"THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20303, 10 July 1929, Page 14

"THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS."

Sir, —While objecting as strongly as anyone can do to the conduct of "those youths who object to military training, I feel that your article of Saturday on Ihe Law and the Prophets " states correctly one side of the teaching of the Presbyterian Church, but it ignores another side of that Church's teaching which must be borne in mind when dealing with the case of those young men. Permit me a little space to state the two aspects of the Presbyterian Church's teaching in' this important matter. In her statement of doctrine, the Church is emphatic, and far from pacifist. The Confession of Faith, which is our subordinate standard of doctrine, states that God has appointed civil magistrates over nations for His glory and the good of the people. Ihen it enumerates a number of duties which the civil magistrates —the name it uses for the rulers of the nation—have to discharge. In this statement of duties occurs 'the following:—• They may lawfully now, according to the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions." And, of course, if it is the duty of the civil magistrate to wage necessary war, say, in " defence of the nation," it follows at once, as a corollary, -that it is the duty of those composing the nation to support the magistrate in waging the war. Christian citizens must be ready to "lender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." The refusal of military service on the part ■of young men is, therefore, contrary to the teaching of the Presbyterian Church, and is also contrary to the teaching of the Word of God. And, not only is this file teaching of the Presbyterian Church, but it has been the practice of her members from the Reformation downwards. In the late war the Scottish regiments were not the least conspicuous among the King's soldiers, and some of us are rather proud of the fact that Earl Haig was an elder of the Presbyterian Church, and we remember with pleasure his statement to his chaplain that, " We are fighting God's battles." If that were all that had to bo said on the subject the matter would bo simplo enough, but in this complicated world of ours it often happens that the great issues of life, are not so simple. While the above brief statement gives correctly our Church's attitude toward war and its prosecntion, it has to be borne in mind that the members of the Presbyterian Church individually do not require to subscribe to the standards o, the Church. The only thing our Church requires from its members is faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, with a life consistent with that profession. Tho Presbyterian Church exists in many lands and has many millions of members and adherents, and it would bo impossible to get all the members to agree with all ihe doctrines stated in our standards. Wo act on the principle that wo cannot refuse those whom Christ receives; so faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour is all that is required from members of tho Presbyterian Church. For example, tho standards of our Church are Calvinistic, but many of our members object to Calvinism; the standards of our Church

also teac-h the rightfulness and duty of infant baptism, but some Presbyterians object to infant. baptism; in the samo way the standards of our Church teach that war may bo just and necessary, but some Presbyterians are entirely within their rights when they, remaining members of tne Presbyterian Church denounce all war and refuse military, training. Our Confession of Faith states that " God alone is Lord of the conscience." And our Declaratory Act, which modifies subscription to the Confession of Faith, states that " this Church disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles, and does not consider her oifice-bearers, in subscribing the Confession, committed to any principles incon sistcnt with liberty of conscience and tho right of private judgment." Now, the judgments given by our magistrates in Auckland are given on tho assumption that tho individual members of the Presbyterian Church are bound by the teaching of her standards. This is not tho case. If a young man is wrong-headed enough to becomo a pacifist and to refuse military training, ho may do so quite consistently with rns position as a member of tho 'Presbyterian Church. Our ministers and ciders are required to sign our standards, but no such obligation rests upon our members. In view of all this I do not see that the authorities of tho Presbyterian Church, whatever their personal convictions, can remain silent if members of our Church are punished by our law courts if they conscientiously believe that war and military service are wrong. To punish young men for holding such views, even if they are contrary to the teaching of the Presbyterian Church, would, in tho judgment of our Church, bo religious persecution, and this our Church strongly condemns. Presbyterians have suffered too much for conscience sako in the course of history for her to be a party to persecuting principles now. While saying that, I may say that I entirely agree with you that the young men whose case is now being dealt with have put themselves entirely out of court by adopting the contemptible quibble on the ground of which they object to the alternative service offered i them by tho magistrate. Isaac Jolly. Auckland, 9, 1929.