Religion and the War

or interpreter of the Sermon on the Mount, in support of this declaration of the meaning, the inference is perhaps allowable that the reader is expected to endow Tolstoy with a credit for

o-tse taught the same doctrine of absolute non-resistance we are not competent to

very foe. For want of fuel the fire expires: m

is teaching? What reader of the Old Testament will

rst give him drink; for by so doing thou

ine of consistent, unqualified non-resistance. We accept it for the obvious reason that their systems of thought, which are philosophies rather than religions, contain (so far as the present writer is aware) no principle of active, but only of passive obligation. The chief end of man is for them not to achieve, in loyal service to the Creator's ideal, but to abstain and refrain, to put the brakes on life, and to teach others to do the like. According to the author of "New Wars for Old," Buddha and Lao-tse lived up to their gospel of no

is enemies. But this time he did-this time he failed to live up to the inordinately exacting demands of his own gospel of brotherhood. Nor is the circumstance at all difficult to understand! Jesus came to Jerusalem tired, worn, hunted. He knew that he walked straight into the arms of his enemies, and undoubtedly therefore straight to his own death. Weary, desperate,

o the observer of the phenomena of petulance an incident like the cleansing of the temple is "easy to understand." The scientific imagination required is easily attained. One acquires it by observing the irritability of tired children. How needless, then, to inform oneself as to the historical conditions which made this great symbolic act of the Galilean prophet full of meaning to every patriot Jew that witnessed

ful deliberation. The evening before, says Mark, "he entered the temple and looked round upon all things." Jesus was not unaware of the conditions he would find, for they were an abuse as notorious as hateful to every right-minded Israelite. This even the Talmud attests. He was not a hunted fugitive seeking asylum at the altar. On the contrary; for weeks past he had set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem and there lift up the standard of the Son of Dav

phetic reform, making ready for Jehovah a purified people prepared for his coming? The Sanhedrin evaded this counter demand, and answered only (as Jesus had foreseen they would) by secret denunciation of him to Pilate. But Pilate unders

s "inconsistent with the rest of Jesus' career." His mission, we infer, was to be a rabbi. His attempt at active leadership in achieving the Kingdom he preac

us' part is very marked in all our evangelists, for obvious reasons. To the evidences of this belong, for example, Mark's denial, and the fourth evangelist's explanation, of the saying about destroying the temple, together with the latter's description of the whip "of small cords" as Jesus' only weapo

it very justly relates it to that of the great prophet of the Davidic kingdom of righteousness and peace, Isaiah, the son of Amoz. From the point of view of the historical critic the

and to his sovereignty upon earth. Their pacifism differs from that of Lao-tse and of Buddha in the important respect of having a pronounced theistic basis. Buddha and Lao-tse can preach consistently a doctrine of absolute non-resistance because their systems are destitute of the social ideal of Israel's religion, and indee

ient for others, for the weak and dependent, as well as for the individual, and for the present time. It seeks the wel

Christian or pre-Christian, it rests upon the foundation of utter, absolute loyalty to a world-wide Republic of God, a cosmic sovereignty of righteousness, and having this social aim for its religious ideal it can and does nourish to the highest pitch of devotion the heroic virtues of patriotism, of service and of sacrifice. The summons to

ple, the prophet's vision of a universal peace based on international law. This vision of the world's willing acceptance of the sovereignty of

to pass in t

in of Jehovah's

at the head

exalted abo

ions shall

s shall go and

e mountain

e of the Go

h us of his ways

is p

hall go forth law

from J

ge between the n

r for man

eat their swords

ears into pr

t lift up sword

l they learn

as the basis of a League of Peace is not so nove

well as the national criminal is tainted with the same poison of violence. Since Isaiah is the exemplar of non-resistance he should be permitted again to speak for himself. His

, Jehovah of Hosts,

from Judah s

bread and the wh

man, and th

prophet, the div

and the honorable man

children to be

hness shall they

l be oppressed ever

e by his

rrogant against the

the ho

and domestic anarchy. He looks for the dawn of a just and lasting peace; onl

ked in darkness hav

he land of the shado

e light

ed the nation and

according to the rejo

when they div

l's) burden, and the r

ressor, thou hast br

di

r of the armed m

ed in blood shall be

f

ld is born, unto

ent shall be up

l be called: Wond

-the-Everlasti

ince o

is government and of

e

of David and u

nd to uphold it wi

from hencefort

ovah of Hosts w

losing line it must be admitted that th

"They that take the sword shall perish by the sword," from which the inference is plain that if the aim be never to lose one's life one should never take weapons. But perhaps Isaiah the "non-resistant" is entitled to one more chance to prove himself not a Pharisee, even when he expects "the zeal of Jehovah of Hosts" to win the victory of peace. Fortunately he tells u

hovah of Hosts beco

auty unto the resi

ce to him that si

gth to them that turn

te