THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1916. THE PURGE OF WAR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16729, 16 June 1916, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1916. THE PURGE OF WAR.

In a reccnt sermon the Bishop of Waiapu discoursed on the moral aspects of the present war in a strain familiar both in the Ilome Country and in the oveisea dominions, and concerning the soundness of which there is .much difference of opinion. He is reported to have described the mighty conflict now raging over such a large portion of the globe as " a spccial visitation from God on a frivolous and unthinking nation." As most of his illustrations were drawn from the prevalent condition's of life in New Zealand, it might almost be assumed that Bishop Sedgwick believed Divine Providence to have devised a terrible world-cata-clysm for the sole purpose of punishing the sins and shortcomings of this remote country, with its scarcely

more than a million inhabitants, and ils virtual insignificance in relation iu t.Ho main course of mundane affairs. Perhaps, however, it i!» reason,vide to assume that the Bishop would include the wholo British even, in some measure, the nations in alliance with whom Britain is waging war —in his condemnation of " frivolous and unthinking " culprits. Now, in the first place, it has to be remembered that Britain and her allies have not the slightest cause to blamo themselves or each othjer in regard to the genesis of the war. In this connection, at least, they are entitled to entertain a good conceit of themselves, and to feel that they are the accredited champions of freedom against tyranny, of justice against essential lawlessness, of humanity against cruelty, of light against darkness. Bishop Sedgwick would not disagree with us on this point; but the point is worth emphasising, because in some contemporary utterances and writings—especially, perhaps, in some of the current warhymns and intercessory prayers — there is, we think, a noticeable tendency to excessive self-humiliation, — even a tendency to represent ourselves as being almost as bad as the Germans. "To us the sin and shame belong," runs a line in one of the special war-hymns. Miserable sinners though we all are, this is a morbid mis-statement. The sin and shame belong chiefly—nay, exclusively, as regards the origin and character of the war—to- the Government and nation that have been justly stigmatised as the modern Huns. ' "Granted," the Bishop might reply; '' but I still maintain that the necessity of waging the war —a just war on our part —has been imposed upon us by Divine Providence as a punitive visitation for our sins as a nation and as individuals." Stated logically, at once with fulness and brevity, this thesis is tantamount to a belief that God allowed the Germans to become excessively wicked—wicked with what the Apostle terms " superfluity of naughtiness " —with the express purpose of chastening the much less heinous guilt of other nations, and the British nation in particular. We make bold to say that such a proposition will not hold water for a moment. It cannot represent the last word of religious philosophy in reference to the tremendous problem of "the mystery of iniquity." To say this is not to question the fact of the Providential government of the world; nor is it equivalent to denying that there was a substantial measure of truth and wisdom in Bishop Sedgwick's admonitory remarks. Though we cannot hold that the war was providentially devised for corrective purposes, we can readily believe that the Divine Power wishes all or us to make the most and the best of its opportuni ties, alike terrible and salutary, as regards moral and spiritual betterment. " The cannons are God's preachers when the times are ripe for war," declared a martial poet during the Crimean conflict; and though this doctrine may easily be pushed too far by unthinking, fervour, it yet has an appreciable measure of truth. The Bishop of London—whose utterances and activities during the war have (despite occasional characteristic extravagances) been so excellently stimulating—recently delivered a special sermon on " The Purge of War." In this striking discourse Dr Winnington Ingram emphasised, first the imperative need of a moral revival and regeneration in England and especially in his own great metropolitan sphere of work; and, secondly, the gratifying evidence that the circumstances of the war had already jorovided the motive forces for a vast amount of progress in this direction. It is true that some shrewd observers speak more cautiously than enthusiastically on this subject. Lord Bryce, one of the best-equipped of contemporary thinkers, adopted a dubious but not unhopeful strain when delivering the Huxley lecture at Birmingham University some weeks ago. " War furnished occasion for the display of some virtues in the field, but whether these virtues tended to a moral elevation reacting on the whole nation and whether that elevation would be visible in the European nations when this war had ended were questions on which the war itself would throw light. A war of aggression stimulated by national pride and ambition might have a different moral effect from one undertaken to repel a wanton attack and to protect the world itself from a menace to the sacred principles of justice and humanity. The war we were now waging was such a war, and he trusted that the sufferings and sorrows it had brought to us and to our allies might be compensated by the raising of our national and personal ideals." On the whole there is good ground for believing that, in general, the circumstances of defensive warfare tend to exercise a purifying and uplifting influence on the nations bearing the brunt of aggression, and that, in particular, this ameliorative effect is actually peiceptible at the present time in Great Britain, as well as in France and Russia. It would be a thousand pities if New Zealand were to miss this purging experience, or were to know it only in a very limited measure. In this relation some of Bishop Sedgwick's warnings (though perhaps touched by exaggeration) are, in the main, just and timely. There is a real danger lest, owing to our remoteness from the scenes of peril, and perhaps also, to a certain lack of sympathetic imagination, the war should leave us, morally and spiritually, preitv much where it found us. Another bishop suggested many months ago that it might not be an unmixed evil if one or two of our chief towns could be bombarded by enemy gunboats. Bo that ag it may, assuredly there is a clear call to us as a people,—a call to a more serious attitude of mind, a more unselfish habit of life, a clearer conception of the tremendous world-issues now at stake, a readier inclination to think and work and, if need be, suffer for the good cause.

