ARMS AS A DUTY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 95, 22 April 1912, Page 8

ARMS AS A DUTY.

INTERESTING COMMENTS ON THE QUESTION.

BY BISHOP SPROTT

On Thursday evening Bishop SproLt, Bishop of Wellington, visited the ,ca;i p at Hawcra and delivered an address to the men, basing his remarks on the life of service led by Christ, culminating in His sacrifice on the cross, and enjoined hy Him on all hie. followers. The word Minister had partly lost its true significance in the present day, and had come to mean a term of dignity and position; as, for instance, a minister of religion, and a Minister of the Crown, or the Prime Minister. But its primary meaning was servant, and its meaning jn the text was service: “I came into tne world not to be served, but to serve.” Many people seemed to think that t.;e world must minster to thorn; they wanted to he served hy others, an d were not satisfied unless they were being served by others. Tnese were, the selfish portion of the community,. Many others realised their responsibility to something for others, and these were the unselfish and happier part, of the people ; for, after all, it was ..generally admitted that tho 'most lasting happiness was enjoyed by those vv.fi o . served others. Tho people who ,wc;;c esteemed in any country-, and , wsorp names were handed down to -posterity. , Fqy admiration and imitation, were t)jp. unselfish people who felt that they ha f d, conip into the world not to be served, but to serve "tlicir fcllowmcn. Even the selfish were hound to serve others to a certain extent, because the selfish employer had to employ others, and in many other ways to do some'tying for other people, and the ua r selfish had to hp served 800, because those who grew’ and ’ sold •■the. various commodities of life, served them. But the great point was this: What , was tlie great and controlling principle that guarded their lives? Did they intend to be served or. to serve? Di,d they wish to lead selfish or unselfish lives? The Territorials were hound -together for tho defence of their country, and it was a very fine and necessary position to take rip, for everybody had surely a call to defend • his .own homo and loved ones. Some apparently sincere people had decided that it was wrong to ho compelled to prepare for the invasion of an enemy. But the wisdom or otherwise of their attitude depended upon this point of view: Was the country absolutely their own or was it held in trust for them? If he (the Bishop) was to he attacked by a burglar and asked for his money or his life, if tho money he had was his own, it was within his right to say: “Well, I will give it up and save my life.” But if the money was laid in trust for others, then the position was very different and he thought he was bound to do his utmost to prevent the burglar from robbing him of it. And the fact was that this beautiful and valuable country of ours; was only held hy us in trust for those, who came after us; our children and grandchildren. We were bound to defend it, and to hand it on intact, as it had been handed on to us intact hy those who went before us. They had enriched it hy labour, by brain, and sometimes by blood shedding, and wo must do our part in enriching it too, so that we could hand it on increased in value to them who came after us. If need arose we must protect it with our lives. The British trusted that the young Territorials would look upon it in this light, and learn to serve their day and generation.