The Warwickshire Herald. — 1888-03-22 (Birmingham, West Midlands, England)

BRIGHT ON THE CHURCH AND WAR.  A letter has been pnblislied from Mr. Bright, written in reply to a correspondent's criticism on Borne recent remarks of the right • hon. gentleman respecting the 37th Article of the Church of England : It is awful for Christian men at the commandment of the magistrate to wear weapons and to set ye in the wars." "I take this to mean," says Mr. Bright, "at the commandn entof any magistrate, that is of any person who has authority to deal with affairs of State. It requires only that the wars should be sanctioned by the magiatrete--thisa is, by the ruler for the time being—to justify a Christian man to wear weapons and to serve in the wars—that is in any wars which the ruler or magistrate may undertake. The Christian man is not to tumble himself as to the justice of the quarrel. As a rule, every monarch or statesman going to war declares that the war is just, and this is to he accepted by those enlisted in his service. It follows, therefore, that according to the Article of your Church, any and every war which has the sanction of a magistrate or ruler, is one in which Christian men may lawfully—that is, in compliance, not only with human, but with the Divine law— engage themselves. I object to this view of this solemn question, for it dethrones the individual conscience, and gives licence to every crime with which war is everywhere and in all times associated. It is said that good men join the army, and in the crimes and murders which armies commit. I grant this, and I do not doubt that they derive much comfort from the 37th Article of your Church, which Article was inserted,not by good Christian memanxious for the good of the Church, but by monarchs or statesmen anxious that Christian principles and practice should never interfere with their schemes of ambition and conquest. In the same Article it is declared to be lawful to punish Christian men with death for grievous offences, under which statesmen and judges and jurors were comforted when they sent men to the gallows for stealing at a shop or dwelling-house for some trifling amount, or for passing base coin. The 39th Article declares that s man may swear when the magistrates require, although there is no act or offence which is more expressly forbidden in the New Testament. These Articles to which I am objecting have nothing to do with religious belief. They were introduced only for political purposes, and, in my view, they have for 390 years done much to pervert the minds of our people -not of Churchmen only, but of the Nonconformists, who in many things continue the unsound opinion which in early times the teaching of the Church made common. You say these articles are only of 'religious belief 'to the clergy, but you will hardly say that their influence is confined to your many thousands of ministers, and that what the clergy have to accept as doctrine to be believed may be wholly rejected by their congregations and parishioners. A Church free from the State might free itself from the fault and the dishonour of making a very doubtful political idea into an article af religions and Chriatimi belief."