repudiated, the justification of the insistence which has led to the war is sought—and many say found— in this, that it is not personal rights for which we are selfishly contending, but the rights of those who are dependent on us, to whom we stand in the relation of trustees and guarantors ?

IV

So much for the mutual relations of righteousness, peace, and interest. But is there not another paramountcy to be considered ? What of the supremacy of Love? What of that other table of the Supreme Law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”? Does not this modify what has been said ?

xli PREFACE

Now it is not to*be denied that to Love is given the very highest place in the ethics of the Christian life. But why? Not as superseding any other demand, but as including all. Love is never assigned supremacy over, or precedence of, righteousness. Its paramountcy therefore is not in any other sense than that of comprehensiveness, including both righteousness and peace. Love is the fulfilling of the Law. It is the sum of the Commandments. From which it follows that Love—in the large Scripture sense —is not the nerveless, pulpy thing which some take it to be. It has iron in its constitution. It has backbone in it. It has “fight” in it. If it has not, it is not worthy of the name. ‘Try to take the cubs from a bear, if you wish to make sure whether love has fight in it. Try to harm the child, and see how the mother will blaze at you, and the father strike, if necessary.

Still Love is love, and not war. Love may lead to war, as we have seen; but even if it do, its paramountcy is not relaxed. Even in just wrath it will remember mercy. Even in the most imperative war, it should have all possible sway while the war lasts, and all proper influence in the settlement which shall follow. And here there are endless applications which can only be hinted at in the most general manner.

First, there should be no hatred nor vindictiveness. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he y > b- Zur :

PREFACE xlil thirst, give him drink.” Here again may we not thankfully recognise that this has been done, is being done on both sides, and that not only by the leaders, but by the rank and file? We have had many touching illustrations of this among our men, as when we read of the soldiers who, though wearied with hard fighting for over seven hours, gladly gave the contents of their water-bottles to the wounded Boers, or when we read of the men of the Scots Guards carrying the wounded ashore from the ship, that “they could not have performed their task more gently had the Boers been their own brothers.” Incidents like this show that war with all its horrors, which can scarcely be exaggerated and ought never to be minimised, does not necessarily set aside the law of brotherly love, but gives scope for some of its tenderest applications. I do not forget the ugly stories about the abuse of flags of truce, and firing on ambulances and hospitals; but it is encouraging to find that there is no disposition on the part of responsible men on the field to give too ready credence to such stories, but rather to make allowance for the effect of the want of discipline in the Boer ariny, rendering it more difficult for their officers than for ours to ensure that all the humane regulations of modern warfare should be respected.

And this suggests the claim of charity, not only on the battle-field but at home—by which I mean charity not only to the enemy abroad but to the

X1V PREFACE political opponent. Perhaps the most unchristian element in the whole history of the last three months has been the slanderous things said by extremists on the one side or the other. On the one side there have been uncharitable things said about the Boers without due distinction between the leaders and followers, or even between the loyal and the disloyal; and on the other side there have been uncharitable things said about our own country and our own Government. There are those who seem to forget the paramount claims of truth, which is just righteousness in heart and thought and speech. And to sacrifice truth, even in the supposed interests of peace, is only a degree less heinous a sin than to sacrifice it in the promotion of the hateful spirit of war. I do not forget that there have been conspicuous illustrations of fairness on both sides on the part of our public men, and on the part of the press too; but think what horrible examples of unfairness there have been. Why is it that in political warfare there are so many men, otherwise good enough, it would appear—perhaps very good—who seem to have no conception of the claims of charity ; who think themselves perfectly justified, not only in attributing to their political opponents the very worst of motives, but even in uttering, writing, printing vilest slander? We need to have a far more universal acknowledgment of the paramountcy of charity. To put the best construction on the conduct of an opponent, even of a political opponent, is a Christian

PREFACE XV duty ; to put the worst, as some people seem always to do, is diabolical in the most literal sense, for that adjective is just the Greek form of the word slanderous. Inno walk of life does there seem to be more of the suppressio veri and suggestio falst than in politics; and if so, it is surely a crying iniquity of the time. May God forgive us, and lead us all to repentance, and to the acknowledgment of the great Christian duty of “speaking the truth in love” (arnPevorvtes ev ayamrn), Eph. iii. 15.

May the time soon come when there will be no slaying of our brother by bullet or bayonet, by pen or tongue; when the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence for ever; when wars shall cease to the ends of the earth, and the Prince of Peace be acknowledged, worshipped, and obeyed as Lord Paramount all the world over!

January 1900,

II. b

VIII.