LITERATURE. Allen, J. W., Germany and Europe (1914). Coulton, G. G., The Main Illusions of Pacificism (1916). Dawson, W. J., The Reproach of Christ (1903). Emmet, C. W., in The Faith and the War (1915). Goudge, H. L., in The War and the Kingdom of God (1915). Graham, J. W., War from a Quaker Point of View. Hogg, A. G., Christianity and Force (1915). Holland, H. S., So as by Fire (1915). Horne, C. S., The Model Citizen. Lucas, E., in The Holborn Review (Jan. 1914). Mackenzie, J. S., in The International Crisis: The Story of the State (1916). Marshall, H. R., War and the Ideal of Peace. Martineau, J., National Duties (1903). Masterman, J. H. B., The Challenge of Christ (1913). Meyer, F. B., The Directory of the Devout Life (1904). Moffatt, J., The Second Things of Life. Muirhead, J. H., German Philosophy in Relation to the War (1915). Nasmyth, G. W., in Friends and the War. Oman, J., The War and its Issues (1915). Selwyn, E. G., The Teaching of Christ (1915). Stout, G. F., in The International Crisis in its Ethical and Psychological Aspects (1915). Streeter, B. H., War, This War and The Sermon on the Mount (1915). Stubbs, C. W., Christ and Economics (1893). Thornton, L. S., Conduct and the Supernatural (1915). Wilmshurst, W. L., in The Seeker (May 1915). Wilson, W. E., Atonement and Non-Resistance (1914). THE USE OF FORCE. Is the use of physical force ever allowed to a follower of Christ? The answer does not settle the question of the lawfulness of war. There are certainly forms of force that have not the un-Christian features that belong to war, and it is not fair to treat the two words war and "force as if they were synonymous. One may reasonably hold that some forms of force are inconsistent with the Christian faith, while holding that others are consistent with it. There are two extreme theories regarding the use of force. The pacifist view (to use an ugly but convenient term) is that force is never to be used for moral or spiritual ends. The militarist view is that force is the only effective weapon, and is to be used for all purposes without scruple. Let us look at these two theories. I. THE PACIFIST THEORY. 1. The Pacifist Theory condemns every form of violence, as contrary to the ethical law of love and human brotherhood. It was in harmony with this idea that the Fathers of the Church in the early centuries condemned all recourse to arms as unjust, and that many Christians refused to render service in the imperial armies. Abandoned by the Church after its alliance with the Roman Empire under Constantine, the doctrine was never quite lost from sight. It was adopted by the Mennonites in Holland and by the Quakers in England. We may pause here to consider the attitude of the early Friends towards war. Accepting the teaching of Christ as a gospel of pure love, they held that war was unchristian, and this alike in its origin and in its results. George Fox had been called out of 'that nature whence wars arise," and "lived in the virtue of that life and power that took away the occasion of all wars." Barclay too applied the peaceable ethic of Christ without flinching to the whole of life. Friends did not indeed deny that force was needed in the community, as in the family, to restrain ill-doers, to protect the weak, and to preserve that ordered peace upon which freedom itself and the power to work out man's nature depends. For the community includes many persons who have not come, as Barclay would say, to the pure dispensation of the gospel, but are still "in the mixture," and for these the restraint of force is needed in the spirit of love. As their consciences become enlightened to understand the teaching of Christ more fully, such restraint will be needed less and less, even to vanishing point. The use of force in maintaining civil order is however marked off from the sphere of war by this distinction, that the former is regulated by justice and law, and the latter by uncertain motives, often greed or offended dignity. That war too might be governed by justice was a desire that sometimes found expression on the part of the earlier Friends. Edward Borough in 1656 charged the soldiers in Ireland to use their swords justly, and even wrote to the army at Dunkirk in 1659 that it should avenge the blood of the guiltless. War in a just cause Barclay held to be not altogether unlawful to a magistrate whose conscience was not fully enlightened. Penington said that "the present estate of things ", in which the earthly spirit prevails, might require the use of the sword, and a blessing would attend its right use; but, he added, there is a better state. There were indeed occasions in the great struggle for liberty which was waging in England at the time of the rise of Friends, when they were asked to give active help to the parliamentary forces, and when some of the best amongst them hesitated as to their duty. But Fox and others stood firm: no carnal weapons were to be borne: Friends were not to join the militia; the testimony of the society against all war was clear and emphatic. Several of its early leaders -Dewsbury, Hubberthorne, Nayler and others had come out from the ranks of the army to serve the Prince of Peace, in the Kingdom which is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." But whilst it was the clear duty of the Friend in his personal conduct and on his own behalf to deny all war, the position was less easy for