The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1918-03-29

statements. He had in mind the
scores of defenses OF the Quaker testi-
mony to which he has listened from
his boyhood up. which always came
Dack to the command: Thou shalt
not kill' is the great fortress Of the
defense
Professor Thomas is no more &C.
curate In his reference to Jonathan
Dymond than he is in quoting the Out
look article. Jonathan Dymond does
not "put aside" the words Thou shalt
not KILL" His remark is: If, then,
we be asked for a prohibition of war
by Jesus Christ, in the express term
of command, in the manner in which
Thou Shalt Not XIII is directed to MUIR
DER. we willingly answer that no such
prohibition exists" This is a very
different statement from that attribut-
ed to him by Professor Thomas. Dy-
mond does not put aside the COM
mand.' and admits that there is no
specific command of Christ against
war. Professor Thomas had in mind
official defenses of the Quaker posi-
ton; had in mind popular defenses
II any Friend feels that my statement
was unfair to the Society, I willingly
express my regret that the article in
the Outlook did not make my meaning
clear to him. 1t is no time to handy
words; when the world is burning we
should look realities, and fave without
flinchin the eternal issues.
1t seems necessary, however. in the
interest of truth to refer to Professor
Thomas's remarks about my exegeis
Of the Fifth chapter Of Matthew The
writer has. since the Outlook article
left his hands, presented that exegesis
to two different societies of profess:
ional exegetes and it has received the
approval Of all except two pacifists.
Both societies are publishing the
papers. Men who have devoted their
lives to exegesis have also In writing
approved of the soundness Of the posi-
| ton taken in the Outlook article. All
we'll informed Friends are, of course
aware. that historically the Quaker
| testimony against war began with
George Fox's statement to the COM
| missioners of the Commonwealth that
"all wars arose even from the lusts"
!. and that he lived in the vir-
| ture of that life and power that took
away the occasion for all wars It is
| noble statement Happy will it be
for the world whSnAall Christians live
| in spirit which Fox lived!
Unfortunately the vision of George
| Fox was, like that of every other hui
man being, limited. Just as many
Christian from Lactantious down to
the present have confused justice with
| vengeance, SO George Fox apparently
made the unwarranted assumption
that the lust of war could not be
confined to one only of the contending
| parties. He is not to blame for not
having foreseen what only now the
great world-war has made SO clear
| that one power in its lust for conquest,
selling itself to every form of unethical
| practice, can force war on powers
that do not wish it and count on con-
scientious pacifists as one of it's assets
in winning. He could not foresee as
we are compelled now to see, that the
! spirit opposed to war" is not really
opposed to it unless it is willing to
join in conquering the power that has
allied itself with Evil and seeks to
fasten by conquest the military system
on the world forever. In the light Of
the present the spirit opposed to war"
| expressed as Fox expressed it, be-
comes a spirit to aid war and to per
petuate 1t.
! John Robinson. pastor of the Pill
grims who came over on the May
/ flower bewailed the condition of the
Reformed churches, saying that they
| were come to period in religion,
and would 90 no further than the in
struments of their reformation. AS.
F.. for example, the Lutherans, they could
not be drawn to go beyond what
Luther saw, for whatever part of Cod
will he had further impaired to Calvin,
they would rather die than embrace it..
And so, also, saith he, you see the Cal
vinists, they stick where he left them;
a misery to be lamented." Today,