I do not object to any worship of Jesus and his illustrious associate reformers, for true worship will lead to the imitation of their heroic lives. They were not divine, and were too heroically faithful to truth to put forth any such false claims, nor could they in that dark age be profound in science, or correct in all their opinions, as they are now in a higher world. As they were on earth I honor them; as they are in heaven to-day I honor them far more. They silently invite us to reach that higher plane of life on which their beneficent influence and inspiration may be felt. Fortunate are they reach that plane.
The Danger of Living Among Christians.
A QUESTION OF PEACE OR WAR.
It is seldom that any of the great questions of the time are treated from an ethical standpoint. Old opinions and old usages furnish the standpoint for our press writers, our politicians, and our clergy. The question of national defence has been under discussion for years, and Samuel J. Tilden, who was regarded by millions as the ablest of our statesmen, gave his whole mental power to urging its consideration upon the American people; but if this question has ever been seriously discussed from the ethical standpoint it has escaped my notice. The nearest approach to the ethical view was the suggestion of the Boston Herald that in putting on the full armor of national defence the effect might be to stimulate the haughty and warlike impulses of our people, and thus increase the danger of war, while a defenceless seacoast would tend to inspire prudence and moderation in our national government.
There is a great deal of truth in this view. We have a score of prominent politicians whose sentiments on international questions are too much like those of a bully in private life, and they have a dangerous amount of influence in public affairs.
Turning aside from these popular discussions, the Journal of Man maintains the ethical standpoint for the consideration of such subjects; and its first suggestion would be, Why should the people—of this country spend $120,000,000 as a preparation for slaughtering our brethren the Christian population of Europe, the only people from whom any danger can be apprehended—our brethren in civilization and Christianity, our brethren too by the ties of blood?
Do they not all maintain the Christian religion (at least nominally) by all the power of their governments and public opinion? Would not our good people in visiting them or they in visiting us be invited to participate in the communion service which commemorates the martyred Teacher of the law of love? Are they not our brethren, the neighbors to whom the command applies, “Love thy neighbor as thyself”? Is this our Christian love, to spend a hundred and twenty millions for the assassination of our beloved brethren—avowedly for that purpose? It is needless to object to the word assassination,—wholesale murder by armies is substantially the same thing as separate murders by each individual of the army.
But, it is urged, we are in danger of invasion, and the bombardment of our cities. Does any one seriously believe that a powerful nation intent on peace—the strongest power in the world, the friend of all mankind, ready to submit any international question to arbitration—would be in danger of an unjust, lawless, causeless assault from the Christian nations of Europe, who have so much to lose and nothing to gain by war, and who have already, in their groaning, tax-burdened people, a sufficient reminder of the folly and criminality of war? They have not money for another war, which would bring on the dangers of bankruptcy and the revolt of the oppressed masses.
It must be that this is seriously apprehended, or else that it is feared that the arrogant and bullying temper of our own people or our politicians may originate and exasperate international irritation to the insane extreme of war.