those who held places of responsibility in the community on behalf of their fellows. Such offices were held by early members of the society in America. The sturdy Quaker governors of Rhode Island thought it their duty to the people who had elected them that they should assent to preparations for the military defence of the colony. John Archdale, governor of the Carolinas, held a commission which nominally appointed him Admiral and Commander-in-Chief. The Assembly passed a Militia Act during his term of office, under which all Quakers were excused from service who, in the judgment of the governor, refused to bear arms on a conscientious principle of religion. These Friend governors did not, as it appears, engage in war, nor were they, on the other hand, subjected to disownment by their own body. They seem to have taken the view that, although all war was evil, a defensive war might on occasion be a necessary accompaniment of civil government, when that government was exercised on behalf of a mixed population only partly enlightened; and that in the public office they held they did right to connive at it. A citizen cannot act merely for himself he has a share in the state and in its responsibilities; he may have to countenance methods of government not ideally right, though he must never be content with them, nor cease to labour for their removal. The question as it presented itself in the home country was somewhat different, for there the authority which public officers derived from the king was apt to overshadow their responsibility to their fellow-citizens. But in either land it was one of great moment, and it had a fateful influence upon the history of the society. Could Friends with their pure and high ideals take part in government? Some of the early Quakers thought that they could; Christians, said Penn, should keep the helm and guide the vessel to its port, not steal out of the stern of the world, and leave it without a pilot. The later society, led mainly by English Friends, came in effect to the decision that they could not take such part; no doubt the customary oath of office was an especial hindrance; and in consequence they withdrew for a century and a half into private life. It would be out of place here to do more than allude to the emergence of English Friends from this position in the course of the nineteenth century, and to their gradual entrance in considerable numbers into magisterial, civic and parliamentary life.1 ¶ It may be noted that John Bright based his opposition to the several wars of his time upon the circumstances of each; he resigned from Gladstone's Cabinet in 1882, because the bombardment of Alexandria was in his judgment an act of unjustifiable This might nevertheless be consistent with a strong personal conviction that all war was wrong. See M. E. Hirst, in Fds. 1 R. H. Fox, Dr. John Fothergil, and His Friends, 294. Quart. Exam., Jan. 1916. Upon the attitude of the early Friends to war and the facts quoted above, see W. C. Braithwaite, The Beginnings of Quakerism; George Fox's Journal, ed. Camb.; E. Burrough, Works; Barclay, Apology, Prop. XV.; I. Penington, Works, i. 323. For the question as it emerged on the outbreak of the European War see W. Littleboy, The Day of our Visitation, Appendix.1 ¶ At a Conference held by Quakers at Llandudno in September 1914, the question was asked: Has Christ nothing but implicit condemnation for men who offer their own lives in order to stop a tyrant's cruelty to others? The answer was: All self-sacrifice for a worthy end is good and noble and Christlike, and we cannot believe that Christ would ever condemn it as such, or that it is His will that in the presence of tyranny and cruelty we should stand aside and do nothing. But the answer of those who have lived nearest to Him in spirit, like many of the first Christians and of the early Quakers, would seem to be that His followers must have patience even with tyranny and cruelty, and seek to wear it out" by long suffering. In James Nayler's words, they take their kingdom with entreaty and not with contention, and keep it by lowliness of mind." The early Quakers, though they never used force, were vigorous in their protests against injustice to themselves and others. The recognition gradually won by the Christians and the Quakers, without any use of violence, seems to show that such patience is not in vain, if it is not mere indolence or cowardice, but is inspired by the faith that there is in all human hearts, even in the most apparently cruel, something that can be won at length by long-suffering love.2 66 66 2. In support of this view, it is argued (1) that it has never had a fair trial; and (2) when it has been tried it has worked well. (1) As regards the trial of non-resistance, it is held that we are Christians only to our own shame, and to our Master's dishonour -Christiani ad contumeliam Christi: that whether it is possible or not to place society on a strict basis of Christian principle we cannot say, for that very few have ever really tried: that discussion as to the feasibility of a Christian socialistic state in which Christ's five great commandments-Be not angry-Do not commit adultery -Take no oaths-Resist not evil-Make no war-were obeyed, must for the present at least be merely conjectural and speculative, 1 R. H. Fox, Dr. John Fothergill and His Friends, 296. 2 E. G., in Friends and the War, 143. |