THE ORDER OF MERIT. Tub bestowal of tho Order of Merit on Mr Arthur Balfour was the only feature of tho distribution of Birthday honours, not directly affecting New Zealand, that was cabled to us. We publish this morning particulars of some of tho honours that were awarded in tho United Kingdom and Australia, but tho most interesting of them all, even though it might, on first thought, seem to bo a little incongruous at the present time, was the distinction received by Mr Balfour. Tho Order of Merit has been conferred on tho famous statesman in recognition of liis sorvices in philosophy and literature. This special distinction is not unmerited; but Mr Balfour would hardly bp famous if his philosophical and literary activities constituted his sole title to renown, and tho momentous occupations which now engage his attention leave no leisure for academic piusuits. We could imagine some -wrongheaded German cynic congratulating the First Lord of the Admiralty on. the peculiar character of his new honour,—the sar casm being pointed by allusion to the coincidence of tho "great German naval victory." The incongruity, however, is merely superficial, with just such a piquant flavour as Mr Balfour himself would relish. Of course the only possible titular recognition of his great public £er- \ ices would take the form of a peerage,— nothing lower than an earldom, 111 view of the fact that he has been Prime Minister. But Mr Balfour loves the House of Commons, in which he has sat continuously for forty-two years, and of which for at least thirty years he has been a distinguished ornament; and the House, independent of party differences or memoTies, admires and values him hugely. At the present critical time ho is a tower of strength to the Coalition Government, and his voluntary withdrawal to tho House of Lords, where his powers as a debater would virtually be thrown away, is not to be thought of Meanwhile the bestowal of the Order of Merit conveys a salutary reminder that philosophy and literature still have their part in a world riven by sanguinary conflict; and the First Lord of the Admiralty's fellow countrymen, including many who care little for literature and nothing for philosophy, will perhaps rightly read into the distinction more than appears on the surface. And when we say "his fellow countrymen" we use the term with full Imperial width. At the same time we would emphasise the fact that the Order of Merit, in its special significance, has been quite suitably, conferred. The author of "A Defence of Philosophic Doubt " and some other important disquisitions is no mere amateur or tyro in philosophy; -while, if his purely literary productions have been infrequent and slight, the note of literary distinction and style may be detected in every letter which he writes and even in every speech which he delivers. It is to be hoped—peihaps not very confidently—that politicians an high place at Berlin are able to appreciate the exquisitely polished irony which marks Mr Balfour's utterances, both spoken and written, concerning various aspects of the international controversy. If thi3 fine quality is beyond their ken,—and in sucli matters, as in Greek, the Germans are " sadly to seek,"—they can hardly fail to recognise the relentlessly cogent loj>ic. Early association with his famous uncle, the late Lord Salisbury, may have fostered Mr Balfour's ironic gift; but whereas there was always something unnecessarily acrid, not to say sour, in Lord Salisbury's satire, the younger statesman's accomplishment in this kind is tempered by an urbane note, indicating a more optimistic faith in human nature. The Order of Merit -was instituted by King Edward,—who, if his personal acquaintance with philosophy and literature was not extensive, at least knew tli'e value of such studies,—and, if we remember aright, Lord Morley was the first, as he assuredly was a worthy, recipient of the distinction.