New Britain herald., 1917-10-30
COMMUNICATED
PASTOR HARTMAN ON WAR.

PASTOR HARTMAN ON WAX. Peoples Church Minister Makes His
 Views Clearer.
 Pastors Study. Peoples Church.
 Oct. 30, 1917. My Dear Herald:--
 l see by your splendid report of my Sunday night sermon, In which the great world war was discussed, that the closing paragraphs are not quite clear as to what aimed to say.
 would not for anything wish to be misunderstood, as to what I be- lieve the right and loyal attitude of Christians toward this war and to- ward the expressed aims of the na- ton in taking part in the war.
 And because what you printed may seem ambiguous to some, l am en- closing a copy of my own manuscript on the last paragraphs with the re- quest that you print it.
 I believe you will oblige mo, ana thank you in advance. Also im- prove this occasion to thank you mer sermons in this series, and the very accurate manner in which your compositors have done their work. Faithfully yours,
 N H. HARR1MAN.
 What lurid sidelight upon evolu- tion! A war that is drawing into its bloody vortex the whole world, the result, of evolution! The survival of the f1ttest, appealed to by a great nation as justification for such an effort to conquer the whole world! Yet how can you escape the logic of Germany's reasoning, if Gods system of peace is rejected7
 And since the law of survival is wholly selfish and savage. why com- plain at Bernhardi's frank argument that since survival depends wholly upon superior strength. the strength to survive constitutes the right to survive; the power to conquer con- stitutes the right to conquer? And the next step in the argument: since survival is the highest. good, and must be sought as the highest good, why let a scrap of paper stand be- tween us and the quickest course to our goal? The argument surely Is logical Where is the trouble with the argument? Why do the other na- tions 50 abominate tho theory that seems to guide German arms?
 "The reason Is that the nations hos
 
 world can successfully incorporate the humane ethics of Christianity into international relations; while Germany admits this only up to tho point where these humane consider ations get In tho way of the supreme right, the right to survive if a na- tion has power to survive: then moral considerations must give way to the higher, the highest, law the highest good. survival. Standing in the way of survival, they become mere weak sentimentalisn, and must go down.
 This explains Belgium. This ex- plains the Lusitania. This explains the Arm enian atrocities. This explains the spectacle of a single nation with a few weak allies, standing off a world in arms.
 "And Christian mon need have no among the nations warning against Germany, that they stand for moral ity among nations, that they abhor the ethics or lack of ethics of Ger many in carrying on the war. rum ming amuck among the nations. drunk with its dream of world conquest.
 And Christian men ned have no difficulty in choosing between the two theories, even though they see that neltherOtheory Is correct, neither the- ory is the Bible theory. So long as wc live in the world, so long we must be on the side that seeks to make the world better place to live in.
 Yet 1t must be said. that neither the survival of the Attest. nor the evolution of human nature up to the loftiest ethical standards, is Gods sys- tenn for freeing the world from war. and all unrighteousness. We are des- tined to find that nothing permanent will come from cultivating morality in place of regeneration: there must be supernatural deliverance from the love of sin, before there can be per- manent peace"