PRESBYTERIAN OBJECTORS TO DRILL.

Evening Star, Issue 19839, 12 April 1928, Page 4

PRESBYTERIAN OBJECTORS TO DRILL.

L”0 THE EDITOR. Sir, —It is quite passible that our Military Training Act might be improved, but the methods of the .alleged Auckland Presbyterians in flouting it can only be deplored. It is a doctrine of the Presbyterian Church that in the present order of things a war of defence is just and right. No man can he a Presbyterian minister who does not declare his adherence to standards in which this doctrine is sot forth. In the face of this fact one reads with amazement your report of four Presbyterian students repudiating such a doctrine, refusing to obey the law of the land with regard to drill, and claiming exemption on (ho ground of their religion. Mr Cocker, the counsel for objectors, informed the magistrate that the Presbyterian Assembly had passed a resolution justifying the claims of the objectors, and lie added that these young men, as ministers, could hold and teach their views though DO.) per cent, of the Presbyterian people disagreed with them. Could any more ridiculous situation ho conceived than such a cleavage between preacher and people P This whole trouble has been caused by these men putting the Presbyterian label on themselves without first knowing the doctrine of tho church. Now, what is the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church on war and military service? The law hook of the Now Zealand church says tho supremo standard is the Bible, and there arc five subordinate standards. These standards are part of the trust deed of tho Presbyterian Church, and these standards "can only be altered, by a long process of consultation with tho lower church courts, and the sanction of Parliament might also be needed. The Confession of Faith speaks clearly on this question in chapter 23, and says: “It is lawful for Christians. . . . under the Now Testament to wage war on just and necessary occasions,” and in a proof text tho centurion of tho Gospel is held up as a high typo of goodness. The Larger Catechism, another standard, declares that obedience to the sixth commandment reuqircs “just defence against violence ” “ and lawful war or necessary defence”; and it_ forbids “the neglecting or withdrawing _ the necessary means of the preservation of life.” (See questions 135 and 136.) These standards have also something to say about tho peculiar conscience. In chapter 20 we road: “They who upon pretence of Christian liberty shall oppose any lawful power or tho exercise of it, whether civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.” The doctrine in these declarations is common to all the Presbyterian churches of the world, and in 1916 Dr Gibb got this fact recorded in the minutes of tho Assembly that met in Rt. John’s, Wellington. On November 20, 1916, I)r Gibb moved a motion in which stress was laid on the fact that “in common with the churches of our order throughout the world, tho Assembly holds the defence of home and principle, if need be with the sword, is a duty of Christian citizenship, from which ministers are not exempt.” Such, then, is the doctrinal position of the Presbyterian Church with regard to war and military service. A war of defence is a Christian duty. A soldier may he a model Christian. Tho Christian ministry does not exempt a man from military service. The man that shirks the obligations of such service is resisting the ordinance of God. There is no man more competent to express tho doctrinal attitude of the Presbyterian Church than Professor Dickie, D.D., and so I find that in 1918 he moved tho following motion in the Assembly in Dunedin:—“That tho General Assembly, while humbly deploring before God the continuance of the war, ,Un> remorseless slaughter of so many of our best and bravest, and the grievous anguish of unnumbered hearts, firmly believes that there can bo no real or stable peace unless tho military power of tho Central Empires is shattered on the field of battle and the Germanic people themselves realise that their policy of aggression and terrorism has brought them nothing bub disaster, and tho moral condemnation of tho whole intelligent world, and instructs the editor of the ‘ Outlook ’ acccordingly.” This motion was relegated to a committee for consideration, and after consideration, Dr Gibb moved the motion, omitting tho instruction to the ‘ Outlook ’ editor, and it was carried with great enthusiasm, the whole Assembly rising and singing tho National Anthem.

The ultimate appeal of the League of Nations is to force. In Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations it is stated:—“The members of the League agree—with regard to a member of the League breaking the Covenant under Articles 12, 13, 15, that it has ipso facto declared war against all other members of the League —that they will take the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the members of the League which are cooperating to protect the Covenants nl the League.” Here is is assumed that the members of the_ League have armies, and these armies are bound to fight for justice and right. Without this ultimate force the League Covenant would be a scrap of paper. _ This crusade against armies and military machines is a crusade to make; the League impotent and worthless in a crisis. It is to bo honed that the counsel tha presented only a freak resolution of Assembly to the Auckland magistrate will at the next meeting of the court put before the magistrate the above extracts from the real standards of the Presbyterian Church. It is true that a half loaf is better than, no bread, but half truths may bo whole lies.—l am, etc., Robert Wood.: Wellington, April %